End of life, or live forever!

[Maeght]

You just can't understand...that is all!

What can't I understand?

You have your preconceived ideas of Abrahamic religions and their views of atheists....and you keep unloading that baggage on to everything.

What has that got to do with the question I asked?

[ekim]

By which I suppose you mean we should recognise the 'illusory nature of the ego, and lose ourselves in the omnipresent Brahman'? The ego, however, has a very important function, and allows us to perform everyday tasks and also to relate to phenomena in the everyday world - including other people. It is unfortunate that some of the most gifted humans - who have contributed enormously to general human welfare - have had enormous egos (and then of course there's Donald Trump - I'm not saying this is a sine qua non).
Likewise, those with a reputation for 'saintliness' i.e. losing themselves in a bliss of oceanic feeling, have often been bloody useless and a liability.
Some western pundits have equated these two ways of looking at the world with 'left-brain' and 'right-brain' consciousness (the left being more ego-centred). The ideal would be to co-ordinate both.
But maybe you didn't mean anything like this, and I'm just waffling (I hear a thousand voices crying "True!")

Maybe you could explain more clearly what you did mean.....

Another way of putting it might be 'find 'ourselves' in Brahman ... and 'find' ourselves in bliss' as opposed to 'lose' as it is as much about being conscious rather than subconscious.  It is a difficult process to 'die to self' especially as from an early age there appears to be a necessity to quickly develop an ego/self to cope with other already well established 'selves' in the world.  There is also the difficulty of escaping from the attraction of collective 'selves' e.g. national, racial, political, religious etc.  I think 'co-ordination' would be in the sense of finding the source of joy/bliss within and exporting it rather than looking for it externally and importing it.

[Bramble]

The only way we can live forever is by...killing ourselves!

Well, according to your beliefs we are all reincarnated until such time as we attain moksha, which for us lot who ‘just can’t understand’ is presumably never, so the default position is living forever, or have I got that wrong? Isn’t the very purpose of your religion to stop coming back for more? Seriously though, one has to wonder at humans. For most people, it seems, the problem is dying, but for Hindus and Buddhists it’s the opposite! Some folk are just never happy. Do other animals get this screwed up or are humans uniquely bonkers?

I can understand why people who don’t want to die might come up with the idea of post-mortem continuity, but it’s much harder to fathom why those committed to personal extinction would saddle themselves with the nightmare of eternal return, unless of course they weren’t quite so keen on dying as they claimed. Maybe there’s a sleight of hand at work here somewhere or am I being too cynical? It might explain why you seem to be talking up the virtues of living forever, even if it involves killing yourself first.

But really, Sriram, does life have to be this complicated? Sometimes religions look very much like solutions in search of a problem - and what would we do without problems like ourselves to transcend? Whether we think of death or living forever as the problem to overcome, Alexis de Tocqueville surely made an astute observation when he wrote that ‘evils which are patiently endured when they seem inevitable become intolerable when once the idea of escape from them is suggested.’

[Nearly Sane]

Our odd relationship with death is not just influential in terms of religion, though it could be argued that transhumanism is merely a religion in the lab.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transhumanism

[Bramble]

Yes, I think transhumanism is old wine in a new skin, as perhaps is our modern secular vision of progress. Whatever the species of transcendence advocated it's always a quest to be somewhere else, somewhere better - which curiously condemns us to ongoing dissatisfaction. Maybe it's the inevitable counterpart of a linear view of time which seems to be going somewhere, hence the human preoccupation with purpose and the sense of life as a story. Anyway, it all gives us plenty of material to furnish our brief existences with cosmic import, whether triumphant or merely tragic. Perhaps it doesn't matter, just as long as it means something.

[Sriram]

Well, according to your beliefs we are all reincarnated until such time as we attain moksha, which for us lot who ‘just can’t understand’ is presumably never, so the default position is living forever, or have I got that wrong? Isn’t the very purpose of your religion to stop coming back for more? Seriously though, one has to wonder at humans. For most people, it seems, the problem is dying, but for Hindus and Buddhists it’s the opposite! Some folk are just never happy. Do other animals get this screwed up or are humans uniquely bonkers?

I can understand why people who don’t want to die might come up with the idea of post-mortem continuity, but it’s much harder to fathom why those committed to personal extinction would saddle themselves with the nightmare of eternal return, unless of course they weren’t quite so keen on dying as they claimed. Maybe there’s a sleight of hand at work here somewhere or am I being too cynical? It might explain why you seem to be talking up the virtues of living forever, even if it involves killing yourself first.

But really, Sriram, does life have to be this complicated? Sometimes religions look very much like solutions in search of a problem - and what would we do without problems like ourselves to transcend? Whether we think of death or living forever as the problem to overcome, Alexis de Tocqueville surely made an astute observation when he wrote that ‘evils which are patiently endured when they seem inevitable become intolerable when once the idea of escape from them is suggested.’

You are not getting the point at all.  Yours is a typical microscopic psychological analysis of the ego mind and how it might work.  I am talking about another part of ourselves that is not related to the ego and is independent of our normal psychological motivations.

The ego related consciousness should die for the higher self to come out. That is the point of all spiritual and basic religious practices.   

[Roses]

You are not getting the point at all.  Yours is a typical microscopic psychological analysis of the ego mind and how it might work.  I am talking about another part of ourselves that is not related to the ego and is independent of our normal psychological motivations.

The ego related consciousness should die for the higher self to come out. That is the point of all spiritual and basic religious practices.   

Whatever that is supposed to mean?

[Bramble]

You are not getting the point at all.  Yours is a typical microscopic psychological analysis of the ego mind and how it might work.  I am talking about another part of ourselves that is not related to the ego and is independent of our normal psychological motivations.

The ego related consciousness should die for the higher self to come out. That is the point of all spiritual and basic religious practices.   

I got your point well enough, Sriram. It's hardly the first time you've made it and you might recall that I've shared my differences with you on the matter more than once, which is why I didn't trouble you with my arguments again on this occasion. Instead I attempted to make a different point, one which it seems you didn't get or at least chose to ignore. Never mind, I didn't really expect you to bite.

[Sriram]

Ok...so what was your point exactly?

[Bramble]

Seriously? 

[Sriram]

Seriously?

Yes....

[jeremyp]

You are not getting the point at all.  Yours is a typical microscopic psychological analysis of the ego mind and how it might work.  I am talking about another part of ourselves that is not related to the ego and is independent of our normal psychological motivations.

The ego related consciousness should die for the higher self to come out. That is the point of all spiritual and basic religious practices.   

Why should I believe that this higher self exists? I can't see any evidence for it. Why do you think that all of human experience can't be explained by "microscopic analysis"?

[Sriram]

Why should I believe that this higher self exists? I can't see any evidence for it. Why do you think that all of human experience can't be explained by "microscopic analysis"?

You don't have to 'believe'. You just follow certain practices and you will know automatically and all aspects of life will fall into place.

[Udayana]

On the other hand... giving up certain practices may allow for logical thinking.

[Walter]

You don't have to 'believe'. You just follow certain practices and you will know automatically and all aspects of life will fall into place.

when someone points out I'm wrong about something and can demonstrate why , I don't keep repeating it . I learn.

For some reason , you don't . Why is that?

[Sriram]

when someone points out I'm wrong about something and can demonstrate why , I don't keep repeating it . I learn.

For some reason , you don't . Why is that?

That's quite simple, Walter! That's because you people just think that you have made a very convincing argument and have demonstrated something meaningful.  In actuality nothing of that kind has happened.

It is like religious people who talk of faith in some deity or scripture, always believe that they are saying something very convincing and conclusive, when in fact they are not.   

[Stranger]

You don't have to 'believe'. You just follow certain practices and you will know automatically and all aspects of life will fall into place.

Unless you can provide some independent objective evidence, then claiming that you will come to believe something as a result of following certain practices, even if it's true, is not evidence of the truth of the belief. It is only evidence that the practices convince people of it. I'd also be willing to bet that if somebody followed the practices you suggest and didn't come to the same belief, you'd claim that the hadn't followed them 'properly'.

All we have here is your subjective belief that you formed after following these practices and your blind faith that said belief is objectively true.

As for "all aspects of life" falling into place; that obviously doesn't include logical thought, clear thinking, or the ability to learn from errors; neither does it appear to prevent you from stubbornly clinging to obvious and easily corrected misunderstandings.

[jeremyp]

You don't have to 'believe'.

Well I do though, don't I. Because whenever anybody puts this question to you, we get vague verbiage like...

You just follow certain practices and you will know automatically and all aspects of life will fall into place.

... as an answer.

[ippy]

The only way we can live forever is by...killing ourselves!

Of course and I'm sure you're absolutely right Sriram, oh' yes, don't forget to keep that little bird well fed, you know, the one that picks out the tell your fortune cards for you.

By the way, I've no fear of these beliefs of yours other than if they were to involve ritual cuttings or slaughter, I might not be so keen on any of that and how's things with the blue Elephant headed whatever you call it?

Regards ippy

[Sebastian Toe]

You don't have to 'believe'. You just follow certain practices and you will know automatically and all aspects of life will fall into place.

....... you people just think that you have made a very convincing argument and have demonstrated something meaningful.  In actuality nothing of that kind has happened.

[Sriram]

I think you people must understand that when I talk of a Higher Self it is not something 'supernatural' or out of this world.  It is that part of yourself that is loving, cooperative, non selfish and non competitive.  You know it already. 

[Walter]

I think you people must understand that when I talk of a Higher Self it is not something 'supernatural' or out of this world.  It is that part of yourself that is loving, cooperative, non selfish and non competitive.  You know it already.

you mean that part of yourself that allows others to walk all over you!

[Enki]

I think you people must understand that when I talk of a Higher Self it is not something 'supernatural' or out of this world.  It is that part of yourself that is loving, cooperative, non selfish and non competitive.  You know it already.

I quite accept that we have the capacity to be 'loving, cooperative, non selfish and non competitive.' The difference is, of course, that I see all these qualities reflected in naure generally as they can be useful and significant survival mechanisms. Hence, the idea that they are part of some sort of 'Higher Self' seems to me to be some sort of post rationalization of what is essentially a natural part of our natures just as is our capacity to hate, to not cooperate, to be intensely selfish and to be very competitive, each of which can also be extremely useful in aiding survival depending on the situation.

As a social species that is capable of reflecting on the results of our immediate and future actions, and is potentially able to learn by our mistakes, it seems to me that we need to encourage many of these qualities as and when appropriate to the well being of our species and which which might well include how we affect other species and nature generally.

However the idea of a 'higher self' for me limits this approach somewhat as it presupposes that there is such a thing when there is no evidence to suggest this. It also tends towards the idea that such a 'higher self' is to some extent related to the idea that it is some part of us related to some sort of universal and eternal state that cannot be reached unless we follow the correct disciplines, be that through meditation techniques or religious fervour when we are all capable of the qualities that you enumerate by a myriad of methods or indeed needing no method at all because they are all qualities which are part of our natures.

[SusanDoris]

I quite accept that we have the capacity to be 'loving, cooperative, non selfish and non competitive.' The difference is, of course, that I see all these qualities reflected in naure generally as they can be useful and significant survival mechanisms. Hence, the idea that they are part of some sort of 'Higher Self' seems to me to be some sort of post rationalization of what is essentially a natural part of our natures just as is our capacity to hate, to not cooperate, to be intensely selfish and to be very competitive, each of which can also be extremely useful in aiding survival depending on the situation.

As a social species that is capable of reflecting on the results of our immediate and future actions, and is potentially able to learn by our mistakes, it seems to me that we need to encourage many of these qualities as and when appropriate to the well being of our species and which which might well include how we affect other species and nature generally.

However the idea of a 'higher self' for me limits this approach somewhat as it presupposes that there is such a thing when there is no evidence to suggest this. It also tends towards the idea that such a 'higher self' is to some extent related to the idea that it is some part of us related to some sort of universal and eternal state that cannot be reached unless we follow the correct disciplines, be that through meditation techniques or religious fervour when we are all capable of the qualities that you enumerate by a myriad of methods or indeed needing no method at all because they are all qualities which are part of our natures.

Super post. If only this could be taught to and understood  by all - but the hundreds of thousands of superstitions leading to religious beliefs have built up a just about insurmountable barrier. It will I am sure be gradually lowered to a more manageable level, but oh, so slowly! Perhaps one day, when knowledge is widespread enough, and maybe the pace of that will increase, then  it will tumble but not soon.

[Sriram]

I quite accept that we have the capacity to be 'loving, cooperative, non selfish and non competitive.' The difference is, of course, that I see all these qualities reflected in naure generally as they can be useful and significant survival mechanisms. Hence, the idea that they are part of some sort of 'Higher Self' seems to me to be some sort of post rationalization of what is essentially a natural part of our natures just as is our capacity to hate, to not cooperate, to be intensely selfish and to be very competitive, each of which can also be extremely useful in aiding survival depending on the situation.

As a social species that is capable of reflecting on the results of our immediate and future actions, and is potentially able to learn by our mistakes, it seems to me that we need to encourage many of these qualities as and when appropriate to the well being of our species and which which might well include how we affect other species and nature generally.

However the idea of a 'higher self' for me limits this approach somewhat as it presupposes that there is such a thing when there is no evidence to suggest this. It also tends towards the idea that such a 'higher self' is to some extent related to the idea that it is some part of us related to some sort of universal and eternal state that cannot be reached unless we follow the correct disciplines, be that through meditation techniques or religious fervour when we are all capable of the qualities that you enumerate by a myriad of methods or indeed needing no method at all because they are all qualities which are part of our natures.

What is there no evidence for?  There is evidence for consciousness. There is evidence for human consciousness moving to more selfless, universal and integrative levels.

You are assuming that all this is a chance product of brain development (some 'need to survive'). I am assuming that it is not a product of the brain but is something independent of the brain. Level of Consciousness and brain development moving in tandem.