Karl

Neither, there is no duality.

If death was banished there would be no need to do anything at all. What incentive would there be to do anything today when there is always tommorrow and an eternity in which to act ? It does not lead us into a carpe diem attitude, it should lead us to right thought, right speech and right action. It makes us braver and more compassionate in alignment with our own integrity.

Because there is no evidence to the contrary. Dead is dead. There is no longer any awareness or consciousness. Nobody can give proof for that which does not exist. Unless you have proof of conscious aweness and mind continuing without the body then it must be accepted that it does not occur and has never been found to occur.

You will have to be more explicit dawai in what ways we differ. I can think of several but none which would be sufficiently different for us to be completely unable to share our thoughts.

I wouldn't waste the moment thinking about it. When you are dead there will be no loss, no sadness, no remorse, there will simply be nothing at all, just oblivion. Find your purpose by what makes you truly satisfied in life and do this by finding your true self in order to know what that is. You must first be rid of the false by knowing the real. If you throw away all falsehoods and mysticism you will let your true self shine through and then there is no fear, just incisive action. Death will then be only an inevitable corollary of life and there is no need to concern yourself with it. When it arrives you will have no knowledge of it. Do today, not tomorrow.

We are arguing about reality Bob and not the nature of possibility. You cannot produce either a deductive, or inductive argument based on our knowledge and direct experience which shows an afterlife of any sort. Scientific proof of death is something we have understood for a long time. I'm sure graveyards across the land are full of those who thought death was not the end, but those graveyards attest to error. Imagine a court case in which the accused must prove his innocence and not his guilt. The man is accused of killing his wife. It is absolutely impossible for him to prove he is innocent If all possibilities are open and all evidence is disregarded as falsity. It is a possibility that and infinite number of monkeys with an infinite number of typewriters would chance on the production of the complete works of Shakespeare. This saying is not supposed to be taken as a model of possibility, but to show how ludicrous a proposition it is. There are neither infinite money's nor infinite typewriters. If you believe everything and anything is possible, you have deliberately suppressed the only tool you possess to know reality 'as it is'. It is fine to dream and to imagine, but eventually, from those fevered thoughts must come an action. If your actions are all based on the possibility of what scientists might discover, then you are living in a future world and not 'in the now', as advocated by many lifestyle guru. Act on what you know is reality to the best that you can know it and that is 'the now'. Then you know yourself as you are, neither as you were, nor as you imagine you might be. When you stand on the solid foundation of reason you will know the universe for what it is and marvel that you did not know it before. :-)

What. That people die and don't return ? I would say it is most definitely the experienced reality of everyone which accords to scientific proof . If you have evidence to the contrary or can add a deductive argument then please do. Even Aquinas couldn't manage it despite a very good attempt at burying a fallacy within his syllogism. If you say this is what you believe to be true without obvious evidence to the contrary then what can be concluded ? It is always on the proposer to prove it is otherwise than it is plainly seen to be. The evidence of life after death isn't just limited, it is currently non existent except for the charlatans the prey on people's hopes.

Not really, we can be braver and dispel our own ignorance. We don't need to play the part of the sand, we can simply stop supporting those who want to make us their property.

No, we have individual identity it is not simply a belief. We perceive from external senses and then try and make sense of that as an experience. Our perceptual reality is individual, but reality is not. Existence exists. The rest is all about figuring it out. In effect we are the universe exploring itself.

It seems we are here for the exact opposite and that's to find out about the universe that we are part of. There are many individuals that, together, can argue, debate and explore. It's that constant frisson of difference that produces learning and furthers understanding. Our reasoning gives us flexibility and potential as it equally gives us the means of our own destruction. We don't live in the past or future, but we must make reference to it. Learning by our past and anticipating future needs. We can't avoid it. What's more it is no chore to live with it. It's only if problems are perceived with our lives that we give in to a fear that creates illusions of things in our minds. We create our own phantoms to which we must then create solutions.

I don't find there to be any duality. We can create the illusion that we do that's all.

Probably.

That's why the onus of proof is always on the proposer. I can point to dead people and the evidence which supports their terminal demise. That's why I said if you do not wish to provide the evidence or deduction I can live with that. It's only if you insist I'm wrong that I ask for proof. Apart from that it really doesn't matter to me what you personally believe, that's your business.

It's for you to prove that it is not the case that death is the end. I don't know anyone who has come back. I've seen several dead people and they don't get up again. That is my assertion based purely on the evidence. I like evidence. If you can provide a clear deductive argument for life after death then that will do.

That's just a nonsensical statement. You are trying to be mysterious and deep, but my ears are closed to it. If you don't want to state your argument that's fine too.

Dogs and cats manage it all the time. I don't have a tail so I'm unlikely to catch mine.

You say first and last which is fine if it relates to temporal events within the universe, but not to the universe itself which has always been. We are just part of that existence. Our constituents are part of the universe now and for all time.

Not unless 'beginning' is defined. There is a beginning and ending of a process. There is cause and effect. Ultimately there is neither end nor beginning just a continuation of causes and effects. We can talk about a stopped clock, but time itself does not cease because the clock is stopped. So, it depends on meaning otherwise we are playing with ambiguity on the the word 'beginning, nothing and something' Shakespeare liked to do that.

It depends on your definition of beginning ? There was no 'beginning' for the universe and man is part of the universe.

Except there was no beginning.

Death of the body is de facto the end of the individual identity of a person. Peace is probably the wrong word-oblivion, non existence is closer.

The virtue is all of humanity and being alive to it.

Didn't you simply replace one kind of lifestyle for another kind of lifestyle ? I don't think you see the beauty because you perceive only the pain and wish to isolate yourself from it. I understand that something disturbing can have the effect of installing a sense of wall building to avoid the very same situation previously experienced. It isn't a case of wrong or right, but of noticing and accepting the subtle majesty that underlines all things. Even fear, anger, sadness hold a certain repose, they are the human actions of the living. In death there is none but ever lasting peace.

"his response appalled me" "He made his wife and children miserable" "I perhaps, alone, saw it as pitiable and weak" This is what I notice, only you know precisely what it means.

When the cup is full it overflows. If you don't understand why then your cup is not yet full.