Question about the afterlife

[Summerlander]

The afterlife is merely an idea. One that many of us would like to believe in. The truth is that reality might be a little harder to swallow for some of us. To me, there is more evidence that death means the end. Buddha's idea of a nirvana (the cessation of being) might be a lot easier to come by than many of his followers think. To die is to be liberated from life. To die is to cease to be. Ultimately, I imagine that as the self dissipates, one experiences bliss (a release from noisy thoughts), an approach to a still and emptier mind, and...slowly...one is soothed into embracing non-existence - a very attractive prospect, mind you, as the thought of coming back to life seems so painful from the "point of no return" perspective. The afterlife is a fantasy that many of us harbour in our minds for comfort.

[CFTraveler]

@ Volker: I think Kurt is still a member- I can't be sure, but I think we've pm'd after the change, soon after, IIRC.

[CFTraveler]

To answer the OP, I don't know what happens when we die, but I get the impression that at least for a while there is something left over. I have had messages (verified that I couldn't know the info, and I think I've shared this before. I also had some communication with my grandmother shortly after her passing (once again, with info that I couldn't foresee) I also had experiences with my mother before her passing (in which she indicated a date of her passing) which was accurate.
Every time I have these experiences it's usually in the same place, an in-between place where I've gone to.
I have never had a visitation (as in one of them coming here), it's always been in my projecting to this 'place', except of when my grandmother was in a coma (she projected to my room here and told me she hadn't passed yet).

I've read various books (including Newton's and Danison) and the only author who thinks similarly to me is Kurt Leland. Of course who knows what the truth is, but the theory that most resonates with me is the one described in his books, with a little sciencey (or science-fictiony) stuff thrown in.

[SiriusTraveler]

So you mean that you think we will be in this "in-between" place before we have actually passed away? So that we first die here in the physical reality and then we spend some time "in-between" and then we go somewhere else ("in-between" makes me think of Robert Bruce's rest areas/recreation areas/hostpitals he have been writing about in his books). Did i get that right?

[SiriusTraveler]

The afterlife is merely an idea. One that many of us would like to believe in. The truth is that reality might be a little harder to swallow for some of us. To me, there is more evidence that death means the end. Buddha's idea of a nirvana (the cessation of being) might be a lot easier to come by than many of his followers think. To die is to be liberated from life. To die is to cease to be. Ultimately, I imagine that as the self dissipates, one experiences bliss (a release from noisy thoughts), an approach to a still and emptier mind, and...slowly...one is soothed into embracing non-existence - a very attractive prospect, mind you, as the thought of coming back to life seems so painful from the "point of no return" perspective. The afterlife is a fantasy that many of us harbour in our minds for comfort.

I do not agree with the afterlife beeing only a comfort for us, rather i believe that our identity could perhaps be erased so that we do'nt know who we were or something like that.
Why? I would'nt know but I get the feeling its possible.
It seems to me that once we have passed away there will be a time when we process things we have experienced and after that we can make choises of what will happen next, or what our goal in a greater reality is going to be (or already is).

[CFTraveler]

So you mean that you think we will be in this "in-between" place before we have actually passed away? So that we first die here in the physical reality and then we spend some time "in-between" and then we go somewhere else ("in-between" makes me think of Robert Bruce's rest areas/recreation areas/hostpitals he have been writing about in his books). Did i get that right?

Maybe.
There is an author (Anthony Peake) that has the theory (or is it hypothesis? I'm never sure, lol) that when we die, we go into a state of 'no time' (which people report as the 'going through your life' phase) which in subjective terms goes on 'forever', and in which you change things as you 'relive' your life, which is basically similar to reincarnation but in a 'subjective' way, so that the life you are living right now is (or could be) one of those 'relivings'. This explains the apparent holographic nature of the universe, things like precog visions and deja vu, and other interesting brain effects. This doesn't mean you die 'completely', because the state of 'no time' is a quantum state and your consciousness is 'in it'. He calls it the ITLADian theory (derived from the initials of the title of his first book) and the universe we experience the 'Bohmian IMAX' (Dr. Bohm postulated something similar about reality in his theoretical work).
Or,
That when we die we go into an 'in between' state (Tibetans call it the Bardo) in which we resolve parts of our lives that caused us issues- this is completely self-generated, and go through a series of steps to resolve the issues. Usually when this step is passed through, you either reincarnate or go on to 'something else'. This can be staying in this state to help the recently departed make their transition, becoming 'higher beings', and then the 'unanswered question', reabsorbtion to the Source, or something completely unknown.

For now, this is the view I'm most comfortable in, for purely emotional reasons, and also my own experiences in projection appear to support this view.

There are other views, of course, but these are the ones that are closest to my thoughts on the subject.

[SiriusTraveler]

Interesting. And about the Bardo, i just bought The Tibetan Book Of the Dead so i guess its a little of that in that book to.
It seems to me (when having heard mediums, channelings etc.) that one (or the soul/spirit etc.) can evolve and excist on some plane forever and ever, and though one perhaps loose ones identity as we know it one seems to remember the experiences that the one had before.

[CFTraveler]

That's why I'm partial to the binary soul theory- you know, the theory that postulates that a part of you grows and develops (and collects memories that get stored in the Akashic when it finally gets deconfigured upon death) and the other part that is essence of Source that gives life and being but doesn't really evolve, just reincarnates and possibly reintegrates once material existence isn't wanted or necessary.

[Summerlander]

I do not agree with the afterlife beeing only a comfort for us, rather i believe that our identity could perhaps be erased so that we do'nt know who we were or something like that.
Why? I would'nt know but I get the feeling its possible.
It seems to me that once we have passed away there will be a time when we process things we have experienced and after that we can make choises of what will happen next, or what our goal in a greater reality is going to be (or already is).

When you say our identity is erased and then we don't know who we were, you still speak as though there is a continuation of consciousness that can reflect on things. Why is it that you more readily believe in the continuation of individual consciousness beyond death and reject the notion that there won't be a consciousness and thus the "I" is annihilated completely?

Note that you also use the words "believe" and "perhaps" in the same sentence. How can you believe in something you are not sure of?

You also say that, once we have passed, a time will come when we will be able to process past experience and will also be able to make choices on what will happen next...on what grounds do you base your postulation? Is this something that you would like it to be? Something which is more acceptable and therefore comfortable perhaps?

[SiriusTraveler]

When you say our identity is erased and then we don't know who we were, you still speak as though there is a continuation of consciousness that can reflect on things. Why is it that you more readily believe in the continuation of individual consciousness beyond death and reject the notion that there won't be a consciousness and thus the "I" is annihilated completely?

Note that you also use the words "believe" and "perhaps" in the same sentence. How can you believe in something you are not sure of?

You also say that, once we have passed, a time will come when we will be able to process past experience and will also be able to make choices on what will happen next...on what grounds do you base your postulation? Is this something that you would like it to be? Something which is more acceptable and therefore comfortable perhaps?

To answer your first question, I believe that because I base my beliefs on what I have seen, experienced, heard and read. And perhaps faith just is enough to believe something? Now I don't belong to any religion but i still have faith, or a feeling that I go with combined with the above (experiences etc.). I honestly believe that the "I" will not be annihilated completely.

Second question, same answer as above regarding the faith thing, and also I have a hard time explaining myself sometimes because english is not my native language and so the sentances might not reflect my thoughts perfectly. To further explain what I meant is that instead of "believe" and "perhaps", I believe its possible. Perhaps that's a better explanation?

Well both yes and no on the third questions. I would certainly like it to be so but i base this on the same as above, what Iv read, seen, heard and experienced etc. etc. For example Robert Bruce's literature to name one.
Thats my conclusion right now and discussions like this will perhaps change my mind but thats where I stand right now. You have an interesting theory though.