Life after death.

[ErinGoBragh]

What do you think happens? Where do you think you go? What is the purpose of an after life?

 

[Usbek_de_Perse]

Interesting question. But what is the purpose of a before life? If the “afterlife” is for eternity, then the few decades we spend on this mortal plane seem pretty short by comparison.

If a baby could decide that it had no reason to be born, that life in its mother’s womb is pretty good by itself, why bother being born?

I think we are so wedded to life on this earth that we have no idea at all what wonders the life after this one has in store for us.

And I doubt that theology can help us much, either.

 

[Publisher]

The “after life” is a continuation of the life we live here…eternity begins now…new life begins now…we NOW are translated into the Kingdom of the Son…

I hear people say “When I get to heaven…I want to play the piano.”…Well…you better start practicing NOW…love now…be kind now…be hopeful…now…love mercy…now…the “after life” is part of This Life.

 

[ASimon]

What do you think happens? Where do you think you go?

Probably nothing and no where.

What is the purpose of an after life?

To allow some of us the comfort of believing that life actually goes on forever.

 

[Gods_Peace]

Interesting question. But what is the purpose of a before life? If the “afterlife” is for eternity, then the few decades we spend on this mortal plane seem pretty short by comparison.

If a baby could decide that it had no reason to be born, that life in its mother’s womb is pretty good by itself, why bother being born?

I think we are so wedded to life on this earth that we have no idea at all what wonders the life after this one has in store for us.

And I doubt that theology can help us much, either.

I understand a little bit of what is in store, Gods love will be a great wonder, Gods goodness will be a great wonder, Gods mercy will be a great wonder, Gods grace will be a great wonder, Gods word will be a great wonder, Gods Life giving spirit will be a great wonder, The beatific vision will reveal what God wants his Children to know. God is the beggining of all creation God is the center of all creation God is the renewal of all creation. HE is the center of everything, he is the goodness you crave for, the spiritual gold all are looking for, and he is in EVERYTHING.

+May Gods Divine Mercy feed your Soul+

 

[Publisher]

Probably nothing and no where.

To allow some of us the comfort of believing that life actually goes on forever.

The way I see it…I don’t worry what life was like before I entered into this mortality…I’m not going to give it too much worry considering what “life” is going to be like when I leave this mortality…probably what I think makes no difference to what really is…how I live this life now…and how I treat others in this life I now have is what is of utmost importance…the “after life” will take care of itself…just as the “before life” took care of itself. Now is what is important…the rest is but a dream and a “comfort” as you say. It removes our focus for THIS LIFE…and that is a tragedy.

 

[meltzerboy]

What do you think happens? Where do you think you go? What is the purpose of an after life?

I believe there is an afterlife with G-d and all those we loved in this life. Not all Jews believe this, especially those who are not Orthodox, but I do. However, we can do no better than to live this life to the fullest, and that means bettering ourselves in every positive way, as well as being kind, loving, and helpful to all those we meet during our journey here on Earth. In Judaism, the focus has always been on the present, actually the present moment. I remember as a child in Hebrew school, my rabbi was once admonishing a student who did not know the answer to one of his questions, by saying to the student “Ten minutes older, but not wiser.” Now is the time to gain knowledge and wisdom, to improve ourselves morally and become more charitable. “If not now, when?”

 

[Gaber]

The problem that presents itself wit such a question is the assumption that eternality has an element of duration. It does not. If it has duration, it may be attributable to some state of awareness capable of experiencing time,or change, whatever that is, but that state is not eternity. Neither is a state where there is an object of perception eternal. A long as there are two, there is relativity of position, at least, and of distinction. So states of “heaven” and “hell” as long as there is experience in the sense of duration or distinction, cannot be eternal.

 

[fhansen]

The problem that presents itself wit such a question is the assumption that eternality has an element of duration. It does not. If it has duration, it may be attributable to some state of awareness capable of experiencing time,or change, whatever that is, but that state is not eternity. Neither is a state where there is an object of perception eternal. A long as there are two, there is relativity of position, at least, and of distinction. So states of “heaven” and “hell” as long as there is experience in the sense of duration or distinction, cannot be eternal.

So the only way eternity can exist is when no “I” exists-or no perceiver because there’s nothing to perceive?

 

[Gaber]

So the only way eternity can exist is when no “I” exists-or no perceiver because there’s nothing to perceive?

No, that is simplistic. “I” IS and is eternal, and is ultimately not distinct from the apperance of multiplicity, multiplicity seeming to be experienced and “objective” as the "AMing of “I.” So it is said that “I AM THAT I AM,” as Moses said it, and as those say it in different ways who know it. The one you are most likely familiar with is “I and the Father are (AM) one.” So when this is known, there is the expereince of “no self” and you go about your business as if nothing was different, except you know something ineffably Whole. Grinning, mostly. Or not. It is rude to grin when people think less of themselves than what they are, thinking it will come after death. This is always already the ‘other’ world, misunderstood! The subject/object perception of the world is a proceedural error. Thinking in limits and giving your sense of identity to those thoughts makes it seem at in consensus it is taken to be. But that can be gotten over. We are just not encouraged to do it in a practical way. It would upset the “balance” of earthly power.

 

[fhansen]

No, “I” IS and is eternal, and is ultimately not distinct from the apperance of multiplicity, multiplicity seeming to be experienced and “objective” as the "AMing of “I.” So it is said that “I AM THAT I AM,” as Moses said it, and as those say it in different ways who know it. The one you are most likely familiar with is “I and the Father are (AM) one.”

I’m not sure how this understanding helps or where it takes us. In both the OT and NT “I AM” is referring to God and the nature of His existence. Individual egos don’t exist without Him-or separate from Him, even if we’re unaware of that fact-but they do exist as far as we know. Are there no “perceivers”, no individuals, in an eternal state-or now for that matter?

 

[BettyBoop416]

I believe there is an afterlife with G-d and all those we loved in this life. Not all Jews believe this, especially those who are not Orthodox, but I do. However, we can do no better than to live this life to the fullest, and that means bettering ourselves in every positive way, as well as being kind, loving, and helpful to all those we meet during our journey here on Earth. In Judaism, the focus has always been on the present, actually the present moment. I remember as a child in Hebrew school, my rabbi was once admonishing a student who did not know the answer to one of his questions, by saying to the student “Ten minutes older, but not wiser.” Now is the time to gain knowledge and wisdom, to improve ourselves morally and become more charitable. “If not now, when?”

I like it.

 

[fhansen]

No, that is simplistic. “I” IS and is eternal, and is ultimately not distinct from the apperance of multiplicity, multiplicity seeming to be experienced and “objective” as the "AMing of “I.” So it is said that “I AM THAT I AM,” as Moses said it, and as those say it in different ways who know it. The one you are most likely familiar with is “I and the Father are (AM) one.” So when this is known, there is the expereince of “no self” and you go about your business as if nothing was different, except you know something ineffably Whole. Grinning, mostly. Or not. It is rude to grin when people think less of themselves than what they are, thinking it will come after death. This is always already the ‘other’ world, misunderstood! The subject/object perception of the world is a proceedural error. Thinking in limits and giving your sense of identity to those thoughts makes it seem at in consensus it is taken to be. But that can be gotten over. We are just not encouraged to do it in a practical way. It would upset the “balance” of earthly power.

You called it a “procedural error”, with changing it being upsetting to the balance of earthly power, but why do you think we so easily fall into identifying with thoughts, possessions, accomplishments, etc?

 

[Gaber]

I’m not sure how this understanding helps or where it takes us. In both the OT and NT “I AM” is referring to God and the nature of His existence. Individual egos don’t exist without Him-or separate from Him, even if we’re unaware of that fact-but they do exist as far as we know. Are there no “perceivers”, no individuals, in an eternal state-or now for that matter?

It depends much on whether “this understanding” is from the standpoint of intellectual construction or from the standpoint of experience. or as one man put it, "Out from the Star, not up to it.

Yes, conventioanly speaking, that usage in both those books and others can be attributed to God Being, God not properly falling into the quale of “existing” in the sense that perceived objectifications exist. But that projective mentality as we all assume to be “how things are” with few exceptions, is exactly the mechanism whereby the God is made inot our image and likeness as a Person(s). As my favorite Catholic theologian says: “You will have a personal God as long as you believe you are a person.” And for the very vast majority of us, that is the case, until what some have called “The Last Barrier” has been passed. And that does not have to happen as a result of physical death.

What can and does invariably die, as life itself cannot neither be born nor die, is the tangible illusion of sense identification as “person.” And indeed this can persist after death, whhereupon the experience is of a heavenly or hellish state, or, mostly, in a sleep like state. But once the purity of awareness as Consicouness itself is aprehended, the heirarchy of expression and experience can become clear: Consciousness is the Light to the awareness of ideas and thoughts. And as we easily observe, thoughts come before actions, through the vehicle of the mindbody.

What bears inspection is the meaning and expereince of “eternal” as differetiated between an understanding of it limited by human faculties and reasoning from those limits, or as explicated from expereince which includes the phenomena of existence.
So while there may very well be “perceiovers” in a sense in other than the 4D world of our common and consensula paradigm, ours is a phenomenally limited bandwith from which to calculate. Beiing able to get out of the discursive mind mode of daily life by prayer, contemplation, meditation, or Grace, which inevitably is all there is, puts the shoes of understanding on another ground from which the vision is clearer and increasingly comprehensive, if such can be said of that realm.

What seems to defy common analysis is how it is that as you state “Individual egos don’t exist without Him-or separate from Him, even if we’re unaware of that fact,” and how that dynamic works in fact as distinct from whatever belief paradigm has been installed by inculcation. If a beleif paradigm is held on to in the exegesis of discovery, then we can have such things as the exquisit and astonishingly accurate exposition of such as Bernadette Roberts, who still has to account for Jesus’ role in all this from the perspective of the Church.

That she did such a pelucid work regarding that is phenomenally wonderful!! I think I have read only one other journalistic account that comes close. Both are very much worth reading, each as the tip of an iceberg of the library that is abailable on such considerations deliniated from THAT perspective.

 

[Gaber]

You called it a “procedural error”, with changing it being upsetting to the balance of earthly power, but why do you think we so easily fall into identifying with thoughts, possessions, accomplishments, etc?

Because we are trained by association as we grow out of our infantile perceptive mentality to distinguishing what goes with the body and what doesn’t. It is a boundary issue extrapollated by lack of critical examination to be “reality” as a subject/object phenomenon. In other words most people just stop at what the mind suggest is how things are. The subject/object consensus about reality is a serving suggestion that works, albeit painfully, for most folks. It is very rarely questioned, as if it is a final truth about the nature of human relationship to Universe. The outlying edges of human perceptions and abilities tend to lend credence to this in everything from archeology to what constitutes the nature of an Adept. But finally it is an inner journey into meaning that crosses the boundaries of discursive thinking to what is the Ground that allows it.

Going in the direction of the conclusion of the arc of maturity with its various markers, we find a movement away from infantile self absorption toward an unimagined Universality as we pass through stages of what we identify our ego with, until that too is seen as an object/barrier and is discovered not to be what we think it is. In the mean time, there is faith and teleology, sincerity, and the methodologies for preparing for the descent of Grace. Or it just happens. Go figure. As Joseph Heller said, “Ripeness is all.”

Love your signature quotes!

 

[onenow1]

I don’t remember being born,on the other hand, I do not remember{ not being} … ?.

God Bless
Onenow1

 

[fhansen]

I don’t remember being born,on the other hand, I do not remember{ not being} … ?.

God Bless
Onenow1

I know, I always find it hard to remember not being, too.

 

[fhansen]

Because we are trained by association as we grow out of our infantile perceptive mentality to distinguishing what goes with the body and what doesn’t. It is a boundary issue extrapollated by lack of critical examination to be “reality” as a subject/object phenomenon. In other words most people just stop at what the mind suggest is how things are. The subject/object consensus about reality is a serving suggestion that works, albeit painfully, for most folks. It is very rarely questioned, as if it is a final truth about the nature of human relationship to Universe. The outlying edges of human perceptions and abilities tend to lend credence to this in everything from archeology to what constitutes the nature of an Adept. But finally it is an inner journey into meaning that crosses the boundaries of discursive thinking to what is the Ground that allows it.

Going in the direction of the conclusion of the arc of maturity with its various markers, we find a movement away from infantile self absorption toward an unimagined Universality as we pass through stages of what we identify our ego with, until that too is seen as an object/barrier and is discovered not to be what we think it is. In the mean time, there is faith and teleology, sincerity, and the methodologies for preparing for the descent of Grace. Or it just happens. Go figure. As Joseph Heller said, “Ripeness is all.”

Love your signature quotes!

But ripeness seems to be* sooo* elusive in this life, although I think that is the goal, properly defined, at some point in our existence-or during our existence. In fact, It seems that the ego is absolutely necessary for this to take place, as if the goal of the ego is to somehow rid itself of itself. Meanwhile “we” necessarily go about accessing how to accomplish this, hopefully tiring of all the ways we use to try to fulfill or satiate the ego. This correlates fairly well with the notion that original sin and all that implies was inevitable. I think in any case that human angst/disharmony/disconnect/sin-I can’t find the right word-is the result of something more than mere training; it’s too universal and inevitable as well.

 

[Gaber]

But ripeness seems to be* sooo* elusive in this life, although I think that is the goal, properly defined, at some point in our existence-or during our existence. In fact, It seems that the ego is absolutely necessary for this to take place, as if the goal of the ego is to somehow rid itself of itself. Meanwhile “we” necessarily go about accessing how to accomplish this, hopefully tiring of all the ways we use to try to fulfill or satiate the ego. This correlates fairly well with the notion that original sin and all that implies was inevitable. I think in any case that human angst/disharmony/disconnect/sin-I can’t find the right word-is the result of something more than mere training; it’s too universal and inevitable as well.

You are “sooo” right. In* Basic Self Knowledge* by Harry Benjamin, it is dilineated that the work of transformation cannot take place without the fuel of a rich personality. But it is not so much a question of “ridding” itself of itself, as it is of unseating the feeling that the contents of awareness is the self or awareness itself. Then what constitutes “I” in a transpersonal understanding is more accessible as experience and discovery. From that standpoint, of discovering the root of “I,” whatever one wishes to name it, question of Life after “death” takes on a rather different perspective than is commonly understood.

And yes, the “original sin” idea, no matter how awkwardly, does portray a seeming necessity. No Z from A without B>Y. But that is all already there to be gone through, ans is the nature of the stuff itself, one might say, so that “angst/disharmony/disconnect/sin” is what the journey has as a sense until it gets past a bend where it can see itself seeing. Untill then it onluy sees stuff, and part of that stuff is necessarily incomplete explanations avout the stuff and the person sensually identifying with it. The more accurate dilineations don’t make sense and even seem counter intuitive until one has at least tasted them. So the sin aspect, as “original” is not so much fault and consequently guilt, but an advancement in condition from the mere animal while including it. But it puts one i the arena of possibility in terms of seeing through the presentaion to what is the Light to the projection of it.