Death

Angel_of_Death

At death, the body disintegrates into physical particles (atoms and molecules), and the identity that was the body is dissolved. Similarly, the observing and thinking part of the person (the living soul) also disintegrates into considerations (thoughts, ideas, assumptions, expectations, suppositions, conjectures, speculations, etc.), and the identity that was the person is also dissolved. That is my current understanding.

However, the particles and considerations remain and they can recombine into another “body plus living soul” configuration. There is infinity of such recombination.

What are the ultimate laws underlying this disintegration and reintegration, I don’t know the details at the moment. But this seems to be going on forever like complex cycles of some eternal wave according to Hinduism.

Nirvana is something different altogether. It happens to a live soul. In my opinion, nirvana is like de-condensation of CONSIDERATIONS. It is the separation of perception-point from all its considerations. This is called giving up of all attachment in Hinduism. One then sees things as they are without any filters as in Buddhism. There is no individuality in terms of attachment to considerations. A perception point is the same as any other perception point. It does not add anything to what is observed or experienced.

Nothing arrives at Nirvana. it is what remains after all attachments are dissolved. I call it a perception-point. But even the perception-point dissolves at parinirvana by merging into its own manifestation… something like electron merging into positron.

Parinirvana is probably what occurs at death, where the live soul, that was already reduced to a completely detached perception-point, merges back into its own manifestation, extinguishing both. The laws of disintegration and reintegration are thus bypassed. But this is only my speculation.

The basis of this speculation is removal of all inconsistencies that I am aware of at this level.

.

Post a comment or leave a trackback: Trackback URL.

Comments

  • Chris Thompson  On January 18, 2013 at 7:40 AM

    We are sure on the same wavelength this morning… I am writing on another of your threads about this while you are posting this.

    You wrote: “What are the ultimate laws underlying this disintegration and reintegration, I don’t know the details at the moment. But this seems to be going on forever like complex cycles of some eternal wave according to Hinduism.”

    Chris: But thermodynamics would teach us that this does indeed NOT go on forever. Possibly “apathy” could be called the “entropy of the spirit?”

    • vinaire  On January 18, 2013 at 7:43 AM

      Then we have an inconsistency to resolve.

      .

      • Chris Thompson  On January 18, 2013 at 7:58 AM

        Yes, either physics is dead wrong or there are layers of mysticism about the self to dissolve.

        • vinaire  On January 18, 2013 at 4:26 PM

          I hate to say this to you, but there is this unknowable.

          .

        • Chris Thompson  On January 18, 2013 at 9:36 PM

          hehe, I don’t mind. I feel apt to use it as well, but don’t since any mention of it brings up an inconsistency. Anymore, I don’t have any feeling about “unknowable” at all. I understand using the concept; I can use it or would use it if it helped to make a point; but I am kind of finding it useful to go the opposite way, to say that EVERYTHING IS KNOWABLE; NOTHING IS UNKNOWABLE. I am finding many reasons to fortify a material point of view and TOE. I don’t broadcast this much as it is so volatile a subject, plus I am changing all the time and my own viewpoints are embryonic iterations. Not many people seem to have their balance when talking about electrifying subjects such as spirits and will and determinism.

        • vinaire  On January 18, 2013 at 10:25 PM

          There is nothing inconsistent about unknowable. How can there be any inconsistency when you don’t know what that inconsistency is. It is unknowable.

          Unknowable forms the background of inconsistency because when there is something inconsistent there is always something deeper underlying it that can be known. That would be a chip off the unknowable.

          So, the unknowable has fringes that are continually turning into knowable. But at the center unknowable is continually being added.

          .

        • Chris Thompson  On January 19, 2013 at 12:37 AM

          The way I see unknowable is that you can conjecture that something may exist which not only doesn’t exist but cannot exist and then leave it at that. We can acknowledge a thought like that — Yes.

          It becomes inconsistent to substitute it for unknown knowledge that we could be using our effort and focus to know. It is a seductive trap to embrace it too closely.

        • vinaire  On January 19, 2013 at 5:22 AM

          I look at it differently. Unknowable is unknowable. It doesn’t exist because anything that exists can be known. That’s all. There is no inconsistency.

          Inconsistency comes only when one adds more to the above concept.

          .

        • Chris Thompson  On January 19, 2013 at 11:08 AM

          If I understand our conversations correctly, unknowable is the adjective which means “outside thought.” If so, then once we think it . . . well, you know the rest.

          I don’t have a problem with the idea, as you’ve said, of a place holder, if it helps further our research. If we are mindful to not allow it to stop our thoughts; be mindful to not allow it to become a satisfying answer to questions which have actual answers, it shouldn’t be a problem.

        • vinaire  On January 19, 2013 at 1:14 PM

          It is helpful in that when we say, “This is so and so,” then we know that “so and so” is our consideration.

          Thus, the true basis of any consideration is unknowable.

          .

        • Chris Thompson  On January 19, 2013 at 12:43 AM

          Vin: So, the unknowable has fringes that are continually turning into knowable. But at the center unknowable is continually being added.

          Chris: So unknowable is the not yet manifested future iteration? The future as yet unmanifested automaton whose break in direction is both unknown and for which the resulting math resembles or is random?

        • vinaire  On January 19, 2013 at 5:34 AM

          Unknowable is unknowable. One may consider whatever about it, and that consideration becomes knowable.

          That’s it. A mystery is a mystery. There is nothing more to it.

          .

        • Chris Thompson  On January 19, 2013 at 12:46 AM

          Vin: There is nothing inconsistent about unknowable.

          Chris: Neither does it have any consistency. Unknowable modifies nothing at all. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1SCOimBo5tg

        • vinaire  On January 19, 2013 at 5:38 AM

          Unknowable is unknowable. Anything you say about it or consider about it is not unknowable.

          .

  • Chris Thompson  On January 18, 2013 at 8:02 AM

    There are potential differences in energy states.
    These potential differences are discrete.
    These potential differences “want” to equalize.
    These differences in potential energy are inconsistent.
    Leveling these inconsistencies produces consistency; equilibrium; and entropy.

    • vinaire  On January 18, 2013 at 4:28 PM

      The Big Bang went the other way, or did it?

      .

      • Chris Thompson  On January 18, 2013 at 9:41 PM

        Bingo. Just what I have been mulling over today. Assuming a Big Bang; this universe has been following a one-way arrow ever since the initial instant of space-time. That arrow has been pointing toward increasing entropy since that moment.

        • vinaire  On January 18, 2013 at 10:26 PM

          Don’t forget to look at the Big Bang…

          .

  • Chris Thompson  On January 18, 2013 at 9:42 PM

    What does increasing entropy mean; how can it be applied to the leveling of inconsistencies? I know what appears when I ask that question, what appears for you?

    • vinaire  On January 18, 2013 at 10:33 PM

      Increasing entropy means “leveling out.” For example, when bodies at different temperature come into contact, they average out to the same temperature. It never happens the other way.

      But it requires some underlying law. It is the law of gravity that brings all bodies of water to an average level when those bodies are connected to each other. In case of temperature, it is the vibration of the molecules that assumes an average value by coming into touch with each other.

      .

      • Chris Thompson  On January 19, 2013 at 12:49 AM

        Regarding entropy in life, we agree. Life is a one way race toward death.

        • vinaire  On January 19, 2013 at 5:43 AM

          But looking and mindfulness reverse entropy.

          .

        • Chris Thompson  On January 19, 2013 at 12:10 PM

          I can see how you would say that; however, I have to ask do they really? Is there any reason to think so? Can another explanation be that looking and mindfulness take stored energy from one’s self and move it to bring order to the inconsistency?

          Bit by bit, the self’s inconsistencies level. When one’s self is completely leveled, isn’t one dead?

        • vinaire  On January 19, 2013 at 1:24 PM

          What or who dies?

          .

  • Chris Thompson  On January 19, 2013 at 12:28 PM

    If we can understand that the entropy of one frame of reference can yet be potential when connected to another frame of reference, then I could extrapolate that the entropy of this life may yet leave a potential difference in life force between death and another frame of reference.

    Written another way, for those seeking a “hopeful” comment about death, that is one.

    • vinaire  On January 19, 2013 at 1:57 PM

      Entropy noun 1. measure of the energy in a system that is not available for conversion into mechanical work 2. the tendency toward disorder in any system

      Here is the reference from Wikipedia: entropy

      Entropy decrease only as one approaches the absolute zero while converting all thermal energy to mechanical energy. If cannot approach absolute zero then there would always be thermal energy that cannot be converted to mechanical energy.

      If one looks at conversion of thermal energy as “as-isness of thermal energy” all the way to absolute zero (or no motion), then we see that reduction of entropy requires (1) as-isness of thermal motion, and (2) approach toward no-thermal motion.

      In metaphysics, this would translate as (1) as-isness of motion induced by considerations, and (2) approach toward the state of no-motion induced by considerations. Motion is induced by attachment to considerations. Thus, as one as-ises the motion induced by attachment to considerations, and moves toward the state of no attachment to considerations, we reduce the metaphysical entropy.

      .

    • vinaire  On January 19, 2013 at 2:02 PM

      Attachment to any frame of reference denotes metaphysical entropy. Death, as we know it, is just another frame of reference.

      What is your understanding of death?

      .

  • Chris Thompson  On January 19, 2013 at 12:32 PM

    This universe does not admit a static.
    This universe does not admit perpetual motion.
    Entropy is a fact of this universe.
    So then I have to ask whether the model of entropy must be applied to life. Can entropy be avoided at all?

    • Chris Thompson  On January 19, 2013 at 12:52 PM

      Which is to say that this universe does not admit to nothing.
      Mysticism to me extends to the understanding of nothing which of course is an inconsistent statement.

      • vinaire  On January 19, 2013 at 2:05 PM

        Unknowable is not an understanding either… neti, neti.

        .

        • Chris Thompson  On January 19, 2013 at 3:57 PM

          I was referring to mysticism and not unknowable.

        • vinaire  On January 19, 2013 at 5:04 PM

          The ultimate mystery underlying mysticism is unknowable.

          .

    • vinaire  On January 19, 2013 at 2:03 PM

      Please see my explanation of metaphysical entropy above.

      .

  • Brian  On January 23, 2013 at 6:18 PM

    Your concept of the soul “merging back into its own manifestation” seems to me to hold a major inconsistency.

    • vinaire  On January 23, 2013 at 6:44 PM

      You mean soul or perception-point?

      .

    • Chris Thompson  On January 23, 2013 at 7:48 PM

      How so?

    • Chris Thompson  On January 27, 2013 at 3:29 PM

      Waiting.

    • vinaire  On January 27, 2013 at 10:40 PM

      I think that Brian has withdrawn. I doubt if he is following the discussion closely enough to contribute to it. He needs to understand the following:

      (1) It is the perception point that merges back into the manifestation from which it separated from.

      (2) Soul is the resultant thrust of all the considerations that the perception-point has gotten attached to.

      (3) The spiritual progress would come about as the perception-point starts to shred its attachment to considerations.

      (4) As attachment to considerations starts to dissolve, so does the soul.

      (5) When all the attachments are dissolved, so is the soul. All that is left now is the perception point..

      (6) The perception point may stay unattached. or it may start attaching itself back to considerations once again, thus, creating and beefing up the soul.

      (7) Or the perception-point may simply focus on the manifestation that created it

      (8) The perception-point itself dissolves and so does the prime manifestation, when the two finally combine.

      .

      • Chris Thompson  On January 27, 2013 at 11:09 PM

        actually, scratch that. If I read your post above better, you answered my question. 🙂

  • Ryan D. Walker  On January 27, 2013 at 2:03 PM

    This problem is no less than that of the union of soul and body. It comes before us clearly and with urgency, because we make a profound distinction between matter and spirit. And we cannot regard it as insoluble, since we define spirit and matter by positive characters, and not by negations. It is in very truth within matter that pure perception places us, and it is really into spirit that we penetrate by means of memory. But on the other hand, whilst introspection reveals to us the distinction between matter and spirit, it also bears witness to their union. Either, then, our analyses are vitiated aborigine, or they must help us to issue from the difficulties that they raise.

    • Chris Thompson  On January 27, 2013 at 3:24 PM

      ha-ha, funny!

    • vinaire  On January 27, 2013 at 3:52 PM

      Brain and mind represent a union of physical and spiritual. They are two different aspects of the same system.

      At a more fundamental level it is the atom (physical) and the PATTERN of electrons (spiritual).

      That is how I see it.

      .

  • Chris Thompson  On January 27, 2013 at 11:08 PM

    That’s a good way to lay it all out Vin.

    I am curious if Nirvana is attainable in life with body, and ,
    or if death does the trick whether we are on board or not?

    Either way, the entity seems dissolved back toward a more primitive form = entropy.

    So you mentioned opposite of spiritual entropy, and I say this requires addition of spiritual energy. I’m not so sure how we left that.

  • vinaire  On October 26, 2014 at 9:44 PM

    After death the body disintegrates into atoms and molecules. We may refer to that disintegrated body as “meta-body” of the person.

    Similarly, after death, the self also disintegrates into bits and pieces of consciousness. We may refer to that disintegrated self as “meta-self ” of the person.

    What we call soul is actually this meta-self (disintegrated self) of the person. It is no longer a single entity.
    .

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: