Do you believe in life after death?

Do you believe in life after death?

  • Yes

    Votes: 73 40.3%
  • No

    Votes: 76 42.0%
  • I don't know

    Votes: 32 17.7%

  • Total voters
    181
Oct 2018
181
Adelaide south Australia
Interesting. Well, I hv heard of the Holy Grail many times. But this is the first time I hv heard of the Russel Teapot.

Here's another one; 'The Flying Spaghetti monster' used as satire amongst some atheists

Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster


If you have the time and interest; listen to the Russel Copleton debate on the existence of God. It was between 1948 between Bertrand Russell and Frederick Copleston, a top Jesuit theologian at the time.

Below is a short clip with Stephen Fry on the subject

 
Mar 2012
4,113
@heavenlykaghan

If you continue on such immature and disrespectful tone, be assured that this is the last time I when I waste my time trying to explain something to you. I asked you to clarify the passage with your own words and in a concise manner because I was just curious if you are able to do it.

Disrespectful you say? If you are really a follower of your own cult of sensitivity, you wouldn't be rude enough to test anyone; because that is assuming they know less than you. You should also be aware that you are also wasting my time in asking me to do you a favor by rephrasing the passage; so if you understand it, then cut the crap; because that is disrespectful and immature. You should just respond to the quote directly and stop wasting everyone's time, but you don't, and you asked a self explanatory passage and wasted not just your own time, but everyone's time, and you still couldn't respond to it after it was brought forward to you twice.


"Seeing" is the relation between "sight" and what is actually "seen", and there can be no "seeing" without "sight" and "seen". The "object" is what you actually see, and it is obvious that without sight, which is the ability to see, you can't actually see anything, so there is no "object". But if there is no "object" of sight it doesn't necessarily mean that there is no sight or nothing that can be seen, for example if you are in the darkness there is nothing actually seen by you, despite the fact that you still have sight and there are still things that can be seen once the light appears. So both the subject endowed with consciousness and the subjects that become "objects" for the first once the actualizing cause appears continue to exist independently.
Your definition spiels have no relevance whatsoever to what the philosophers I quoted wrote, or to dependent origination and relativity. It's abundantly clear that you simply do not understand what I wrote or who I cited wrote.
 
Mar 2012
4,113
@heavenlykaghan

Just to give you some clues: in your quote above "being" means "essence", and for Sartre, at his level of understanding, what has an essence has no self-determination, it always being what it is, according to its essential (pre-)determinations, and nothing else, i.e. it will always be what its essence "dictates" (this is the "in-itself") . OTOH for him what is "for-itself" (or "self-aware", if you wish), once actually "for-itself", is always self-determining, and as such it doesn't have any essence, in this meaning it is "nothing", always becoming what itself makes of itself. I hope that the things are clearer to you now, and you are able to understand better such quotes. I got bored to be bashed on this board by all kind of intellectually immature individuals who fancy themselves knowledgeable and smart without being able to correctly explain even the elementary notions used in their own discourse.
Give yourself a clue by reading what Ueda wrote again, because your spiels have nothing to do with self consciousness, which was the original topic:

"Being and Nothingness, Sartre wrote:
“The For-itself is defined
as presence to being.”
“But the For-itself makes itself presence
to being by making itself be For-itself,
and it ceases to be presence by ceasing to be for-itself.”
“This means that originally the For-itself is presence to being which exists in
the form of a witness of
its being of co-existence.”

On the one hand, Sartre uses the term “For-itself” to stand for consciousness. On the other hand, he employs the term “In-self” (or “being”) to refer to things in the world. In brief, for Sartre, apart from its co-existence with being, no consciousness is possible. Ueda’s thesis of the fundamental correlation between consciousness and the object also implies that there is an opposition between them. While consciousness is the other of the object, the object is the other of consciousness. I
 
Mar 2012
4,113
To sum up Yogacara stance of consciousness, one must understand the basics of dependent origination and emptiness. Assuming people already know what they are, this is how experience is explained:

Yogacara poses three levels of existence.
1) Existence from clinging 遍计所执性: this is the phenomenal world; the conceptual experience which arose in the individual's untrained mind, this reality is completely illusory and a mere abstract reflection of reality. It only rose because people cling on to conditioned existence as self existing.
2) Existence from co-arising 依他起性: also known as existence divorced from concepts 离言自性. This is similar to Immanuel Kant's "thing in itself". The reality divorced from concepts. However, whereas Kant would assume that is external reality and somewhat resembles your experience, in Yogacara, because everything is dependent arising and conditioned, this reality is also ultimately non-self existing, and hence only real temporarily, instantly, and only to the subject experiencing it. In another word, "external" reality isn't really external, because it can only exist depending on the subject and vice versa, hence it is still all consciousness (it's not however, self awareness, Yogacara makes a clear distinction on the different types of consciousnesses).
3)The real existence after completion 圆成实性: After observing reality through concentration (samatha). Self existence from clinging is annihilated, and reality as it is, empty with no self existence is then manifested. The self and self existing objects are both understood as ultimately delusional, conditioned and impermanent.


When explaining change, annihilation and birth, Yogacara proposes that a person's action causes a condition (called a seed), which is stored in your storehouse consciousness (similar to subconsciousness, but in yogacara, even your subconsciousness is a part of your storehouse consciousness, or alaya). These seeds are not really "existence" in the sense of a being (hence they have no attributes nor can they be quantified, we only use the term for convenience sake), they are only conditions which only arises and form reality (experience) when mixed with other conditions. The delusional divide between subject and object arises after conditions interact, and both the self and "external reality" are produced through mutual arising. Rebirth occurs because seeds are still produced and even after death, a new subject will form through new conditions and coarising.
 
Last edited:
Oct 2018
181
Adelaide south Australia
Changed my mind.. I have nothing to contribute as I have no idea what point heavenlykaghan is trying to make under the sophistry.
 
Last edited:
Oct 2018
181
Adelaide south Australia
Interesting claim.

To which form of meditation do you refer?

Exactly what do you mean by' those things?

Do you have any actual proof of your claims?

Really don't want to get into a deep discussion on eastern esoteric beliefs and practices. Been there , done that, for over a decade. Then learned about rational discourse. Plus of course,,like many Aussies, I have an excellent built-in bullshit detector :)
 
Apr 2012
6,597
Romania
Interesting claim.

To which form of meditation do you refer?

Exactly what do you mean by' those things?

Do you have any actual proof of your claims?

Really don't want to get into a deep discussion on eastern esoteric beliefs and practices. Been there , done that, for over a decade. Then learned about rational discourse. Plus of course,,like many Aussies, I have an excellent built-in bullshit detector :)
"To meditate" means "to think or reflect upon something", but some people with poor knowledge misunderstand the word as meaning "clearing the mind of (any) thought"/"emptying the mind", so they are unable to answer the common sense question "to meditate upon what?". For example in my religion "meditation" means deep reflection upon a certain soul-uplifting topic, and it may end in contemplation ( gr. θεωρία (theoria)/lat. contemplatio ), which is the intellectual "vision" (it is called "vision" due to its immediateness) of what is meditated upon.
 
Last edited:
Oct 2013
4,956
Planet Nine, Oregon
Interesting claim.

To which form of meditation do you refer?

Exactly what do you mean by' those things?

Do you have any actual proof of your claims?

Really don't want to get into a deep discussion on eastern esoteric beliefs and practices. Been there , done that, for over a decade. Then learned about rational discourse. Plus of course,,like many Aussies, I have an excellent built-in bullshit detector :)
Well, many of these things were discovered through meditation originally, afaik. I used to do kundalini yoga when I was younger, and simply focusing on one's breath and allowing thoughts to resolve themselves, works too. I would say that it tallies with my experience, and one must meditate to grasp some of these concepts, e.g. the void nature of things. There are many different kinds of meditation. When I was a kid I got my hands on Secret Oral Teachings in Tibetan Buddhist Sects, and also have done various occult practices. I value my sanity and didn't want to go too far. I don't think the UFO experience I had related to my past practices.

Each person is different, needs the right type of vehicle to get to where they want to go. Some folks make tremendous progress in a short time, others never even start the engine.

I'm not a bullshitter. I use my real name to stand by the things I claim, am willing to take multiple lie detector tests about any of it, as I have mentioned before. In fact, I plan to seek out the amazing Randi and other headlanders to actually give me tests, so I can laugh at them. :confused:
 
Last edited:

Similar History Discussions