You can not die

[warda]

we are our bodies:
i read somewhere in an islamic text that the soul gets formed at 40. its supposed to be the sum of your bodies experiences and your spiritual partake in life. the latter is very often subconscious and helps create your lifepath. your life experience creates the world and situations befitting your spiritual level and goal.

i worked with that for a while (couple of decades) and for me it quite works. in my experience your spiritual blockages have a lot to do with dna, heritage and walk of life. since i started working on them before 40 i can say its this way, but who knows it can be something totally different and just works because i wanted it this way.

Being:

in the quran there are rules about a marriage between a man and a woman. some of these rules concern the household. it is said that the man is totally responsible for the care of it and the womans job is to be.

i worked very and i mean very hard to get to that point and then some. Being isnt easy everyone wants something of you never giving you room to totally relax and be from deep in your core being. most people wouldnt even be able to handle seeing you while being.  the thing is with being that it doesnt need anything just you totally open, naked, accepting. i think that that is also the reason why in islam its promoted within a marriage. you really need protection in that state. the world isnt ready for it not in the spiritual not here. it creates envy, hate, jealousy, etc. 

now when your less weird then me you might be able to be when doing what you love. your deep inner being then can radiate tru your actions. like being in flow and losing time while having fun. being is like looking at a hummingbird feeding from a flower. totally free from connections hanging in the air. im not that far yet ;)
[hr]

I only know experience, so long as there is experience, that is all I know of me, no matter an associated visible body or lack of one or some other form, at the same time though I agree that most people believe we are a body rather than just an all inclusive screen of experience which only suggests the existence of certain systems or bodies.

then from what point of being do you experience? what are the glasses tru which you experience? and what is the purpose of the body if not for experience?

[kFoyauextlH]

" then from what point of being do you experience? what are the glasses tru which you experience? and what is the purpose of the body if not for experience? "

Great questions and the writing is wonderful again! 


1.then from what point of being do you experience?

2.what are the glasses tru which you experience?

3.and what is the purpose of the body if not for experience?

in my view, all I have access to is a flat layer or sheet called experience, it contains everything I am aware of and thinking of and feeling in a moment, it "informs" me of who I am supposed to be and what is part of my experience which is anything appearing in or on the sheet which is all I am, like a photograph moment to moment.

1.then from what point of being do you experience?
The body is to me a certain Tale which has been made up, I could be given any sort of supposed body or no body, what my real body is, is the experience itself, no matter what the experience may be. So my form if my eyes are shut is a black or dark sheet for example. When I am looking, I am whatever is in my experience, that is what my form is, made up of all those pixels and sensations in that moment. This is a subtle weird point that requires careful attention and is almost counterintuitive since people have become so convinced that there are indeed bodies which is what they see in their flat layer of experience but that is just a story told to them, they are not bodies or have no access to bodies, they are sheets of information, like photos with feelings and sensations in a moment, that is all they access, really see, and actually really are, there is nothing more. What is "brought back" is the experience or idea of being you, a sheet which informs you of things that you are supposed to be.

2.wupt are the glasses tru which you experience?
See, here is the trick, and this can help you and others understand all my writing better hopefully, there is no me who is viewing, I am the view itself, Allah is the viewer. I am the View, the picture in the moment produced, there is no Me behind it, I myself am the View and whatever is in it that flash, and Allah who is like Nothing is the viewer.

3.and what is the purpose of the body if not for experience?
The body is a story told, any other story can be told, the body is a made up thing, you do not need a body really, but no one can experience Non-Experience, and the only Stuff or Matter there really is, is Experience or Information, called Words and Stories. So you could be Made into the Experience (notice the specific wording) of Being bodiless, yet still seeing, hearing, whatever else, it requires nothing, the body is just a certain story told to you, it is not a necessary thing, but what has been made and chosen as an element or idea in the story.

Please see if you can find the time to go through and see that I mention "Shape or Form of Experience" here as well eventually but if taken slowly and with the videos takes one on a great fun journey of intense learning and fun:

http://lunaticoutpost.com/thread-505254.html

[waechter418]

Treating mind and body separately, multiplies & disseminates experiences - treating them as a psycho-somatic entity (relativity*) enables to integrate experiences.

* see "A Thelemic view of consciousness" (General Religion, Occult and Spiritual Discussion)

[Socrates]

Treating mind and body separately, multiplies & disseminates experiences - treating them as a psycho-somatic entity (relativity*) enables to integrate experiences.

* see "A Thelemic view of consciousness" (General Religion, Occult and Spiritual Discussion)


I will interject here to say this is not a matter of relativity, but rather contextuality - http://cogprints.org/2621/1/PhilCogSci2-Contextuality.pdf

[waechter418]

that excludes mind which is known to have its own ideas

[atreestump]

that excludes mind which is known to have its own ideas


How does it exclude mind?
[hr]

treating them as a psycho-somatic entity


I usually use the term 'psycho-physiological', psychosomatic is a medical term usually.
[hr]
From the paper:

8. Contextuali ty and Mind There has been a wide debate in philosophy of cognitive science on the question “where is the mind?”. Apart from people whose context leads them to say that the questi on is malformed ( i.e. people that restrict the word “where” to physical p lace s), the literature has been divided mainly into two streams: people defending that the m ind is on ly in the brain (individualists, e.g. Butler, 1998; Adam s and Aiza wa, 2001) , and peopl e defendi ng that the mind is in the brain, body, and world (active externalists, e.g. Varela, 1994; Clark, 1997; Clark and Chalmers, 19 98; Haugelan d, 1998). We would explain the arid debate be cause, b roadly, the people of each band are in different contexts. The main differe nce between them, is their concept o f mind. If, a ccording to our context, we understand that the mind includes only lo gica l r easoni ng, higher order processing of informa tion, deliberation, etc., then very probably w e would agree wi th the indiv idualis ts. If, acc ording to our cont ext, the min d involves also
sensorimotor coordi nation, a ctive pe rceptio n, enactio n, etc., the n we would a gree with the active externa lists. I f our context co ntains bo th contexts and we do not ha ve any preju dice for contradi ctions, we would agr ee with bo th. The refore , the problem of “where is th e mind” can be reduced t o a differenc e of context. If people understand both contexts, then in some conditio ns they can s peak abo ut the mind in one sense, in other conditions in ano ther sense. And the problem just evaporates.

[waechter418]

Psycho-physiological sounds good (might use it in future)

"context" connotes circumstances and as such a surrounding i.e. external affect, which is a physical but not a mental necessity.

I have to admit that i succumbed to the lure of playing with words.
I used to be a arduous student of Nietzsche who expressed his great humour that way (although he had the advantage of German language and being a philologist)

Imagine a "Weltbild" (Self-image) fed with Nietzsche and Crowley .... :angel:

[Socrates]

Nietzsche was the first to use the term psycho-physiology and he unites mind/body/spirit in the context of materialism. He doesn't make a mind/body distinction, we are our bodies.

[Rubsy]

I would say that philosophically I cannot reason that there is an awareness after death. However when someone I love dies I still speak to them and dream about them. Like when my dad died last year,  after his ceremony I heard him talking to me, like he didn't know where he was and I had to explain to him he had died. It felt like he was in a nether world. I think his best  friend was having similar experiences, as he didn't feel well that day. Since them I have dreamed that he is in a paradise, it looks like India with tigers lakes and trees. Some of the animals came running up to me and I was afraid and he said not to be afraid, because they were like puppies and would not harm. He stood under a big papaya tree, ladden with fruit. After that dream, I felt relaxed that he was okay, in an enviroment he would love. None of this is provable it's comjecture, but secretly I hold on to it, I believe it emotionally, but we can never know rationally until we go.

[Socrates]

^I think that's as fair as it can be said.