Suicide, Emotions, Dimensions, Realms and Phowa

[goldisheavy]

Yes indeed. Good point. What is this experience? Some kind of betrayal.

 

There is the mother archetype which nurtures, and the father archetype, which betrays. The mother nurtures you so you can grow, the father betrays so that you will no longer depend upon others.

 

I am smiling. I am OK being a mom for a time.

[Aetherous]

If words are meaningless, then your entire post is meaningless. Obviously that's false.

 

The post is basically saying "get direct experience". Those words are meaningless, but getting direct experience is not.

 

Just like I could describe how a durian tastes, or you could just taste it. Any intelligent person knows which is more reliable for understanding.

 

No offense but this is kind of a 'duh' thing.

 

It is possible that this in itself is not real ... i.e. the process of the mystical death is not the same a 'real' death and these people were fooling themselves. However the point being I think is that they did not focus on death morbidly but as a source of revelation and possibly liberation ... perhaps another way of saying it is that the mystical death is life affirming.

 

Totally agree. It's actually an exploration of life.

[goldisheavy]

Then you can tell they way to attain the knowledge?

 

You don't start from an empty place. You already know something. When I say "you already know something" I don't mean that the state of your knowledge is inerrant. It may be a reliable sort of knowledge or it may be a kind of knowledge that leads to disappointment down the line. Nonetheless, you have some kind of knowledge.

 

How do you know what you know? If you seriously investigate this issue, you will find something important. So the real answer is contemplation and intent. First you need to aspire or intend to know something. Then you need to contemplate. And you will eventually know whatever it is you want. Along the way it's very important to be maximally honest. This means no exaggerating and no belittling of anything. No twisting of anything. And avoiding satisfaction by half-truths. If you found something true, do you stop? Or do you keep searching? If you stop, you may be settling for a half-truth.

 

All knowledge is rooted in assumptions. Where do assumptions come from?

 

All knowledge is relative (short defines long, dark defines light, manifest is defined by unmanifest, and so on). Is there something unrelated? If nothing is unrelated, what is this one all-embracing relation?

 

Please keep in mind that I am only stimulating your mind. You are the one who knows. I am trying to answer, but you are the final authority. You'll accept some answers and reject others. Why? How can you have the power to be the final authority? And yet you are, aren't you? Who determines what you accept as valid and what you reject as invalid? Anyone but you?

[doc benway]

Aha! I knew it. So this suggestion is based on an assumption, isn't it? You think you didn't exist before birth, so you won't exist after death? Well, if you assume you didn't exist before birth, it's symmetrically logical that you won't exist after death either. The problem is that you did exist before birth and this can be logically proven.

 

And the proof is simple -- your mind needs to have context in order to understand and assimilate experience of any kind. So prior to even the first experience of "this" life, you already must have had some context to make sense of that experience. Where would this context come from? Almost obviously not from anything in this life.

 

I say "almost obviously" because for physicalists, what constitutes and substantiates continuity is physicality, matter and energy, stuff, substance. But again, the notion of substance can be dismantled by analysis.

 

So what do we have? Substance is a garbage idea that's easy to disprove and that's pretty much impossible to prove (it has to be taken on blind faith if you believe in substance). OK, then in the universe that's fundamentally insubstantial, what is the "substance" of continuity? What provides it? Easy. It's called mind! The unborn, deathless mind.

 

See how I explained things nice and simple? This is much better than "what were you before you were born" puzzle nonsense. Just say what you mean to say. Please don't throw around puzzles and witticisms.

 

And if you're going to throw around witticisms, a much superior one is not "who were you before you were born" but "who are you NOW??" Right now! Unlike your past, your present is actually available to you for empirical analysis. The past is only available through inference and logic, but not directly or experientially. If you understand who you are now, you'll understand who you will be after death and who you were in the past as well, before birth.

Hi gold - long time no see

I hope you're well.

 

"Aha! I knew it" I appreciate your enthusiasm.

 

Actually, no - I didn't make the assumption that I did not or will not exist. I might have existed before, or maybe not. What would it look like if "I" did? Is that any easier or more difficult to imagine than if "i" didn't? Is one preferable? I think it's quite valuable to explore both. I haven't settled on one as correct and the other as incorrect.

 

There is always "I"-ness. You and I come and go and there is always I existing in everything that is. Nothing ever feels like them (except maybe in some unusual psychopathology) - we are all I. THere certainly seems to be a quality to I that transcends me, my knowledge, my experience, my very being. And it has a quality that transcends time and individual lives. You may try to hold onto what you know now and talk about how all these worldly things will affect "you" after death, but death is not about holding on and carrying forward, it's more about letting go and rebirth. At least, that's how it feels to me.

 

I'm simply suggesting a look at all that. I'm not suggesting an answer, a belief, or a logical proof. There is value in looking into it for ourselves and working through all of the possibilities and why they make sense today but not tomorrow and so on....

 

I agree it's better to be here and now, this is where the work is done. And that is also the same as what was and will be.

 

I don't particularly prefer one question to another - who were you before, who now, what after... all the same question, I've worked with them all quite a bit. But if someone is stuck on what comes after, it offers a complementary perspective that may be of value to think about before, no?

 

And so what if something you call "unborn, deathless mind" exists - the nature of that has nothing to do with the trivial contents stored in patterns that control and inform you now. Those are just ripples in the surface of the ocean. They come and they go.

 

I do think the question - 'what were you before you were born' can stimulate one to intuit or to feel, rather than just think. At least it did for me. That's the purpose of the Zen witticisms, as you know, although for me it is more about poetry than wit. Poetry allows us to point with words at something behind the words. You seem to prefer the logical proof rather than a puzzle. But it is a puzzle, at least it is for me.

[Birch]

"

宁"

 

is here:-) I thought that was very cool.

 

Nice to see you Goldie:-) Have missed you:-)

[goldisheavy]

The post is basically saying "get direct experience". Those words are meaningless, but getting direct experience is not.

 

If words are meaningless, then what is the meaning of a phrase "direct experience?" Does it refer to something valid? What's an indirect experience?

 

Isn't it time you looked at things more critically and more alertly and stopped pedaling tired old phrases in a very absentminded way?

[goldisheavy]

Hi gold - long time no see

I hope you're well.

 

I appreciate your concern. Thank you and thanks to K, and any other people who have shouted out as well.

 

"Aha! I knew it" I appreciate your enthusiasm.

 

Actually, no - I didn't make the assumption that I did not or will not exist. I might have existed before, or maybe not. What would it look like if "I" did? Is that any easier or more difficult to imagine than if "i" didn't? Is one preferable? I think it's quite valuable to explore both. I haven't settled on one as correct and the other as incorrect.

 

The question asks about your past though. Well, the word "before" has two meanings. One meaning talks about the past. That's the obvious one. The other meaning talks about something fundamental, something more essential than what we're habitually observing. So, one can say before I am 'goldisheavy', I am human. In this sense, being a human is more fundamental than being a specific kind of human, namely 'goldiseavy'.

 

The problem is, this second meaning is not obvious, and teachings should be skillful and helpful, preferably immediately, and preferably without necessitating secret mental gymnastics. If you want someone to perform mental gymnastics, it's better to just say so straightforwardly and openly, without it being a hidden and implicit ask.

 

Generally, if the person is bewildered, it's not a good idea to use puzzles as teaching tools. First, the confusion should subside. Then, once the mind is clear, one can be given a puzzle in the right context. One would be shown how to contemplatively work with the puzzle. Exactly as you are doing now. But one would show that before giving the person such puzzle. And from what I've read about it, in Zen tradition that's exactly what happens. Before the koan is given, one is expected to have some background in Buddhist literature. And then one is shown how to work with the koan. And then there are periodic interviews which help to control the work that happens with the koan. All in all, koans are losers, imo. Everything koans try to say can be said better directly, without chicanery, and contemplations can be equally as productive, if not more so, without the use of puzzles as tools. Thing is, even the regular "straightforward" experience is already plenty puzzling on its own. There is no need to puzzlify it even more on purpose.

 

There is always "I"-ness. You and I come and go and there is always I existing in everything that is. Nothing ever feels like them (except maybe in some unusual psychopathology) - we are all I. THere certainly seems to be a quality to I that transcends me, my knowledge, my experience, my very being. And it has a quality that transcends time and individual lives. You may try to hold onto what you know now and talk about how all these worldly things will affect "you" after death, but death is not about holding on and carrying forward, it's more about letting go and rebirth. At least, that's how it feels to me.

 

You're talking about an immediately understood and sensed level of intent. Thing is, when you go to sleep, do you intend to hang on to your waking experience? I don't know about you, but I don't. I intend to let go and forget, to the maximum extent possible. And yet, the content of dreams is generally similar and readily relatable to the waking experience most of the time. Not always. But most of the time. Why so?

 

The question about death is a very similar one to the question about dreaming. Will the last feeling you have before falling asleep determine the dream you have after you fall asleep? I have some experience with this. And the thing is, the last feeling may have a significant impact, but it will not determine every aspect of the dream, and nor will it work consistently either. So relying on a feeling at the moment of suicide to put you into a heavenly realm is a false hope. This is my answer to the question that's been asked.

 

If you can help it, it's better to die with a good feeling than to die with a bad one. But one feeling will not all by itself direct your destiny.

Edited April 16, 2012 by goldisheavy

[Gerard]

Tulku,

 

Yes what you state is true but do not forget accumulated karma. If you have reached the top level, say arahant, then there is only one possible outcome.

 

A porn star is more likely to move forward as an animal, or again as an deluded and lustful sex worker and even in hell according to past karmas.

 

To be reborn in a higher astral plane one must have a very good karma, accumulated good deeds and vibrate very highly as a result. Anagamis, in Buddhist tradition, qualify for deva rebirth.

 

Also if you think that you can switch off in the final moment and pretend to be saint to avoid bad karma, you won't be reborn in a higher plane just because you feel like it.

 

Committing suicide is not the answer unless it is done knowing that you have extinguished all your karma and motivated for the most very noble goal in relation to all human beings: metta and liberation of all sentient beings from suffering as long as there were a social issue that would warrant such action.

[goldisheavy]

After thinking about this topic some more, I realized another way to think about it is like this: Will the feeling you have in the morning influence the kind of day you will have later? Yes or no? What will be the scope of influence if yes?

[goldisheavy]

Tulku,

 

Yes what you state is true but do not forget accumulated karma. If you have reached the top level, say arahant, then there is only one possible outcome.

 

Karma doesn't accumulate. Karma is simply intent and intent is always in the now, it's always fresh. What accumulates is karma vipaka, the fruition of intent, and it only accumulates to the extent your mind presents an environment with psychic inertia, where the state of affairs is liable to continue as if it had its own separate force.

 

A porn star is more likely to move forward as an animal

 

This is false. Humans do not become animals unless they want to and strive for it very hard. The normal trajectory for any sentience is always status quo. Your tomorrow is likely to be very similar to your today and yesterday.

 

This is a good bit of fear mongering that's bandied abound mindlessly and harmfully by some Buddhists.

 

, or again as an deluded and lustful sex worker and even in hell according to past karmas.

 

To be reborn in a higher astral plane one must have a very good karma,

 

To be reborn in a realm where things are softer and more amenable to mental control, one doesn't need "good" karma. One needs a specific karma. You can be an evil individual and still be born in what you call "astral plane". How you treat other humans has only force on the social relations you are likely to encounter in your future life. It has little to no impact on the solidity of objects in your future realm. So someone who engages in strife is likely to be born in a realm with strife. But if you want to experience a realm where objects are not so hard and where they can be changed by the mind, it won't help to be good to others. You'll need to specifically transform those beliefs in the mind that keep the objects hard in this realm here.

 

accumulated good deeds and vibrate very highly as a result.

 

The idea of vibration is bogus. Your being doesn't vibrate. The reason you can sense vibrations is because you don't yourself vibrate. Vibrations are foreign to your being, thus they can be sensed as distinct changes.

 

Forget about vibrations. Unless your bones rattle when you walk, nothing is vibrating. Throw that junk out of your mind. You should only speak of that which you experience. If you don't experience vibration, don't talk about it. Something would have to rattle to be felt as a vibration. When you're at a rock concert, then talking about vibrations makes sense. Otherwise it makes no sense at all.

 

Anagamis, in Buddhist tradition, qualify for deva rebirth.

 

Qualify... love it. Very bureaucratic word. I get an image of someone checking the paperwork and then putting a stamp on it.

 

Also if you think that you can switch off in the final moment and pretend to be saint to avoid bad karma, you won't be reborn in a higher plane just because you feel like it.

 

Committing suicide is not the answer unless it is done knowing that you have extinguished all your karma and motivated for the most very noble goal in relation to all human beings: metta and liberation of all sentient beings from suffering as long as there were a social issue that would warrant such action.

 

This I can agree with.

[silent noise]

 

 

 

I do think the question - 'what were you before you were born' can stimulate one to intuit or to feel, rather than just think. At least it did for me. That's the purpose of the Zen witticisms, as you know, although for me it is more about poetry than wit. Poetry allows us to point with words at something behind the words. You seem to prefer the logical proof rather than a puzzle. But it is a puzzle, at least it is for me.

 

Just sit, relax, and ask yourself this question in a state of deep medidation.

Make sure you are grounded.

I dont want to spoil it, feedback welcome

[tulku]

Tulku,

 

Yes what you state is true but do not forget accumulated karma. If you have reached the top level, say arahant, then there is only one possible outcome.

 

A porn star is more likely to move forward as an animal, or again as an deluded and lustful sex worker and even in hell according to past karmas.

 

To be reborn in a higher astral plane one must have a very good karma, accumulated good deeds and vibrate very highly as a result. Anagamis, in Buddhist tradition, qualify for deva rebirth.

 

Also if you think that you can switch off in the final moment and pretend to be saint to avoid bad karma, you won't be reborn in a higher plane just because you feel like it.

 

Committing suicide is not the answer unless it is done knowing that you have extinguished all your karma and motivated for the most very noble goal in relation to all human beings: metta and liberation of all sentient beings from suffering as long as there were a social issue that would warrant such action.

 

you obviously have not studied the phowa technique enough..

 

first of all, if one comes across the phowa technique, he has already accrued sufficient karma to enter the buddhist realams..

 

otherwise the gods will never allow someone to come across the phowa technique if he has too much negative karma..

 

even if he comes across this technique, his negative karma will be too heavy for him to properly study or utilize this technique.. or even believe in this technique..

 

And belief or faith is a very strong component of any technique..

 

so I can understand your attempts to shake my faith in this technique.. fortunately i have too much good karma for my belief in this technique to be shaken by you..

[Aetherous]

If words are meaningless, then what is the meaning of a phrase "direct experience?" Does it refer to something valid? What's an indirect experience?

 

Isn't it time you looked at things more critically and more alertly and stopped pedaling tired old phrases in a very absentminded way?

 

Nope, it's not time.

[doc benway]

 

The question about death is a very similar one to the question about dreaming.

I think this is gratuitous.

It's simply the closest frame of reference we have but whether it is or is not similar is unknown.

 

 

So relying on a feeling at the moment of suicide to put you into a heavenly realm is a false hope. This is my answer to the question that's been asked.

 

If you can help it, it's better to die with a good feeling than to die with a bad one. But one feeling will not all by itself direct your destiny.

I agree

[goldisheavy]

Hi goldisheavy. Also good to see u back.

 

If human cells vibrate, then each human body is a mix of cellular vibrations. Your thoughts?

 

Cells don't vibrate. Cells wiggle and wobble. Vibration as a word has a specific meaning. It implies a very mechanical back and forth, measured, relatively constant fast motion. So a guitar string vibrates. It goes back and forth, equal distance, quickly, symmetrically and so on. There can be other aspects like standing waves and so on. So vibration, as a concept, is excellent for physics. It's terrible for spirituality.

 

Consider this. I am not my body. If my body vibrates, which it doesn't, it's not me who vibrates. It's one aspect of my experience. My body feels steady, calm. It doesn't move back and forth. It doesn't rattle. It only vibrates in a theoretical sense, or in a sense that physicists mean, but not in an experiential sense. I am calm. Steady. Peaceful. I don't vibrate. I stay. I am like this. Solid peace. Total presence. I don't go back and forth. I am what my intent is and my intent doesn't vibrate. My intent is like a river. It flows. It changes. But it doesn't vibrate. It doesn't have a mechanical quality to it. It is hard to put it in words, but vibration is not the right word for it for sure.

 

And, how would you understand this explanation of a spiritual experience:

 

Ramana Maharshi's deepest teaching was given in silence. He emanated a force or vibration that could still the mind and lead one to experience what Maharshi experienced.

 

It's basically nonsense. Think about it. Vibration is motion. How can stillness be induced via vigorous motion? If your mind vibrated, it would fail to be still. If I punch your body, are you still? Probably not. If your mind is subjected to some kind of psychic vibration, is it going to be at peace? It won't. It may be happy if you enjoy vibrating. But if you don't enjoy vibrating, if you actually want rest, you'll not be happy.

 

In any case, if you experientially feel like you are vibrating, by all means talk about vibrations. I don't feel like I am vibrating, and honestly, if we get down to it and start asking people one by one, "Are you vibrating?" "Are you?" "And you good sir?" I think most people would answer "no." I think most people experience change, but not of the kind that can be described as vibration.

 

Here's another problem with vibration. In physics light is considered to be vibrational. Red side of the color spectrum is lower frequency and blue is higher. So is red less spiritual or lower than blue? Is blue more enlightened than red? To my mind the answer is obvious: no no no no. All colors are equal. All are defined relative to each other. Red makes blue blue. Blue makes red red. Etc. The entire palette of color is pure. Red is as high and enlightened as blue is. Blue is as dirty and disgusting as red it. Etc. Does red symbolize blood or lust? Or does red symbolize warmth and home? Does blue symbolize open sky? Or does blue symbolize cold ice? Each color can have positive and negative associations. The power and the relevancy of these associations depend on our minds. There is no color that's inherently higher or lower than any other. So talking about higher vibrations is bullshit. Because if higher vibrations were more spiritual, it would mean blue end of the spectrum is preferable to the red end. I don't see that at all. Not at all. I don't want to be color blind. If I have a preference for the blues, I am striving toward color blindness at some point.

[goldisheavy]

I think this is gratuitous.

 

Your opinion has been noted.

 

It's simply the closest frame of reference we have but whether it is or is not similar is unknown.

 

But the fact that is unknown is not itself in dispute, right? It's definitely known. It's one of those known unknowns, right?

[goldisheavy]

you obviously have not studied the phowa technique enough..

 

first of all, if one comes across the phowa technique, he has already accrued sufficient karma to enter the buddhist realams..

 

otherwise the gods will never allow someone to come across the phowa technique if he has too much negative karma..

 

The gods are not in control. You are. When you are ready to do something, no god or gods can hold you back. This isn't something you need a security clearance for. It's not something that involves convention, agreement, or permission from others.

 

even if he comes across this technique, his negative karma will be too heavy for him to properly study or utilize this technique.. or even believe in this technique..

 

And belief or faith is a very strong component of any technique..

 

so I can understand your attempts to shake my faith in this technique.. fortunately i have too much good karma for my belief in this technique to be shaken by you..

 

You're right. Belief is fundamental to spiritual techniques of all kinds. But keep this in mind though... your belief will invalidate some techniques while validating others. If some door closes, another one opens! It's never the case that beliefs only close doors and nothing else.

 

Sometimes the doors that are open are boring, so some beliefs may be preferable to others, but at the same time, no one is truly stuck. The bird can't swim, but it can fly. Fish can't fly, but it can swim. Blind rats can't see, but their other senses are superb. Everything is balanced in this way.

 

People who are stuck in an Earthly realm due to their belief in physicality are given abilities that may baffle spiritual entities. People can make machines for example. Enlightened beings in astral realms may not be able to make machines, since they don't believe in something that's mechanical. They may have all kinds of personal power, be able to change shapes by intent alone, but they might not be able to comprehend how a machine is made. Because they don't believe in substance, all kinds of substance-belief-related abilities are closed for them.

 

Now sure... some of us are bored of substance and want to move on. So for us having substance related abilities may seem like having a pimple. Not very attractive. That's just our personal evaluation of abilities. It doesn't mean substance belief isn't attractive from a different perspective or that it lacks abilities.

Edited April 17, 2012 by goldisheavy

[Aetherous]

In any case, if you experientially feel like you are vibrating, by all means talk about vibrations.

 

That's obviously what she was doing, until you decided to speak as if you've experienced everything, and as if she hadn't experienced what she was talking about.

[goldisheavy]

That's obviously what she was doing

 

Obviously, eh?

[zanshin]

Sort of a coincidence in reading this, I do feel like my body is humming or vibrating today, even a little tinnitus. Health seems okay, ate breakfast, walked and exercised a little. Can't quite shake it off; it's becoming a little annoying.

[Apech]

[Mokona]

cells make noise

 

There is a saying that we may learn something new everyday. I prefer the days I get to sleep in. Just kidding! Throw me a good book anytime.

[goldisheavy]

cells make noise

 

"Researchers at the University of California at Los Angeles studying baker’s yeast cells discovered that the cell walls vibrate 1,000 times per second."

 

Cell walls. Also, making these walls vibrate at a higher rate will not likely make yeast more spiritual, or even just healthier.

 

In the comments to that article people also talk about various types of cells having various types of membranes. Some membranes are floppy, others are taught, they say.

 

When you raise your vibrations, what are you actually doing? Are you becoming bluer on a light spectrum? Are European hemophiliac blue bloods spiritual people? Or do you think your cell walls vibrate at a higher rate close to the sound spectrum?

Edited April 19, 2012 by goldisheavy

[Aetherous]

Edited April 19, 2012 by Scotty

[Everything]

...fortunately i have too much good karma for my belief in this technique to be shaken by you..

Pikachu, I choose you!