What is Immortality?

[Gunther]

3 hours ago, ladyniguma said:

Glad to see that this thread is going in very interesting and still civilized way, Lost in Translation. I need to point some aspects of the problem: 1. How many of the practitioners in fact will reach immortality? (somebody already mentioned that question above in the forum) 2. Why the common person cannot grasp easily the notion of "immortality"? 3. Why in many doctrines they teach only till the stage of Enlightenment and not further - how  to build an actual immortal body?

Achieving real immortality is the next stage of human development (to become a real man 真人).

1. Only a handful of persons in fact have the innate abilities and the chance to reach this stage as only 1-2 of the 20 millions sperms in the ejaculate would manage to fecundate the egg and to become really alive fetus. Or if you prefer: as only 1-2 ova would get the chance to became really alive (a zygote-fetus-new born). All of 71 billiards cells in our physical body will die, only one or two (the sperms and the ova) will become actually alive. The same with the practitioners: a thousands are taught some kind of immortality praxis, but only a handful will become real immortal. The ugly truth is that only a handful possess the innate abilities - the bone marrow, the DNA - to build an immortal body. Only one of the 1000 little turtles will reach an adulthood. And only one of the thousands of acorns will become an oak. It's a kind of natural law, probably it's not "fair" from the human way of thinking but obviously Mother Nature finds it very effective.

Thus we say "E pluribus Unum" - from many one.

So, if we want to continue our reflections - from near 7 billiards people on Earth, only a handful will actually get lucky to enjoy "immortality" or the stage of becoming a truly living person -  真人.

"An ordinary man does not die, for he has never lived in order that he may die. He who has believed in the truth has found life, and this one is in danger of dying, for he is truly alive."

2. We do not possess the tools (organs, senses) to intelligibly perceive the next stage of the human development as the fetus in the womb cannot perceive and assimilate the mode of life outside the uterus: how is it to breathe oxygen, to drink milk, to play with other kids, to get wounded;  what is a nuclear bomb, what is Internet, what is homosexuality.....etc.

The caterpillar cannot imagine what is to be a butterfly; the frog in the well did not believe that there is a dragon nest.

**************

3. Why in many doctrines (incl. Buddhism) they teach that reaching Enlightenment is the final stage?

Achieving Enlightenment is very important phase of the process of Self realization but does not give real immortality.

When a person reach Enlightenment he/she gets the taste of eternity, of non-duality, he/she realizes in their own experience the real nature of the consciousness. BUT IT IS NOT the final stage of 真人. After achieving Samadhi the person becomes a Self-realized man, but he will die as all profanes will.

To became a real immortal a new body made entirely of photons needs to be constructed.

And again: WHY they teach only till this stage - the Enlightenment/Samadhi/Nirvana????

First of all - because those teachers haven't build a body of light by themselves. They cannot teach in theory what they cannot show in practice.

Second (and most important): because exactly in the stage of Enlightenment the practitioner will receive the knowledge how to give birth of a new body of light. As we mentioned above - it is extremely rare. Not everyone who has reached Nirvana would give birth to a Spiritual embryo. This is a tangible structure, not an imaginary or symbolical notion.

It looks more or less like this:

spiritual embryo.docx

In many teachings they state that killing the ignorance or reaching Enlightenment is the final stage of achieving immortality. It is very difficult to tell the ugly truth to all disciples: only a handful of you will give birth to a Spiritual embryo. How to tell to all of the 71 billiard cells in our physical body that they will die, and only a handful of them (namely the sperms and the ova) actually have the innate abilities to become a fetus? And even fewer will actually become alive.......

 

Ok, so second birth, spiritual embryo is not enlightened. Maybe if it happens suddenly you find all just words/concepts.

Where are the true immortals teaching immortality beyond singularity?

Maybe dreams within dreams. Flowers in the sky. And nobody to give a f#&k

[Gunther]

Not to be misunderstood,

How can in a state of no thought, no desire the thought/desire of immortality arise? Thanx

[Limahong]

On 11/2/2017 at 10:59 PM, Lost in Translation said:

Thank you all for your wonderful answers!

 

Hi Lost in Translation,

 

YES the answers are great.

 

On 11/2/2017 at 10:59 PM, Lost in Translation said:

I hope this thread can be illuminating for all Bums.

 

YES thus far this thread is illuminating. Thank you for starting this thread.

 

On 11/2/2017 at 10:59 PM, Lost in Translation said:

Considering how much time we dedicate to this stuff it's important to understand why we do it, no?

 

YES.

 

- LimA

[Gunther]

The concept of immortality In Taoism as in Tibetan bon and shamanism in general and some indiginous animistic religions, is to be seen in the historical context. It is outdated since Upanishads became public at the event of Buddhism.

In other words, once the body/mind is transcended, the eternal breath flows freely without in/exhalation, the mind opens up like a flower/pine cone, the top knot broken, the essence released, there is nobody to practice immortality. What is it? Brimming energy plasma, empty boundless space, eternal peace, luminous awareness??? you name it

Edited December 10, 2017 by Gunther

[Cheshire Cat]

 

There's the Buddhist philosophy of the three Kayas which involves the idea of having an immortal spiritual body and being able to manifest countless physical bodies.

Edited December 10, 2017 by Cheshire Cat

[C T]

2 hours ago, Cheshire Cat said:

 

There's the Buddhist philosophy of the three Kayas which involves the idea of having an immortal spiritual body and being able to manifest countless physical bodies.

 

Its uncertain that one can find the term 'immortal' in any of the texts relating to the 3 kayas. Maybe its there. I haven't read all the texts. I think the phrase applied in Buddhism most akin to the concept of immortality is Tathata. Similar attributions but subtle differentiations. 

[Cheshire Cat]

19 minutes ago, C T said:

 

Its uncertain that one can find the term 'immortal' in any of the texts relating to the 3 kayas. Maybe its there. I haven't read all the texts. I think the phrase applied in Buddhism most akin to the concept of immortality is Tathata. Similar attributions but subtle differentiations. 

 

If we want to specifically highlight the idea of immortality in buddhism without subtle differentiations, we have Jabir, the buddhist yogi.

[C T]

3 minutes ago, Cheshire Cat said:

 

If we want to specifically highlight the idea of immortality in buddhism without subtle differentiations, we have Jabir, the buddhist yogi.

 

sounds interesting.. I dont know who is Jabir. Please share more if you like. 

[Cheshire Cat]

jabir -part 1

download from here:

https://vdocuments.site/documents/jabir-the-buddhist-yogi-part-i.html

 

Jabir -Part 2

download from here:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/226825226_Jabir_the_Buddhist_yogi_part_two

[Sir Darius the Clairvoyent]

I grant this seemingly dead thread continued life as I write this words, abracadabra 🧙‍♂️🔥
 

Alan Watts has this wonderful ability to play around with language.

«life implies death, or should I say, death implies life.» I believe in immortality as how can non-being/excistence exist? I am not talking about continued existence/immortality as in this asshole writing these words going for ever and ever, but life it self, if that makes any sort of sense.

 

According to the always so accountable Wikipedia, immortality was the defining feature of the gods and mortality that of man, in many indo euro traditions:

 

Spoiler

The term for "a god" was **deywós ("celestial"), derived from the root *dyew, which denoted the bright sky or the light of day. It has numerous reflexes in Latin deus, Old Norse Týr(< PGmc. *tīwaz), Sanskrit devá, Avestandaeva, Irish día, or Lithuanian Dievas.^[99][100] In contrast, human beings were synonymous of "mortals" and associated with the "earthly" (*dʰéǵʰōm), likewise the source of words for "man, human being" in various languages.^[101]Proto-Indo-Europeans believed the gods to be exempt from death and disease because they were nourished by special aliments, usually not available to mortals: in the Chāndogya Upaniṣad, "the gods, of course, neither eat nor drink. They become sated by just looking at this nectar", while the Edda states that "on wine alone the weapon-lord Odin ever lives ... he needs no food; wine is to him both drink and meat".^[102] Sometimes concepts could also be deified, such as the Avestan mazdā("wisdom"), worshipped as Ahura Mazdā("Lord Wisdom"); the Greek god of war Ares(connected with ἀρή, "ruin, destruction"); or the Vedic protector of treaties Mitráh (from mitrám, "contract").^[103]

 
Yet there seems to have existed a possibility to somehow accent to godhood and immortality here and there, either trough action or enlightenment. 
 

77. Cattle die, | and kinsmen die,
And so one dies one's self;
But a noble name | will never die,
If good renown one gets.

78. Cattle die, | and kinsmen die,
And so one dies one's self;
One thing now | that never dies,
The fame of a dead man's deeds.
havamal

[Cobie]

 

4 hours ago, Sir Darius the Clairvoyent said:

… abracadabra …

生 於 有  生 於 亡 sheng1  yu2 you3 sheng1 yu2 wang2  - born into being, born out of non-being. (DDJ Ch 40, Guodian).

It refers to being born from nothingness, the empty womb; into existence, life. (EM Chen)

 

Non-being is more ultimate than being. Being originates from non-being, and ultimately, it returns to non-being. (EM Chen)

無有 [亡/無; you3/Yu] https://www.pdcnet.org/ipq/content/ipq_1973_0013_0003_0403_0418

 

 

Edited Friday at 11:21 PM by Cobie

[doc benway]

On 1/3/2025 at 4:05 PM, Cobie said:

 

生 於 有  生 於 亡 sheng1  yu2 you3 sheng1 yu2 wang2  - born into being, born out of non-being. (DDJ Ch 40, Guodian).

It refers to being born from nothingness, the empty womb; into existence, life. (EM Chen)

 

Non-being is more ultimate than being. Being originates from non-being, and ultimately, it returns to non-being. (EM Chen)

無有 [亡/無; you3/Yu] https://www.pdcnet.org/ipq/content/ipq_1973_0013_0003_0403_0418

 

 

 

Recognizing and accepting that this may go against the grain, even against common sense and against accepted authority, I challenge the idea of non-being as "more ultimate than being." We see this proposal in Daoist and Buddhist circles but I find it problematic. Being and non-being define one another and, for me, it is gratuitous and imaginary to suggest or conceive of one without the other. In my metaphysics they coexist and co-arise, they are intimately and inextricably related. The interplay between the two is ongoing and simultaneous rather than temporally separate or hierarchical. Our understanding and conceptualization is temporal and hierarchical because that is an inherent limitation of our cognizance (see for example, Time's Arrow and Archimedes Point by Huw Price as well as other examinations of the nature of time and its relationship to human experiece) but I think that is a side effect of human embodiment rather than a characteristic of reality. This is an area where I find great interest in the evolving understanding of quantum mechanics and the nature of space-time.

[Cobie]

39 minutes ago, doc benway said:

… Being and non-being define one another …

Thanks for your reply. I’m happy to for us to have different views. 
 

 

Edited Sunday at 08:33 PM by Cobie