Is there an afterlife?

[wgdanson]

No! 

And after you die, please come back and post on here to tell us what it's like. Thanks.

[ivor bigun]

I read somewhere,that when your heart stops and you are "dead" your conciousness can carry on for a short time,not too nice to be laying there with the doc saying that your dead and you can hear him.

 

Sent from my SM-A720F using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

 

 

 

 

[Orton Rd]

I hope not, I have had enough of this one so it would be very disappointing to carry on, the idea of meeting up with dead relatives would be the worst aspect of it, they were mostly utter bastards ????

[Tippaporn]

On 9/4/2019 at 1:41 PM, fusion58 said:

1. No, because consciousness requires an object, i.e., form.

 

2. As a conscious form, you are an aperture through which the universe is aware of itself.

I would agree if you mean to say that consciousness requires a form if it wants to actively engage in physical reality.  Of course I'm implying with that statement that consciousness, which at base is obviously what we are, is independent of form.

 

Now, if consciousness is independent of form and yet we need a form to manipulate within physical reality then that would imply a whole lot of things.  Firstly, it would mean that there is no death per se.  We simply pass through this earthly existence and return to whence we came.  Which secondly would point to the existence of a reality outside of our dear, beloved physical reality.  There's a multitude of other implications which I'm not going to get into for the sake of brevity.

 

It's been mentioned in places that physical reality is what's called a camouflage reality.  In other words and to put it simply, everything in this world, including our bodies, is in reality a physical manifestation of an inner, subjective reality.  Don Juan of Castaneda fame was the first place I found the explanation.

 

For what purpose would this reality be for, one might ask.  An aperture through which the universe is aware of itself?  I would say that there are multiple reasons for it all.  But as I've mentioned previously, the rabbit hole is very, very deep.  In actuality it is literally endless.  Expanding your awareness through continued questioning is very much like the choice between taking a red pill or a blue pill.  I would say that most people prefer the blue pill.  Just sayin' from experience.  And to avoid any wrong reading of that I don't at all mean to imply that one choice is better and the other less.  It's simply that some people are extremely interested in knowing answers to deep questions and others are not.  Either way it's all good.

 

From what I've learned any attempt to explain this mysterious existence must necessarily start with the individual; an understanding of who and what we truly are.  Without that understanding coming first then trying to understand anything else is neigh on impossible.  To paraphrase Don Juan, there is no endeavor more worthy of us than finding out who we are.  I concur completely.

[JAS21]

 How do you know that this is not the afterlife 

[Tippaporn]

A number of posters have raised the question of evidence of life after death.  For those asking, or looking for evidence what, for you, would constitute valid, beyond-shadow-of-a-doubt evidence?  In any case evidence would necessitate some form of contact or communication taking place.

 

Would it be a physical dead guy walking around?  If you saw an actual walking dead would you pause to talk with him?  Or would you run like h-e-l-l?  And if you were the only one who saw him would you question your sanity?  Would you deny or accept your experience of it?

 

Ghosts or apparitions?  I mean if the dead were to choose to appear visually to provide you with proof that they're not dead and to let you know that they miss you immensely then what better way?  Would you freak out?  Would you also question your saneness?  Would you tell anyone else about?

 

What about communicating via a Ouija board or automatic writing or channeling?  Would that be valid?  Or would those methods simply be explained away as manifestations of one's subconscious?  And what precisely is the subconscious which is generally so easily accorded such vast mysterious and mystical power and ability?

 

How about moving objects about?  Could be fun?  Or scary?  Acceptable or no?

 

Just a few examples but I'd be interested to know what people would consider valid evidence.

 

Anything considered to be subjective I believe would definitely be rejected.  Anything of a physical nature I believe would be rejected as well.  So what options would we be left with?

 

[Tippaporn]

21 minutes ago, JAS21 said:

 How do you know that this is not the afterlife 

LOL.  I thought I've heard every theory and supposition possible but that's a new one.  Since there are no survivors in the sphere then perhaps we need to consider an after after life?

[ivor bigun]

I have always believed that there is no God and that when you die you just go back to the earth and become part of it.
But,when i was younger about 19 i worked in a large store there was no hire purchase and people used to put stuff away for xmas and paid in for it for months,we used to store it in an old office block in row after row,when we were there we always could hear someone walking in the passages outside,and parcels were moved about almost every night ,long story short,this went on and on for months ,there was no way anyone could get in,and we always joked about a ghost there.more happened that i wont bore you with,but on the last day one of the girls and myself had taken the last of the parcels down the stairs and put them on the trolly to take back to the store,when she gave a small scream and called my name and i looked back up the stairs and saw an old guy smiling then he dissapeared.
I know it sounds crazy but it happened we both saw him and lots of staff and heard and seen the other things.
Later we learnt that an old office manager had died there.


Sent from my SM-A720F using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

Just thought i would post this again ,if any of you didnt read it.

Sent from my SM-A720F using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

[Tarteso]

LOL.  I thought I've heard every theory and supposition possible but that's a new one.  Since there are no survivors in the sphere then perhaps we need to consider an after after life?

 

This is not new...Then we are questioning infinite lives...[emoji848]

[poohy]

Prachuap Khiri Khan!!

[CharlieH]

Judging by the amount of reincarnations here - YES !

[Tippaporn]

7 hours ago, Tarteso said:

 

This is not new...Then we are questioning infinite lives...

Infinity is, I think, a tough concept to grasp.  I mean, for one, in terms of time, we're talking about no beginnings and no endings; not in regards to us as individual consciousnesses, not in regards to the known universe, not in regards to events.  In another sense we're talking about infinite quantities.  Numbers are limitless, for instance, and yet take up no space.

 

For someone who's awareness of existence extends to only space and time the concept of infinity seems to stand in direct contradiction to the generally held ideas of distinct beginnings and endings and limits for everything.  I believe we'd be looking at a greater reality which includes not only ours but also encompasses an infinite number of other realities.  Ours is one which is couched in space in time.  Space and time do not exist in the reality which includes all others, nor does it exist in other realities.

 

Bottom line is, and as it has been pointed out quite bluntly by at least one individual, it's time for humans to move beyond the idea of one God and one world.

 

 

[Tippaporn]

9 hours ago, ivor bigun said:

Just thought i would post this again ,if any of you didnt read it.
 

I can't provide an explanation equivalent to an absolute, detailed account of what had exactly transpired and precisely how in your specific case.  In general, though, I believe you were faced with phenomena that has no explanation within the current set of assumptions in place regarding what reality is and isn't.  I believe the event was meant for you to question those assumptions.  And perhaps, maybe even obviously to some, you had been previously questioning them to one extent or another already, whether in the forefront of your mind or in the back of your mind.  Hence the experience.  The questions are what's important.  They lead to answers.

 

It's also obvious that you have not discounted your experience, tried to rationalize it away, or invalidate it in any other way.  In this day and age I believe people are generally taught to distrust themselves (whether it's via religious teachings of original sin or science's view of man as a flawed species) so for you to accept and trust your experience I applaud you.

[fusion58]

20 hours ago, Tippaporn said:

I would agree if you mean to say that consciousness requires a form if it wants to actively engage in physical reality.  Of course I'm implying with that statement that consciousness, which at base is obviously what we are, is independent of form.

When you say you are conscious, then this raises the question "conscious of what?"

 

Also, your argument presupposes a dichotomy in which "physical reality" and consciousness are ontologically distinct.

 

 

[Tippaporn]

16 hours ago, fusion58 said:

When you say you are conscious, then this raises the question "conscious of what?"

 

Also, your argument presupposes a dichotomy in which "physical reality" and consciousness are ontologically distinct.

 

 

I believe the question to be self evident.  First and foremost, conscious of myself as myself.  That I am, that I exist.  Apart from that awareness what else am I aware of?  Certainly I'm aware of the world in which I find myself.  To an extent.  I do not have an awareness of the entirety of this world.  I am in the process of expanding my awareness, and I would say that every consciousness is involved in the same process, whether they are consciously aware of it or not.  I believe that there is more to who I am than what appears before me in the mirror.  So I would be involved in the process of becoming aware of more of myself.

 

Consciousness is like a camera lens.  We focus it . . . at anything we so choose.

 

I have an awareness of the rules of this world, again to an extent.  I should clarify that regarding the rules there are different sets of rules; rules which we have been taught by others here as we grew up and are mutable and rules concerning the true nature of reality which are immutable.

 

I'm not really making any argument at all.  I'm simply telling a different story, hopefully a more truthful story.  Reassembling ideas and introducing and adding new ones to arrive at a different picture of reality than the one we're used to.  Again to arrive at a more accurate picture.

 

LOL, I had to look up ontology.  My background doesn't include any formal, say university type education on classical philosophy.  I'm home schooled, LOL.  Self taught.  The information which provides an accurate explanation of who we are and the particular reality we find ourselves in is to be found everywhere and in any time period or place.  From my understanding all of the information is within each and every individual consciousness.  It does need to be accessed, though.

 

Doing a bit of research I came across this helpful site.  Philosophy Terms.

 

And here's a quick copy and paste:

 

Ontology

I. Definition

Ontology is the study of being. It focuses on several related questions:

 

• What things exist? (stars yes, unicorns no, numbers . . . yes?)
• What categories do they belong to? (are numbers physical properties or just ideas?)
• Is there such a thing as objective reality?
• What does the verb “to be” mean?

Some of these questions may seem painfully abstract and not very useful, but they are and always have been enormously important to some philosophers, especially to those who believe in foundationalism. Foundationalist philosophers believe that to arrive at truth it is necessary to start with the most fundamental issues—to be sure about the foundations of philosophy–and then work our way up from there to more specific questions. If you believe in foundationalism, then probably the most important questions are ontological questions!

Ontology is also highly relevant to religions and spirituality. No matter what your beliefs about spirituality, they have an ontological dimension. All of the following are ontological statements:

 

• Everything is made of atoms and energy
• Everything is made of consciousness
• You have a soul
• You have a mind

So help me out here.  What do you mean by physical reality and consciousness as being ontologically distinct?  That they exist yet they exist individually and apart from each other, in other words not connected or part of the same?

[Skallywag]

43 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

• Everything is made of atoms and energy
• Everything is made of consciousness
• You have a soul

Of the 3 "ontology" statements above only the "Everything is made of atoms" statement is based on fact.  Energy comes from resources, and humans produce energy, we are not "made" of energy.  

 

Ontology sounds a bit like astrology.  Once you start speaking about "beliefs" or "concepts"  you are just theorizing on possibilities. 

An afterlife may be or may not be, just don't be a hurry to find out for yourself!  

[luk AJ]

 How do you know that this is not the afterlife 

This would explain a lot!


Sent from my iPhone using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

[HarryAbel]

Billions of years, up until my birth, I did not exist - and that’s how I think my afterlife will be, same same.

[neeray]

On ‎8‎/‎31‎/‎2019 at 7:35 AM, giddyup said:

I did search out a holy guru at the top of a mountain in Tibet. I asked him, "What was the meaning of life"? He said, "Get all the kicks you can baby, you only make this scene once.

Too funny. I like the levity in your response.

[neeray]

I know that there are mind altering drugs available in Thailand (I read about it on this forum). But I didn't realize until reading 8 pages of this thread that so many TVF members were indulging.

 

(just kidding, but there are some pretty wacky responses here)

[Golden Triangle]

I think it's called marriage, after you are married you have no life............

[fusion58]

6 hours ago, Tippaporn said:

So help me out here.  What do you mean by physical reality and consciousness as being ontologically distinct?  That they exist yet they exist individually and apart from each other, in other words not connected or part of the same?

Yes to the bold part.

 

To give an easily understood example, Hindus believe we're all God incarnate. Orthodox Christians, on the other hand, believe God and his creation/creatures are ontologically distinct, i.e., that man is not God, and God is not man (except for the one instance of Christ.)

 

It sounded like you were arguing from the premise that consciousness and matter were ontologically distinct insofar as you suggested what sounded like a "subject/object" relationship between the two when you talked about consciousness "actively engaging in physically reality."

 

In other words, it sounds like you view "physically reality" and consciousness as qualitatively distinct.

[Tippaporn]

14 hours ago, fusion58 said:

In other words, it sounds like you view "physically reality" and consciousness as qualitatively distinct.

In a manner of speaking.  It could be said truthfully that they are separate and it could also be truthfully said that they are the same.  Of course that sounds contradictory and certainly not helpful if my intent is to convey understanding.  Any full understanding would involve not only the introduction of new (currently unknown) ideas but also the discarding of some old (currently accepted) ones, for they may not be able to coexist.  Therein lies the difficulty with these types of subjects.

 

New ideas generally do not enjoy a warm and welcome reception into the mental homes of people.  The door is usually slammed shut at the very first glimpse of them, with the immediate thought that they are highly deranged, and the slamming often accompanied by great emotive indignation.  Also, new ideas are often perceived as threatening, either to the mental stability of those who would dare invite the idea in or to the very existence of some of the other ideas that currently enjoy a cozy little nook within this mental household.

 

Old ideas, one the other hand, enjoy a special, intimate and familiar relationship with the landlord of this mental abode.  It matters not even if some of them are quite disruptive, or, in cases, literally downright harmful.  The owner cherishes them regardless, and may even fight to the death to defend and preserve their place within his mental home.

 

Now I had a bit of fun with this analogy.  I used it because I wanted to make a general point before I go further with any discussions.  That general point is that there are definite impediments in place which prevent the accumulation of knowledge.  And it's a long list.  I would want to make clear as well that every impediment on that list would be an impediment that is self imposed and in no way imposed by any force from the outside.  A book could be written on this topic alone.

 

Why would I bring this up now?  Because I felt that in order to expound on this current discussion it would involve the introduction of new ideas and the discarding of some currently held ideas.  Or at least an examination of some current ideas to see if they might be worth tossing.  As long as those terms are agreeable then I would move forward.  Otherwise, and I'm talking from a great deal of experience, I'd just be talking to the wall.

 

 

[Tippaporn]

Let's have some fun with a bit of make believe and we'll agree to play along with the given assumptions.  Let's imagine that an individual who has completed his reincarnational existences here on earth decides to return to a specific earthly time and place for the purpose of educating the local inhabitants.  He initiates communication with an individual still active in the world; necessary since he no longer has a physical form.

 

He then proceeds to give extremely detailed information regarding a very wide variety of subject matter, an almost limitless variety; explaining in great detail who we are, reincarnation - why and how it works; death; life after death; information on his own environment and activities he's engaged in; sleep and dreams; various states of consciousness; the use of symbolism; beginnings and the Christ story; alternate presents and multiple focuses; the meaning of religion; reality and personal beliefs; detailed information on how your body is constructed, maintained and it's continued creation; health; the present as the point of power; natural grace; the birth of conscience; the mechanics of experience; the nature of the individual and how mass events are created; evolution; cellular consciousness and alterations in genetic information; animal consciousness; probabilities; snapshots of other realities; etc., etc., etc., on and on and on.

 

Let's imagine further that it's all bona fide.  How many here would be interested in what this individual would have to say?

[ThePioneer]

I'm not religious in any sense of the word, and i certainly don't believe in ghosts.

 

Recently my 15 year old son died, and since that day I believe there is something after death, as it gives me the strength I need in these harsh times.

 

It is my right to believe that he now is in a better place, where there is no pain or suffering, and that one day I will be able to rejoin with him.

 

My believe in this is so strong that I hope that day will come very soon.