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

a
I have mentioned time and time again that I do not have beliefs. If you are asking about my guesses -- ask the question in a way that I can answer.





About say's it all.
Frank, if you want to take the fifth just say so.

a
CI, eerrr .... ochkayee

truth
Remember gentlemen that we are here to enjoy ourselves, to formulate our ideas, to receive feedback (pro and con) and to sharpen our wits and expressive skills in the process. We are not (or at least I am not) here to win contests. Just imagine how bad you would feel if you completely vanquished one of us to the point of humiliation. I would hate to think that we are sliding down the slippery slope that has all but ruined Abuzz. There it is very hard to find a civil discussion.
Now, let me repeat something I reported earlier. Frank, this is regarding the epistemology of Charles Saunders Pierce, which I see as consistent with your orientation. I think it is profoundly true and useful (he's a founder of American Pragmatism): He said:
"We do not cease our search for the truth when we have found it; we have found it when we cease our search for it."
"But we will insist [he adds] that we do not want mere beliefs; we want [objectively' TRUE beliefs--but put this to the test: we rest with that which SATISFIES us as the truth."
Now I feel this is true for all beliefs/opinions/theories/etc. BUT it does not completely apply to the kind of "knowledge" discussed by Tywvel. His utterances and some of mine are more akin to a feeling (not really a demonstrable fact) which is also useful. For example, one can feel (an implicit theory) that one's perceptions are OF objects and events that are happening apart from ourselves and, in a way, are happening to us. My perceptions and experiences happen to a ME. I am the subject of perceptions. On the other hand, one can feel (with equal or more force) that one's perceptions do not happen TO the self, but that they ARE the self. I AM my experience; I am not something they happen to.
These are clearly two very different perspectives involving a very different set of epistemological feelings. It is therefore SO futile for the man who feels his world is around him and happening to him by means of his experiences and perceptions to tell the man who feels he IS his experiences (and therefore not a self/subject) that he is "wrong". At the same time the latter person is wasting his time denouncing the perspective of the first. I would even add that much of the time both men live their lives in terms of both perspectives without always being aware of it.

Frank


First of all I agree that some beliefs can be disguising a guess, but for the most part using the word 'belief' does not disguise a guess. If I say, "I believe this existence is an illusion." and you respond with, "You mean you guess it is an illusion." I would reply, "Yes of course, I guess, I believe it's an illusion, same difference.

If I meant otherwise I would say otherwise.

And I think most people that say, "I believe such and such"... realize they are saying they guess such and such. No attempt at deception is being made, nor is there any unconscious desire or whatever to disguise a guess.

The statement "I believe such and such..." is made billions of times a day and the vast majority of the time it is being used in reference to its dictionary definition, with no conscious or unconscious attempt, or "hidden agenda" to deceive.


You are reading something into the word "belief" that is simply not there, and I think it has more to do with emotions then with reasons because it certainly isn't rational.

I believe it will rain tomorrow.

It is ridiculous to suppose that I have a hidden agenda and I really mean "I guess it will rain tomorrow."...I know it's a guess and so does everybody else. There is nothing being disguised in any way shape or form, and if you think so you're nuts.

The vast, vast, vast, VAST majority of time the word "believe" or "belief" is used there is no "hidden agenda" where the person is concealing a guess, consciously or unconsciously. They are simply making a statement using the word" believe" in which statement that word means; guess, suppose, suspect etc., etc., and its irrational to think other wise.

The reason you do, I suspect, is because it is your way of separating yourself from "believers" from theists, whom I think you have contempt because you perceive them as gullible and stupid.

twyvel, Good explanation. I think we're putting too much weight on the word "believe." It has a conceptual as well as a emotional aspect that is not always clear. Clarity to that extent should not be necessary. I believe it's going to be a hot summer. c.i.

cicerone imposter

Thanks,

"I believe it's going to be a hot summer."

And that's the end of that.

Good post JLNobody.

In a similar way that I know the Stanley Cup is not at this moment in my presence, within my perceivable, observable environment, I know that there is no observable observer, seer, feeler, etc., observing this screen and these words. Most of the time, when I think about it, I know it rationally, intellectually and observationally and sometimes there is the sense that I know it at a deeper level.

It is a kind of enlightenment as you said in a previous post somewhere, but at the same time it's no big deal. Yet it is fascinating that there actually is no 'self', and of course by that I mean , 'no individual self', no observable observer.

In the nondual state, which is apparently always the case, it is said the unobservable witness collapses into all that is observed or witnessed, it becomes all things, even though it cannot 'become' something it already is. Language is dualistic so it cannot really be talked about., hence, "I am that", or "this", what is IS, etc.

Anyway the no-self appears so obvious to me and perhaps I don't appreciate how it is not only not at all obvious to others, ....but in fact appears ridiculous.

At this point I think It's futile talking to Frank about these issues, as he has demonstrated on this thread he is close minded regarding these things and has no respect for those who are engaged in this particular 'self' searching. He sits back reading our words giggling and mocking us.

Frank wrote:



I understand your point.

When I say there is no self, no observable observer, it doesn't make this existence less of a mystery, in fact it raises many more questions. But it does answer some questions in the negative, i.e. I am not this, not that, not anything I can point to etc.

But I have never said "what IS" is not mystery. It is.




You are in denial that you have beliefs.

You believe you are your body.
You believe your 'real' self was born and will die.
You believe you are separate from the universe.
You believe what your perceptions report to you is a physical, material world.
Etc.
Etc.

Now there's nothing hidden or in disguise about the presentation of those beliefs, there are what they are. Are they also guesses? Sure.

But belief and believe are fine words.

Twyvel, When I was five years old I suffered from asthma. I can still remember the nights in the emergency room struggling for breath..... followed with a two or three day stay in a croup tent.

One night I woke up with a strange feeling in my body and I was aware of a light or glow in my bedroom. When I sat up in bed I saw a bright white light on the wall at the foot of my bed ... I tried to yell for mm but nothing came out of my mouth. I remember seeing my clothes and shoes on the floor where I had taken them off Then, I don't remember how I got there but I was floating above myself, looking down where everything appeared to be blue. When I looked at my face, it was a dark blue and there was something odd about my body.

Years later I told mom about that night and she said that was the night I had stopped and had to be rushed to the hospital.

Twyvel you stated that an observer can't observe himself ...... or words to that effect. how would you explain what happened to me that night?

BTW it's a true story.

Re: a




Well I can see you will not stop playing your silly little game since you are obviously more interested in pretending that I am avoiding answering you than actually getting an answer. So I will rephrase your almost unintelligible question in a way that can be answered -- and then answer it.

Here is what I think you are asking (two parts):

PART 1:

DO YOU THINK YOUR GUESSES ARE BETTER THAN TWYVEL'S GUESSES?

Short answer: No. Absolutely not.

Longer answer: Any guess can eventually prove to be correct. If the guess has to do with the winner of the last Super Bowl, for instance, obviously my guess during the season of THE NY GIANTS was not nearly as good as the people who guessed THE TAMPA BAY BUCS.

But some guesses, it appears, can never be confirmed, and to the extent that they cannot, I must at least acknowledge that some guesses (don't know which ones) are probably better than others. And, of course, in questions like "Is there a God", the guesses "There is a God" and "there are no gods" set up a situtation where, more than likely, one is right and the other is wrong. So one is better than the other -- even though which one is right and which is wrong cannot be determined.

As far as I am concerned, my guesses are no better than anyone else's guesses.


PART 2

DO YOU THINK ANY OF YOUR GUESSES CONSTITUTE FACT?

Short answer: No. Absolutely not.

Longer answer: Some of my guesses may be right -- and may constitute fact if that could be established. But I acknowledge that none of the guesses I am making in this thread should be considered fact -- and I doubt seriously if any of them can ever be established as true or false. THEY ARE GUESSES.

****

If you have follow up questions, how about asking them plainly instead of trying to be clever. Your last attempt at being clever didn't come out as clever -- it came out as confusing.

Well it's about time you answered me ...... now we can get on with the subject of the thread.

Semantics are so boring.

Could death/life be a form of astral projection? If so how would that affect 'life after death'? Could the apparent disconnect between spirit and clay during sleep be an indication of several ongoing life spans?

I didn't answer you -- I answered me. You didn't ask an intelligible question.



Well you should stop using semantic manipulation in your questions if you feel that way?




"Could it be?" Sure!

Is it? I don't know -- and I guess neither do you.

Ge

By the way -- since you made so much noise about your silly questions -- and pretended I was trying to duck them -- since I have now responded to my interpretation of them -- don't you think you should have something more to say in response to my answers?

Or was I correct? You really weren't interested in the answers -- just in the pretence that I was avoiding answering?

What are you trying to do ..... run up the score???

OKAY .... Frank 72,345 ....... GE ..... goose egg


It ain't worth it Frank ... let it go

JLNobody said:



Ge said:




To both I say -- I apologize totally, sincerely, and without reservation. I sometimes get carried away when discussing the agnostic position.

On the east coast we finally have a beautiful day -- the sun is shining; there is no rain in the forcast for several days; and I feel as alive as all outdoors. I hope both of you -- and everyone else on A2 have as wonderful a day to deal with -- and that you all enjoy it as much as I intend to.

Gelistgesti wrote:



In interesting story/events Ge.

My understanding is; YOU are always the observer, never the observed. The body, sense organs don't observe anything, the awareness does; i.e. eyes don't see the awareness does etc.

The body is not You, the clay is not You. Whatever the observer or witness observes it is not the observer or witness as it cannot be observed because it is always doing the observing.

As such the witness is nothing that can be perceived or thought of. I am the witness/observer and as such I cannot 'think" of myself, because thinking and thoughts are 'objects' being observed.

If you can perceive it, observe it, it's not YOU.

<><<><><><><><><><><><><><>

However nondually, the unobservable witness (because it is 'nothing' observable or the 'void') collapses so to speak into all that it observes, and becomes nondual awareness where the perceiver is the perceived, the seer is the seen, the thinker is the thought, the experiencer is the experience, the hearer is the heard.

The imaginary boundaries between the subject and the object falls away, the 'gap' disappears and you become the singularity that you always have been. The ALL.

You are all the people, animals, trees etc., every speck of dust, every atom, every cell, the mountains, streams and oceans, the stars, sky and sun.

Nondual awareness is the highest(?) state of the manifested universe, which is always what IS, which is always what we are, but we somehow imagine otherwise.

And there's more, for we are beyond all manifestations, all worlds and all universes, beyond the witness.

We are a mystery beyond all mysteries.

So I understand, think, believe, sense, etc.

But what I do know right here, is the observer that I am cannot be observed, which some say is the key, a fundamental insight that can guide, lead us to the truth.

But it's all an apparent paradox for the seeker is the sought; I am searching for my Self which I already "AM".

twyvel, The only problem of "I already AM" changes with each minute of life. c.i.

That's the level(?) of the subject---object relation, but the awareness never changes, for there's nothing for it to change in to.

It's not any 'thing', so how could it become some 'thing' else ?

Geligesti,
...Were you ever in a severe asthma attack, and came to a point where, each inhale stopped being automatic, and was a tremendous effort. Each exhale was so peaceful, that you felt death wasn't so bad, and you had to make a conscious decision, of whether or not living was worth the effort.

To whom it may concern:

..............HAPPY FATHER'S DAY!!!!....