• ⚠️ UK Access Block Notice: Beginning July 1, 2025, this site will no longer be accessible from the United Kingdom. This is a voluntary decision made by the site's administrators. We were not forced or ordered to implement this block.

NaturalBornNEET

NaturalBornNEET

俺は絶対にセックスになるんだ
Feb 22, 2022
140
By death I mean the atheist cop-out idea of the cessation of consciousness, i.e. the void of nothingness

All concepts of the afterlife in every which religion can be interpreted as metaphors for life here on earth. Hell is the illusion of separation from God and its creations (God being you, the fundamental ground of reality that creates and unites all its creations/manifestations) which ultimately presents itself as negative feelings. Heaven is the experience of union with your fragmented pieces, which can be either the union of some of your pieces (e.g. intimacy with a loved one, enjoying good food) or union with all of your pieces (mystical experiences).

Reincarnation is real too, but it is not just something that happens when your human body dies, that's just one metaphor for a process that is constantly happening, infinite shapeshifting of the forms within your field of experience. Every passing thought, feeling, sensation, scene, experience into the next is a micro-reincarnation "Escaping samsara" is awakening to the non-dual nature of all these forms, that everything you experience is an incarnation of the unifying source which is the singularity of consciousness. Leading to an absence of all fear and desire (how can you yearn after what you never lacked?)

But it's pretty simple to talk about the metaphors within religions' interpretations of the afterlife, but to the main point of this thread. Will your consciousness cease when your physical body dies? I see no reason to believe so; it makes more sense to believe this consciousness, the one thing you've never not experienced within a lifetime of constant separation from the objects of consciousness, will suddenly extinguish the moment this brain shuts off for good, why would my brain be any different from the millions of other objects that can disappear in the presence of my consciousness and not cause that consciousness to die with it. Do you see how self centered such thinking is, I think belief in death is wholly an emotional thing, we're simply too attached to our human selves that we can't imagine reality without it.

Another thing I can appeal to other than the unshakeable AMness of consciousness is the magnitude of the universe. It intuitively makes more sense that a universe so full of potential experiences would make the conscious experiencer of itself able to experience it in its entirety through a system such as reincarnation. "No, your personal consciousness ends with your physical death, and the rest of the universe is experienced through the consciousness of all its other inhabitants until they too die" some believe. But this ignores the truth of all perceived dualities being illusions, that existence is fundamentally a single entity. This means even the distinction of different conscious observers is arbitrary and ultimately untenable. All that is happening is happening within consciousness and consciousness is right here right now, the you reading this and the whole field you're experiencing this in.

On the contrary: life doesn't exist, you have always and will always be dead in the same way your cup is dead. The category of living organism is a fabrication. You are an infinitely shaped fabric contorting itself into infinite self-referential configurations, playing a puppet show with itself to itself; embroidering itself with recondite patterns that all point back to itself.

tl;dr: death is just metamorphosis, with the single thing not changing being the witness consciousness of this eternal cycle of shape-shifting, which is both the witness and the witnessed.

I know this will be bitter to think of for many here, and in the end these are just the words of a young dumb human desperate for meaning and who wanted to make a provocative post. But I don't think it has to be a sad thing, ultimately why we're all here are because of conditions that torture us, not out of a dislike for existence itself, that's like mistaking the pollution for the sky. So I'm not discounting the decision to CTB (that would be hypocritical), but just affirming that through death will also come the death of the conditions that have blighted one their whole life (hopefully). I just don't think death is the final end.
 
  • Like
  • Love
Reactions: Ashu, Davey36000, sinfonia and 4 others
Cosmophobic

Cosmophobic

Student
Aug 10, 2025
114
"Will your consciousness cease when your physical body dies? I see no reason to believe so; it makes more sense to believe this consciousness, the one thing you've never not experienced within a lifetime of constant separation from the objects of consciousness, will suddenly extinguish the moment this brain shuts off for good, why would my brain be any different from the millions of other objects that can disappear in the presence of my consciousness and not cause that consciousness to die with it."

I'm not following you here. Are you saying individual consciousness does or does not die with the brain? I think that individual consciousness must die with the brain as that is the organ responsible for producing the phenomenon. This is in keeping with non-dualism and reincarnation. The survival of individual consciousness would not be. If you were not saying that individual consciousness survives but rather just consciousness then I read it wrong and that's my bad.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ashu
NaturalBornNEET

NaturalBornNEET

俺は絶対にセックスになるんだ
Feb 22, 2022
140
"Will your consciousness cease when your physical body dies? I see no reason to believe so; it makes more sense to believe this consciousness, the one thing you've never not experienced within a lifetime of constant separation from the objects of consciousness, will suddenly extinguish the moment this brain shuts off for good, why would my brain be any different from the millions of other objects that can disappear in the presence of my consciousness and not cause that consciousness to die with it."

I'm not following you here. Are you saying individual consciousness does or does not die with the brain? I think that individual consciousness must die with the brain as that is the organ responsible for producing the phenomenon. This is in keeping with non-dualism and reincarnation. The survival of individual consciousness would not be. If you were not saying that individual consciousness survives but rather just consciousness then I read it wrong and that's my bad.
I think Individual consciousness, the awareness lying behind all the phenomena you're experiencing right now does not disappear when your brain dies. And yes just calling it consciousness works too, I use the qualifier individual to stress to anyone reading how this consciousness is right here with them.

I have no idea what would happen after my brain death, I couldn't guess what attributes consciousness would choose to take on or if it would even choose to manifest as anything at all. But I intuit that the present awareness that has underlay all my experience thus far will persist.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ashu
Cosmophobic

Cosmophobic

Student
Aug 10, 2025
114
I think Individual consciousness, the awareness lying behind all the phenomena you're experiencing right now does not disappear when your brain dies. And yes just calling it consciousness works too, I use the qualifier individual to stress to anyone reading how this consciousness is right here with them.

I have no idea what would happen after my brain death, I couldn't guess what attributes consciousness would choose to take on or if it would even choose to manifest as anything at all. But I intuit that the present awareness that has underlay all my experience thus far will persist.
We're probably just working with different definitions of consciousness here, it's not like it's easy to define so that's understandable.

When I say individual consciousness I mean the person with all their thought patterns, memories and quirks of character. As I understand it that has to perish in order for reincarnation to be possible. And also because all of that is housed in the brain. (so is consciousness as far as we know bet lets leave that alone)

I guess you're defining consciousness as the pure subject of awareness without any 'baggage' that would differentiate them as a person among persons? Just the present moment which is all that ever exists? Hot or cold?

Edit: The champagne bottle analogy explains the way I think of it: Consciousness as a field or universal consciousness is all the liquid in the bottle. Individual consciousness is the bubbles that arise out of and dissipate back into that field.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Ashu and NaturalBornNEET
NaturalBornNEET

NaturalBornNEET

俺は絶対にセックスになるんだ
Feb 22, 2022
140
I guess you're defining consciousness as the pure subject of awareness without any 'baggage' that would differentiate them as a person among persons? Just the present moment which is all that ever exists? Hot or cold?
Ye that definition fits, consciousness in its absolute form has no attributes (nothingness) which paradoxically allows it to take on any attribute/phenomena it chooses. Consciousness is nothing which allows it to be everything. With these attributes/phenomena all being an undifferentiated flow of experience, like the tao, but consciousness can also choose to create distinctions within this unified field of phenomena but all these distinctions eventually collapse into each other to reveal oneness.

When I say individual consciousness I mean the person with all their thought patterns, memories and quirks of character. As I understand it that has to perish in order for reincarnation to be possible. And also because all of that is housed in the brain. (so is consciousness as far as we know bet lets leave that alone)
Thought patterns, memories and personality are all impermanent attributes of consciousness, they are not of the permanent absolute aspect of consciousness, the absolute aspect being your observation of these things: thought patterns, life and self narratives. So I believe the observer will still remain when the brain dies but I do not know what it will observe after death.

The brain-consciousness question is necessary to tackle to get to the truth of the matter. I don't believe consciousness emerges from the brain but that consciousness created the brain and all of material and mental reality, and it uses the brain as an instrument to express itself, just as it uses the entire nervous system and the rest of the body and its organs and functions as instruments to express itself, in turn it uses the immediate perceivable environment as an instrument, and even the entire universe as an instrument.

Edit: The champagne bottle analogy explains the way I think of it: Consciousness as a field or universal consciousness is all the liquid in the bottle. Individual consciousness is the bubbles that arise out of and dissipate back into that field.
Good analogy, but I would say consciousness, as in absolute universal consciousness, is exactly whatever state it's currently in. So if consciousness is experiencing a human in its bedroom then that is what the universe is. So right now as a human the universe is just that bubbles POV, maybe it will encounter other bubbles, or get a sense that there's something larger its contained in, and when it pops maybe the bubble's POV does expand to being the whole bottle, or maybe its POV turns to that of another bubble, or maybe it turns to that of the person bursting open the bottle. What if the bubble is able to expand its POV to that of the whole bottle before it disappears. What if its POV could expand to beyond the bottle to the whole universe that contains it. And what if its POV could even transcend that until it arrives back to its most primordial center of complete emptiness.
 
  • Like
  • Love
Reactions: Ashu and Cosmophobic
Cosmophobic

Cosmophobic

Student
Aug 10, 2025
114
Yes I understand you now. I can't say I believe it in a religious sense but it does feel intuitive and it doesn't butt heads with science. Even a materialist view of the universe admits that only forms change and not essence (matter).
 
  • Like
  • Love
Reactions: Ashu and NaturalBornNEET
Pluto

Pluto

Cat Extremist
Dec 27, 2020
5,687
images
 
  • Yay!
Reactions: Cosmophobic, SissySteph and NaturalBornNEET
rustcohle4life

rustcohle4life

I'm bad at parties
Mar 16, 2025
251
i don't think our individual consciousnesses is so special that it goes on forever. It takes a lot of hubris to think that way imo.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ashu, Dante_ and pthnrdnojvsc
F

Forever Sleep

Earned it we have...
May 4, 2022
12,953
Do you believe your consciousness existed before you were born? What was your experience of life like pre birth?
 
  • Like
Reactions: SissySteph
NaturalBornNEET

NaturalBornNEET

俺は絶対にセックスになるんだ
Feb 22, 2022
140
Do you believe your consciousness existed before you were born? What was your experience of life like pre birth?
If I I existed as another form before birth I don't have any memory of it, but that doesn't disprove I existed, because I exist right now, and right now is the only place that exists.

But for arguments sake if memory is needed to prove existence: I have a terrible memory due to brain damage. I can't recall a lot of or even most of my life in a chronological order. Does that mean the events I can't recall didn't happen and the order at which I'm recalling them are how it actually happened? It would be this way if memory reflected truth, if I recall an event from yesterday and then afterwards recall an event from when I was 7, that would mean the memory of 7 year old me happened after the memory of me yesterday. But memories can never ever exist as something other than conceptual and mental image overlays of the present.

i don't think our individual consciousnesses is so special that it goes on forever. It takes a lot of hubris to think that way imo.
Is it hubris to say everything you identify as being you and all your values will eventually die and be replaced with that which you despise most? Because that is the nature of you as consciousness, to eventually accommodate for your infinite number of forms with unconditional embrace, learning to love and understand all of you. Is it hubris to be immortal as the witness of infinity? Tbf yeah you could definitely see that as hubris, but I think God earns that right. To be immortal and unlimited is pretty fucking awesome.

Negative character traits such as arrogance are human projections. In an absolute non-dual sense arrogance does not exist because arrogance by necessity implies the existence of a non-arrogance/humility to measure it against, which is an illusory threshold imposed onto the single absolute. There is no boundary between the prince's palace and the slums of the destitute that lie outside it except the boundary you create and believe in in your mind, that we all create and uphold collectively which strengthens this illusion to appear like it's a fixed tenable law.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ashu, Cosmophobic and Forever Sleep
F

Forever Sleep

Earned it we have...
May 4, 2022
12,953
But for arguments sake if memory is needed to prove existence: I have a terrible memory due to brain damage. I can't recall a lot of or even most of my life in a chronological order. Does that mean the events I can't recall didn't happen and the order at which I'm recalling them are how it actually happened?

True- memory and our brains in general can be unreliable for recalling facts. If you believe our consciousness/ perception of the world is unique though- wouldn't we be able to find our previous incarnations?

Still- bear in mind- they would presumably have been born to different parents in a different era and location so- how much of 'you' would be in them seems obscured by all that.

I don't really buy it personally. But I think that could well be a hopeful bias chipping in. I detest the thought of experiencing anymore life after this one.

I tend to lean towards consciousness simply being what the brain does. The same as eyes see, ears hear, toes help us balance. I just think our uniqueness comes from our combination of genes and all our life experiences.
 
  • Like
  • Love
Reactions: Ashu and NaturalBornNEET
sinfonia

sinfonia

Mage
Jun 2, 2024
508
That's very well thought through. Can I ask which auhors/books you've been influenced by?
 
  • Like
  • Love
Reactions: Ashu and NaturalBornNEET
NaturalBornNEET

NaturalBornNEET

俺は絶対にセックスになるんだ
Feb 22, 2022
140
True- memory and our brains in general can be unreliable for recalling facts. If you believe our consciousness/ perception of the world is unique though- wouldn't we be able to find our previous incarnations?

Still- bear in mind- they would presumably have been born to different parents in a different era and location so- how much of 'you' would be in them seems obscured by all that.

I don't really buy it personally. But I think that could well be a hopeful bias chipping in. I detest the thought of experiencing anymore life after this one.

I tend to lean towards consciousness simply being what the brain does. The same as eyes see, ears hear, toes help us balance. I just think our uniqueness comes from our combination of genes and all our life experiences.
Just to preface I'm coming from a absolute non-dual paradigm.

The notion of unique relies on its opposite, the common. Without the common there would be nothing for the unique to be unlike to therefore it wouldn't be unique.

There is only one consciousness. The idea of your own consciousness and then the consciousness of other people outside of you can only exist with all these elements relating to each other and thus affirming each other's existence, upholding each other's illusory appearance. So these elements (you and people who are not you) may appear separate but the only reason they can exist is because they all need to affirm each other to exist. You need other humans for the idea of a human you to exist.

This is the relative ego identity. That identity which needs its apparent others to exist. But if you need your others to exist then are you really separate from your others? Would you consider a single neuron separate from all the others within a brain when they are all what keeps the brain braining?

A big aspect of our identities as humans is to NOT be the external environment you're in, that which lays beyond the boundary of your skin. You literally need to not be your chair to be a human, but your chair nevertheless is contained within your consciousness and the boundary is arbitrary (even if there's no chairs where you are rn you're still thinking of one) . But if the human body part of your identity is defined by the external environment then can it really be separate from it in an absolute sense?

If the external environment were to disappear and all that would be left to exist was you and your body, what would that even be like? Would it even be possible for your body to exist without the external environment considering you came from it, formed and ejected from your mother, but most people don't consider their mothers body to be part of their own. Your chemical structure is of the same elements that can be found outside your body.

Ultimately science hasn't yet definitively proven consciousness arises from the brain. And for a reason, consciousness is the puzzle and the human brain is a single piece of that puzzle desperate to understand itself but obstinately unwilling to see beyond itself.

That's very well thought through. Can I ask which auhors/books you've been influenced by?
Leo Gura's youtube channel is what got me into this when I was at first just looking for self improvement material.

Philosophies I'm drawing from are non-duality, epistemology, metaphysics, panpsychism, Jung's psychology, Pyrrhonism. Advaita vedanta, taoism and Hegel's idealism are great for understanding non-duality and the existence of contradiction and paradox. Ramana Maharshi's method of self inquiry, Eckhart Tolle, the upanishads, tao te ching. Ironically a lot of David Hume's ideas too, like the problem of induction, illusory nature of the self and arbitrariness of cause and effect.

Psychedelics, mindfulness and self inquiry have allowed me to directly experience a glimpse of what these ideas point to, which is the presence right here right now.



This video by Leo isn't as popular as his others but I find it the easiest to help grasp the illusory flux of identity, the video eventually goes beyond gender and into absolute territory.




This video is good for explaining the paradox of everything being one whilst this oneness also appearing to have distinctions.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ashu, Cosmophobic and sinfonia
sinfonia

sinfonia

Mage
Jun 2, 2024
508
Philosophies I'm drawing from are non-duality, epistemology, metaphysics, panpsychism, Jung's psychology, Pyrrhonism. Advaita vedanta, taoism and Hegel's idealism are great for understanding non-duality and the existence of contradiction and paradox. Ramana Maharshi's method of self inquiry, Eckhart Tolle, the upanishads, tao te ching. Ironically a lot of David Hume's ideas too, like the problem of induction, illusory nature of the self and arbitrariness of cause and effect.
Are you familiar with the Traditionalist school of thought? I think it might help you connect some dots.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: NaturalBornNEET
F

Forever Sleep

Earned it we have...
May 4, 2022
12,953
Just to preface I'm coming from a absolute non-dual paradigm.

The notion of unique relies on its opposite, the common. Without the common there would be nothing for the unique to be unlike to therefore it wouldn't be unique.

There is only one consciousness. The idea of your own consciousness and then the consciousness of other people outside of you can only exist with all these elements relating to each other and thus affirming each other's existence, upholding each other's illusory appearance. So these elements (you and people who are not you) may appear separate but the only reason they can exist is because they all need to affirm each other to exist. You need other humans for the idea of a human you to exist.

This is the relative ego identity. That identity which needs its apparent others to exist. But if you need your others to exist then are you really separate from your others? Would you consider a single neuron separate from all the others within a brain when they are all what keeps the brain braining?

A big aspect of our identities as humans is to NOT be the external environment you're in, that which lays beyond the boundary of your skin. You literally need to not be your chair to be a human, but your chair nevertheless is contained within your consciousness and the boundary is arbitrary (even if there's no chairs where you are rn you're still thinking of one) . But if the human body part of your identity is defined by the external environment then can it really be separate from it in an absolute sense?

If the external environment were to disappear and all that would be left to exist was you and your body, what would that even be like? Would it even be possible for your body to exist without the external environment considering you came from it, formed and ejected from your mother, but most people don't consider their mothers body to be part of their own. Your chemical structure is of the same elements that can be found outside your body.

Ultimately science hasn't yet definitively proven consciousness arises from the brain. And for a reason, consciousness is the puzzle and the human brain is a single piece of that puzzle desperate to understand itself but obstinately unwilling to see beyond itself.


Leo Gura's youtube channel is what got me into this when I was at first just looking for self improvement material.

Philosophies I'm drawing from are non-duality, epistemology, metaphysics, panpsychism, Jung's psychology, Pyrrhonism. Advaita vedanta, taoism and Hegel's idealism are great for understanding non-duality and the existence of contradiction and paradox. Ramana Maharshi's method of self inquiry, Eckhart Tolle, the upanishads, tao te ching. Ironically a lot of David Hume's ideas too, like the problem of induction, illusory nature of the self and arbitrariness of cause and effect.

Psychedelics, mindfulness and self inquiry have allowed me to directly experience a glimpse of what these ideas point to, which is the presence right here right now.



This video by Leo isn't as popular as his others but I find it the easiest to help grasp the illusory flux of identity, the video eventually goes beyond gender and into absolute territory.




This video is good for explaining the paradox of everything being one whilst this oneness also appearing to have distinctions.


A chair doesn't need to be perceived or sat upon by me or you to exist. It obviously needs to have been created by another human though. Chairs don't materialise or grow from things- as far as we know. They are designed and built. A tree is a better example. I'm sure there are trees in the deepest recesses of the rainforest that no human has ever seen. They still exist though- for now. Until some dumb human with a chainsaw does find it. Whole planets surely exist without our knowing about them!

Consciousness is certainly weird. Our own perceptions and the ability to perceive are kind of incredible but then- not exactly unexpected. As the dominant species on this planet, it surely gave us an edge to be able to perceive the world and understand(ish) our place in it as we do. How else would we have been able to exploit it so ruthlessly? (sadly.)
 
  • Like
Reactions: NaturalBornNEET