Beyond the void

[Attila]

Beyond the void

I have been having an interesting debate at another forum about something I have though much about, namely the void, death and the afterlife.
My conclusion is that death does not actually occur anywhere, nor to any thing, at any time whatsoever, forever!

From another forum;

This is how Michael Novak encapsulated it in The Experience of Nothingness[/i].

I recognize that I put structure into my world....There is no 'real' world out there, given, intact, full of significance. Consciousnes is constituted by randon, virtually infinite barrages of experience; these experiences are indistinguishably 'inner' and 'outer'.....Structure is put into experience by culture and self, and may also be pulled out again....The expereince of nothingness is an experience beyond the linits of reason...it is terrifying. It makes all attempts at speaking of purpose, goals, aims, meaning, importance, conformity, harmnony, unity----it makes all such attempts seem doubtful and spurious.

[i]But Novak, of course, ultimately has God to fall back on. He blinks, in other words. What intrigues me, however, is the survival strategies of those who don't blink.

This will be somewhat spurious but in my visions I experienced the void [lets take this as a mental experience], the process is probably like death where all the senses are turned off except pure experience. I liken the senses to a hand, usually it is open and the senses [fingers] continually reach out for information, the void is experienced when the hand closes and there is no distinct sensory input. The question in death then becomes; what happens when the hand opens again, indeed can it? [I use death so as to understand the experience of the void].

Let us take ‘second sight’ ~ there is no such thing, the same applies to all the senses I.e. that’s all there is [the same senses but different usage of]. Second sight is merely unsubstantiated ordinary sight, in other words it is sight without input from the physical world. We can experience this in dreams visions and hallucinations, where it is the mind itself which is a source for ones visual experience.

So there we are in the void with no physical input, firstly I would state that absolutely everything you experience in your mind is of the mind, your heart beats but the experience of that is purely mental, your heart and lungs etc are mental objects, in fact your entire body as you experience it is a mental object. So now we are here in the void and yet with everything we had in life as experienced by the mind, so the big question is; can we touch someone else? Can we experience anything bar the void?

Well reducing things to their simplest, what is there which divides one soul [mental body] from another? I think that in the physical world it is that very source of input which divides us from the true experience of each other and of the environment. The senses are very shy and will not even attempt to experience anything which is not substantiated from physical input, this is simply because harm will quickly come to it if it does. We can break that connection with hallucinogens because the soul can no longer be sure of those inputs and will attempt to ‘see’ via perception etc, or in dreams we are safe in our beds and can afford the luxury of imaginary visualisations.

My guess is that beyond the void is an eternal mental world [as it has no physical restrictions nor limits]

Sorry did I just explain the mystery .

[Dendrias]

A world without "physicality", a mental world ... I've heard that from Rilke, though in poet's words:
"to enter into pure being" (from my point of view, English is too "stiff" or too flexible to translate the words in their forms (quite important) and the connotations going with it - sorry for You, but I hope the translation will do). So, take a volume of Rilke's poetry, especially the "Sonnets to Orpheus", abstain from the "Book of Hours", though it's not really christian as it seems.

[Attila]

"to enter into pure being"

Or ‘Buddha being’ as Buddhists refer to it as.

This is one of the more likely explanations, but it does nothing to explain a mental realm of ‘thinking beings‘.

The ability to think, to have a will, a conscience, a heart and all the other attributes of the soul [mental body], is what would remain. Sure one can reduce the attributes of the mind by abstaining from thought ~ the discipline of detachment, though I cannot imagine why one would wish to, you would want to see and be with friends and loved ones surely. I can see pure being as some kind of end game though I am torn between that and life ~ the experience of the now. It seams that we began at ’0’ [pure being] and that the purpose - if you will, of life is to be in the experience of the present.

It’s a bit like this; a beggar does not seek a non materialistic life, yet the prince [Buddha] seeks to be a beggar [not a real one obviously ].

[Attila]

Perhaps we can focus the debate like so…

There are three main life/eternity scenarios I can think of;

1. Nothing, then life, then nothing. Truly only death throughout, we are just biological robots and that is not ‘life’ its just animated chemicals. Otherwise where does one start life?

2. Pure mind [or infinite universal mind etc] then life then a return to pure mind. Some ancient culture esp in the americas seamed to have this view of a return to what they called ‘the original self’.

3. That there is an eternal soul [the overself], to be complete it must be incarnated in the underworld [as a fay person] then in the material world [as you and me], and finally to return to its original and eternal self in the overworld/eternity.

Hmm…

4. That the purpose of it all is to be here in the present where experience of things occurs, and that all other worlds are false. our individuality is simply part of the universal expression. We begin and end, but what we are part of continues in the continuum.

5. Trnasmigration. There are many realms and worlds but there is no hierarchy, the soul can change into any form, go anywhere and even not be something they appear to be - in a literal sense. In short freedom.


which would you think nearest to your perspective on it all?

note; I am not sure if the two kinds of original selves are actually the same thing ~ I expect they may be.

[FoxPhantom]

I kinda wondered about that, that once the person dies, do they return where they came from? (nothingness) or is there something higher, something that takes someone somewhere to whatever they believed in?

I don't know myself, but I think that all physical senses turn off, while the sixth sense stay on.

[Attila]

I kinda wondered about that, that once the person dies, do they return where they came from? (nothingness) or is there something higher, something that takes someone somewhere to whatever they believed in?

I don't know myself, but I think that all physical senses turn off, while the sixth sense stay on.

Well the senses as experienced by the mind are non-physical [are of the mind], so as long as that mind remains then it should be able to sense just as it does now, after all what we subjectively experience is not physical.

I am unsure if our beliefs count for much in the end, I would think they don’t matter as concerns our births, right? I expect there to be a world ~ just as there is a ‘mind-body’ [the subject] there would be a ‘mind-world’. I think we can begin to think of things in terms of their replicas in that world, and that the other world is a shared entity as is this world, for example, I think light is not of the mind or self but is connected to that. I would go so far as to say that a commonality of qualia [such as light] is true in both this and the other worlds.

In the end we have something very similar to this world in its basic constitution, namely of individuals in a shared commonality or people in a shared world.

This of course begs so many more questions like; would we feel love, pain etc. I guess we would but it would be far more subjective, we wouldn’t have a constant nagging input from the physical senses nor death, this alone would make it a very pleasant experience though not devoid of sense and feeling.

[RedSky]

I'm enjoying the thread. your questions are or rather were important to me when I identified my self with my thinking mind. anymore, I'm able to look into the abyss pretty much at will by stilling the thinking mind. The sensory inputs are still functional, I just try not to categorize or analyze the inputs unless life demands it. We have to be in the world in order to ...hmm why do we need to be of the world? ah, its fun sometimes and helps pay the bills. I'm going to plug Eckhard Tolle now. He's written good stuff that has helped me along. Jerzi kosinski's "Being There", also deserves a plug, also Albert Ellis Jr. because if you must think, for your sake, think rationally.
Most people identify the self with the thinking mind. That's the norm I suppose. Me too for 1/2 a century. Now I see it as a tool to get me out of jambs, or otherwise help me along the way. The real self I think is the still pool at the center which is fed by the senses. I think that center is the god nature within us that all the religions talk about but very few instruct on how to get there. Its simple and it doesn't require dogma and it doesn't require thinking. It require NOT thinking, just being.
The loss of the sensory inputs eludes me. I can't conceptualize that and have no wish to go there unless i can get back, which trick I have not learned. Someday perhaps when this pile of lucky mud returns to the worms. I'm having too much fun here, which was not always the case while I was stuck in Descartes I think therefor I am line of hooey. At my present state I would not call myself enlightened, but I think I have seen the light.
Peace be with you, you are closer than you think
Bill

[Attila]

Hi redsky

I saw ‘being there’ the film if that’s the same, great film.

Can we ‘identify’ with anything other than our thinking mind? The pure mind has no self etc. anyways I get your meaning though for me I see nothing particularly wrong with wanting to exist, to be with family and friends on the other side would be a pleasure without all the iniquities of earthly existence. I have been into Tibetan Buddhism in the past so I get the meaning even it the ethics are flawed [if the sun went supernova then we all get into nirvana/ceugant irrespective of karma/dharma].

The loss of the sensory inputs eludes me. I can't conceptualize that and have no wish to go there unless i can get back

As I see it one only has to think of something ~ any given thing, to get out of oblivion [lack of sensory input], but my guess is that oblivion is never arrived at, detachment leads to nirvana ~ emptiness rather than an all consuming darkness. Perhaps the very experience of that would be bliss, though I wonder if that alludes to the senses? Statelessness is probably nothing, hence it would not be bliss.

Ah well I will reconsider nirvana in an eternities time.

[Baylin]

I was going to start a new thread with my questions, but I spotted this one and it seems to fall into line with your discussion. I hope I am not hijacking your actual intentions.

I have been doing alot of studying on both reincarnation and the circles of existence, both mainstream Druidic belief. It is my understanding that many druids believe in the cycle of reincarnation as the perfecting of the consciousness, at which point that consciousness will ascend into a state where further reincarnation is no longer necessary, and the spirit/consciousness exists from that point on in a spiritual state of higher ability. The cycle of reincarnation could supposedly continue forever if that soul was unable to ever manage to reach that stage of perfection, and can also during that stage of reincarnating actually remiss with every failing where the soul fails to grow instead of evolve.

My questions arise when I attempt to consider the invocation of the gods in druidic ritual. And I am in the predicament where I cannot begin to actually initiate my practice and craft until I can resolve the mindset around this.

First of all, where are these gods invoked from? if they are passed on ancestors, they should still be in the cycle of reincarnation, which would mean that they would be in another identity now. For instance, the goddess Isis; if she was once an Egyptian Queen, wouldn't she now be moved along in her reincarnation into another life and identity? And if there is no memory of past lives in the process until we reach the state of ascension, than how could she know she was being invoked anyway?

Also, because of this train of thought one would suppose that the only gods that could be invoked are those who have actually reached the state of ascension and are no longer suffering the cycle of reincarnation. But it would seem unlikely that all of the Egyptian pantheon would all ascend at the same time to be available for invocation.

So a few more questions arise when we look into this in such detail.

If these gods that we are invoking are not the actual personages of those ancestors, than are they ascended beings impersonating them for the sake of attending to our needs? OR

Were those ancestors actually already ascended beings that had come to us in human forms for the purpose of leading us into higher understandings? this would explain our ability to invoke them after their passing because they would not have actually passed back into a reincarnating state, but into their actual ascended state. This is the train of thought that I am falling into in order to support my ability to invoke them. But I am hoping that someone here might be able to enlighten me further on this matter.

Also is it possible that the Egyptian pantheon falls into a different category in some way than the other gods and goddesses of legend?

[Attila]

Baylin hi, this will take some reading but I think its worth it…

It is my understanding that many druids believe in the cycle of reincarnation as the perfecting of the consciousness, at which point that consciousness will ascend into a state where further reincarnation is no longer necessary, and the spirit/consciousness exists from that point on in a spiritual state of higher ability. The cycle of reincarnation could supposedly continue forever if that soul was unable to ever manage to reach that stage of perfection, and can also during that stage of reincarnating actually remiss with every failing where the soul fails to grow instead of evolve.

And if the sun went supernova tomorrow? …and if what limits us isn’t causal?

I am more into the druidic principle of transmigration, life may not be morality driven but is there simply to be experienced. That the soul learns as it goes is great, but I don’t think it is limited by causal effects in the world.

My questions arise when I attempt to consider the invocation of the gods in druidic ritual. And I am in the predicament where I cannot begin to actually initiate my practice and craft until I can resolve the mindset around this.
First of all, where are these gods invoked from? if they are passed on ancestors, they should still be in the cycle of reincarnation, which would mean that they would be in another identity now. For instance, the goddess Isis; if she was once an Egyptian Queen, wouldn't she now be moved along in her reincarnation into another life and identity? And if there is no memory of past lives in the process until we reach the state of ascension, than how could she know she was being invoked anyway?

From what I gather this is not how the ancient druids saw it - if I may, druids didn’t believe in samsara which was developed in India and druidry derived from similar indo-European traditions, but such concepts were later ~ after the cultures had gone their different ways. There are many similarities, for example the hindu concept of godhead is perhaps a more concise version of how I see the druidic vision of reality; essentially where the druids crossed swords with the roman philosophy of god adoption is that they simply didn’t see gods in that way and so a druidic god is not like a Greco-roman counterpart. Instead of gods as like objects or people, they are more thought of as like an interface with an underlying force and set of forces, namely the circles of abred and the awens.

The ancestors are not in the cycle of reincarnation because they are ‘over-selves’, I.e. what we become after our incarnations in the world. The tricky bit is that we are all both there and here, in fact the soul dwells in all three realms, the underworld world and over world [the underworld is not like hell but just another world and one where we originate [as fay people] before entering this world.

Below* is how the ancient Egyptians saw it, so that will help with your isis question. She may or may not have been reborn [I doubt it because she is a goddess] but even if she way the isis persona may still be utilised as an interface with the universal spirit and indeed it would be her once that connection is made.

In short we need to think of everything being within one infinite sphere and go from there.

----------

*The soul of the pyramid

Someone posted me this concise understanding of Egyptian spirituality so I felt I had to pass it on as it is usually so confusing, many people ascribe different meanings to the various aspects, but I feel this is the best explanation I have come across to date. I have added some elements [some from wiki] to further explain it and to fill in what I thought was missing.
Personally I feel that if you read between the lines and form some manner of unified vision then it is not so fragmented, though it may intentionally be as such to act as a life-training tool. It wont be easy to understand but it is well worth taking the time to read this single page of information, the Egyptian civilisation was entirely built around its spirituality which lasted many thousands of years, and this is the result of not only many thousands [possibly hundreds of thousands] of Egyptian scholars, but many modern ones too.

Ancient Egyptian metaphysics does not employ the simple Judaeo-Christian concepts of »ego«, »personality«, »soul« or »personhood«. The pharaoh is a matrix composed of various intra-psychic and extra-psychic entities.

As far as his inner realm is concerned, the pharaoh is a cluster of interacting components the harmony and integrity of which must be preserved and reinforced in a life-long process of fine-tuning.

These components include;

1. The »akh« ~ a latent soul that becomes manifest as soon as it enters the circumpolar realm. Presumably this is what the soul becomes as it leaves its earthly body.

2. The »ka« ~ a 'gestalt soul' or invisible doppelganger that produces and preserves the visible form of the human body [and its mummy].

3. The »ba« ~ an agile soul that mediates between akh and ka, astral and terrestrial existence, the world and the beyond.
The 'Ba' (b3) is in some regards the closest to the contemporary Western religious notion of a soul, but it also was everything that makes an individual unique, similar to the notion of 'personality'. (In this sense, inanimate objects could also have a 'Ba', a unique character, and indeed Old Kingdom pyramids often were called the 'Ba' of their owner). Like a soul, the 'Ba' is an aspect of a person that the Egyptians believed would live after the body died, and it is sometimes depicted as a human-headed bird flying out of the tomb to join with the 'Ka' in the afterlife.
Some have argued as I do, that the Ba is not part of the person but the person himself unlike the soul in Greek, or late Judaic or Christian thought. It is the actual ‘you’.

The word 'bau', plural of the word ‘ba‘, meant something similar to 'impressiveness', 'power', and 'reputation', and is perhaps the reflection of oneself in the world and how we are perceived by others. one takes an immediate sense of who a person is upon meeting [fool or wiseman etc] and this is the essence of that sense.

4. The »sechem« ~ a 'power soul' enabling the deceased pharaoh to influence worldly affairs from the beyond.

5. The protective 'shadow soul' called »schut«.

6. The 'god soul' »netscher«

7. Then the 'image soul' »achem« residing in the pharaoh’s statues.

8. The name ren. As a part of the soul, a person's ren was given to them at birth and the Egyptians believed that it would live for as long as that name was spoken, which explains why efforts were made to protect it and the practice of placing it in numerous writings. For example, part of the Book of Breathings, a derivative of the Book of the Dead, was a means to ensure the survival of the name. A cartouche (magical rope) often was used to surround the name and protect it.


The pharaoh is not a mere entity or being, but rather a PROCESS. In spatial terms, his living body is a composite of limbs and individual organs. This non-unified ensemble moves through a complex temporal landscape composed of a rhythmic totality called »neheh«, an unalterable, self-identical infinity called »dshet«, and a personal time called »acha'u«.

The acha'u itself is connected to the vital power »ankh«, the magical capacity »heka«, the truth/justice »ma'at« [universal balance] and the epistemic faculty called »hu«. These forces and fields are independent of the individual ruler. The pharaoh is a shifting zone of interaction, a wandering realm where worldly and otherworldly vectors meet: a 'strange attractor', so to speak. The unity of this sphere must not be allowed to disintegrate: during his lifetime, the pharaoh has to PROVE his integrity at regular intervals; once he has entered the netherworld, this unity is preserved and continually reinforced by a specialized priesthood.

So whenever we analyze the meaning, purpose and function of pyramid complexes, we should not reduce them to mere tombs, socio-economic projects or places of ancestor worship. While a typical pyramid complex does resemble a medieval cathedral, a bustling centre of spiritual and economic activities managed by a priesthood, rather than a dead mausoleum or classical necropolis, it is not even a truly religious artefact. The visible hardware reflects the complexities of a highly sophisticated metaphysical software -- the ancient Egyptian »Science of the Otherworld«, as Prof. Hornung once termed it. »The pyramid« is an interface between the latent and the manifest (see Hornung), potential proto-being and actual being, the 'hidden' and the 'named' (see Prof. Assmann's masterful treatise »Schleier und Schwelle«), the primeval hill of creation and its subsidiary »py«-lands (see Finnestad), the stellar akh and the mummified ka, the abstract sechem of the beyond and the concrete achem of the statues, the straight visible Euclidean space of the world and the strangely non-Euclidean space of the otherworld, the two ancient Egyptian conceptions of time, the personal psychic entities of the pharaoh and the impersonal forces invading him, his astral destiny and his terrestrial obligations, his predecessors and his successors, and the multidimensional netherworld and its ma'at-driven counterpart.

That's why the Egyptian pyramids are absolutely unique. While it is certainly true that these gigantic monuments provided a mighty impulse for the development of administration, astronomy, mathematics and architecture, I maintain that their raison d'etre is not reducible to the socio-economic substructure or ideological superstructure of a highly centralized state, rather the pyramid is the embodiment of the eternal soul .

[Blaiddwen]

Good stuff Attila,
I agree that there is no such thing as "second sight", nor is there such thing as the "otherworld". Both of these terms are born of dualistic thought. The "otherworld" is nothing more than a side of the world which many people do not yet understand.
In my understanding, Death does occur. Death is nothing more than the end of one phase or state, and the transition into another. One universal example of this is the onset of puberty, followed by transition into adulthood, ect.
Some say that it is possible to see across the Abyss, to the light on the far shore, but if you do, you will not return. This idea is brought to bear in the poem "The Spoils of Annwn".

G

[Attila]

Got a link to that poem?

As far as otherworld and other selves, I feel reality or unreality if you like, is multifaceted so without input from the senses [death of the body] the soul/spirit receives a different input or connection. Perhaps that is the far shore?

I agree it is kinda like growing up and perhaps we don’t properly grow up until we loose the umbrella of self.

[kytty]

it name is Preideu annw(f)n and it is taken from the book of Taliesin
if you type this in you will get links to a few version in english

[Attila]

ah right ok thanks