Discussion Reincarnation dilemma

[doneforlife]

I'm willing to PM you tho, it's not for everyone to understand.

Google it.
It's an energy that sits dormant at the base of the spine, and through different practices, one is able to awaken it, and let it climb to all the way up to the crown chakra while activating all the chakras one by one.

Thanks I shall google it.

Thanks I shall google it.

I don't know what to believe. The world does seem precisely planned for life. I can't deny an intelligent designer.

 

[Darkover]

Science hasn't discovered everything yet, and it will never discover the universe to its entirety.
If you wait for scientific proof for every little thing, you won't get far. Trust me.

do you even know anything about science to talk about it like your an authority on it, i've study computer science and know how genetics and evolution algorithms work.

The genetic algorithm begins with an initial population of individuals, typically generated randomly. It then goes through a series of iterations, known as generations or epochs, in which the individuals undergo operations such as selection, crossover, and mutation.

 

[Buh-bye!]

I'm willing to PM you tho, it's not for everyone to understand.

i mean you could but i am not that active on the website so i'll feel bad for leaving your texts there without a reply. btw you seem to have great knowledge of sanskrit, like you know karma and shit so, that true ?

 

[Praestat_Mori]

There is an order for everything, every cell in our body have a specific function and there's so much complexity to the brain and nervous system.

I won't go into details on what I experienced during my several kundalini awakenings, but I can assure you there is a higher power, beyond the physical that is in charge of all of this.

If you think all of this marvelous creation was by chance? be my guest lol

Dreams, thoughts, language, processing information, perceiving, eye sight just to name a few.
And don't get me started on how precisely the sun and the moon are away from Earth to create the perfect conditions...
All of this was by chance? cmon now...

I agree with you and I accept your viewpoints - we may assume there is a higher being behind all that but we don't know and there will never be any proof. But again if you have billions of chances throughout the entire universe that a solar system like ours can form then it is possible within several billions of years. A human life is not long enough to win a lottery by just trying or to crack passwords by trying nowadays and with the technique we have available.

I understand your POV - I am (I was) somehow spiritual many decades ago but used psychedelic drugs. Your POV are interesting and worth being discussed, so are mine. The fact is none of us has a proof and in the end they are believes that cannot be proven scientifically.

If there is / there are higher beings who really have the power to control how my life is and how it went: why did they create me in a way that makes me suicidal at all?! WHY? It would have been so easy for such a high being who already knows my future to just make me successful.

As i said before I have kinda spiritual experience due to psychedelic drug use and it never disappointed me. The best and most impressive once were among those when reaching a state that seemed to be out of this universe and being able to create an own universe.

 

[UnluckyYogi]

do you even know anything about science to talk about it like your an authority on it, i've study computer science and know how genetics and evolution algorithms work.

The genetic algorithm begins with an initial population of individuals, typically generated randomly. It then goes through a series of iterations, known as generations or epochs, in which the individuals undergo operations such as selection, crossover, and mutation.

The more tou dive deep into science and physical matter, the more you brushing off any possibility of the non physical.

Forget it, I'm not willing to argue or debate on it forever.

Just to let you know, I was a complete atheist before I experienced my first kundalini awakening in November 2019, I was thinking exactly like you, but soon I realized how wrong I was.

i mean you could but i am not that active on the website so i'll feel bad for leaving your texts there without a reply. btw you seem to have great knowledge of sanskrit, like you know karma and shit so, that true ?

I have basic knowledge of spirituality and different practices, but I didn't dive deep into that yet.
My main experience comes from practicing semen retention.

I agree with you and I accept your viewpoints - we may assume there is a higher being behind all that but we don't know and there will never be any proof. But again if you have billions of chances throughout the entire universe that a solar system like ours can form then it is possible within several billions of years. A human life is not long enough to win a lottery by just trying or to crack passwords by trying nowadays and with the technique we have available.

I understand your POV - I am (I was) somehow spiritual many decades ago but used psychedelic drugs. Your POV are interesting and worth being discussed, so are mine. The fact is none of us has a proof and in the end they are believes that cannot be proven scientifically.

If there is / there are higher beings who really have the power to control how my life is and how it went: why did they create me in a way that makes me suicidal at all?! WHY? It would have been so easy for such a high being who already knows my future to just make me successful.

As i said before I have kinda spiritual experience due to psychedelic drug use and it never disappointed me. The best and most impressive once were among those when reaching a state that seemed to be out of this universe and being able to create an own universe.

We don't have all the answers.
I have my own proof, that will stay with me for the rest of my life probably, that there is a higher mind behind all of this and it is aware of us.
Why bad things happened to us? I don't know, maybe a byproduct of free will? who knows, maybe previous life karma...

 

[Praestat_Mori]

We don't have all the answers.
I have my own proof, that will stay with me for the rest of my life probably, that there is a higher mind behind all of this and it is aware of us.
Why bad things happened to us? I don't know, maybe a byproduct of free will? who knows, maybe previous life karma...

That is perfectly fine! We all should respect each other regardless of beliefs/experiences and all that. Everyone is free to believe whatever they want - we all will know what comes next after we die and leave this existence/dimension or whatever it is we're in rn.

 

[PhDone]

Karma is real. But does karma apply equally to all ? Is karma same for a healthy mind vs a mentally ill mind ? If you can't do certain duties because of your own challenges, does it lead to negative karma ? Also how do you define positive and negative karma. Morality and ethics , as we know, is subjective. At one point in time, homosexuality was unethical . Was it negative karma then if you had sex with the same gender? Now , as it's acceptable, is it not considered negative karma anymore? But the same act can't be negative in one era and positive in another era? Morality and ethics should be absolute, not relative .

I'm interested how you now karma is real? I have had all my spiritual beliefs called into question by falling down with a chronic illness. Totally housebound and no cure. I am no way staying in a life like this. Its torture. I dont believe that being held prisoner in this level of suffering for decades is a reflection of either the person i have been this lifetime or the soul i have carried through from previous lifetimes. I'm confident I would have some sense of being that awful a person. I am not perfect but I was given a lot of gifts I have tried to use well this lifetime. As OP says I am unsure what reincarnation might bring with a lower level life. Like not as much opportunity or gifts. So if I was given these gifts (talents in a few areas) that suggests a good quality life this time. Why did I fall ill? A bad decision where I chose to stay in current job with a bullying culture that held me in shit every day, where I had been offered a high profile position elsewhere. It was a 50-50 decision. If I'd moved I'd have avoided the bullying. Hence sickness, hence torture. So any karma of this suffering not played out.

All the phrase like "you reap what you sow", "life is a lesson", "God only gives you as much as you can handle", fall by the wayside with chronic illness. Its far more than I can handle, its not all my fault or what I alone had sown, and if an endless life of suffering is an appropriate lesson for choosing a wrong job then things are way off.

I def wonder if, as some religions/traditions say, ctb begets future lifes leading to ctb. I once had a reiki session where the practitioner said i had ptsd from a former life. Maybe ive ctb'd before. But then a diff choice with my job would have avoided it this time. My paternal grandmother ctb'd, so maybe there is something ancestral. Not biological as it was during my lifetime. I'm pretty shocked to even be in this bloody situation tbh. I want to live. Love life. But this sickness has taken that from me.

So what do I think? I truly believe we are Universal energy. We will return to the source of that energy and experience wholeness. It is being a fragment, isolated and separate that causes despair. We are billions of fragments bringing the feedback of infinite life possibilities and experiences back to the source. I dont believe we will be penalised for what we bring back. Maybe we get offered a rerun, or a chance to 'serve' further. I do think we will re-experience other souls we have shared with.

Do ppl choosing VAD get karmic or reincarnation retribution? Do animals if they are PTS? It is the same thing choosing to go before death. Do we inflict pain on others with ctb, yes. So we pass on suffering. Sure. But not all the suffering. Not life in a cell. Not life in illness. No friends, connection, joy, purpose, career, activities or travel. And I dont believe someone else will fall sick to carry it on.

My dad died in a car crash when I was 15yo. So yes that trauma no doubt passed to me, impacted my likelihood of falling ill. Life is a complex system, an interaction of all lives and all situations. So there is passing and interaction of all things that creates the emergent future. Maybe that means how we depart impacts how we reincarnate. But I dont think its a judging or grading system.

One thing I know is I did not deserve to suffer as I am, endlessly with no hope. I did not land on this decision lightly but I honestly see no other option. If that what emerged from the complex system, or from God's hand, then that is what I am having to face.

 

[Darkover]

Bad things happen to good people all the time, for no reason at all. Life's cruelty is indiscriminate.
Life also doesn't care how much you've sacrificed or how hard you've worked. Just because you earned something or deserved it doesn't mean you'll get it.
The universe is cold and uncaring. It operates based on the random collisions of molecules, not a sense of purpose or destiny. There are no guarantees in life, no matter how carefully you plan or how diligently you work. Life's cruelty is arbitrary and meaningless.
Life can be cruel; there's just no getting around it. Bad things happen to good people all the time. You could be the most virtuous, generous soul on the planet and still get dealt a bad hand.
It's not fair, but it's reality. You can work hard your whole life and still end up with nothing to show for it. You might suffer a terrible illness or injury through no fault of your own. Someone you love and trust could betray or abandon you unexpectedly.
The world is indifferent to the suffering of individuals. As much as we like to believe in karma, there is little evidence that the universe bends toward justice or that good deeds are rewarded. While life has moments of beauty, joy, and connection, it also contains immense suffering, and there is no rhyme or reason for who experiences what.
Some people live lives of relative comfort, while others endure immense hardships through no fault of their own. Children get cancer, natural disasters strike, and famine and drought ravage communities. There is no cosmic reason why some suffer more; it is merely the result of a cold, random universe. The truth is that the distribution of suffering is wildly uneven and unjust.
Life can be cruel in ways we don't expect and often can't control. Hard times happen to us all, and while we can take steps to influence our circumstances, we have limited say over many of life's hardships.
You may do everything "right"—work hard, treat others with kindness, make good choices—yet still face difficulties. Loved ones get sick, natural disasters strike, jobs are lost, and relationships end. We can't prevent all of life's troubles, as much as we may try. Some amount of suffering and setback is inevitable for every person.
Cruelty is an unfortunate part of human nature. We all have the capacity for cruelty, which is the willingness to inflict physical or psychological pain on others. Some argue cruelty is a byproduct of things like greed, hatred, or the desire for power over others.
Life can be cruel and unfair. There is no cosmic justice or karma—bad things happen to good people, and good things happen to bad people. It's random and indifferent. The universe doesn't care about fairness or just outcomes.
Don't expect that if you live a virtuous life, good things will come to you—or that if you wrong others, misfortune will befall you. Karma is a comforting idea, but there's no evidence it operates in real life. Chance and randomness govern the world, not some mysterious moral force.
Life can be cruel—there's no way around it. As much as we try to avoid pain and suffering, it's an inescapable part of the human experience.

Heartbreak, grief, stress, anxiety, depression, loneliness, failure, rejection, guilt, regret—the list of sources for emotional anguish is endless. Our complex minds and relationships mean we frequently face mental and emotional struggles. The truth is, if you live long enough, you will experience deep emotional pain at some point.

 

[todiefor]

If

If you was there, you would see the same thing and would never brush it off as an hallucination. But I don't blame you, it's very rare seeing what I saw.

Well if u r speaking for me, I would say if I saw something supernatural I would ask for a second opinion, I would consider if my mind played a trick on me, I prob wouldn't trust what I saw as something special. But that's me.

 

[UnluckyYogi]

Well if u r speaking for me, I would say if I saw something supernatural I would ask for a second opinion, I would consider if my mind played a trick on me, I prob wouldn't trust what I saw as something special. But that's me.

It wasn't my only paranormal experience, I seen many things during different kundalini awakenings I had.
I didn't think I would share this here, but here we go

 

[doneforlife]

I'm interested how you now karma is real? I have had all my spiritual beliefs called into question by falling down with a chronic illness. Totally housebound and no cure. I am no way staying in a life like this. Its torture. I dont believe that being held prisoner in this level of suffering for decades is a reflection of either the person i have been this lifetime or the soul i have carried through from previous lifetimes. I'm confident I would have some sense of being that awful a person. I am not perfect but I was given a lot of gifts I have tried to use well this lifetime. As OP says I am unsure what reincarnation might bring with a lower level life. Like not as much opportunity or gifts. So if I was given these gifts (talents in a few areas) that suggests a good quality life this time. Why did I fall ill? A bad decision where I chose to stay in current job with a bullying culture that held me in shit every day, where I had been offered a high profile position elsewhere. It was a 50-50 decision. If I'd moved I'd have avoided the bullying. Hence sickness, hence torture. So any karma of this suffering not played out.

All the phrase like "you reap what you sow", "life is a lesson", "God only gives you as much as you can handle", fall by the wayside with chronic illness. Its far more than I can handle, its not all my fault or what I alone had sown, and if an endless life of suffering is an appropriate lesson for choosing a wrong job then things are way off.

I def wonder if, as some religions/traditions say, ctb begets future lifes leading to ctb. I once had a reiki session where the practitioner said i had ptsd from a former life. Maybe ive ctb'd before. But then a diff choice with my job would have avoided it this time. My paternal grandmother ctb'd, so maybe there is something ancestral. Not biological as it was during my lifetime. I'm pretty shocked to even be in this bloody situation tbh. I want to live. Love life. But this sickness has taken that from me.

So what do I think? I truly believe we are Universal energy. We will return to the source of that energy and experience wholeness. It is being a fragment, isolated and separate that causes despair. We are billions of fragments bringing the feedback of infinite life possibilities and experiences back to the source. I dont believe we will be penalised for what we bring back. Maybe we get offered a rerun, or a chance to 'serve' further. I do think we will re-experience other souls we have shared with.

Do ppl choosing VAD get karmic or reincarnation retribution? Do animals if they are PTS? It is the same thing choosing to go before death. Do we inflict pain on others with ctb, yes. So we pass on suffering. Sure. But not all the suffering. Not life in a cell. Not life in illness. No friends, connection, joy, purpose, career, activities or travel. And I dont believe someone else will fall sick to carry it on.

My dad died in a car crash when I was 15yo. So yes that trauma no doubt passed to me, impacted my likelihood of falling ill. Life is a complex system, an interaction of all lives and all situations. So there is passing and interaction of all things that creates the emergent future. Maybe that means how we depart impacts how we reincarnate. But I dont think its a judging or grading system.

One thing I know is I did not deserve to suffer as I am, endlessly with no hope. I did not land on this decision lightly but I honestly see no other option. If that what emerged from the complex system, or from God's hand, then that is what I am having to face.

I am sorry you had to endure that. I am at loss of words to comfort you in any manner. I don't know if karma is real. It's my coping mechanism, may be. In many situations, I have seen it unfold. I couldn't attribute it to anything else but karma. It isn't a judgemental framework. It is basically like if you eat sugar , you get diabetes..sort of thing. Don't think you can eat loads of sugar and get away with it. ( This is just a metaphor). I do believe in karma , but I don't know how to categorise good and bad karma. The problem with that is, I keep on coming back to this realm to balance out my karma. But I don't want to come back. Non existence is my preference.

 

[GuessWhosBack]

Someone designed all of this.
There is so much wisdom and intelligence behind the human body and all living organisms. Do you think all of this was created by a chance?
A higher power must have guided all of this.

There's plenty about the human body that does not point to intelligent design. In my opinion.

I don't know if this universe was created by chance and I make no claims in general about the extra physical. I prefer to believe there's something unknowable beyond the physical.

 

[sserafim]

You always exist, there's no such thing as non-existance.

So no escaping the soul trap then?

 

[UnluckyYogi]

So no escaping the soul trap then?

Maybe if you clean your karma fully, you won't have to return if you don't want to.

 

[sserafim]

Maybe if you clean your karma fully, you won't have to return if you don't want to.

How do you do that? And how do you even know what karma you have?

 

[UnluckyYogi]

How do you do that? And how do you even know what karma you have?

I know roughly what karma I have from this life. I did a couple of bad things and some good things as well.
Sometimes the universe cleans your bad karma for youz and it happened to me during this life one time, it was so obvious that it was a divine intervention.

 

[Not A Fan]

Do you believe that all of this creation, all the intelligence behind the human body, animals, plants and the sun and the moon at the right distance from Earth, was all by a chance? can't be.

It can't be? The approximate age of the observable universe is beyond comprehension for a human, nearly infinite if we consider it relative to the length of one human life. Life on Earth has only existed for a tiny fraction of the universe's apparent existence, and humans represent a small fraction of that small fraction. Not until very recently did humans start developing things like written languages, organized belief systems, and nation-states. Here's a visual representation (Fig. A) I stole from the internet:

<-FIGURE A

Human existence represents less than 2% of the red section above; if it had its own color, you wouldn't be able to see it as it would be much less than 1 pixel thick. Let's zoom in on that tiny little slice of "us," courtesy of another stolen infographic (it's kinda big, so click to reveal):

Spoiler: Figure B

Unfortunately, Figure B is not "to scale" so it fails to provide the same visual impact. If this were shown to scale, the Purple section would practically cover the entire area, with the Blue, Green, Red, Orange and Yellow sections combined filling the remaining 0.3% of space, representing the last 10,000 years. Cut that in half, and you have the entire history of human civilization.

I will concede that our knowledge of the universe, and even of human history/pre-history is not a complete picture, but these conjectures are derived from continual empirical observation and subject to continual study and refinement. Science is a never-ending work in progress, not meant to provide "final answers" to spiritual questions, but simply to provide a comprehensive picture of the current state of human knowledge. You do not have to accept the absolute truth of an infographic (I don't) in order to appreciate the point.

The point being that we are not part of the overwhelming majority of time and space. The amount of significance and importance we place on this tiny blip of excrescence is simply disproportionate. It isn't particularly surprising that we would be so focused on ourselves, but if we actually look at our place in the universe, we're no more "important" to it than a single atom is to one person's body.

Spiritual traditions are a recent development by this standard. When a person has a spiritual vision, it is mediated by the symbols of the particular faith they have been taught. A practioner of Hinduism doesn't have visions of Christ, and Christians don't have visions of the Buddha. There is no denying the reality of the felt experience of spiritual visions. They can be tremendously powerful and the instinct is usually to accept them as confirmation of one's own beliefs. The idea that such an experience could ever arise internally, independent of any actual outside spiritual presence, is generally not considered even as a possibility. People who have had such an experience will often use the confirmation thus provided as scaffolding to support auxiliary beliefs, even if they are not directly addressed by the experience.

How else can a 5-second vision of a bright white light lead to so many specific conclusions? It is almost unthinkable to take any such experience at face value, as simply strange and awe-inspiring mystery that our brains are sometimes capable of, sort of like dreams (which some people also insist must always have secret, special meanings to them.) I tend to think that dreams, visionary experiences, even psychedelic states can be beautiful mysteries in themselves, which we can appreciate independently of any external narrative or instrumental purpose. We such good pattern-recognizers that we find patterns even where there aren't any, a tendency expressed in the popular sentiment, "I don't believe in coincidences," or its corollary, "everything happens for a reason." This definition of "everything," though, seems to exclude almost the entirety of events in space-time, it even excludes most of Earth's history and most of human existence.

We don't like the ides of things happening by chance, because it makes it feel we are not in control. Our evolutionary survival imperative is to avoid uncertainty, and we desperately attempt to shield ourselves from it, both physically, with technology, and psychologically, with language, religion, philosophy and law. So I can understand why many find it unacceptable. But I've talked to people from almost every religion, who've tried to assure me that because of the visions they personally experienced, they can assure me that their spiritual path is correct (and others are incorrect, dismissing the validity of everyone else's spiritual visions.) The only thing that this assures me of, is that a vision tells us more about the person who had it, than it tells us anything about supposed metaphysical truths.

At any rate, we will never "understand" the universe the way we would like to. Trying to explain it away with Intelligent Design fails, because all the questions one has about the beginning of the universe are now simply displaced onto the Creator figure. In other words, the origin of God Herself, is an equally vexing question to the origin of an impersonal universe. It simply places one extra layer between us and the unknowable, kind of unnecessary from my point of view.

I will add that I'm open to the possibility that I'm wrong. It's just the trouble with claims about the afterlife and reincarnation, are, by definition, unfalsifiable, so our discussions of them are necessarily, and only, speculative. There are no "assurances" that can be provided; at best, perhaps some "good vibes" might be emanated. There's nothing wrong with good vibes and intuitions but to mislabel such condolences as knowledge, certainty, truth -- as proselytizers often do -- is false advertising, no matter how sincerely the seller holds the veracity of their claims.

How can a statement about the afterlife possibly be anything other than hearsay, and how can so many mutually exclusive claims about its specific nature ever be reconciled or tested against each other? By what mechanism would internally consistent knowledge of the afterlife be transmitted to the world of the living? Unless these issues are addressed, how can any one description of the afterlife be weighed as more credible than others?

If the soul is an immaterial repository of your personality, then why is it able to be damaged by something material like brain damage? Brain damage is not the only way either--tumors, drugs, alcohol, electricity, oxygen deprivation and even normal aging can also damage your brain and alter your personality.

If the soul is not immaterial, then why is it able to survive death? Why is a minor damage able to damage your personality, but not a huge damage like the entire organ decomposing?

This is interesting, why has it never occurred to me? Indeed, the behavior and experiential aspects of what cultures understand as an immaterial soul, are vulnerable to physical damage. Now that you've pointed out, it is amazingly obvious. If a soul is a non-material entity, then at least some part of it should be observed to persist independent of the brain's physical processes. But you're absolutely correct; we don't observe that. There is some neurological research which even suggests a lack of a unified self even in healthy brains; that is, what we have given the name "soul" or "self" is really an emergent byproduct of many discrete, independent but related parallel processes within the brain and body. In fact, I would even argue that the popular conception of "consciousness" is little more than a secularized notion of the soul -- an empty placeholder for an idealized notion of personal essence, whose presence is inferred, assumed but never observed (though not for lack of trying.)

Wow I can't believe I just rambled for ~1,500 words! I guess you could say I'm kind of interested in this topic, maybe a little too interested. In summary, I do have hold one belief with great conviction, which is that, even including the wisest and most knowledgeable among us, we know so much less than we like to think. And here I actually converge with some spiritual thought, because as much as religions implore us to be humble in the face of an all-powerful, all-knowing God -- something "much greater than ourselves," -- I find it equally humbling to reflect upon our relationship to an all-encompassing, unknowable reality, in which the entire story of life on this planet is nothing more than an immeasurably short blip, a statistically inconsequential aberration, and, yes... an extremely unlikely chance accident. As unlikely as it is, religious conjectures are even more remotely improbable, so in the absence of additional information, it makes sense to favor the least unlikely explanation.

I'll be the first one to admit that logic isn't a perfect tool. Far from it. But what is the alternative? Ideology or wishful thinking? I'd prefer the imperfect tool which makes no pretense of its limitations, unlike those dangerous, faulty tools whose entire appeal is derived from pretense. If it sounds too good to be true... you know the rest.

 

[UnluckyYogi]

It can't be? The approximate age of the observable universe is beyond comprehension for a human, nearly infinite if we consider it relative to the length of one human life. Life on Earth has only existed for a tiny fraction of the universe's apparent existence, and humans represent a small fraction of that small fraction. Not until very recently did humans start developing things like written languages, organized belief systems, and nation-states. Here's a visual representation (Fig. A) I stole from the internet:

View attachment 147097<-FIGURE A

Human existence represents less than 2% of the red section above; if it had its own color, you wouldn't be able to see it as it would be much less than 1 pixel thick. Let's zoom in on that tiny little slice of "us," courtesy of another stolen infographic (it's kinda big, so click to reveal):

Spoiler: Figure B

View attachment 147098

Unfortunately, Figure B is not "to scale" so it fails to provide the same visual impact. If this were shown to scale, the Purple section would practically cover the entire area, with the Blue, Green, Red, Orange and Yellow sections combined filling the remaining 0.3% of space, representing the last 10,000 years. Cut that in half, and you have the entire history of human civilization.

I will concede that our knowledge of the universe, and even of human history/pre-history is not a complete picture, but these conjectures are derived from continual empirical observation and subject to continual study and refinement. Science is a never-ending work in progress, not meant to provide "final answers" to spiritual questions, but simply to provide a comprehensive picture of the current state of human knowledge. You do not have to accept the absolute truth of an infographic (I don't) in order to appreciate the point.

The point being that we are not part of the overwhelming majority of time and space. The amount of significance and importance we place on this tiny blip of excrescence is simply disproportionate. It isn't particularly surprising that we would be so focused on ourselves, but if we actually look at our place in the universe, we're no more "important" to it than a single atom is to one person's body.

Spiritual traditions are a recent development by this standard. When a person has a spiritual vision, it is mediated by the symbols of the particular faith they have been taught. A practioner of Hinduism doesn't have visions of Christ, and Christians don't have visions of the Buddha. There is no denying the reality of the felt experience of spiritual visions. They can be tremendously powerful and the instinct is usually to accept them as confirmation of one's own beliefs. The idea that such an experience could ever arise internally, independent of any actual outside spiritual presence, is generally not considered even as a possibility. People who have had such an experience will often use the confirmation thus provided as scaffolding to support auxiliary beliefs, even if they are not directly addressed by the experience.

How else can a 5-second vision of a bright white light lead to so many specific conclusions? It is almost unthinkable to take any such experience at face value, as simply strange and awe-inspiring mystery that our brains are sometimes capable of, sort of like dreams (which some people also insist must always have secret, special meanings to them.) I tend to think that dreams, visionary experiences, even psychedelic states can be beautiful mysteries in themselves, which we can appreciate independently of any external narrative or instrumental purpose. We such good pattern-recognizers that we find patterns even where there aren't any, a tendency expressed in the popular sentiment, "I don't believe in coincidences," or its corollary, "everything happens for a reason." This definition of "everything," though, seems to exclude almost the entirety of events in space-time, it even excludes most of Earth's history and most of human existence.

We don't like the ides of things happening by chance, because it makes it feel we are not in control. Our evolutionary survival imperative is to avoid uncertainty, and we desperately attempt to shield ourselves from it, both physically, with technology, and psychologically, with language, religion, philosophy and law. So I can understand why many find it unacceptable. But I've talked to people from almost every religion, who've tried to assure me that because of the visions they personally experienced, they can assure me that their spiritual path is correct (and others are incorrect, dismissing the validity of everyone else's spiritual visions.) The only thing that this assures me of, is that a vision tells us more about the person who had it, than it tells us anything about supposed metaphysical truths.

At any rate, we will never "understand" the universe the way we would like to. Trying to explain it away with Intelligent Design fails, because all the questions one has about the beginning of the universe are now simply displaced onto the Creator figure. In other words, the origin of God Herself, is an equally vexing question to the origin of an impersonal universe. It simply places one extra layer between us and the unknowable, kind of unnecessary from my point of view.

I will add that I'm open to the possibility that I'm wrong. It's just the trouble with claims about the afterlife and reincarnation, are, by definition, unfalsifiable, so our discussions of them are necessarily, and only, speculative. There are no "assurances" that can be provided; at best, perhaps some "good vibes" might be emanated. There's nothing wrong with good vibes and intuitions but to mislabel such condolences as knowledge, certainty, truth -- as proselytizers often do -- is false advertising, no matter how sincerely the seller holds the veracity of their claims.

How can a statement about the afterlife possibly be anything other than hearsay, and how can so many mutually exclusive claims about its specific nature ever be reconciled or tested against each other? By what mechanism would internally consistent knowledge of the afterlife be transmitted to the world of the living? Unless these issues are addressed, how can any one description of the afterlife be weighed as more credible than others?


This is interesting, why has it never occurred to me? Indeed, the behavior and experiential aspects of what cultures understand as an immaterial soul, are vulnerable to physical damage. Now that you've pointed out, it is amazingly obvious. If a soul is a non-material entity, then at least some part of it should be observed to persist independent of the brain's physical processes. But you're absolutely correct; we don't observe that. There is some neurological research which even suggests a lack of a unified self even in healthy brains; that is, what we have given the name "soul" or "self" is really an emergent byproduct of many discrete, independent but related parallel processes within the brain and body. In fact, I would even argue that the popular conception of "consciousness" is little more than a secularized notion of the soul -- an empty placeholder for an idealized notion of personal essence, whose presence is inferred, assumed but never observed (though not for lack of trying.)

Wow I can't believe I just rambled for ~1,500 words! I guess you could say I'm kind of interested in this topic, maybe a little too interested. In summary, I do have hold one belief with great conviction, which is that, even including the wisest and most knowledgeable among us, we know so much less than we like to think. And here I actually converge with some spiritual thought, because as much as religions implore us to be humble in the face of an all-powerful, all-knowing God -- something "much greater than ourselves," -- I find it equally humbling to reflect upon our relationship to an all-encompassing, unknowable reality, in which the entire story of life on this planet is nothing more than an immeasurably short blip, a statistically inconsequential aberration, and, yes... an extremely unlikely chance accident. As unlikely as it is, religious conjectures are even more remotely improbable, so in the absence of additional information, it makes sense to favor the least unlikely explanation.

I'll be the first one to admit that logic isn't a perfect tool. Far from it. But what is the alternative? Ideology or wishful thinking? I'd prefer the imperfect tool which makes no pretense of its limitations, unlike those dangerous, faulty tools whose entire appeal is derived from pretense. If it sounds too good to be true... you know the rest.

You first few sentences are just a tiny aspect of it all.
How can we be sure there's no greater mind if you wanna call it god, behind all of this?
How can we get into big conclusions like this from a tiny planet like ours?

I won't debate what I found out to be true from several kundalini experiencs which opened me up into a whole different kind of reality that we don't normally experience, but you can rest assure there is a higher power that is responsible and in charge of all of this.

I won't agree with your nothingness after we die and "creation of all of this marvelous creation by chance" type of belief.
And believe me, I was an atheist before.

 

[GuessWhosBack]

It can't be? The approximate age of the observable universe is beyond comprehension for a human, nearly infinite if we consider it relative to the length of one human life. Life on Earth has only existed for a tiny fraction of the universe's apparent existence, and humans represent a small fraction of that small fraction. Not until very recently did humans start developing things like written languages, organized belief systems, and nation-states. Here's a visual representation (Fig. A) I stole from the internet:

View attachment 147097<-FIGURE A

Human existence represents less than 2% of the red section above; if it had its own color, you wouldn't be able to see it as it would be much less than 1 pixel thick. Let's zoom in on that tiny little slice of "us," courtesy of another stolen infographic (it's kinda big, so click to reveal):

Spoiler: Figure B

View attachment 147098

Unfortunately, Figure B is not "to scale" so it fails to provide the same visual impact. If this were shown to scale, the Purple section would practically cover the entire area, with the Blue, Green, Red, Orange and Yellow sections combined filling the remaining 0.3% of space, representing the last 10,000 years. Cut that in half, and you have the entire history of human civilization.

I will concede that our knowledge of the universe, and even of human history/pre-history is not a complete picture, but these conjectures are derived from continual empirical observation and subject to continual study and refinement. Science is a never-ending work in progress, not meant to provide "final answers" to spiritual questions, but simply to provide a comprehensive picture of the current state of human knowledge. You do not have to accept the absolute truth of an infographic (I don't) in order to appreciate the point.

The point being that we are not part of the overwhelming majority of time and space. The amount of significance and importance we place on this tiny blip of excrescence is simply disproportionate. It isn't particularly surprising that we would be so focused on ourselves, but if we actually look at our place in the universe, we're no more "important" to it than a single atom is to one person's body.

Spiritual traditions are a recent development by this standard. When a person has a spiritual vision, it is mediated by the symbols of the particular faith they have been taught. A practioner of Hinduism doesn't have visions of Christ, and Christians don't have visions of the Buddha. There is no denying the reality of the felt experience of spiritual visions. They can be tremendously powerful and the instinct is usually to accept them as confirmation of one's own beliefs. The idea that such an experience could ever arise internally, independent of any actual outside spiritual presence, is generally not considered even as a possibility. People who have had such an experience will often use the confirmation thus provided as scaffolding to support auxiliary beliefs, even if they are not directly addressed by the experience.

How else can a 5-second vision of a bright white light lead to so many specific conclusions? It is almost unthinkable to take any such experience at face value, as simply strange and awe-inspiring mystery that our brains are sometimes capable of, sort of like dreams (which some people also insist must always have secret, special meanings to them.) I tend to think that dreams, visionary experiences, even psychedelic states can be beautiful mysteries in themselves, which we can appreciate independently of any external narrative or instrumental purpose. We such good pattern-recognizers that we find patterns even where there aren't any, a tendency expressed in the popular sentiment, "I don't believe in coincidences," or its corollary, "everything happens for a reason." This definition of "everything," though, seems to exclude almost the entirety of events in space-time, it even excludes most of Earth's history and most of human existence.

We don't like the ides of things happening by chance, because it makes it feel we are not in control. Our evolutionary survival imperative is to avoid uncertainty, and we desperately attempt to shield ourselves from it, both physically, with technology, and psychologically, with language, religion, philosophy and law. So I can understand why many find it unacceptable. But I've talked to people from almost every religion, who've tried to assure me that because of the visions they personally experienced, they can assure me that their spiritual path is correct (and others are incorrect, dismissing the validity of everyone else's spiritual visions.) The only thing that this assures me of, is that a vision tells us more about the person who had it, than it tells us anything about supposed metaphysical truths.

At any rate, we will never "understand" the universe the way we would like to. Trying to explain it away with Intelligent Design fails, because all the questions one has about the beginning of the universe are now simply displaced onto the Creator figure. In other words, the origin of God Herself, is an equally vexing question to the origin of an impersonal universe. It simply places one extra layer between us and the unknowable, kind of unnecessary from my point of view.

I will add that I'm open to the possibility that I'm wrong. It's just the trouble with claims about the afterlife and reincarnation, are, by definition, unfalsifiable, so our discussions of them are necessarily, and only, speculative. There are no "assurances" that can be provided; at best, perhaps some "good vibes" might be emanated. There's nothing wrong with good vibes and intuitions but to mislabel such condolences as knowledge, certainty, truth -- as proselytizers often do -- is false advertising, no matter how sincerely the seller holds the veracity of their claims.

How can a statement about the afterlife possibly be anything other than hearsay, and how can so many mutually exclusive claims about its specific nature ever be reconciled or tested against each other? By what mechanism would internally consistent knowledge of the afterlife be transmitted to the world of the living? Unless these issues are addressed, how can any one description of the afterlife be weighed as more credible than others?


This is interesting, why has it never occurred to me? Indeed, the behavior and experiential aspects of what cultures understand as an immaterial soul, are vulnerable to physical damage. Now that you've pointed out, it is amazingly obvious. If a soul is a non-material entity, then at least some part of it should be observed to persist independent of the brain's physical processes. But you're absolutely correct; we don't observe that. There is some neurological research which even suggests a lack of a unified self even in healthy brains; that is, what we have given the name "soul" or "self" is really an emergent byproduct of many discrete, independent but related parallel processes within the brain and body. In fact, I would even argue that the popular conception of "consciousness" is little more than a secularized notion of the soul -- an empty placeholder for an idealized notion of personal essence, whose presence is inferred, assumed but never observed (though not for lack of trying.)

Wow I can't believe I just rambled for ~1,500 words! I guess you could say I'm kind of interested in this topic, maybe a little too interested. In summary, I do have hold one belief with great conviction, which is that, even including the wisest and most knowledgeable among us, we know so much less than we like to think. And here I actually converge with some spiritual thought, because as much as religions implore us to be humble in the face of an all-powerful, all-knowing God -- something "much greater than ourselves," -- I find it equally humbling to reflect upon our relationship to an all-encompassing, unknowable reality, in which the entire story of life on this planet is nothing more than an immeasurably short blip, a statistically inconsequential aberration, and, yes... an extremely unlikely chance accident. As unlikely as it is, religious conjectures are even more remotely improbable, so in the absence of additional information, it makes sense to favor the least unlikely explanation.

I'll be the first one to admit that logic isn't a perfect tool. Far from it. But what is the alternative? Ideology or wishful thinking? I'd prefer the imperfect tool which makes no pretense of its limitations, unlike those dangerous, faulty tools whose entire appeal is derived from pretense. If it sounds too good to be true... you know the rest.

Just adding my two cents since you mentioned something that interested me.

Logic is as perfect a tool as we can have, especially since most logics we use have a finitary deductive representation - we can write proofs down on paper according to the rules of some logic, and those proofs are finite in nature. Then we have to trust our eyes and our verification process. That's as best as we can do.

However, logical systems have inherent limitations that are well-known to the mathematicians that study them. Some mathematicians study a phenomenon known as logical independence, which occurs when a logic is incapable of concluding the truth or falsity (or particular truth value, in the case of some more modern logics) of a statement. Since all of mathematics is based on logic, this carries over to mathematics. Since natural sciences are based on mathematics and some kind of implied background logic, this also carries over to science.

 

[PhDone]

I am sorry you had to endure that. I am at loss of words to comfort you in any manner. I don't know if karma is real. It's my coping mechanism, may be. In many situations, I have seen it unfold. I couldn't attribute it to anything else but karma. It isn't a judgemental framework. It is basically like if you eat sugar , you get diabetes..sort of thing. Don't think you can eat loads of sugar and get away with it. ( This is just a metaphor). I do believe in karma , but I don't know how to categorise good and bad karma. The problem with that is, I keep on coming back to this realm to balance out my karma. But I don't want to come back. Non existence is my preference.

Thanks for your words and thinking of me re comfort. Very grateful for that.

There are so many of us suffering and facing ctb as the only hope. I totally get where you're coming from re the consequences of actions. To some extent we do reap what we sow, but not in exclusion, as part of the complex system. The system impacts us, we impact it. Its a reciprocal exchange. I guess I'm just not getting how I could have made a different decision that avoided this, and therefore the suffering that I am in. How is this level of suffering at my hands? If me as a frail, poorly informed human is, on one path so at risk, and on another free from harm, then I needed some much bigger guidance and intervention. The action (stay in bullying) and consequence (lifelong chronic illness) are so out of whack with each other.

Maybe it was inevitable I was coming to this illness. That I appeared to have a decision but had less free will than I thought. The burden of the decision having been totally at my hand is beyond what my mind can process. I chose this path? My God

So yes, I also get keeping coming back to this realm to fix things. Maybe that where the "you live and learn" bit comes in. You fuck up, you get to redo it. So then you'd have to be given the conditions to do better next time. Meaning its less a judgement system and more a do-over. Maybe those we hurt with ctb you get to make it up to them. Not pay a penalty for it.

Def I have a massive fear of being held on the repeat ctb path. How would I know if I'm already in that even? But what do I do with that. I literally cant live like this. I'm trapped coz what is the choice, sit in a house for years and slowly decline thro deconditioning as much as the illness. No one coming to help. Plenty people with this illness do keep going. But I am screaming "let me out of this" inside me every day, my mental space is shot and getting worse. So will I really have retribution if I decide I cant do this? And how does thinking my soul might be on a repeat ctb path add to my mental decline? Am I literally fucked, not just as a human but as a soul too? Omfg.

Most religions/traditions do agree on being against it. And some sort of loop for eg 6 lifetimes. Fuck. Do I deserve that for trying my bloody best in life and making a poor judgement call. Seems ludacrous.

 

[Kali_Yuga13]

So no escaping the soul trap then?

How do we ctb when even the afterlife is rigged? I feel like were in a cosmic version of the escape room. IDK whether to laugh or cry.

 

[doneforlife]

Thanks for your words and thinking of me re comfort. Very grateful for that.

There are so many of us suffering and facing ctb as the only hope. I totally get where you're coming from re the consequences of actions. To some extent we do reap what we sow, but not in exclusion, as part of the complex system. The system impacts us, we impact it. Its a reciprocal exchange. I guess I'm just not getting how I could have made a different decision that avoided this, and therefore the suffering that I am in. How is this level of suffering at my hands? If me as a frail, poorly informed human is, on one path so at risk, and on another free from harm, then I needed some much bigger guidance and intervention. The action (stay in bullying) and consequence (lifelong chronic illness) are so out of whack with each other.

Maybe it was inevitable I was coming to this illness. That I appeared to have a decision but had less free will than I thought. The burden of the decision having been totally at my hand is beyond what my mind can process. I chose this path? My God

So yes, I also get keeping coming back to this realm to fix things. Maybe that where the "you live and learn" bit comes in. You fuck up, you get to redo it. So then you'd have to be given the conditions to do better next time. Meaning its less a judgement system and more a do-over. Maybe those we hurt with ctb you get to make it up to them. Not pay a penalty for it.

Def I have a massive fear of being held on the repeat ctb path. How would I know if I'm already in that even? But what do I do with that. I literally cant live like this. I'm trapped coz what is the choice, sit in a house for years and slowly decline thro deconditioning as much as the illness. No one coming to help. Plenty people with this illness do keep going. But I am screaming "let me out of this" inside me every day, my mental space is shot and getting worse. So will I really have retribution if I decide I cant do this? And how does thinking my soul might be on a repeat ctb path add to my mental decline? Am I literally fucked, not just as a human but as a soul too? Omfg.

Most religions/traditions do agree on being against it. And some sort of loop for eg 6 lifetimes. Fuck. Do I deserve that for trying my bloody best in life and making a poor judgement call. Seems ludacrous.

The book that teaches karma , the same book teaches , if you have no desire left , you will be out of rebirth cycle. Any desire left in this life drags us back into this realm.

Thanks for your words and thinking of me re comfort. Very grateful for that.

There are so many of us suffering and facing ctb as the only hope. I totally get where you're coming from re the consequences of actions. To some extent we do reap what we sow, but not in exclusion, as part of the complex system. The system impacts us, we impact it. Its a reciprocal exchange. I guess I'm just not getting how I could have made a different decision that avoided this, and therefore the suffering that I am in. How is this level of suffering at my hands? If me as a frail, poorly informed human is, on one path so at risk, and on another free from harm, then I needed some much bigger guidance and intervention. The action (stay in bullying) and consequence (lifelong chronic illness) are so out of whack with each other.

Maybe it was inevitable I was coming to this illness. That I appeared to have a decision but had less free will than I thought. The burden of the decision having been totally at my hand is beyond what my mind can process. I chose this path? My God

So yes, I also get keeping coming back to this realm to fix things. Maybe that where the "you live and learn" bit comes in. You fuck up, you get to redo it. So then you'd have to be given the conditions to do better next time. Meaning its less a judgement system and more a do-over. Maybe those we hurt with ctb you get to make it up to them. Not pay a penalty for it.

Def I have a massive fear of being held on the repeat ctb path. How would I know if I'm already in that even? But what do I do with that. I literally cant live like this. I'm trapped coz what is the choice, sit in a house for years and slowly decline thro deconditioning as much as the illness. No one coming to help. Plenty people with this illness do keep going. But I am screaming "let me out of this" inside me every day, my mental space is shot and getting worse. So will I really have retribution if I decide I cant do this? And how does thinking my soul might be on a repeat ctb path add to my mental decline? Am I literally fucked, not just as a human but as a soul too? Omfg.

Most religions/traditions do agree on being against it. And some sort of loop for eg 6 lifetimes. Fuck. Do I deserve that for trying my bloody best in life and making a poor judgement call. Seems ludacrous.

The book that teaches karma , the same book teaches , if you have no desire left , you will be out of rebirth cycle. Any desire left in this life drags us back into this realm.

 

[zaxxy1810]

Thanks for the explanation! How does one get rid of karmic debt ? Also how does suicide impact the karma ? If I can't drive life anymore and hence commit suicide and in the due process I make sure no one is emotionally devastated (i.e I am not the source of pain for anyone) , would it lead to negative karma ?

I will be very happy to answer your questions, but I note that everything I will write is only my personal opinion based on the information and experience I have gathered over the years and I have no pretensions to present it as any absolute truth based on religious or other dogmas. repays with existence, whereby the amount of experienced experience and suffered pain and suffering is analogous to the amount of karmic debt. If at the time of death the karmic debt is not fully paid, the remaining amount is transferred to the next existence together with any newly created debt. Suicide represents, from this point of view, the termination of repayment of karmic debt, and the remaining debt is transferred to a new existence. We can only speculate about how much (and whether?) the act of suicide itself carries with it a new karmic debt. which way, under which circumstances, etc.). Most authorities agree that suicide brings a new, additional karmic debt. It is interesting to note that certain Buddhist schools in the case of arahats (enlightened sages who have reached Nirvana and completely freed themselves from the shackles of karma) in in certain cases of illness in the terminal stage, they approved arbitrary termination of life as an act that would not in any way damage what was achieved. In the case you mentioned at the end, it can be assumed that the amount of new negative karma would most likely be reduced to a minimum, but it should be noted that liberation from the cycle of birth and death generally extremely difficult and requires special and long-term (some of which can even extend over several lifetimes) spiritual practices, so those who die naturally also return a large number of times. Here I would add SI as an individual and also very important personal factor, if your SI is high, the amount of negative karma will probably be analogous to that.

 

[UnluckyYogi]

I will be very happy to answer your questions, but I note that everything I will write is only my personal opinion based on the information and experience I have gathered over the years and I have no pretensions to present it as any absolute truth based on religious or other dogmas. repays with existence, whereby the amount of experienced experience and suffered pain and suffering is analogous to the amount of karmic debt. If at the time of death the karmic debt is not fully paid, the remaining amount is transferred to the next existence together with any newly created debt. Suicide represents, from this point of view, the termination of repayment of karmic debt, and the remaining debt is transferred to a new existence. We can only speculate about how much (and whether?) the act of suicide itself carries with it a new karmic debt. which way, under which circumstances, etc.). Most authorities agree that suicide brings a new, additional karmic debt. It is interesting to note that certain Buddhist schools in the case of arahats (enlightened sages who have reached Nirvana and completely freed themselves from the shackles of karma) in in certain cases of illness in the terminal stage, they approved arbitrary termination of life as an act that would not in any way damage what was achieved. In the case you mentioned at the end, it can be assumed that the amount of new negative karma would most likely be reduced to a minimum, but it should be noted that liberation from the cycle of birth and death generally extremely difficult and requires special and long-term (some of which can even extend over several lifetimes) spiritual practices, so those who die naturally also return a large number of times. Here I would add SI as an individual and also very important personal factor, if your SI is high, the amount of negative karma will probably be analogous to that.

Your last sentence is very interesting.
Thank you for sharing!

 

[Not A Fan]

You first few sentences are just a tiny aspect of it all.
How can we be sure there's no greater mind if you wanna call it god, behind all of this?
How can we get into big conclusions like this from a tiny planet like ours?

I won't debate what I found out to be true from several kundalini experiencs which opened me up into a whole different kind of reality that we don't normally experience, but you can rest assure there is a higher power that is responsible and in charge of all of this.

I won't agree with your nothingness after we die and "creation of all of this marvelous creation by chance" type of belief.
And believe me, I was an atheist before.

I keep re-reading your post, and I pretty much agree with everything you said. I have problems with my communication skills. I apologize. That must have come out totally wrong on my end! I'll stop, but my original reply is below. I think we had a misunderstanding and I accept responsibility for it.

Spoiler: long version

Hey and I apologize if I came off as hostile or trying to one-up you. I don't really consider myself an "atheist," and what I was trying to say above had more to do with the limits of our understanding. Atheism requires as much confidence as faith, in my opinion. It's really a sort of faith in itself. I was trying to explain from my perspective why I have difficulty accepting assurances. These assurances could come from an atheist, a holy man, a philosopher, from our communities, even from our selves. "How can we be sure..." is the perfect question. I don't have an answer to that, nor do I really expect to find one, but for some reason I just keep searching. So if you didn't read the whole thing (I don't blame you... so self-indulgent of me... ugh) I'll just emphasize that I wasn't looking for a debate or trying to shut you down but it's my fault for writing shit so long that it should have its own Cliffs Notes version...

The main is point is we actually probably agree ~95% of things of this topic. I guess I could've saved of time and said that, instead of what I did. But I'm being sincere when I say I mean no disrespect whatsoever! Who am I? Literally no one. If I didn't have nagging uncertainties about this stuff, I would avoid this topic altogether rather than diving headlong into it. Sorry for selfishly hijacking your thread and causing unintended disrespect which was not my motivation at all. I never really did learn how to "read the room," it's a personal problem just like my unusual interest in religions that I don't actually believe.

 

[UnluckyYogi]

I keep re-reading your post, and I pretty much agree with everything you said. I have problems with my communication skills. I apologize. That must have come out totally wrong on my end! I'll stop, but my original reply is below. I think we had a misunderstanding and I accept responsibility for it.

Spoiler: long version

Hey and I apologize if I came off as hostile or trying to one-up you. I don't really consider myself an "atheist," and what I was trying to say above had more to do with the limits of our understanding. Atheism requires as much confidence as faith, in my opinion. It's really a sort of faith in itself. I was trying to explain from my perspective why I have difficulty accepting assurances. These assurances could come from an atheist, a holy man, a philosopher, from our communities, even from our selves. "How can we be sure..." is the perfect question. I don't have an answer to that, nor do I really expect to find one, but for some reason I just keep searching. So if you didn't read the whole thing (I don't blame you... so self-indulgent of me... ugh) I'll just emphasize that I wasn't looking for a debate or trying to shut you down but it's my fault for writing shit so long that it should have its own Cliffs Notes version...

The main is point is we actually probably agree ~95% of things of this topic. I guess I could've saved of time and said that, instead of what I did. But I'm being sincere when I say I mean no disrespect whatsoever! Who am I? Literally no one. If I didn't have nagging uncertainties about this stuff, I would avoid this topic altogether rather than diving headlong into it. Sorry for selfishly hijacking your thread and causing unintended disrespect which was not my motivation at all. I never really did learn how to "read the room," it's a personal problem just like my unusual interest in religions that I don't actually believe.

All is well.
I'm not religious myself as well, I'm simply spiritual and believes in a higher power.

 

[LostInTheWoods]

It depends on what it's meant by worse though. I live in a Western country in a medium income family. So destiny could think, ok you'll live in a third world country because you dediced to kill yourself. But maybe in that life I will be struggling in basic need but I will loved, I will have a loving family, a partner, friends, I will not feel like I'm an outcast...it depends on what destiny consider worse

 

[Not A Fan]

Just adding my two cents since you mentioned something that interested me.

Logic is as perfect a tool as we can have, especially since most logics we use have a finitary deductive representation - we can write proofs down on paper according to the rules of some logic, and those proofs are finite in nature. Then we have to trust our eyes and our verification process. That's as best as we can do.

However, logical systems have inherent limitations that are well-known to the mathematicians that study them. Some mathematicians study a phenomenon known as logical independence, which occurs when a logic is incapable of concluding the truth or falsity (or particular truth value, in the case of some more modern logics) of a statement. Since all of mathematics is based on logic, this carries over to mathematics. Since natural sciences are based on mathematics and some kind of implied background logic, this also carries over to science.

Hi, thanks for the reply. I think I might've embarrassed myself with that post a little bit, not sure what I was even getting at. I'm starting to wonder if I'm just getting hung up on semantics because of the word, "assurance." I suspect that I was adhering to stricter interpretation of the word, compared to OP's use of the word in context. OP stated that he or she could "provide assurance" related to matters of the afterlife. Now my mistake seems obvious, because what need would there be to conjure up personal faith, if one could rely on assurances (as I understood the word)? Isn't the whole power of faith as something that endures, in spite of doubt. Faith, what makes it faith, is that it can be invoked even in the face of overwhelming doubt, even (and especially) in the absence of all earthly assurances. But then again, that's just some stupid made-up definition, and I have no doubt that a word like "assurance" and the associated concept of "certainty" comes in many different flavors, of which logic is one. I agree with you, too, that we can recognize logic as excellent tool within its domain even while being aware of certain inherent limitations.

One could make the same statement about religions, whether or not one is a practitioner. Faith and reason can stay in their respective lanes and there is no need for a fight. Math rarely endows anyone with a sense of eternal salvation (except maybe Isaac Newton), nor can (structural) bridges be built with the power of prayer. Even the Roman Catholic church has an official doctrine stating: nothing in Darwin's account of evolution is incompatible with creationist origin myths, or Biblical teachings in particular. Nevertheless, there tends to be a common response , when someone scrutinizes a religious belief, they are called a hypocrite whose false god is Science (sort of a caricature of an overzealous atheist? And revenge for all the times atheists have caricatured Christians.) In conceding that logic is an "imperfect tool," I meant to pre-emptively put that anticipated suspicion to rest.

I'm curious about this distinction you mention between truth values in modern logic vs (traditional, I guess?) logic. I don't really know much about these things, but that caught my attention, the thing about non-binary truth values? This seems like a pretty radical change, so are now we are talking about intermediary degrees between true and false? Where would this be applied... maybe quantum computer firmware? Wikipedia, here I come....

Modern logic is fundamentally a calculus whose rules of operation are determined only by the shape and not by the meaning of the symbols it employs, as in mathematics.

I really need to read up on this, as my ignorant questions about quantum computers make readily apparent! We're actually talking about the 19th century, here..

 

[GuessWhosBack]

Hi, thanks for the reply. I think I might've embarrassed myself with that post a little bit, not sure what I was even getting at. I'm starting to wonder if I'm just getting hung up on semantics because of the word, "assurance." I suspect that I was adhering to stricter interpretation of the word, compared to OP's use of the word in context. OP stated that he or she could "provide assurance" related to matters of the afterlife. Now my mistake seems obvious, because what need would there be to conjure up personal faith, if one could rely on assurances (as I understood the word)? Isn't the whole power of faith as something that endures, in spite of doubt. Faith, what makes it faith, is that it can be invoked even in the face of overwhelming doubt, even (and especially) in the absence of all earthly assurances. But then again, that's just some stupid made-up definition, and I have no doubt that a word like "assurance" and the associated concept of "certainty" comes in many different flavors, of which logic is one. I agree with you, too, that we can recognize logic as excellent tool within its domain even while being aware of certain inherent limitations.

One could make the same statement about religions, whether or not one is a practitioner. Faith and reason can stay in their respective lanes and there is no need for a fight. Math rarely endows anyone with a sense of eternal salvation (except maybe Isaac Newton), nor can (structural) bridges be built with the power of prayer. Even the Roman Catholic church has an official doctrine stating: nothing in Darwin's account of evolution is incompatible with creationist origin myths, or Biblical teachings in particular. Nevertheless, there tends to be a common response , when someone scrutinizes a religious belief, they are called a hypocrite whose false god is Science (sort of a caricature of an overzealous atheist? And revenge for all the times atheists have caricatured Christians.) In conceding that logic is an "imperfect tool," I meant to pre-emptively put that anticipated suspicion to rest.

I'm curious about this distinction you mention between truth values in modern logic vs (traditional, I guess?) logic. I don't really know much about these things, but that caught my attention, the thing about non-binary truth values? This seems like a pretty radical change, so are now we are talking about intermediary degrees between true and false? Where would this be applied... maybe quantum computer firmware? Wikipedia, here I come....

Hey, I am no expert on the afterlife, so I won't comment on that, but I can elaborate further on logic as it is approached in mathematical research.

First I'd like to let you know that none of what I'm about to say is controversial, or my opinion, or something I'm making up. I can provide you with books on these topics if you like. This is a niche field of mathematics and lies at the foundation of all other mathematical fields. I'll drop in some keywords that you can google throughout my reply.

In mathematics there is no such thing as a one true logic. All mathematicians implicitly, whether they know it or not, or care to mention it or not, ascribe to some logical system. There are common logics used, such as first order and higher order logics, and then there are some other logics currently being researched for niche applications that are too complex to describe here.

Anyways. Back in the day, mathematicians would come up with famous results, which required proof. Proofs were written in plain old natural language with fancy symbols flying around - much like what you would see if you were to open a book on real analysis. Many times, a famous result would get 'proven', the mathematical community would accept the proof, and some years later someone would find a mistake in the reasoning of the proof, and either fix it, or declare all consequences of that result in jeopardy. This was a big problem.

As such, some mathematicians became invested in trying to safeguard some sort of foundation for mathematics that we can trust, a foundation that would give us a standard definition of what a 'proof' is and looks like, and most importantly, such proofs should be verifiable through an algorithm, or "by hand", without requiring one to *actually understand* the mathematical meaning behind the proof. This would allow mathematicians to verify their reasoning without bias or human opinion. A proof would stand on its own, without anyone having to declare it correct. Much like a game of chess that follows the rules, a proof would be an exploration in the application of the rules of the logical system being used.

In the late 1800s, early 1900s, there was a "call to action" by famous mathematicians to seek an adequate logical system that could serve as the "main logic" of mathematics. Some philosophers and mathematicians were working on what we now call first order logic. This logic turned out to be great for most of mathematics being discovered back then. First order logic deals with two truth values, you can call them whatever you want, some call them 0 and 1, some True and False. Nowadays, we have computer programs that accept first order proofs and can tell you if they are correct or not, without knowing what the context is.

However although first order logic has decent expressivity (we can write most mathematical curiosities in the syntax of first order logic, and then reason about them according to its rules) it does not cater to ALL questions we typically care to ask about in mathematics. Furthermore, proving things in first order logic is HARD. Just ask any mathematician who has spent a decade trying to prove some difficult result.

So mathematicians further expanded on first order logic to enrich its syntax so that it may cater for more nuanced statements in mathematics. But some mathematicians had more ambition. They wanted to generalise the notion of a logic to its limits. This led to the idea of an "institution". You can google it, an institution is an element in the category of objects which behave like logical systems. If you're a programmer, you might think of the category of institutions as all possible instances of the "logical system" interface. The description of this interface is on Wikipedia, there is an article about institutions there. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institution_(computer_science)

All logics ever conceived by man are some instance in the category of institutions. In particular, one can even have logics where the truth values considered are 3, 4, any amount, countably infinite, uncountably infinite, some specific cardinal, the list goes on. You might have heard of fuzzy logics, where truth values are typically an interval from 0 to 1. Fuzzy logics are a special case of MV-Algebras (multi valued algebras), which are a subclass of the category of institutions.

One can even have logics where the truth values are ordered, or not ordered, or where the truth values form a part of a space equipped with some topology. This is all very abstract and I think goes too far. But it's there, people study this.

I could go on and on, and refine what I've written, because what I've written does not do the subject complete justice. But it would take me days, if not weeks.

What's interesting is that, one can embed "old fashioned" logical systems into the modern ones, and study the old from the new. So even if we abandon an old logical system in favour of one with a different set of truth values, we might still be able to talk about the capabilities of the old one.

If you have specific questions let me know.

 

[PhDone]

I read a book by a Buddhist teacher who had been struck by chronic illness. She said that the positive in enduring illness is that you are in the throes of clearing karma. But what if you cant endure it? If the suffering is so great and has so many layers that you are suffering on multiple fronts. I still wonder how this can be reflecting a karma of someone I believe is not so awful, or been so awful in previous lifetimes, that they earnt this. So then are we really taking what must be an immense karmic debt and compounding it with more through ctb?

I can go along with the concept of continuing the journey where we left off if we terminate early. But if we havent coped with this level of suffering this time, we're unlikely to again.

And where does the concept of a self-organising universe come in? Everything is interactive and outcomes emerge from the complex whole. So its not just our actions we are wearing the consequences of. What happens at our hand is never just at our hand. As someone said, whether actions are viewed positively or negatively is partly circumstantial, but also what you do is highly interdependent with others actions, locally and non-locally. Quantum physics talks to entanglement and non-locality. Many of its concepts overlap those of spiritual traditions. We are a giant information store (cf. the book Science and the Alashic field) interacting, co-creating futures and sharing experiences. If, as many traditions talk to, we are One, then we are simply fragments of the infinite field. Can karma be truly an individual thing then? Or is it more beneficial to the whole, for us to continue exploring what we had been experiencing, or contributing through into our next life. There is a challenge as to how independent we are as a life form. Are we part and contribute to the whole, or are we independent? Non-duality challenges the concept of us being independent at all. That it is our ego imposing grandeur of us being an independent 'I'. That ego is the illusion. Consciousness is the awareness from which thoughts arise. Thoughts are heavier energy, starting to take form, action arising from thought heavier yet, and manifesting in the physical domain. So if the source is awareness (maybe the quantum field), did we really produce our thought or did it produce itself? How does karma relate to this?

And all of these ponderings are based on human frameworks and theories based, as someone said, on the tiniest of understandings of the life that has existed down the ages of this universe. We can only use our current capacities to explore understanding. And we shift that every time we learn more. So we are nowhere near able to even imagine what other possibilities there are for how this is all working. Maybe Quantum mechanics is closer. For now. Energy, all interacting and sharing information in order to create a continual fractal of expansion called life. Where does this energy field exist? Is this the 'afterlife'?

I do fear the karmic debt. Becoz so many traditions and religions talk to it. Even if I'm not sure of karma itself. Eckhart Tolle even said "you ctb to relieve yourself from suffering, with no ability to imagine what worse suffering could wait for you on the other side". Shit

Its hard to reconcile. All made more sense before I got sick. Earning things and paying consequences.

So is the karmic thing impacting people's thoughts of ctb? Dissuading you?