Ramana Maharishi's Fear Of Death Experience

Talk about anything Tolle-related here.

Re: Ramana Maharishi's Fear Of Death Experience

Postby Webwanderer » Sun Sep 21, 2014 7:21 am

ihavemorethanenough wrote:From what I have read, If I've understood it correctly, it seems that both Ashley72 and you, WW, are saying that one should think about immortality. But there's one difference: Ashley72 says exposure to the idea of immortality, while you say exposure to immortality. I think this is the difference,

Ashley and I have been far apart on our views when it comes to NDE/TDE. In part, he is the reason I coined the term TDE. (Thanks Ash, for the discussions that fueled the inspiration.)

In investigation, you say that none of the evidence is necessarily proof. I think comparing and approaching what we're talking about through law enforcement investigation and methods the way you have described is not appropriate. In law enforcement we're not interested in the scene itself, but in what happened, where it happened, and most importantly who's responsible. So It's not appropriate because in law enforcement, there is the evidence that you mentioned, like the person seen, and the scene, crime-scene, where the evidence was found, which is a place that we can all go to and actually see, but when we talk about the evidence of near death experiences, we can't go to the scene to look at the evidence, we can't see any person there, nor can we see the place, but we talk about the evidence. The evidence is in the scene, it is the scene, and we are interested in it, but we can't go there.

I sense that you miss the point. It is the jury that decides on the evidence presented by others. The jury rarely ever goes to the actual crime scene. Anyone who has not had their own non-physical experience must play the role of jury and base considerations on evidence presented by others. Unlike a jury however, you don't have to decide true or false. You simply have to do a fair investigation and consider all the evidence you can. As I said earlier there is no choice to make. There is only enhancing your understanding - and that can take a lot of research. You have the rest of your life to do so.

Because we are here, we can't go there. Say I remember that I saw the scene, the rest of the world is ignorant, and I tell the world what I remember. Wouldn't you say there is an element of faith that is essential if the world is to believe what I remember? So ok, you say the idea is to build knowledge contained in the reports, but if I qusetion the report itself, what is the point?

You're still trying to make a choice to believe or reject. I am suggesting that you do neither. Not now. Not ever. Just increase your knowledge and let whatever insights that come to light arise from within you. If they come, they come. If they don't, they don't. It's always okay to be skeptical. Just don't be blinded by unnecessary rejection. You don't have to make a decision every time you look at an account or consider a study. You don't have to make a decision at all - ever. It's better that you don't. Faith is irrelevant. It's more about probabilities; and our perspectives on probabilities change as more information is gained.

Be curious. Explore.

I'm not sure if your central argument, however, is that whatever is isn't “me”, and that what is won't die, or whether what you're saying is that the “me” won't die, or both. But according to Quantum physics and quantum field theory, the "me" will die, right?


"Me" in this context is a human perspective of being based on thought constructs and entrained beliefs. It will one day be transcended somewhat like waking up from a dream. The consciousness underlying that perspective is what transcends. You were conscious of being a dream character while in the dream, and that same conscious awareness survived the end of the (nightly) dream world while maintaining its sense of self. It awoke from one world of experience to another, transcending worlds to return to the physical human perspective.

Nothing was lost but a thought construct of the dream world. Consciousness and self survived with little concern for what was left behind - a temporary perspective. You went and washed your face and continued about your business. Waking up to a yet higher octave of being is similar. You leave behind your human perspective in favor of a greater one, but you carry on with your innate sense of self and being unhindered.

(More to come)

WW
User avatar
Webwanderer
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 6308
Joined: Fri May 12, 2006 12:03 am

Re: Ramana Maharishi's Fear Of Death Experience

Postby Webwanderer » Sun Sep 21, 2014 5:50 pm

ihavemorethanenough wrote:When I asked "what makes death an experience? What is the evidence that death as an experience is not an imagining?"

Interesting question. What makes any event or condition an experience and not an imagining? When one gets right down to it, experience is all that there is. Even imagining is experience. Experience is reality. We are essentially a perspective within Awareness. We 'are' aware of the conditions present within our focus of attention, colored by beliefs that create the perspective held. As beliefs change and evolve, perspective shifts.

What makes death an experience and not an imagining? Because imagining is an experience as well. The question is, which represents the greater reality? Actual death experience, or imagining experience? I would suggest one follow what feels most likely. Of course feelings will change over time as well with the inclusion of more information and knowledge.

Right now, the body of your knowledge is such that it brings you consternation and fear. With more knowledge, your fears, and your perspective, will adjust accordingly. As children we once feared the monster under the bed or in the closet. Eventually, greater knowledge, and consistent experience of surviving the night uneaten, alleviated those childhood fearful imaginings.

I was wondering what experience is. Say I remember that I saw the scene, I would be persuaded by my memory of it to think the things I think about it. Because of my memory, I start to name what I saw using the language that I judge as insufficient to describe it and call it my experience of ongoing life. I bring to the naming process everything that I know, all the language that I know, from the past.

Consider that what you name things and the meaning you assign is born out of your existing belief structures. These beliefs were adopted and entrained into your perspective throughout you life. You now see them as the basis of truth simply because you believe them to be so. But are they? Are the names and meanings applied genuinely representative of the events and conditions at hand, or are they more representative of the entrained beliefs you have? I suggest it is the latter.

It's not after all, just about memories in isolation. It's about the meaning applied to memories, and those meanings are a choice we make, consciously with consideration, or unconsciously through our existing conditioning. The fast track to our growth of consciousness has a high degree of willingness, and active review, of what we consider true and how we came to such 'truths'.

My question is is there are way to be exposed to immortality without having to rely on imagination, or is there a way to know that I won't die without having to rely on NDEs or the like? Can I know directly that I won't die?

You already know. The question is, can you tap into that existing knowing. That direct insight lies within you in your greater awareness - your greater beingness. With few exceptions, you don't 'know' you're lying asleep in your bed as you dream the night away in worlds of internally created experience. You just accept them at dream-face value and engage the experience. Occasionally one may become 'lucid' in a dream and realize it for what it is. Then we know that there is a greater reality that transcends the dream and that we may wake up to it at anytime.

Consider how one may become lucid in a dream. While it may come spontaneously, it more often comes through study and focus on the phenomena. Those that read accounts and and focus their attention have a higher likelihood of becoming lucid. It is this same approach that will bring a realization to our continuity of life beyond the human experience. Study, explore, consider, focus, be open to possibilities.

Because, I'm going to think, that if my knowledge that I won't die doesn't come directly through my own observation, let's say direct observation of the scene, or direct observation of immortality, then it will have to be based on my belief, and where there is belief there's doubt, therefore fear. And we're back to fear, which is what I began to talk about, and which is what I am trying to have none of, or if not possible, less of.

Our beliefs are our truths. We generally don't doubt our beliefs or they wouldn't be considered as truths, they would be more considered some degree of likelihoods. Once doubt enters one's perspective there is possibility for change and growth. So doubt can be a good thing. Doubt can also hinder growth as well if it is blinded by fear, so doubt must be balanced with a degree of willingness and openness to consider possibilities. This can take courage, as fear is often debilitating and keeps us unnecessarily blind.

So the difference between exposing oneself to the idea of immortality and exposing oneself to immortality, from what I can tell so far, and without having the answer to the question directly above, doesn't seem to be there at all, and it seems like what you call the truth about dying is based on an idea.

That doesn't mean the idea - call it perspective - is a total error. Your fear is base on ideas - on a perspective. Which ideas/perspectives serve you best, and which have the most merit? Again can you add to the body of information from which you base your perspective? Are you afraid to look? What might you lose by looking?

And you say this in your post:
Now, I'm not nearly so clear on the details as one who has actually had direct experience, but that doesn't mean I don't have a sense of it.

And I think “sense of it” here means either faith or idea, or feelings connected to both.

You can call it faith if you wish, but that's not how I perceive it. I see it as the most likely truth based on the information available, and that I have reviewed, plus the direct insight I have gained through my consideration of that information. And yes, feel plays a primary role. Our feeling nature is more in alignment with our greater self than is our thinking mind. If you don't cultivate this alignment, clarity will likely be elusive.

If one is going to find their way to 'truth' it will be by feeling it, it will be recognized in inspiration. (Can you see the root 'spirit' within the word inspiration?) Words may be added to insight, but it is the feel for greater understanding that brings 'enlightenment'.

I think that making the jump from the belief that what they experienced was real to naming that experience is jumping to conclusions, naming it “ongoing life”, or a “proof of immortality”, or the like. You say that they came back as changed beings. Some things may have changed, but I question that they came back as changed beings. Did they come back, change themselves, and affect positively the lives of what and who surrounded them through behaving in the changed way, without talking about themselves? Or was it that what they saw or felt was so great that they started to talk about it to other people in order to be less lonely? Which is what happens to all people who want to share a problem or something nice

Ask me if you like, but my answer is certain to be unsatisfying to you. Clear answers are there however. Have the courage and fortitude to do your own research. What are you afraid you will find? Is your fear so important to you that you would protect it through avoidance of the very information that would shed light on its possible fallacy?

Just look at the length you are going to in order to defend the very thing you want to be rid of. This fear is your creation. It's you who holds it close. It's you who won't give it the same degree of skepticism that you apply to that which could dissolve it. It's only you who can choose to move beyond it.

I don't even think they can help it. I think that all of them, whether they end up sharing, not sharing, or struggling with it, they would have done so depending on the force of impact with which what they saw or felt hit them. For those who share it it's practically a very hard thing not to. Some might even run straight to their friends to tell them about it, like an ecstatic child who will happily tell them what amazing thing he has done or seen, or somebody who is terrified and will tell what a terrifying thing has just happened.

It is very hard not to share something like that, just like it is very hard to share great wealth. The great wealth of material possessions will stay great if not scattered everywhere, and the near death experiences will only remain great if they are scattered all around.


A lot of speculation here, and painted with a very large brush. Everyone is different - unique. Everyone has their own history and living environment. What you say may apply to some, not so much to others. But so what. None of it discounts their experience - unless you believe it does. Then, if you are honest, you have to consider where your belief comes from and explore its foundational elements.

A few ways it can pan out:

They come back from the experience. They either question the experience, or don't question it. If they accept the experience along with the name they have given it, they'll go down one of these routes.

“I believe that I'm immortal. What should I do? I know, I'll eat a bullet, and I'll go back to that lovely otherworldly realm. To hell with fear, pain, and dying. Pow! Gbye, suckers!”

But if he doesn't eat a bullet immediately, there's *confusion* *indecision*, he continues to struggle, and the same question comes up:

“I believe that I'm immortal. What should I do? I don't know. I'll see if I can find out without rushing or doing anything stupid.”

Wow this fear must be really important to you. Can you see how it is controlling your perspective? It seems almost like slavery. You make these wild assumptions while doing precious little investigation. Find some courage and consider possibilities of love and eternal being. Notice while doing so how your fear attacks you. That is your self-created enemy. No one's asking you to believe anything, yet you are choosing to believe the worst.

I hope you'll consider my words here, and you find your way out of this debilitating perspective. Constant fear of death is tough to live with and also unnecessary. Life is far grander and more enjoyable living in the freedom a greater perspective. Even if it were (and it's not) all BS, life is far better lived in joy than in fear.

Here's a fear worth considering. Suppose that what one is focused on in life was reflected in the greater reality of being. Suppose that a strong fear of oblivion and non-existence at death created that very experience in the next 'life'. Suppose your fear creates your own unique 'experience' of oblivion and that you 'sleep' in a non-existence perspective indefinitely? Are you really sure you don't want to consider other possibilities?

WW
User avatar
Webwanderer
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 6308
Joined: Fri May 12, 2006 12:03 am

Re: Ramana Maharishi's Fear Of Death Experience

Postby ihavemorethanenough » Sun Sep 21, 2014 7:23 pm

I'm not afraid to read about any such experiences, ww. I think you're making an assumption.
ihavemorethanenough
 
Posts: 64
Joined: Sat Dec 01, 2012 9:46 pm

Re: Ramana Maharishi's Fear Of Death Experience

Postby Webwanderer » Sun Sep 21, 2014 8:16 pm

ihavemorethanenough wrote:I'm not afraid to read about any such experiences, ww. I think you're making an assumption.

Maybe. Yet you demonstrate significant reluctance and dwell in criticism of the phenomena without a fair hearing on the breadth and depth of the evidence such accounts present. You don't take experiencers at their word in the little you have read, not as proof of greater reality necessarily, but as a genuine experience they had and the effects that experience had on their lives in the greater perspective they came away with.

I only point to an appearance I see. Could it be you are too close to the trees to see the forest? Obviously only you can decide.... or not, or instead take an added information approach that I continue to suggest. Denial closes doors. Open consideration builds knowledge.

To me, it doesn't seem rational to live in fear of our imaginings when freedom is possible through clearer understanding. Of course fear is not always rational. Fear of death is built on imaginings, and if you don't know for sure, what else could it be?

Millions of people have had NDE's and TDE's spanning centuries. Even Plato wrote of a NDE/TDE account told to him by a soldier he met. There is nothing new here - suppressed maybe - but not new.

WW
User avatar
Webwanderer
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 6308
Joined: Fri May 12, 2006 12:03 am

Re: Ramana Maharishi's Fear Of Death Experience

Postby ashley72 » Sun Sep 21, 2014 9:01 pm

One of the reasons I started this thread was to really point out that Ramana Maharshi was just your average human being who had a Amygdala like every one else and suffered from panic disorder in his early life. His particular panic disorder related to thoughts about death... and he overcame this fear of death by exposure therapy. But that doesn't change the fact he still had an amygdala in the centre of his brain which allowed him react to "danger" in rational & irrational ways... it's important for the Amygdala to react to real physical threats like falling from heights that can kill. You don't want to surpress the Amygdala reactions to these kinds of dangerous threats. We have an Amygdala and fear-circuitry for a reason... to help maintain our human survival.

I don't personally believe that any so called enlightened individual Ramana or Eckhart Tolle can eliminate 1st fear (Amygdala Response). However, what they can surpress is secondary fear....the fear of 1st Fear. You can call this the ruminations of the mind. Ruminations of the mind are really a positive feedback loop - where treating any symptoms of danger actually increase those symptoms. I.e worrying and intrusive thoughts. Ramana and Tolle both called this fear of fear - human suffering. You can reduce human suffering to the point it doesn't have a detrimental affect on your life.

So don't try and eliminate the 1st fear response (Amygdala), just eliminate the fear of the 1st fear symptoms, which is the suffering part.

Wouldn't it be wonderful if you could spare them from all suffering? No, it wouldn't. They would not evolve as human beings and would remain shallow, identified with the external form of things. Suffering drives you deeper. The paradox is that suffering is caused by identification with form and erodes identification with form. A lot of it is caused by the ego, although eventually suffering destroys the ego--but not until you suffer consciously.

Humanity is destined to go beyond suffering, but not in the way the ego thinks. One of the ego's many erroneous assumptions, one of its many deluded thoughts is "I should not have to suffer." Sometimes the thought gets transferred to someone close to you: "My child should not have to suffer." That thought itself lies at the root of suffering. Suffeirng has a noble purpose: the evolution of consciousness and the burning up of the ego. The man on the cross is an archetypal image. He is every man and every woman. As long as you resist suffering, it is a slow process because the resistance creates more ego to burn up. When you accept suffering, however, there is an acceleration of that process which is brought about by the fct that you suffer consciously. You can accept suffering for yourself, or you can accept it for someone else, such as your child or parent. In the midst of conscious suffering there is already the transmutation. The fire of suffering becomes the light of consciousness. Eckhart Tolle


Here acceptance is really another way of talking about exposure therapy. You need to expose yourself to your suffering or 1st fears...thoughts about death... and not try and avoid it in any way. Allow the fear symptoms to happen without avoiding or fighting against it. Those fear symptoms will disappear as soon as you stop treating those thoughts about death as "dangerous". It takes time but can be done.
User avatar
ashley72
 
Posts: 2533
Joined: Wed Feb 16, 2011 3:24 am

Re: Ramana Maharishi's Fear Of Death Experience

Postby ihavemorethanenough » Mon Sep 22, 2014 6:10 pm

Webwanderer wrote:I sense that you miss the point. It is the jury that decides on the evidence presented by others. The jury rarely ever goes to the actual crime scene.


I think the jury goes to the actual crime scene everyday, because the scene is in the world. “X-man was seen in X-place in New York” for example. New York is not questioned. If a case came to court and eye witnesses were to give imagined evidence, it would not be admissible, but if the jury were to be moved by some imagined evidence, the judge will tell them that it is inadmissible, and will tell them to put their feelings aside and consider the concrete evidence, which must not be imagined.

Unlike a jury however, you don't have to decide true or false. You simply have to do a fair investigation and consider all the evidence you can.


I'll be happy to call it imagination and not evidence. How much research is required to get this basic distinction right?

You're still trying to make a choice to believe or reject.


Since we're both using words, we must come to terms with the words we're using, otherwise we may be having two separate conversations. So, what am I trying to accept or reject? I think I'm trying to say that the information contained in the reports is imagined, therefore not evidence.
I think getting an agreement on this is increasing understanding.

"Me" in this context is a human perspective of being based on thought constructs and entrained beliefs. It will one day be transcended somewhat like waking up from a dream. The consciousness underlying that perspective is what transcends. You were conscious of being a dream character while in the dream, and that same conscious awareness survived the end of the (nightly) dream world while maintaining its sense of self. It awoke from one world of experience to another, transcending worlds to return to the physical human perspective.


How does this knowledge help me to be completely free from fear?

Nothing was lost but a thought construct of the dream world. Consciousness and self survived with little concern for what was left behind - a temporary perspective. You went and washed your face and continued about your business. Waking up to a yet higher octave of being is similar. You leave behind your human perspective in favor of a greater one, but you carry on with your innate sense of self and being unhindered.


I think that if I drop the thought construct of this dream world, I'll be dropping it and not replacing it with anything, which means the thought construct that this world is a dream will be dropped, therefore the thought that points to that which comes after the dreams gets dropped too. This is without going into the process of dropping, which is another question.

What you say about the dream world and the waking up from it, all that is based on what? We can see this world and the dream world, that is why you're able to talk about it and relate using that example, but what makes you use this analogy to that which we don't know about?

Interesting question. What makes any event or condition an experience and not an imagining? When one gets right down to it, experience is all that there is. Even imagining is experience. Experience is reality. We are essentially a perspective within Awareness. We 'are' aware of the conditions present within our focus of attention, colored by beliefs that create the perspective held. As beliefs change and evolve, perspective shifts.


Are you saying that as you've evolved you've come to the realization that imagination and reality are the same thing? What is imagination?
Experience can be based on reality, and from reality on imagination, but it cannot be based on imagination without a reality on which to stand on, right?

I don't know if the truth will make me free but you said that it will, and that I have it somewhere but I don't know where it is, but it is in those reports, they have it, therefore someone else and what they imagine will set me free. If their imagination is what set them free, doesn't that mean that it won't work on me? Shouldn't I instead be tapping into the truth that is in me that will set me free? We can imagine something which is true and something which is false. What's the point of imagination if it is false, in relation to the truth that will make one free? It must also be true.

If we agree that imagined experience is reality, what does that mean? Aren't we running into the danger of passing falsehood for truth? If it is reality, why even make the distinction between different levels of reality when all experience is reality, imagined and not imagined? There would be no levels at all. That is why I asked the question. You said that all of us will have a death experience, and I asked whether reading intermediary reports is what that death experience will be for everyone, (because we won't all have NDEs or TDEs), most people just die. I think reading those reports will create the experience of reading those reports, which is different from the experience they had, which is different from what they remember.

What makes death an experience and not an imagining? Because imagining is an experience as well. The question is, which represents the greater reality? Actual death experience, or imagining experience? I would suggest one follow what feels most likely. Of course feelings will change over time as well with the inclusion of more information and knowledge.

Right now, the body of your knowledge is such that it brings you consternation and fear. With more knowledge, your fears, and your perspective, will adjust accordingly. As children we once feared the monster under the bed or in the closet. Eventually, greater knowledge, and consistent experience of surviving the night uneaten, alleviated those childhood fearful imaginings.


You said that being afraid of death was based on ignorance or a false belief, and that not being afraid of death would best come from understanding and clarity.

I think what I’ve been trying to say is that actual death experience is imagination, while reading about it is having an experience of reading. I think that if the actual death experience is what brings about the change from fear to no-fear in those who experience it, then without that experience I won't have a chance to change from fear to no-fear like you say they did, no matter how much reading of the experience I do; in fact, I think that if I go down the reading reports route, I wouldn't be dealing with the problem of fear itself at all. I actually think that the nature of those reports will sustain the fear. If they appear to bring about any kind of small change, one will be under the impression that it is working, and will keep on going back; and I think that as long as I have these reports I'll be free from fear, but if I lose them I'll fall right back into fear, so that creates fear, sustains it, feeds it, and I run back to the reports, depending on them, all the time.
So I don't see how depending on something like that will make me free. If I have the courage (maybe that's not the right word) to break dependency, breaking dependency will make me free from it. If you say to me that I am ignorant and there is a vast and endless ocean of knowledge that is waiting to be tapped into, I'll be terribly afraid, and I'll obey and go chasing that knowledge.

Consider that what you name things and the meaning you assign is born out of your existing belief structures. These beliefs were adopted and entrained into your perspective throughout you life. You now see them as the basis of truth simply because you believe them to be so. But are they? Are the names and meanings applied genuinely representative of the events and conditions at hand, or are they more representative of the entrained beliefs you have? I suggest it is the latter.

It's not after all, just about memories in isolation. It's about the meaning applied to memories, and those meanings are a choice we make, consciously with consideration, or unconsciously through our existing conditioning. The fast track to our growth of consciousness has a high degree of willingness, and active review, of what we consider true and how we came to such 'truths'.


It might be the latter, I agree, but I am not saying let's not question the existing beliefs and only question the TDE's. Just like you say there's a lot of knowledge that I don't have at the moment about “temporary death experiences”, I think that there's a lot more to know about fear. If I'm trying to find out about TDE's, I know that I would need to go and do my research there, but if I'm trying to get to the heart of fear, I think I need to do my research where fear happens, and why it happens.
If you disagree and say, “no, you need to do your research into TDE's in order to deal with your fear” I'm going to present the arguments that I've presented above, that it won't deal with the fear, but it will keep it in place. If you think that it won't keep it in place, why not?

“You already know. The question is, can you tap into that existing knowing.”

Is that the question? If I already know, can I tap into it, or do I have to depend on him, on her, or on them who have tapped into theirs to tell me what I don't know? If I don't tap into mine but borrow from theirs, what will that do?


Or is the question: If I can't tap into mine, can you help me do it?

Let's say all the world but one person doesn't know. Can you, as the one who knows, help me on how to get to the existing knowing that is in me that will help me to be free from fear? Or do you, as the person with higher understanding tell me “The question is, can you tap into that existing knowing? If not, come right in, I hold the key that keeps your fear in place or removes it”.
And if I am really afraid, I'll come to you, and I'll get attached to you, and I depend on you to tell me everything... which eventually, after years, might include you telling me that I'm attached to you, etc, and that I need to think things for myself, which brings us back to the same question (can I tap into that existing knowing with or without your help) which would mean that I'd still be the same stupid person that came to you in the first place, only I have borrowed from you certain thoughts and ideas, but that dependency is now stronger than ever, because if I stop getting my fix from you, I'll be in trouble.

“Is your fear so important to you that you would protect it through avoidance of the very information that would shed light on its possible fallacy?”

Can you help me on how to get to the existing knowing that is in me where this information is, or do I need to get this infromation from you (books, reports, etc)?

Just look at the length you are going to in order to defend the very thing you want to be rid of.


Aren't you creating the idea that the information you say I'm avoiding, (which would be the life-time study of such information) is what will free me from my fear that I'm defending, therefore creating the idea that without that information I will never be free from fear?

This fear is your creation. It's you who holds it close. It's you who won't give it the same degree of skepticism that you apply to that which could dissolve it. It's only you who can choose to move beyond it.


OK, I think what you're saying is that I should give my fear the same degree of scepticism, that this degree of scepticism should be applied to the fear itself, right? Therefore I don't need to go to this information that is there on the reports, but that I should look and seriously question my fears, right?

you demonstrate significant reluctance and dwell in criticism of the phenomena without a fair hearing on the breadth and depth of the evidence such accounts present. You don't take experiencers at their word in the little you have read, not as proof of greater reality necessarily, but as a genuine experience they had and the effects that experience had on their lives in the greater perspective they came away with.


I think I've tried to give clear reasons relating to that kind of information. I also don't think I ever said that their experience didn't have any effect on them. I think I said it did, and so much so that it made them to a certain extent act in the way that they did. Though I questioned whether they came back as changed beings, and I gave some reasons for that too. We have to ask the question “what are changed beings”.
The experiencers of TDEs let an external impression of beauty affect them deeply and they have grand ideas, just like an external frightful impression can affect one deeply with ideas of fear and death, right? And I think you've supported this view earlier, in talking about the perspective which serves one best. And I think what I'm saying is how to be totally free from the effects created from external or internal impressions, because what is freedom if not that? At least it is freedom from those impressions.
ihavemorethanenough
 
Posts: 64
Joined: Sat Dec 01, 2012 9:46 pm

Re: Ramana Maharishi's Fear Of Death Experience

Postby Webwanderer » Mon Sep 22, 2014 7:50 pm

ihavemorethanenough wrote:
Webwanderer wrote:
I sense that you miss the point. It is the jury that decides on the evidence presented by others. The jury rarely ever goes to the actual crime scene.

I think the jury goes to the actual crime scene everyday, because the scene is in the world.

It seems that you are now trying to win a debate. If so you're welcome to the victory. The jury reference was a simple metaphor. Juries, in physicality do not go to crime scenes except in very, very, rare occasions. Those who have never had an NDE/TDE/OBE or something similar have no memory of the scene of such experience had by others. Generally they can not go where the actual experiencer went. They are like the jury reviewing evidence away from the actual event to make a call on what the evidence most likely suggests. While the juries in criminal cases are somewhat captive, NDE considerations for the rest of us are not. We get to choose what to explore and what to consider if at all.

My sense is that you're in denial of anything that might influence you to explore for yourself. That of course is your right. That is likely why you make these distorted responses that lead away from investigation and greater clarity rather than any real consideration. I entered this dialog with you because you asked for help with a life limiting fear. I've only tried to help by sharing the information gleaned from a life long study. Take what I've written to this point as you will. There is some really good stuff here. I have no interest however, in competing with willful distortions. Best wishes, and know that it will all be okay in the long run.

WW
User avatar
Webwanderer
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 6308
Joined: Fri May 12, 2006 12:03 am

Re: Ramana Maharishi's Fear Of Death Experience

Postby ihavemorethanenough » Mon Sep 22, 2014 8:14 pm

Webwanderer wrote:
ihavemorethanenough wrote:
Webwanderer wrote:
I sense that you miss the point. It is the jury that decides on the evidence presented by others. The jury rarely ever goes to the actual crime scene.

I think the jury goes to the actual crime scene everyday, because the scene is in the world.

It seems that you are now trying to win a debate. If so you're welcome to the victory. The jury reference was a simple metaphor. Juries, in physicality do not go to crime scenes except in very, very, rare occasions. Those who have never had an NDE/TDE/OBE or something similar have no memory of the scene of such experience had by others. Generally they can not go where the actual experiencer went. They are like the jury reviewing evidence away from the actual event to make a call on what the evidence most likely suggests. While the juries in criminal cases are somewhat captive, NDE considerations for the rest of us are not. We get to choose what to explore and what to consider if at all.

My sense is that you're in denial of anything that might influence you to explore for yourself. That of course is your right. That is likely why you make these distorted responses that lead away from investigation and greater clarity rather than any real consideration. I entered this dialog with you because you asked for help with a life limiting fear. I've only tried to help by sharing the information gleaned from a life long study. Take what I've written to this point as you will. There is some really good stuff here. I have no interest however, in competing with willful distortions. Best wishes, and know that it will all be okay in the long run.

WW



I think I just wanted to understand what we're talking about, really. If you want to call it evidence, that's fine. Thanks for all the information that you're written down so far, and I'd be glad to read anything else that you might want to add. I have made certain points and raised some questions in my last post, but you don't have to answer, it's up to you.
ihavemorethanenough
 
Posts: 64
Joined: Sat Dec 01, 2012 9:46 pm

Re: Ramana Maharishi's Fear Of Death Experience

Postby ClarityofMoment » Mon Jan 05, 2015 7:50 pm

That kind of reminds me of my own experience. I had all of these "disorders" of Anxiety, and things of that nature, but I was a master of avoidance. Facing fear, head on, in my experience, is the only true way to deal with it. As for the fear of death, I believe it is the mind-body that dies, and not "I".
"Pervading all that it reaches,
effortless with gentle equality,
the highest mountain, you are there
the lowest valley, you are there,
where I am, you are there,
where you are, I am there"
ClarityofMoment
 
Posts: 24
Joined: Sat Oct 25, 2014 9:50 pm

Previous

Return to General Eckhart Tolle Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron