zoofence.com

You know the old saying "You can't take it with you?" when we discuss death and dying? Well, I'm not so sure about that. If we, as individual entities, (and if we believe we are individual entities) spend a lifetime creating a "paradigm", or "consciousness" inhabited by whatever it is that we love, hanker after, or want, then, it stands to reason that after death, we will simply continue to promote similar circumstances in whatever state we find ourselves after death. For an example, I think the Tibetans hint at that concept by virtue of their insistence of maintaining a conscious state at death, and one which, so I understand, determines the afterlife. So, if one is preoccupied with money, or any other physical comfort, when we die, we will continue to be preoccupied with the same after we die, or instead, if we are blissfully loving some kind of goodness, or God, we will continue to love them after death. Makes sense to me. In other words, you take yourself with you, to the extent that you believe you are a self, and thus, the self we generate here, determines the self that continues after death of the physical body. Seems so simple, you know?

This of course assumes that we are what we think we are, literally, so that, depending upon the parameters of our limits to what we think we are, so will our life after death, mimic life as it is presently. There is no doubt whatsoever in my own mind that reality as we know it is somehow intimately connected with our consciousness, and reflects it accordingly. So, considering how one lives this life, and one's consciousness, is a worthwhile endeavor, I would think, with all the consequences that has on the continuation of life, don't you think? (Unless, of course, we are able to disentangle ourselves from our consciousness......hmmmmmmm, interesting thought.)

Your statement, "So, if one is preoccupied with money, or any other physical comfort, when we die, we will continue to be preoccupied with the same after we die," put me in mind of a neat story. A well-heeled gentlemen decided that he would defy the age-old cliche: he WOULD take it with him. As he saw the time of his departure drawing near, he converted every asset he had into gold, and instructed his friend to bury it all with him.

Some time later, at the pearly gates, St. Peter saw him coming, bag of gold in hand, and prepared to let him in, but asked, "What is that big bag you are carrying with you?" "All my worldly posessions," the man replied proudly. "See? I DID take it with me, and here it is!" Peter looked into the bag, puzzled and asked, "Fine, but why do you need all that pavement?"

Whatever we take with us won't have the same significance there as here, hm? Unless it is the one thing that IS the nature of God: love itself.

Shalom
Art

How can I possibly ". . .take it with me," Anna, when I cannot even keep it while I am here?

Why is the Dead Sea dead? Because it has no outlet. It keeps everything that comes to it.

In truth, I "own" nothing; but I have use of everything I encounter, even if it is YOURS!



Conscientious can only comprehend to the degree it is illuminated! - Arlo R. Hansen

Well this is all very interesting ... and I have given it a lot of thought over the years. Of course ... I can take me with me, can't I? Oops! But I've already explored that thoroughly and discovered that I'm not real. And I don't mean that I'm fake ... I just really don't even exist in the first place.

There really isn't a me ... just a reference point ... a belief in. At best, an organic Data (as in from Star Trek) manifestation. I'll never forget that day - about twelve years ago - it came to me in a flash of perfectly clear dumbfoundedness while walking out of the grocery store. Of course by the time I got to my car I snapped back into me. I mean, after all, it was "my" car, so there had to be a "me" ... right?

So over the years I look in , I look out, not looking for anything but just really really openly inquiring, investigating ... and Here is no thing. So, anyhow, who's remembering? Who is it that sees the reference point? There's nobody there either !!!

... Its all very confusing. I think I'll quit while I'm behind.

Ah, yes, to be devoid of identity with the body. Of course, to do that, you have to NOT want to identify with it, and that is a hard habit to give up. There was a time when the mere idea of that idea terrified me - I realize now that the terror was generated by the very idea itself, in order to prolong its existence! Such a cage we are in.

Back to taking it with you. I think I didn't stress the point enough: my point was that we take what we ARE with us in death, just as we do, in life. And that is determined by our immediate state of consciousness, both in death, as well as moment to moment in life. There is no mystery to this, it is simply an obvious fact. Our life is who we are right now, and that applies at the moment of death, just as it applies momentarily with every blink of an eye.

So, if anyone is afraid of death, there is no need to be, because death is no different from life, and reflects us as we are at any moment in time. Then, you might ask, how do we escape death? (Why would we want to, if death is just an extension of life?)

That said, the only way that death (or life, for that matter) becomes insignificant, or inconsequential then, is when we understand that death is a continuation of life, and is rooted in time, and thus, we must escape time, and time is escaped only when we disconnect our identification with body and mind (dual consciousness). And that is accomplished only when we don't want the pleasure (and pain) of body/mind. The last point of course, is, I believe, the reason so few of us know that there is nothing to be afraid of -- we REALLY love pleasure, or think that we do-- forgetting of course, that we must suffer pain as well in that choice. Still, we delude ourselves, and hanker after pleasure, despite everything, even escape! We are incredible.

I think that the love of pleasure is programmed in us, perhaps to keep us from considering what I am considering, because if we all did that successfully, nobody would be around to discuss this. And then what?

Nisargadatta also said something to this effect: We can't have pleasure without pain nor can we have pain without pleasure. They follow one another in a viscious circle.

I think that the human body-mind no only seeks pleasure but it also desires pain. I know of a couple of people who thrive on pain, who are always in mental pain, for which they blame other people or circumstances (projection). These people don't seem to be content unless they suffer.

I think that we also derive something from pain and don't want to give it up. The body-mind is attached to it as it is attached to pleasure. When my body experiences pain, it brings my fear to the forefront. I think: what is this pain telling me and why do I seemingly want it? Then I try to be open to the positive message that the pain and fear are offering me. By this I mean that I ask the Universe what my spirit needs to experience from this---how can the spirit, or the real I, transcend the pain and fear, grasping in some way, which I know not how, that neither can destroy the I (or the One who I am). In other words, there's nothing to fear, not even death. I also ask the Universe this when I experience heightened pleasure, for it induces the same fearful effect---fear of pain and death following the pleasurable state.

To transcend pain and pleasure is easier said than done, naturally, because it's not the way of the body, but at least I now see how pain (and pleasure) serves the spirit and puts the body-mind and attached ego in its place. My body-mind can never be free of pain or pleasure but my spirit can and is, always. Thank you, Anna. Namaste! Bhakti

I think people who pursue pain are not necessarily pursuing pain for the sake of the pain, but rather it is a case of pursuing continuity of consciousness - and in order to maintain that apparent continuity, the ego will use whatever experience is necessary to continue the consciousness, even if it is pain. This apparent self that is composed of discrete experiences, strung together on a string to appear to be continuous, depends upon additional experiences to support its presumed existence - so if pain is all that is available, it will take that. Of course, alongside that, you need to ask what is the person who is constantly experiencing pain getting from it, if they are pursuing it, that is? Are they getting attention, sympathy, do they feel special and protected by others when in pain, do they feel superior because they can tolerate the situation, are they martyrs, and so forth? The ego is a clever little devil, and will do anything, including even committing suicide, in order to maintain its apparent dominance. There is nothing anyone can do about any of this, including the one experiencing pain, until such time as the pay-off is not enough to overshadow the discomfort of painful situations. Sometimes that can take a life time, sometimes many lifetimes. NOTHING changes unless the present situation is unbearable, and sometimes we bear a whole lot of stuff just so that we can continue to maintain what we consider to be our separate but "unique" selves, even suffering "selves". It is an incredible box we have put ourselves in.

You can look at this from a more positive point of view as well: the only reason anybody fails to achieve what they truly want is because they want something else more than that presumed objective, be it good, or bad, they still want something more intensely, or feel safer in, or prefer the status quo, more than the objective.