Seeing , hearing , smelling , tasting , feeling , thinking , dreaming , all occur in the brain which is part of the body. Consciousness is part of all this as all these functions cannot be without it. You cannot think without consciousness because it is only there when there is awareness. It is only when you are aware that you hear , see , etc. You cannot dream if there is no consciousness. Even in dream-state there is some level of consciousness. Life without some level of consciousness is not possible. Only God or Atma is above consciousness as it proceeds from him.
On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 6:27 AM, Molly <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Pat, > > I've been reading articles by a stem cell researcher named Rupert > Spira who also writes articles for nonduality.com, and has his own > site with a wealth of info: > > > http://non-duality.rupertspira.com/page.aspx?n=6a738963-2d71-4e8c-b777-df5c0988ccf4 > > Because I know you have trouble with links at work, I am including > what he as to say about life after death: > > Now, does the mind survive death? > > Let us consider what is meant by ‘death.’ Death could refer to the > body, the mind or Consciousness. > > In the conventional model of experience, it is believed that the body > is born into a ready-made world and contains the mind, which in turn > contains Consciousness. > > We have seen, however, that it is truer to say that Consciousness > contains the mind and that the body, made only of sensing and > perceiving, is ‘part’ of the mind. > > That is, we have seen that there are, in experience, no physical > bodies or objects. We have seen that the apparently perceived object, > body, other or world is made only of sensing/perceiving. In other > words, we have seen that all so-called physical objects are made out > of mind. > > Therefore, it no longer makes sense to speak of the death of the > physical body. Any theory of death that takes, as its starting point, > the reality of the physical body and, therefore, its subsequent death, > is flawed from the outset. > > A truer (but not completely true) statement would be to say that the > body is simply the current sensation or perception ‘of the body’ and > that that ‘body’ disappears or dies every time that sensation or > perception disappears. We have seen that a body, or indeed any object, > does not last in time and that the ‘lasting body’ is a concept, not an > experience. > > In other words, every time the current sensation or perception of the > body disappears, the ‘body’ dies, so we have experienced countless > ‘deaths’ of the body. In fact, the ‘body’ is being born and dying ‘all > the time’ and each appearance of the body is a brand new body. > > Does the mind survive these deaths? In this question the mind is > conceived not only as a vast container of all thoughts, images, > sensations and perceptions, but also as a vast generator of such. > However, no such mind has ever been experienced. Such a container/ > generator is simply a concept. It is imagined with the thought that > thinks it. > > The mind, in the broadest sense of the term is simply the current > thought, image, sensation or perception. Like the body, it is born > with every new appearance and it dies with every disappearance. It > neither survives or continues. > > In other words, there is no mind, body or world, as such, so we cannot > meaningfully speak of their possible survival. The mind, body and > world are simply the names that thought gives to the current thought, > sensation and perception, respectively, and there is no continuity of > thoughts, sensations and perceptions. > > At a deeper level the mind, body and world are the names that thought > gives to Consciousness and consciousness does not continue. It is ever- > present. > > Either way, there is no survival or continuity. There is only the ever- > presence of Consciousness. > > * * * > However, this does not mean that when a sensation/perception (the > body) disappears, it will not be ‘followed by’ a thought. In that > sense there is nothing to suggest that the mind does not survive the > death of the body. Thoughts keep coming after the ‘body’ has > disappeared. > > In fact, that is exactly what happens at night. When we ‘fall asleep’ > the body, that is, the current sensation or perception vanishes, but > dream thoughts and images appear. This is the experience of mind > without a body. In fact, mind is always experienced without a body. > The body is just one of the possible ‘shapes’ of the mind. > > In a dream a new, seamless body/world-image appears. Dream-thinking > subsequently identifies the ‘I’ of Consciousness with the dream body, > thereby apparently separating the new dream-body/world-image into two > ‘things’ – the ‘dream-I’ and the ‘dream-world’ - creating the illusion > of duality in exactly the same way that waking-thinking does in the > waking state. > > Dream-thinking then wonders whether its thoughts will continue after > the death of the dreamed entity, without realising that the dreamed > entity, the dreamed body and its dreamed death are themselves simply > thoughts. > > What is also interesting to notice is that the thoughts and feelings > of the waking state tend to become the environment of the dream state. > In other words, what was on the ‘inside’ during the waking state > becomes the ‘outside,’ in which the dream seems to take place. Hence > the value of dream analysis in psychology. > > There is nothing to suggest that this pattern will not continue after > the ‘death’ of the waking body, which as we have already seen, is > simply the disappearance of a bodily sensation, but not necessarily > the cessation of mind. In other words, there is nothing to suggest > that thoughts and feelings that ‘continue’ to arise after the death of > the body will seem to derive their content from the previous thoughts > and feelings of the now apparently deceased entity, just as dream > images seem to derive their content from the waking state. > > In the new ‘after-death’ dream, the imagined entity may again imagine > that its thoughts and feelings are a continuation of a previous day or > a previous life and hence the myth of the reincarnated entity will > forever perpetuate itself in the dream of the imaginary entity. > > Therefore, what for the imagined entity is life after life after life > is, from the point of view of reality, dream within dream within dream > all ‘taking place’ timelessly, placelessly. > > However, even if we provisionally accept the above model (and it is > only a half true model, truer than the conventional model but not > completely true) it is important to remember that the mind, as it is > normally conceived, is also only the current thought or image. Every > time a thought or image ends, the mind dies. > > So, having first seen that the body is, as it were, a subset of the > mind and that the mind ‘continues’ to ‘produce’ thoughts, images > sensations and perceptions, after the ‘death’ of the body, we can now > see that the mind is equally fragile, that is, it never survives, as > such. It is always vanishing. > > In other words, thoughts, images, sensations and perceptions do not > take place in a waking state, a dream state or a after-life state. All > thoughts, images, sensations and perceptions take place in the same > timeless placeless here-and-now, and the waking, dream, deep sleep and > after-life states are all simply made out of the thought that thinks > them. > > Now what about Consciousness? Consciousness is all that is conscious > or knowing and all that is truly present. What is Consciousness’ > experience of death? It has none. How could Consciousness experience > its own death or disappearance? It would have to remain present to > ‘have’ such an experience. > > In order for Consciousness to disappear its substance would have to > disappear into something. What would Consciousness dissolve into? > There is nothing present other than itself into which it could go. We, > that is Consciousness, has never and could never experience its own > disappearance. > > Therefore death is never an experience. It is a concept. The entire > dilemma about death originates with the thought that mistakenly > identifies Consciousness with a limited body. In other words, the idea > of death is only possible when Consciousness is seemingly ignored or > forgotten. > > Of course, Consciousness cannot ignore or forget itself. It can and > does only ever know itself. It is only an arising thought, which > imagines that Consciousness is not present, that seemingly obscures > Consciousness’ knowingbeing itself and, as a result, posits as a > reality, death and the attendant fear of disappearance, which is the > hallmark of the apparently separate entity. > > What has been said thus far is based upon the idea that thoughts, > images, sensations and perceptions appear and disappear within > Consciousness. > > This idea is useful in that it overturns the conventional view that > Consciousness is located inside a mind, which is located inside a body > and which is, in turn, born into the world, and replaces it with a > model that is closer to experience, where the mind, body and world are > all seen as spontaneous arisings or appearances within Consciousness. > > However, this new model should also be abandoned in due course because > if we go deeply into experience itself, we find that it is not > accurate. > > In experience we do not find a succession of appearances. A succession > of appearances can never be an actual experience because it is only > possible to experience one appearance at a time. In other words, a > multiplicity and therefore a diversity of appearances is never a > current experience but rather only the current thought about > ‘multiplicity and diversity,’ which refers to something that is never > actually experienced. > > In other words, multiplicity, diversity, appearance, disappearance, > birth, death, time, space, causality are all paper tigers. They are > made only of the thought that thinks them. > > Our actual experience is that experience itself is ever-present. And > the only substance present in all experience is Consciousness itself. > Therefore we can say from our own intimate direct experience that all > we know is Consciousness’ knowingbeing itself, that is, all > Consciousness knows is itself. > > Nothing ever appears or disappears. The same is true, relatively > speaking, in a film. It seems as if people, objects, places, events > and situations are appearing and disappearing but actually there is > always only ever the screen. It doesn’t come or go. It does nothing. > And because the screen is the only reality of the film, nothing can be > said to truly come or go. What or where would anything come from or to > where would such a thing go? It would have to come from outside the > screen. But there is nowhere in the film outside the screen. > > The same is true of experience. There is nothing outside > Consciousness. There is nothing inside Consciousness. Consciousness is > ever present and dimensionless, always knowing its own being. Nothing > new comes into it. Nothing disappears out of it. There is nowhere from > which or to which such a ‘thing’ could come and go and nothing out of > which such a ‘thing’ could be made. > > Consciousness is timelessly, placelessly, ever-present knowingbeing > itself alone." > > I find it to be an interesting, and very articulate view, and one that > supports Dr. Brian Weiss (Many Lives Many Masters) idea that we are > each, at this time, everyone that ever lived or is living or will live > right now. > > I think it is our mind that seperates it all according to its state > and view (awareness.) Hence, we can review past lives, relate to > other etc in the application of the function of time. > > > > On Aug 10, 8:47 am, Pat <[email protected]> wrote: > > On 9 Aug, 15:48, Slip Disc <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > So I guess it was an Injected Pun Offering, no? > > > > It's Pretty Obvious!! ;-) Sorry...just had to!! > > > > > > > > > On Aug 9, 9:01 am, Pat <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > On 5 Aug, 17:00, gabbydott <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > If knowledge is what you are after, Pat, you need to read the text > > > > > more closely. I wrote that you were ALSO the I P O! > > > > > > Could be I was just being an Ineffective Pun Obfuscator. Sorry, my > > > > background in finances makes me always think "Initial Public > Offering" > > > > when I see "IPO". Maybe Vam sees it as an Indian Postal Order?? I > > > > was only trying to be punny. ;-) > > > > > > > On 5 Aug., 14:18, Pat <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > On 5 Aug, 11:34, gabbydott <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > Not unlikely at all, Slip. Pat IS also the "impotent passive > onlooker" > > > > > > > while having a migraine attack, willingly and/or unwillingly, > it > > > > > > > doesn't matter. It was the stumbling that got snow white out of > her > > > > > > > glass coffin. > > > > > > > > Gabs, I'll have you know, those migraines may not always make me > > > > > > completely impotent. ;-) > > > > > > > > > On 5 Aug., 05:22, Slip Disc <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Not sure the logic you present is applicable Pat, I would > think it to > > > > > > > > be 'all' unwilling based on your proposed concept because all > of life > > > > > > > > is, as you have purported previously, pre-willed and part of > the space > > > > > > > > time continuum on account of the omnipotence. All > incarnations would > > > > > > > > be willed by the omnipotent one as well as any multiple > levels, > > > > > > > > chakra, lives, mortality and immortality, etc x 3 Isn't this > where > > > > > > > > you stand or have you changed/modified your platform? Just > the > > > > > > > > addition of such an element, that being omnipotence, suggests > > > > > > > > purposeful intent; the obverse being "impotent passive > onlooker" which > > > > > > > > is unlikely according to your premise. > > > > > > > > > > On Aug 4, 7:20 am, Pat <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > On 2 Aug, 07:55, RP Singh <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > A person might have taken many births before this one. > According to Hindu > > > > > > > > > > mythology the soul has to pass birth in 8.4 million > species before getting > > > > > > > > > > birth in the human species. Also a person might have been > born many times as > > > > > > > > > > a human being , what I meant by first life was the very > first time a soul > > > > > > > > > > took birth. As he had never taken birth before that , > then where were his > > > > > > > > > > karma as a consequence of which he took birth. > > > > > > > > > > > Logic, based on the concept of an omnipotent entity > (Brahman, if you > > > > > > > > > will), would mean that incarnation must be of two types, > willing and > > > > > > > > > unwilling. Both MUST be possible, or Brahman is NOT > omnipotent. And > > > > > > > > > Brahman IS omnipotent. > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sun, Aug 1, 2010 at 3:05 PM, Slip Disc < > [email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > What I don't get is why he took > > > > > > > > > > > > birth in his first life? RP > > > > > > > > > > > > > What do you mean by "take" birth? As in a choosing of > or a life > > > > > > > > > > > assigned? > > > > > > > > > > > > > Is there choice in reincarnation? > > > > > > > > > > > > > Also, how could it be known if the prior life was the > "first" life? > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Aug 1, 1:41 pm, RP Singh <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > According to the theory of reincarnation a person > takes birth as a > > > > > > > > > > > > consequence of his actions in his past life. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Jul 30, 2010 at 5:27 AM, Slip Disc < > [email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=He7Ge7Sogrk > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Does this example seem to give some credence to the > idea of > > > > > > > > > > > > > reincarnation? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Where does this Elephant get this ability? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Are there random elements of soul/spirit floating > about in the cosmos? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Or is this simply a product of a serious trainer > animal relationship? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What are your thoughts on this? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > http://www.exoticworldgifts.com/Categories.bok?category=Elephant%20Pa. > > > > > > > > > > > .. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I don't see too much variety in the compositions > other than the > > > > > > > > > > > > > repetitive elephant pose and the floral > arrangements so I'm > > > > > > > > > > > > > wondering.- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text -
