Why are we afraid to die if it's inevitable?

[Karl]

 

In your philosophy, or that you see in mine ?

 

I was going to edit how I phrased that but decided against doing so.

The universe is not some semantic term, or scientific discovery. The universe is our highest conception. It is all and everything. Beyond what we can't know is pointless to consider and would be included in the universe anyway. It isn't such in the case of scientific discovery within the universe, in those aspects of science there are many things we don't yet know. However the universe we do know, not every aspect of it, but it's overall aspect as the universe. It cannot be destroyed because it was never created. This is entirely baffling if you have only ever thought in terms of causality, but all causality is within the universe, destruction of things into other things is all within the universe in its totality.

 

Great.  You are beginning to talk more like a Daoist than you did when you first joined DaoBums.

Once you grasp the significance of the statement, then you can realise mans potential. We aren't just flecks of dust in the aether, we are cognitive of the entire totality in one single concept. Our minds are as boundless as the universe, on a par with the universe. Imagine what we are capable of !

 

There is no aether.  Yeah, if we don't kill our selves off humans are capable of so much more before our sun begins to die.

 

Or you are beginning to understand me better :-)

 

I meant aether in the way of a huge kind of infinity that is often imagined by people, not as a fact.

[C T]

To talk of 'beginning points' is skeptic/sophist philosophy. It's the same thing as saying you can step in the same river twice, that everything is changing and so nothing has specific identity.

 

There was no beginning to the universe, so, it pointless to talk of a beginning of CT. we can move past that point and find causality. We light a candle, the candle burns until there is no more wax, then the flame is extinguished. We can say that the heat from the flame went somewhere and the wax went somewhere else, but the essential universe remains the universe even those these changes have occured. The flame has gone, the candle has gone, the essential elements that came together to make that specific candle and flame have dispersed. The flame doesn't continue as a flame in some ghostly way, neither does the candle. The flame and candle are not reborn, but, we make new candles and light them.

But one candle flame can light a thousand other candles. Are all the flames then same or different? 

[Karl]

But one candle flame can light a thousand other candles. Are all the flames then same or different?

 

Firstly it was an analogy, but yes all flames are unique, though it's important to say that flames, candles etc have a specific nature which does not strive for survival. A flame cannot commit suicide, it doesn't get hungry, it has no free will.

 

Usually when we talk of a flame lighting a thousand candles it is to say that we can spread a message without any loss to ourselves. We are no less for sharing a message than we were before we shared it.

[allinone]

The universe will be destroyed by what ? The universe is everything there ever was and will be. To suggest the universe will be destroyed means that it isn't the universe, that there is something external to the universe which is impossible.

 

well you are living on a earth, so why not someone living on a universe?

 

lower regions will be destroyed by water, higher regions by fire.​

Edited July 5, 2016 by allinone

[C T]

Firstly it was an analogy, but yes all flames are unique, though it's important to say that flames, candles etc have a specific nature which does not strive for survival. A flame cannot commit suicide, it doesn't get hungry, it has no free will.

 

Usually when we talk of a flame lighting a thousand candles it is to say that we can spread a message without any loss to ourselves. We are no less for sharing a message than we were before we shared it.

Analogy aside, the question still stands... Are you dismissing the possibility of a perpetual continuation of the essence of one candle flame to the next? 

[Karl]

well you are living on a earth, so why not someone living on a universe?

 

lower regions will be destroyed by water, higher regions by fire.​

Why do you call it the universe, what is your conception and definition. If it's a foggy kind of thing in your mind then it's worth exploring why.

 

All fire and water are within the universe, all destructive conversion is within the universe.

[Karl]

Analogy aside, the question still stands... Are you dismissing the possibility of a perpetual continuation of the essence of one candle flame to the next?

 

Well it's an analogy. I could easily deny that possibility as candles are made by man and the hand of man must take one candle to the next. If the Earth is deprived of an atmosphere there would be no oxygen for the flame.

 

If you are in deep dreamless sleep, despite some low level of consciousness, then you have no awareness beyond the self. When the body dies there will not even be that. However you can make babies.

[allinone]

Why do you call it the universe, what is your conception and definition. If it's a foggy kind of thing in your mind then it's worth exploring why.

 

All fire and water are within the universe, all destructive conversion is within the universe.

 

The farthest place from a round object is the same point you start your measure, but your imagination have to go through the unseen behind the curvature and come back. Earth is only hypothetically round and can't be proved in one go or measure.

 

whatever..i go back to my room.

Edited July 5, 2016 by allinone

[Karl]

The farthest place from a round object is the same point you start your measure, but your imagination have to go through the unseen behind the curvature and come back. Earth is only hypothetically round and can't be proved in one go or measure.

 

whatever..i go back to my room.

Yes, we conceptualise a sphere, but then we prove that it is mathematically correct and we can hold it in our hands, it rolls in all directions, we can check its volume displacement. There are innumerable ways to check that what we perceive and what we conceptualise are one and the same.

 

The concept of the universe is the concept of ALL things. It isn't the concept of a sphere or a cube. It isn't a thing in the way of a planet, it is ALL planets and everything else. People think of the universe as a giant sphere they could hold were their hands large enough, but the universe contains all hands of every size, even massive, giant, inconceivably massive hands are part of its make up.

 

It is important to correctly understand what you are defining when referring to the universe and to keep that consistently. Like looking at the horizon when flying. Just because it seems to disappear when you climb, or dive, it remains the horizon exactly where it always was.

[allinone]

So, Karl, universe itself is not a thing, that means it has no borders on any of its side?

Edited July 5, 2016 by allinone

[Karl]

So, Karl, universe itself is not a thing, that means it has no borders on any of its side?

Correct. It is has no sides or borders. To have borders would mean it wasn't the universe. It's we humans that have the concept, so we had really understand what we are conceptualising. There is a tendency in education and on TV for talk of the 'infinite' universe, which is also incorrect. The universe is finite, but boundless. Same as talk of multiple universes, when universe means the totality. So if it contains other dimensions these would also be in the universe.

Edited July 5, 2016 by Karl

[Orion]

Not everyone is afraid to die.

 

There are cultures who are taught about death right from birth, and are exposed to it regularly, so that they know it's coming.

 

People are afraid to die who have had no exposure to death, so they subconsciously think they're immortal... like the western world.

 

This is a generalization of course.

 

There's also the animal body wanting to preserve itself at all costs. We see this in involuntary responses, even in people with attainment. The body reacts to the stimulus of impending death quite intensely, with adrenaline and usually every fighting capacity at its disposal, which might make it seem like death is a major struggle. However, to the enlightened person, whatever's happening is just what's happening, and it's temporary. That struggle will end.

 

In other words, we can't base our knowledge of death only on superficial appearances of death because we aren't seeing what's happening with the inner work during this phase.

 

Nobody knows how they will react to impending death, but the hope is that life-long spiritual practices can form of a sort of spiritual pathway that overcomes some automatic natures, so that new roads can be taken.

 

I for one don't believe we are just material, and eventually I'll shed this material envelope.

Edited July 5, 2016 by Orion

[Jim D.]

The Samurai were not afraid to die. If I were not responsible for what happens to my wife, death would not be a problem for me. I see it this way, If I follow the path that I am on, as does the water which flows, then there is nothing to fear.

 

Now if I try to control Tao, then there is pain and fear.

[allinone]

enlightened person might not fear death but the other trilllion beings in body are frightened and vote you out.

 

i think death is you are voted down because you suck at being alive.

Edited July 5, 2016 by allinone

[Marblehead]

The wind blew my candle out.

[C T]

The wind blew my candle out.

You mean you actually witnessed impermanence first hand?? wow!   

[Karl]

The wind blew my candle out.

Goodbye Norma Marblehead

[noonespecial]

 Seneca said, “Do not regard as valuable anything that can be taken away.” 

 

Does this statement strike anyone else as cowardly. As in, don't embrace life because it might hurt your feelings.

[Marblehead]

Does this statement strike anyone else as cowardly. As in, don't embrace life because it might hurt your feelings.

Well, of course.  But then Tatsumaru is a Buddhist and that's the way attachments are talked about.

 

And yes, even life can be taken from us.  But no, I won't follow the Buddhist doctrine here.

[C T]

Well, of course.  But then Tatsumaru is a Buddhist and that's the way attachments are talked about.

 

And yes, even life can be taken from us.  But no, I won't follow the Buddhist doctrine here.

I doubt Seneca's statement accurately reflects the Buddhist doctrine relating to non-attachment. 

The teachings encourage knowing how to assess what is of true, lasting value rather than chasing after fool's gold. 

Non-attachment highlights the virtue of cultivating a view that is not tainted by craving, which is at the root of many of life's problems. 

[Marblehead]

Yes.  Even I talk about reducing our desires.  If we have enough why desire more?

 

But attachments are something else.  All material things we have can be replaced.  We are not our material things.

[Jim D.]

Catheting is not a good thing. See Scott Peck Road Less Traveled!

[Tatsumaru]

A brief review of this thread will reveal that most answers that were given can be summarized within the following statements:

[i believe I see things as they are, even though I contradict myself.]
[The universe will disappear.]

[The universe will not disappear.]

[There is God.]
[There are Gods.]

[There is no God.]

[i am limited to my body and I have no control, but I am not a slave (imprisoned).]

[i think therefore I exist (awareness arises from matter).]

[i exist, therefore I think (matter arises from awareness).]

[i believe that one disappears when one dies.]

[i believe that one doesn't disappear when one dies.]
 

My favorite one:
[Existence is impermanent] was said by the same person who said [The universe will never disappear]

 

Overall, the level of believing and self-contradiction was insanely high, which serves to show that people in this discussion are not honestly interested in truth and are instead interested in guarding their deeply held beliefs and knowledge accumulations (stuff that someone said, stuff that someone read, my father told me, my teacher told me). Thus I don't see the point of partaking in this discussion anymore personally and more replies from me are highly unlikely.

Finally I want to share this song with you:

Edited July 6, 2016 by Tatsumaru

[Karl]

Even your summary is incorrect.

[C T]

At least there was integrity in returning to close off the thread with a summary (correct or not is secondary. Depends on whose considerations anyway)  - something not often practiced here by other OPs.