Important Announcement

See here for an important message regarding the community which has become a read-only site as of October 31.

 
Post Reply
Page 3 of 5  •  Prev 1 2 3 4 5 Next
8 years ago  ::  Feb 17, 2010 - 2:04PM #21
williejhonlo
Posts: 4,100

Feb 17, 2010 -- 12:41PM, Passionatereason wrote:


Feb 17, 2010 -- 12:07PM, williejhonlo wrote:


Death is a myth because we assume the body to be alive,but it is not. The body is composed of chemicals, but chemicals don't possess life. Since the body is not technically living it cannot die. Consciousness maintains and animates the body and because of this we wrongly misconstrue the body to be alive. In truth there's no difference between a living body and a so called dead one.





Now it is you that is playing word games. If we cannot agree to common definitions, then we have nothing to discuss. I am willing to alter the words that we use to discuss life & death.


Can you define the difference between a body that breaths, eats, and expells wastes, and a body that does none of these things.


If you can acknowledge that these 2 states of being exist, but refuse to call one living and one dead, please give me 2 names for these states of being.


I am fully prepared to discuss this subject using whatever words you choose for these 2 distinct states of being, but if you are unwilling to acknowledge these 2 states of being - then it is you who is confused about the "Truth", not I.



The body breathes and eats due to the energy that consciousness provides. If consciousness is not present the body would lack the energy for this. As Prabhupada said, a dead child does not grow up. We call the body living, but it is not existence, it is not essence. The "so called" living state is just called living because of the presence of consciousness. To say the body is living is just a collection of words, chemicals don't have life.

Quick Reply
Cancel
8 years ago  ::  Feb 17, 2010 - 2:09PM #22
williejhonlo
Posts: 4,100

Feb 17, 2010 -- 1:20PM, Passionatereason wrote:


Feb 17, 2010 -- 12:30PM, williejhonlo wrote:

It does not matter if one believes in reincarnation or going too heaven and hell since basically they are the same thing.


In this, we are agreed.

Feb 17, 2010 -- 12:30PM, williejhonlo wrote:

It is said in the gita that those who die in the mode of goodness go upward to the higher heavenly planets and that those who die in ignorance go down to the hellish worlds. In the Bhagavid-gita it is stated that one can travel too different spheres of existence or stay on the earthly plain according to his karma. This travelling of the soul to different spheres and it taking different types of bodies to live on those spheres is called reincarnation.


If you choose to use the Bhagavid-gita as your guide, this is fine.
But my questions to you would be...


How can you be positive that you are interpreting the Bhagavid-gita in the manner that it was originally transmitted?
How can you be positive that you are following the instructions in the manner that they were originally intended?
And why do you believe I need the Bhagavid-gita to aid me in my desire to live according to "Truth"?



Read the gita chapter fourteen and if you think i misinterpret correct me. As far as "truth" how do you define it?

Quick Reply
Cancel
8 years ago  ::  Feb 17, 2010 - 3:53PM #23
Comradespirit
Posts: 62

Feb 17, 2010 -- 12:07PM, williejhonlo wrote:


Death is a myth because we assume the body to be alive,but it is not. The body is composed of chemicals, but chemicals don't possess life. Since the body is not technically living it cannot die. Consciousness maintains and animates the body and because of this we wrongly misconstrue the body to be alive. In truth there's no difference between a living body and a so called dead one.




Exactly. The consciousness is the life symptom of the soul and they are in spearable. Right now we are falsely thinking we are the body which is perishable. When we rightly come to understand ourselves as the animatimg force as pointed out above our fear of death or ceasing to be will vanish just like a bad dream does when we awaken.

Quick Reply
Cancel
8 years ago  ::  Feb 18, 2010 - 9:32AM #24
Passionatereason
Posts: 142

Feb 17, 2010 -- 2:04PM, williejhonlo wrote:


The body breathes and eats due to the energy that consciousness provides. If consciousness is not present the body would lack the energy for this.


Which just serves to verify what I have already said about 'energy' and 'mass'. Thank you.

Feb 17, 2010 -- 2:04PM, williejhonlo wrote:

The "so called" living state is just called living because of the presence of consciousness. To say the body is living is just a collection of words, chemicals don't have life.


To say the body is "living" is one word that is generally used within the english language for that state of being that you, yourself, have decided to call "so called living". You are the one using a "collection of words", not I. The fact is, there is one word that can be used.


But it is fine with me whatever collection you use, I only desire that we may communicate. To communicate, we must understand each other. Therefore, when I address you, I will use the collection of words, "so called living" when most everyone else is quite satisfied, and understands, that I mean "living".


Since this particular discussion conderns whether or not "death" is a myth, would you now please tell me what collection of words you would like to use to describe what is (in the english language) commonly refered to as "death"?


Understand this though, any discomfort you find in my words - is discomfort caused by your own misunderstanding. When you truly understand what "Truth" is - the words used to describe it are only important to those who misunderstand.


Feb 17, 2010 -- 2:04PM, williejhonlo wrote:

...As Prabhupada said...


I have already asked you to state your understanding absent of any "faith tradition" texts.


There are forums within beliefnet for discussions of Eastern religions, and there are forums to discuss Western religions, this forum is for discussing Death & Grief>Life after Death> (and this particular thread)Death is a Myth.


While I am prepared to exlpain to you where your Eastern "faith traditions" correspond with "Truth", I am equally prepared to discuss where Western "faith traditions" correspond with "Truth", as I am fully prepared to explain "Truth" using no "faith traditions".


As I keep repeating, "Truth" is, was, and always will be the same. "Truth" is never changing, only the manner in which it is explained.


It matters not to "Truth" whether the english language calls living, "living"; or whether you choose to call "living", "so called living" - we are describing exactly the same state of being.

Quick Reply
Cancel
8 years ago  ::  Feb 18, 2010 - 9:56AM #25
Passionatereason
Posts: 142

Feb 17, 2010 -- 2:09PM, williejhonlo wrote:

Read the gita chapter fourteen and if you think i misinterpret correct me.


While I have already stated that this forum is not about 'eastern religions', I will break out my copy later this afternoon. Realize though, unless you read ancient sanskrit, and have an original copy, how can you be positive what you have read, is actually what was meant those many, many, many, years ago?


If I ask you to refer to the Christian Bible, the Koran, or any one of a number of Buddhist texts would you do this? If you ask me to do this, I am quite prepared, since I already own these and several other "faith tradition" texts.

Feb 17, 2010 -- 2:09PM, williejhonlo wrote:

As far as "truth" how do you define it?


So that we may have a common understanding, I rely on the dictionary to define "Truth": The true or actual state of a matter; conformity with fact or reality.


If we can agree on this definition of "Truth" then it will be easier for us to communicate. "Truth" is easy to see, the hard part is living in harmony with "Truth".


This is what our "faith traditions" attempt to do, they attempt to teach a being how to live in harmony with "Truth". But it should be obvious to all concerned that misunderstandings have arisen within the "faith traditions".


My only desire is to help those who understand this fact, to once again understand what living in harmony with "Truth" means.

Quick Reply
Cancel
8 years ago  ::  Feb 18, 2010 - 12:19PM #26
williejhonlo
Posts: 4,100

Feb 18, 2010 -- 9:56AM, Passionatereason wrote:


Feb 17, 2010 -- 2:09PM, williejhonlo wrote:

Read the gita chapter fourteen and if you think i misinterpret correct me.


While I have already stated that this forum is not about 'eastern religions', I will break out my copy later this afternoon. Realize though, unless you read ancient sanskrit, and have an original copy, how can you be positive what you have read, is actually what was meant those many, many, many, years ago?


If I ask you to refer to the Christian Bible, the Koran, or any one of a number of Buddhist texts would you do this? If you ask me to do this, I am quite prepared, since I already own these and several other "faith tradition" texts.

Feb 17, 2010 -- 2:09PM, williejhonlo wrote:

As far as "truth" how do you define it?


So that we may have a common understanding, I rely on the dictionary to define "Truth": The true or actual state of a matter; conformity with fact or reality.


If we can agree on this definition of "Truth" then it will be easier for us to communicate. "Truth" is easy to see, the hard part is living in harmony with "Truth".


This is what our "faith traditions" attempt to do, they attempt to teach a being how to live in harmony with "Truth". But it should be obvious to all concerned that misunderstandings have arisen within the "faith traditions".


My only desire is to help those who understand this fact, to once again understand what living in harmony with "Truth" means.



Question, how did the people who made the dictionary come to their conclusion of what truth is? How we see things is relative to the seers, as it is said, "beauty is in the eye of the beholder" people have differing minds that's why they come to different conclusions about things. To me in my honest opinion, "truth" is that which allows me to know anything subjective or objective, and that is my consciousness. Consciousness is the one thing no one can deny since to do so would be an act of consciousness. You take consciousness out of the equation and how could any disscussion about "truth" ever exist.

Quick Reply
Cancel
8 years ago  ::  Feb 18, 2010 - 12:38PM #27
williejhonlo
Posts: 4,100

Feb 18, 2010 -- 9:32AM, Passionatereason wrote:


Feb 17, 2010 -- 2:04PM, williejhonlo wrote:


The body breathes and eats due to the energy that consciousness provides. If consciousness is not present the body would lack the energy for this.


Which just serves to verify what I have already said about 'energy' and 'mass'. Thank you.

Feb 17, 2010 -- 2:04PM, williejhonlo wrote:

The "so called" living state is just called living because of the presence of consciousness. To say the body is living is just a collection of words, chemicals don't have life.


To say the body is "living" is one word that is generally used within the english language for that state of being that you, yourself, have decided to call "so called living". You are the one using a "collection of words", not I. The fact is, there is one word that can be used.


But it is fine with me whatever collection you use, I only desire that we may communicate. To communicate, we must understand each other. Therefore, when I address you, I will use the collection of words, "so called living" when most everyone else is quite satisfied, and understands, that I mean "living".


Since this particular discussion conderns whether or not "death" is a myth, would you now please tell me what collection of words you would like to use to describe what is (in the english language) commonly refered to as "death"?


Understand this though, any discomfort you find in my words - is discomfort caused by your own misunderstanding. When you truly understand what "Truth" is - the words used to describe it are only important to those who misunderstand.


Feb 17, 2010 -- 2:04PM, williejhonlo wrote:

...As Prabhupada said...


I have already asked you to state your understanding absent of any "faith tradition" texts.


There are forums within beliefnet for discussions of Eastern religions, and there are forums to discuss Western religions, this forum is for discussing Death & Grief>Life after Death> (and this particular thread)Death is a Myth.


While I am prepared to exlpain to you where your Eastern "faith traditions" correspond with "Truth", I am equally prepared to discuss where Western "faith traditions" correspond with "Truth", as I am fully prepared to explain "Truth" using no "faith traditions".


As I keep repeating, "Truth" is, was, and always will be the same. "Truth" is never changing, only the manner in which it is explained.


It matters not to "Truth" whether the english language calls living, "living"; or whether you choose to call "living", "so called living" - we are describing exactly the same state of being.



The body is like a machine once it breaks down or is no longer of any use our consciousness must vacate the premises. This is what is called death. The body is matter and matter cannot die, your car, home, building where you work, may become destroyed and then unmanifested but to say any of them died would be quite an erroneous statement.

Quick Reply
Cancel
8 years ago  ::  Feb 18, 2010 - 2:37PM #28
Passionatereason
Posts: 142

Feb 17, 2010 -- 2:09PM, williejhonlo wrote:


Read the gita chapter fourteen and if you think i misinterpret correct me. As far as "truth" how do you define it?


I must apoligize, for I mispoke originally. I have a copy of the Rig Veda, not the Bhagavad Gita. I have located an online copy though and have begun reading chapter 14 as you have suggested. Something struck me as very insightful early on though...


14.6: "O sinless one, the mode of goodness, being purer than the others, is illuminating, and it frees one from all sinful reactions. Those situated in that mode become conditioned by a sense of happiness and knowledge."


This appears to be pretty much what I have discovered without the aid of this text. The only difference being that I have labeled 'happiness' as "peace of mind" and "knowledge" as "understanding".


I have discovered this truth without the Bhagavad Gita, and without any concern about my 'afterlife'.


and in 14.2: "By becoming fixed in this knowledge, one can attain to the transcendental nature like My own. Thus established, one is not born at the time of creation or disturbed at the time of dissolution."


Which again, says to me that when one is fixed in this understanding, one need have no concern about death & what may happen afterwards. Just as I have already stated. Again, I've discovered this without the aid fo your Bhagavad Gita. This Bhagavad Gita only serves to confirm what I already understand.


it goes on to describe the different modes: goodness, passion, and ignorance. I can agree with much of what is written about these.


And in 14.20, this is written: "When the embodied being is able to transcend these three modes associated with the material body, he can become free from birth, death, old age and their distresses and can enjoy nectar even in this life."


This my friend would be Nirvana, the "Truth" that 'sets one free', and what I simply call as "peace of mind". Please note, that it is stated this condition can be attained in this life. Which is exactly what others have claimed, and what I claim.


If one attains this condition, then one becomes free from the distresses of birth, death, old age, etc.


Again, this is what I am saying - without the aid of your Bhagavad Gita.  This is what is said in a different manner by others, and they to did not use the Bhagavad Gita as their guide.


As I have already stated, "faith traditions" set up goals for believers to attain. Just as in Buddhist & Christian belief, the Bhagavad Gita tells one how to reach this goal before death, and also tells what will happen after death, if you don't reach this goal. High planets/this planet/animal kingdom - which is the classic definition of reincarnation, which is quite different from Heaven/Hell as believed by Christians/Moslems. Yet, we have already agreed on how these 2 definitions of the after-this-life are similar.


I am unconcerned with what happens after death, because I understand what is required to attain this goal while living.


To put this simply, I say that "Truth" is that which conforms to reality; That there are 2 realities: the conceptual & the physical, and a being is responsible for these 2 realities -


To act in harmony with "Truth" you must accept this fact: You, and You alone, are responsible for all that you do (physical reality), and all that you perceive (conceptual reality).


When you pass these responsibilities to another entity, you cannot live in harmony with "Truth". When you are not living in harmony with "Truth", you will fear this "Truth".


In this, I believe that I am in substantial agreement with all "faith traditions" - but I need no ancient texts to tell me this.


 

Quick Reply
Cancel
8 years ago  ::  Feb 18, 2010 - 3:03PM #29
Passionatereason
Posts: 142

Feb 18, 2010 -- 12:19PM, williejhonlo wrote:

Question, how did the people who made the dictionary come to their conclusion of what truth is?


They've come to this conclusion in order for us to be able to communicate effectively.

Feb 18, 2010 -- 12:19PM, williejhonlo wrote:

How we see things is relative to the seers, as it is said, "beauty is in the eye of the beholder" people have differing minds that's why they come to different conclusions about things.


Which, once again, leads me to ask the same question as it pertains to the various "faith tradition" texts.
Why do you seem so certain that the Bhagavad Gita has come to the correct conclusions itself?


From my brief readings, I will agree that it has come to many correct conclusions - but where it speaks of the "here-after-this life" it is complete and utter speculation as far as I am concerned. Speculation that is uneeded for one to live a life with "peace of mind". I have come to this same conclusion as to the other "faith traditions" also.


This does not mean that I do not respect these "faith traditions" - I do respect them. My concern is with how they are being understood in this day & time.


My concern is also with those that would say "Truth is relative". For "Truth" is indeed NOT relative - Only how "Truth" is told.


Those that believe truth is relative are invariably atheists. Atheists are not completely honest because they choose to deny that which is unprovable. I do not deny the unprovable, I am merely unconcerned with the unprovable, but understand why some must have an answer to the unprovable - religion gives these answers.


Just as I attend funerals/memorials as a compassionate response for the living, It is compassion that I have for those who need these religious answer to the unprovable.


 

Quick Reply
Cancel
8 years ago  ::  Feb 18, 2010 - 4:08PM #30
Comradespirit
Posts: 62

There are thousands of questions one can discuss on "faith tradions" etc. that are all good and valuable questions worthy of giving attention to. However I started this particular thread to discuss just one as the central theme and that is the nature of what we call death.


Please don't hijack the thread with other topics.


 


Thank you.

Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 3 of 5  •  Prev 1 2 3 4 5 Next
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook