After-life - how is it?

[Antares]

Now, the way to realise exactly, love the law, is to have sex...

You mean like... those type of things https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1uRnzrUOl5g&t=48 ? Or... perhaps something in that direction https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tDl3bdE3YQA&t=27 ? Or both at the same time (I heard that God wants it all, wether it's yin or yang, all at the same time - hence timelessness).

[olyris]

You mean like... those type of things https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1uRnzrUOl5g&t=48 ? Or... perhaps something in that direction https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tDl3bdE3YQA&t=27 ? Or both at the same time (I heard that God wants it all, wether it's yin or yang, all at the same time - hence timelessness).

Sorry i don't have time to go to Youtube right now but I will clarify that... if love does not "manifest physical reality soon" it is corrupt.

[olyris]

prayer is an exception

[olyris]

triangle.jpg

[Antares]

The main idea of this thread is to research for yourself. Don't trust the "teachers", nor the common beliefs. I don't buy the common belief that the universe has been split into 2 parts: to living (life), and dead (after-life). The consciousness should transit into any kind of experience it chooses at will, whether it's physical, cosmic, or spiritual.

If this is not the case, I used to call such a situation spiritual-mental slavery. This term means simply a prison of mind.

Mind can be imprisoned in many ways, and on many levels. One of these are common beliefs. Another is belief of what happens after death. Another is of what are we capable of achieving. And another is how the universe functions and what / whom "should" one rely on.

[olyris]

Maybe death is just life that has no objective proof, and the souls there just need to be re-kindled.

In alchemy they call that "the loving being" vs "the living being" it's the same, although spirit always considers the living being first. Being, is a precursor to omnipotence... only if ... the loving being is patience... the living being is strength.

[Antares]

Maybe death is just life that has no objective proof, and the souls there just need to be re-kindled.

In alchemy they call that "the loving being" vs "the living being" it's the same, although spirit always considers the living being first. Being, is a precursor to omnipotence... only if ... the loving being is patience... the living being is strength.

IMHO, (the perception of, or concept of) death is actually a misunderstanding of reality. Death is not the same as leaving (physical, astral etc.) body at will - it happens despite the will, or in opposite to will.

People believe they "need" ("have") to go "down" to the Earth, to learn lessons (t)here, and leave (die) - in order to just incarnate once again and learn some more lessons, and die again, and so on, and so forth - which I call "karma philosophy". Perhaps it is the dominating philosophy nowadays, next to the atheist philosophy (stating basically, on the other hand, that humanity is a coincidence).

While atheist philosophy could be described as being an extremal ignorance ("I don't believe in anything, so I deny everything except what I want to believe in or others told me what to believe in"), the karma philosophy is:

Wrongness philosophy vs. Acceptance philosophy (I'm just fine where I am here and now)

The after-world is commonly believed to be a place of a constant judgment. It is actually a very ancient paradigm, you can trace it back to Hindu religion, ancient Egyptian religion, ancient Christian religion (which BTW borrows a lot from previous religions, in opposite to what the Catholic church wants to admit) and many others. It just came back in a new form with the New Age movement, which took on some of these ancient beliefs.

However, I think that it's nothing else but a way of perceiving / approach to how things are on "the other side", in whatever way this "other" side could be described, or perceived. But note that in the ancient and medieval times beliefs were controlled by the priest class (dominating judgment belief), just like today's paradigms are mostly controlled by the scientific circles (dominating coincidenence-based ignorance belief).

Wrongness philosophy tells you that you are basically wrong, sinful, incorrect, not enough, evil, not qualifying, etc. depending on a particular philosophical system / religion. Acceptance philosophy tells you that you are free to accept or refuse (translating to: not think of something at the moment), if you will.

Acceptance philosophy doesn't expect any judgment. You decide - and your abilities to accept or reject. It is a matter of your will, hope, faith, and expectations. And BTW I was told recently, when thinking of the 3 essential Christian qualities (love, hope and faith), that basically faith is hope which is will which is love:

faith = hope = will = love

Interesting.

So, Right or Wrong? DM knows it well - they turned from the balance right to the balance wrong

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zfiISFiozg8&t=82

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fhnrrLxQEVQ&t=25

Wrongness and atheist philosophies are controlling philosophies - designed to control the masses.

If to refer to the qabbalah tree, in terms of the effect on unconscious minds, the atheist scientific philosophy is inherent in the right pillar (forceful positivity, the righteousness), and the karma philosophy is inherent in the left pillar (striking negativity, the wrongness):

"Don't turn this way
Don't turn that way
Straight down the middle until next Thursday
First to the left
Then back to the right
Twist and turn 'til you've got it right"

The acceptance is inherent in the middle pillar, in particular in the middle of the middle: the Tiphareth sephiroth, related to the middle heart energy center.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bpb4I6sSj80&t=101

"Still I couldn't say with precision
Know it's a feeling and it comes from above
But what's the meaning
The meaning of love

My Lord high above
Tell me the meaning
The meaning of love"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fkc6TYIxNls

Love really embraced, ultimately, leads to freedom - free(ing) will and free(ing) choices. Then death looses its meaning - because it doesn't exist, it's a created illusion.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CjFUGHcohTE&t=99

[olyris]

Wrongness philosophy tells you that you are basically wrong, sinful, incorrect, not enough, evil, not qualifying, etc. depending on a particular philosophical system / religion. Acceptance philosophy tells you that you are free to accept or refuse (translating to: not think of something at the moment), if you will.

If you thought of death before it happened - people want to - why - there is something to bear in mind: Peace? Yes, and harmony [right - NEUTRAL - wrong] is philosophy.

[Antares]

People need religion, I mean really. They die - and then what?

What would keep them away from looking for immortality as the only thing to worry about (because otherwise they won't exist)?

Two things:
1. massive manipulation
2. religion

Actually, provided that religion is a form of massive manipulation, there is only 1 thing:
1. massive manipulation

Religion (and other forms of beliefs) allow them to have a hope for living after their life... somehow. They need to believe it, because they have no choice.*

Or do they?

* Human being, in opposite to plants and animals, has been given mind. Mind allows it to think about its own existence, perceive the 'time' and wonder about how things are, and whether (s)he would exist after existing for a short period of time (called 'life-time' on the Earth). Why was this? Do we really need it to keep our existence - in the Darwinian theory terms?... well, maybe we do! If we found a solution to immortality, we would never die! This is why we need religion - it keeps our thoughts away from that!

But wait... who created religions and religious concepts? This was not Nature, was it? The Darwinian theory supports survival, and not suicidal motivations, and what religions have to offer is usually just a vague "promise", typically unsupported by anything but an authority, to live after death... so should 'we' really follow the religious and other stuff keeping us away from the survival? If Darwin was right.

I think it was pretty obvious that having the mind may only lead to thinking about existence - and how to not abandon it. But there is really no much support that Nature is about the survival of a 'specie' (whatever it is), and even more, about creating something like 'mind' - in fact, the theory makes no much sense from a purely materialist point of view. An animal, or a human being, is interested in surviving it/him/her self; there is nothing to do with the whole specie, not to mention the mind which "functions" go far beyond just pragmatical ways to finding straightforward solutions for survival. ;P Which means that a human being either is like an animal - not thinking about anything but what DNA tells him / her, like finding food, or is something much more than an animal, which allows him/her to go beyond just a short-time survival, i.e. to finding a way to keep him/her intact and dealing with 'Nature' (whatever it is) as a companion, not an actor of a spectacle outplayed being written in the DNA.

[olyris]

My autobiographical of religion, immortality and mind, would be that there are only a few steps to completion!

1. release all harm and feelings of that
2. love the purpose and the life it has
3. congratulations you now have an existing mind

I don't mind coming this far.