Life After Death

Do you believe in Life after Death ????

Here is something that I have read that makes you think about life after death.

For there to be Life after Death (LAD) it must be in a location or environment which is removed from the one in which we live, that is unless we are talking about re-incarnation.
There are a number of factors that need to be considered. It must be an endless location - no boundaries. In a dimension different from ours. There would have to be enough room for all past and future people to occupy. It could not contain our bodies (as they are left here on Earth or in it, when we die) so it is only our spirit or soul that survives and goes on. We would not be able to age in the LAD, what would we look like at age 2342 years, but then, what about little babies that have died - do they stay that way with no concept of "life" as it was - only sleeping, sucking, crying and pooing?

There is a location that fits all the criteria for existence in LAD and it is especially significant for all who read this - its the dream state. It has no boundaries, it does not occupy any space and everyone can fit. When we are dreaming, we cannot tell the difference between the dream and reality. We are actually living the dream until we do a RC. It is in a dimension different from our living lives. We cannot get hurt, we cannot die and we cannot cease to exist.

Can life after death simply be a dream like consciousness where our mind goes forever more ???
We do not need a body to dream. We only neet it to store our mind but can our mind, our soul, our spirit, survive outside of and without a body ???

Happy thinking !

Ooh, good theory, I like this one.

Sounds quite plausable. It also makes shared dreams make sense too, that would be a rare time where someone else's spirit just happens to be in your tiny chuck of dreamland.

My friend and I briefly talked about this yesterday.

Here are a few of our theories and you may not like a couple of them but anyway...

1. Nothing, which would suck
2. Reincarnation

• As any random living creature on Earth.
• As any random living creature in the universe

both with no recolection of our past lives.
3. Heaven/Hell

• but what would our appearance be in those?

We all were dead at least once - before we were born...Was it so scary experience? I personally don't remember.

Basicly, this might get to religious... however lets stick to the first factor you need for an afterlife: A soul-like substance.

I think souls are totaly bullcrap. No soul can ever be found, it's a myth without boundaries. Like alot of 'human' terms. For one: What does have a soul and what doesn't? People 'have souls'. Do mammels? Do reptiles? Do insects? If no, why not? --> that takes us back to creationalism.

Endless discussion. An afterlife seems unlikely. There is no proof but jibbering about invisible enteties going to other places with no arguements at all.

I could now say: Brains are actually just a representation of a different universe. Every individual is 'controlled' by a midget that rules his own universe that correspondates to the human brain. Total bullcrap, yet as hard to disprove as afterlifes.

Quote:

---

We are actually living the dream until we do a RC[/b]

---

But what happens when we do do a reality check or somehow figure out we are dreaming. You cannot tell me that over the course of eternity, we will not become lucid at one point, that would be impossible. What happens then?

Do we realize we are dreaming and just do whatever we want for the rest of forever or until we lose lucidity?

Casualtie,

We are talking about dying and living in a dream state forever. Doing a reality check will give you the same result every time, you are dreaming. There would be no such thing as reality !!

Regards,
Ronstek

I believe that, if there IS an afterlife, going about it by keeping the “paranormal” in mind is the wrong approach. (Going forward, I will state my position using the Assumption that the afterlife exists, so I don’t want to hear “oh you’re so naïve” or blah blah, because I’m simply stating the case, not an affirmed belief.)
I believe the possibility for the afterlife could be best evidenced from our, as yet, insufficient understanding of the origin of consciousness. The popular belief is that consciousness stems from development of the brain and a cognitive function that starts from “0,” at the time of our conception. This is probably (and most likely) the case, but there is the possibility that the human brain is simply the medium for connecting an infinite consciousness to the bodies we inhabit. (Humor me here, for a moment.)
If this were the case (of which no scientist could, as yet, tell you with any certainty it is not) then we have to give in to the possibility of consciousness continuing after our connection to our physical bodies has been severed.
This has nothing to do with a Heaven, a Hell, a God, Angels, or anything of that nature. It is simply the mystery of sentience.
Most mainstream scientists refuse to look at the afterlife as anything but “paranormal,” so I think there are very few that realize that the ambiguity of consciousness is a Very Good canvas too look at the possibility of the afterlife, because people are constantly attaching “paranormal” terms to it, such as souls, spirits, ghosts, Heaven, Hell, etc.
As an aside, let’s look at one example of the “debunkery” of the concept of ghosts:
Here is an article that was posted on CNN. You don’t have to read the whole thing. I’ve cut out the only section that really relates to this subject:

http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/10/27/vampire.s...e.ap/index.html

Quote:

---

WASHINGTON (AP) -- It may be the season for vampires, ghosts and zombies. Just remember, they're not real, warns physicist Costas Efthimiou.
Obviously, you might say.
But Efthimiou, a professor at the University of Central Florida, points to surveys that show American gullibility for the supernatural.
Using science and math, Efthimiou explains why it is ghosts can't walk among us while also gliding through walls, like Patrick Swayze in the movie "Ghost." That violates Newton's law of action and reaction. If ghosts walk, their feet apply force to the floor, but if they go through walls they are without substance, the professor says.
"So which is it? Are ghosts material or material-less?" he asks.[/b]

---

As soon as I read this, I was like “What?? That’s the best example of the “impossibility” of “ghosts” that a physicist chose to outline for this article? I had a rebuttal before I was even able to get through the article:
IF a “ghost” were to be looked at as the continuation of consciousness, after the death of the physical body, such an explanation wouldn’t even hold water. Consider this: What happens when we dream? Or even better, when we lucid dream? We are able to do Both: We can walk on the ground, but also pass through walls and floors as if they weren’t there. A ghost “walking among us” would walk among us because, in “life,” the person is conditioned to take the ground as a solid. When we dream (even lucidly) we walk on the ground because we are Conditioned to treat the ground as if it is really there. It is in our programming. However, putting an effort into trumping that conditioning, we are able to pass through solid objects as if they are not there. This breaks no law of action and reaction because, to a consciousness that views the dream world as simply a dream, walking on the ground is simply a habit. We are not confined to it. Using this logic, a ghost “walking” among us is not exerting force on the ground, it is creating the illusion of exerting force on the ground when it really isn’t. Therefore, whenever convenient, the ghost would be able to overturn that illusion by choosing to treat a solid as if it didn’t exist because to a consciousness not confined to physical reality, it doesn’t.
THAT, from a physicist, was a very weak argument.
Reading The Holographic Universe (I'd suggest anyone seriously interested in subjects like this to spend the $14 I did to at least check it out) provided me with more considerable arguments for the continuation of consciousness than anything I’ve read (from nearly any source I’ve come across) for its impossibility. Consider this excerpt from it:

Quote:

---

"For Pribram the many similarities between brains and holograms were tantalizing, but he knew his theory didn't mean anything unless it was backed up by more solid evidence. One researcher who provided such evidence was Indiana University biologist Paul Pietsch. Intriguingly, pIetsch began as an ardent disbeliever in Pribram's theory. He was especially skeptical of Pribram's claim that memories do not possess any specific location in the brain.

To prove Pribram wrong, Pietsh devised a series of experiments, and as the test subjects of his experiments he chose salamanders. In previous studies he had discovered that he could remove the brain of a salamander without killing it, and although it remained in a stupor as long as the brain was missing, its behaviour completely returned to normal as soon as its brain was restored.

Pietsch reasoned that if a salamander's feeding behaviour is not confined to any specific location in the brain, then it should not matter how its brain is positioned in its head. If it did matter, Pribram's theory would be disproven. He then flip-flopped the left and right hemispheres of a salamander's brain, but to his dismay, as soon as it recovered, the salamander quickly resumed normal feeding.

He took another salamander and turned its brain upside down. When it recovered it, too, fed normally. Growing increasingly frustrated, he decided to resort to more drastic measures. In a series of over 700 operations he sliced, flipped, shuffled subtracted, and even minced the brains of his hapless subjects, but always when he replaced what was left of their brains, their behaviour returned to normal.*

These findings and others turned Pietsch into a believer and attracted enough attention that his research became the subject of a segment on the television show 60 Minutes. He writes about this experience as well as giving detailed accounts of his experiments in his insightful book Shufflebrain."

* Paul Pietsch, "Shufflebrain," Harper's Magazine 244 (May 1972), p. 66
[/b]

---

IF this experiment actually happened, it says A LOT. (granted, Salamanders and Humans may have a different physiology)Considering that it took So Much mutilation to the salamander’s brain before it fell into a “stupor,” but even then preserved it’s basic desire to feed, says that the connection from the cognizance of the need to feed to the ability to do so, physically, may only display the inability for that consciousness to effectively control the motor skills of the salamander. It doesn’t display that the consciousness itself was diminished in any way, whatsoever.

If the “afterlife” exists, I believe it exists simply as the continuation of an infinite consciousness – not having anything to do with souls, spirits, an astral realm, silver cords, or any other new-age/religious/paranormal terminology that people may want to attribute it to.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ronstek

Casualtie,

We are talking about dying and living in a dream state forever. Doing a reality check will give you the same result every time, you are dreaming. There would be no such thing as reality !!

Regards,
Ronstek
[/b]

---

So we are basically already lucid? We are already aware that we are dead and are now in a dream state and can do whatever we want?

When you said dream state I kind of assumed you meant we would have dreams like we would every time we sleep, only they would go on forever.

Should never "assume" cause when you do you make an "ass" our of "u" and "me".
( ass u me.)

from my perspective, the afterlife is just a mechanism to either keep religious people in order or to give humans something to look forward.

Look, all of us are ignorant as HELL on this subject. None of us have ever been to this afterlife, so NOBODY can say for sure.

but i know what i believe........

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hard

from my perspective, the afterlife is just a mechanism to either keep religious people in order or to give humans something to look forward.

Look, all of us are ignorant as HELL on this subject. None of us have ever been to this afterlife, so NOBODY can say for sure.

but i know what i believe........
[/b]

---

It's definately the apparent option, if we look at how likely current religions are, and how science demystified life. I reckon it's still not an impossibility however. Science can only explain what we know about. Infact it's not even exactly explaining, its a prediction of what is around us, based on an apparent pattern in these things. Anyway, I'm getting sidetracked; my point is that there may be many many experiences outside of the reality we know...

If I didn't believe in an afterlife I would probably be trying one of them ways to make you immortal. Like in that other thread about putting your brain into a robot. If you think theres nothing and that your life is just a waste, might as well try and live forever. Probably won't work but it just might.

I am going to reactivate this thread because there are many opinions that have yet to be posted.
Oneironaught posted a very intriging reply and is worth reading. Should encourage some thought and comments.

We will probably never know if there actually is an afterlife but we have to consider and accept that it is possible.
All of us that have experienced a dream, especially a LD, should know that we can separate our thoughts from our bodies, even though the dreams remain and are controlled by our active mind. We can leave our time and location and go whereever our thoughts want us to go, leaving our physical body behind.
Can our dream state continue after our bodies have died and is this the definition and location of afterlife?

all is energy.
we are one consciousness experiencing itself subjectively.
everything is dream.
we are the imagination of ourselves.

my phat 5 pence. *mark gets his sledgehammer ready*

religion is a set of beliefs that we live by.

most modern "religions" strive to achieve enlightenment (knowledge of the universe[not necessarily understanding]) in some form or another.

therefore. it is the same as philosophy.

Circle of life

No, there is no afterlife.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by M-Cat

No, there is no afterlife.

---

Now there is a quote worth commenting on. What evidence do you have to prove that there is no afterlife, any?
So dying and being dead is like being asleep (without dreaming) where you have no recollection of time progressing, it is just a continuation of nothing.
I believe that that is a possibility (When we die there is just nothing.) just as an afterlife in some form is possible.
Just because no-one can prove one way or the other, does not mean there is no afterlife.

Here is another question:-
The universe is a vast expanse of nothingness with the occasional speck of rock that we call planets or suns and we call it outer space, but when you really think about it, it cannot possibly go on forever, it has to end somewhere. If it does, whats on the other side?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ronstek

Now there is a quote worth commenting on. What evidence do you have to prove that there is no afterlife, any?

---

My evidence is that the concept of an "afterlife" is bullshit that religions use to control people. If people thought their consciousness ended with the death of their earthly lives, they wouldn't want to deal with harsh conditions, would they? Religions kept societies stable throughout history through lies and deception.

I'm just going to state my big opinion on this before I respond to anything.

My faith is that what Buddha said could be confirmed as true within ourselves through insight meditation is true. The reason I call it faith is because as much as I feel the evidence is just overwhelming he had the right opinion due to what science has confirmed in buddhism, as well as early philosophers like Pythagoras, Plato, Orpheus, the Gnostic Christians and the Rosicrucians, this stuff just can't be confirmed until I experience it.

Okay, so I'll try to speculate my own speculation from main buddhism as much as possible.

Firstly, God, also known as Brahma, is the master of all existence below himself only because he is held legitimate by the inhabitants. On different planes there are many Gods that all fight over control in jealousy, contradicting their own laws. In reality, Jehova/Brahma was the first being, that through past life karma, slipped into his plane after the heaven realms and all below it were just being recreated after the last desctruction(you see where you have to start calling it faith, right?). He reincarnated with no memory of his former self. He spent some time alone and got lonely so when other beings reincarnated there he thought he was their creator, and they couldn't see any other reasoning since they reincarnated in lower brilliancy. Over a time they reincarnated as people like Moses who recalled his passed lives by smoking dope(speculation) and taught the glory of the greatest God in the highest point in Heaven. It's not quite like an onion though, I can't quite understand the concept of 4d, but I do know just like a 3d ocean there is denser and lighter existence.

My speculation is the reason pagan religions were taught first is because the lower planes with lesser gods that fought and stuff died and had reincarnates on the earth much earlier. Then God finally got his big chance. I don't think they actually die as much as they just choose to take form in the physical realm. I get this from NDE experience of bre-birth, which is said to be like a stream that one enters with a purpose, and if all lesser reincarnates like us can do it, so can Gods.

When someone dies they are earthbound at first and immediatly encounter their inner conscious, like a dream. When they realize they're dead, the dream is lucid, except they still think all the demons that are their subconscious are real. Quite a trip, right? Your own inner demons becoming real?

Minds a flock travel together. It seems as thought heaven is almost made up of a collection of ideas. There are things that have to take place, like your subconscious replaying your entire life for your spirit, kept hidden by your ego, to judge. These things are symbols for what you are doing to your ego, and then you choose your judgement, whether to suffer in atonement or go back to Earth or move on. If you have already trained clarity in your soul to a point where your state of mind has already transcended beyond Heaven but not quite to Nirvana you reincarnate in one of thosr realms as an immaterial spirit, up to a point of neither awareness nor non-awareness. If you reincarnate to nirvana, you become apart of the source and exit the cycle or choose to continue to reincarnate in order to help souls reach the source.

I don't know what else to say. I don't know if these planes mean actual planets though Buddha seemed to say something that intended a different existence for every planet. There's also a chance all of thise just represents stats of mind and that your heaven a complete and total illusion along with Hell(as Hell is just illusion people create for themselves, and as part of human suffering is a loss of reality, surrounding oneself with illusion, caused by desire).

So, I kind of see it like an Earth plane with restriction put upon us by other forces, a self ristricted realm after death that one goes into in dreams and initially when one dies, and the collected illusion of Heaven where people create illusions that are imposed on others causing them to sort of travel together based on their naked ideas, and perhaps other planes we don't know of (someone said after one dies there are 6 possible reincarnations below the brink of Heaven and what lies beyond).