Passage ...... Where do you go after you die

chance
It seems to me grossly wrong to ask the question of what the probabilities were that human life should have occured. One cannot calculate the chances unless one can set that event against a universe of alternative possibilities. We see that human life exists and then ask what is the probablitiy against ALL the other possibilities. Since we cannot possibily determine the universe of alternatives, we cannot determine the probability of the single human event. If I am wrong here, I would certainly like to know how.

Kara,no, just my way of posing a thought as a question. I should have asked 'why are men so inclined to discount the spiritual aspect of life as something less than God-like or non existant ie: we are mud and that's it'.

JLNobody, whether it seems possible to do so or not, people try very hard to prove that the universe could not have happened by "accident," just as others try to prove that it could indeed have been "self-organized." The arguments on each side are so difficult to understand (the word arcane comes to mind) that, unless you are a mathematical genius or an astrophysicist, you are unlikely to follow them.

See my link a few pages back to the critique of Overman's book.

Aha, Chief. Your question is clearer now. The word to be defined is spirit. What is the human spirit, and how is it different from mind or brain? Can the spirit be equated with consciousness? Does the spirit evolve or grow as a person's body ages from birth onward?

When I was discussing the book I mentioned above, From Science to God, with a Zen-practitioner, he said that Buddhism has always taught that the spirit of man -- man's consciousness, if you will -- differs from the spirit of all other living beings in that man has self-awareness. He can study his own thinking. He can think of himself thinking. (I was tempted to ask how he knew that certain higher primates or birds didn't have self-awareness; how could he know if they did or didn't? But this was not a debative discussion so I let it go.)

I have read that monks, seasoned metitators, can perform amazing feats of mental agility, such as moving their consciousness outside of their bodies (an out-of-body experience) and looking at themselves from nearby. They can leave their bodies and go to far off places, visit, and come back. They can put themselves into a trance state where they are unaware of loud noise happening nearby.

Kara, What kind of mind-altering drugs are they using? c.i.

Spoken like a true skeptic, c.i. :wink:

truth
Kara, to me it is not at all clear what is meant "by accident" here. The world came about as it is "by accident." The simple fact is that it just came about; it just happened. Nothing mysterious about that. I see nothing astounding about a world that was not "created" by a creator. If we believe in the necessity of a creator we then have to ask "what created the creator?"
By the way, buddhist accomplishment--i.e.,enlightenment--has nothing to do with miraculous feats. When it occurs, it is so much more subtle and deep. We can see a man levitating and that astounds us. We cannot see a man peacefully at one with the ground of his being, so that doesn't astound us.

JL, many people will not accept that we came into being by self-organization or "accident." It seems too improbable. I agree with your thesis that it just happened, and we may never figure out how. Maybe some people need a "creator" because it ties up the loose ends and is less amorphous and ambiguous. Maybe we are uncomfortable with being the "tallest poppies" in the field and crave something taller than ourselves.

You are right, of course, about enlightenment...that it is a profound process and has nothing to do with mental games. I was merely pointing out that the keen concentration and focus of meditators can open unusual doors.

truth
Kara, my point was that if belief in an explained creator "ties up loose ends" it only weaves them into ONE VERY BIG loose end.

Heck, if we could answer all the mysteries of this universe, we'd all be geniuses, and gods would be unnecessary. c.i.

JLN, How far apart are conception and creation?

Operating on the assumption of a creator, Would a creator first write a book on digestive enzymes to consult before including bacteria as a means of converting food to energy in his creation?

Could it be that the laws of physics that govern the physical aspects of our existence are, if not invalid, then of no consequence in the spiritual plane?

truth
Gel, I don't understand your comments. But I can say that the "laws" of physics or nature are not "statutes." They do not "govern" nature. The term law is very unfortunate here. They are no more than empirical generalizations about how nature appears to behave (ouch! another misleading term).

JLNobody wrote:



That it just came about, or just happened is mysterious, matter of fact it's incomprehensible,...............[size=8]TO ME [/size]

Oh, such threads we weave... :-D They are absolutely glorious to see!

Agreed JLNobody, the Laws of Physics are more likely named the Models of Physics. They are just our best understanding so far, from a place of not understanding very much quite yet. I'm eagerly anticipating the Grand Unification Theory! It has the real G.U.T.'s of the Matter.

The more I read of science, the more I find a simple virus, protein, prion, or just a self-replicating molecule seems possible spontaneously. Heck, the universe naturally progressed from Hydrogen and the lighter compounds, to Helium, Carbon, Nitrogen, Oxygen, Potassium, Iron, Lead, and so on. Complexity builds upon simplicity over time. All it takes is one lightning strike or cosmic ray, and zap a new molecule appears! The probability across all galaxies, all stars, all planets, all puddles of inorganic mud, ... seems pretty high. It only takes one molecule in all of that to start Life. Like fire, the chain reaction of Life is compelling. There are billions upon gazillions of chances for life to start, so why not?

How much faith does it take to believe such a simple one-molecule event, especially when compared with the elaborate and ego-centric scheme of a Supreme Consciousness?

It does seem to me there is a grand plan. But that plan is beautifully omniscient, impartial, and ruthless. That plan is simply the Way Things Work. Whenever I investigate how things work I am amazed at the logic and functionality that heuristic experience can produce. Just one single tree tries a million things and only one thing works. Yet, that one thing is all that matters and the result is amazing! Multiply this by a five hundred billion trees. How could Nature possibly fail, over time?

So I am an experiment. I am fertilizer. I am a deviation from the inorganic compounding path. My own organization is a violation of entropy. Not only that, but I "intend" to keep it that way. But I am human. So I will make up any cockamamie story to enforce my grandiosity and further my goals. I will be supreme, the son of the lord, just like every other molecule around. All the while following the Models of Physics.

Where do I go after "death"? Where every experiment goes. Back into the reagent supply. God's randomness Will be done.







----------
Of course, so many of our semantic problems stem from mixing spirituality with physicality. If someone's attitude is "Madder than Hell" does that mean Hell is _physically_ composed of atoms and molecules? If someone is "Head over heels in Love" does that mean they are _physically_ upside down? Get a grip on nomenclature. Identify whether you are speaking in wonderful allegories and beautiful meaningful poetry, or in the physical. Then we can all make sense.

You and I see that, JL, but the believers in a Creator get around the problem by claiming that She is eternal and has always existed.

twyvel, it is mysterious in that we can't explain it. As JL and Codeberg point out, doesn't a Creator strain credulity more than molecular or organic self-organization?

Millennia ago, man sought to puzzle out the same mysteries about why things happen, where we came from, and what is our purpose in existing. Knowing less about science than we do, he created myths about where the world came from and how its natural forces work. Those myths became the basis of our religions and are intertwined in the gospels of our faiths. Joseph Campbell writes that ancient pre-Christian myths included the story of a man-god born of a virgin, for example, that is with us today.

It's all "mother natures" fault, kids. It seems we have quite of few of us that believes in 'that' theory. c.i.

truth
Yes, Tywvel it's "mysterious" in the sense of being awesome/astounding, but not in the sense of being a puzzle (to me). It could not have happened any other way--because it didn't.
Bravo, Codeborg; wonderfully mature orientation.
Yes, Kara. If there were a creator, THAT would be a puzzle.

CodeBorg wrote:




Yes, in so many ways.

Of course in terms of understanding it depends on one's idea of this I, from which the premise follows. True understanding is to understand that one doesn't understand; that understanding is a barrier. Reason cannot take you into the gates of the absolute, (god, true self) because (god, true self) is contrary to the dualisms that concepts create, even though we are already there, but imagine otherwise.

Kara wrote:



Yes, indeed it is mysterious. But how is it that we are so self ignorant? And who is it that is ignorant?

And it depends what we mean with the word, "creator"

Do you create these words, this screen, in the act of looking ? Do you create a 'self' in the act of perceiving one? Do you create an 'other' in the act of perceiving? And who is this 'creator'?



The difference between you and me is only a concept.