On 10 Aug, 14:27, 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: >
Interesting. I finally got a chance to read it!! The author descibes consciousness as non-dimensional, so, I have a problem with it in that it doesn't match, at all, with my own theory of our consciousness being a 2-D slice of a larger 3-D consciousness. It's a very solipsistic view that denies 'reality' to that which we perceive. And, whilst I accept solipsism from the viewpoint of The One, we are subsets of that, and that level of solipsism doesn't apply to OUR viewpoint. Nevertheless, it's certainly a reasonable view, that is, possible, but the persistence of things beyond OTHERS' experience seems to rule out this level of solipsism as a true reflection of reality from OUR perspective. If the SELF described in the text below is The One, then it's spot on!! > http://non-duality.rupertspira.com/page.aspx?n=6a738963-2d71-4e8c-b77... > > 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 ... > > read more »
