Death is Not Final

Life does not end at death. It is just completion of an important particularity. Life rolls on till it merges … Continued

Life does not end at death. It is just completion of an important particularity. Life rolls on till it merges in the Absolute. Life drifts on to achieve its triumph of the universal.

Self is reborn many times before it advances to moksha (liberation). Atman (self) is Brahman (the supreme being). Soul goes through many semblances.

Physical death is not final. Bhagavad-Gita compares death with the changing of worn-out clothing.

The major quest for us is to break the cycle of rebirth and attain a state of supreme freedom or liberation (moksha), which is a timeless state.

Written by

  • Terra Gazelle

    Differing from the Hindu belief, Wiccans do not want off the wheel of life. I want to return again and again…to learn all I can. How can anyone want to put this beautiful earth behind them? I am a spiritual being learning how to live on a material plane. And no the idea of reincarnation does not promote the status quo. The early Christians believed in it…the jews believed it. Didn’t John the Baptist ask Jesus if he was Isaiah returned? And what is the return of the dead if not reincarnation? Isn’t Christianity based on the belief of the return of Jesus…after all he rose from his tomb, then went to his father, and you expect him to come again. I haven’t seen the Intelligent Design Museum…but I know people that have. They do not harken to the status quo, they go backwards. terra

  • Mr Mark

    Yibbidy yabbidy gobbledygook. Got any proof for those statements? didn’t think so.Gotta go…there’s a leprechaun riding a unicorn in my yard.

  • Terra Gazelle

    Mr. Mark,I used to think that atheists were the easiest to talk to, they would not treat others as morons, but be open minded. Well Atheists are becoming as close minded as any Fundi. It was once possible to be able to have decent conversations with Atheists on philosophical grounds..it was fun and interesting. But now? Your are too strident and that is as much a turn off as it is when Shearer does it.terra

  • Gaby

    Well, all I can say is when I die let me rest in piece. I have no desire to be reborn as myself or someone else.I don’t really care if there is an afterlife or not. Any which way is fine, but resurrection? No way, Jose! Been there done that once, don’t want to do it again.

  • Alex

    The concept of rebirth is indeed a less morbid thought than vanishing into nothingness through death.But, it also takes away in my humble view, the sense of urgency that a finite life offers to shape one’s life or contribute to the world in a meaningful and desirable way. Does it not?Is the concept of reincarnation responsible for the status quo of traditional societies of Hindu, Jain, and Buddhist faiths? and for promoting lack of incentives to improve the lots of the suffering, the poor and the dispossessed? In other words, are the lack of economic and social developments (for example eliminating casteism and untouchability) due to the faith in reincarnation, which may instill the hope that if this life is not ideal perhaps the next one would be! I hope the learned Hindu Priest Sri Rajan Zed will comment on it. Thanks.

  • Bill C.

    Basically you can just spout whatever nonsense you like. Really insightful. Really.

  • Thor’s Child

    Terra Gazelle, I do appreciate the tolerance and patience exhibited by every Wiccan and Pagan I’ve read on these boards. You describe yourself as a spiritual being living in a material plane. Am I correct in my understanding that you see spirit and body as separate? Or is there a better description of your views that differs from classic mind/body dualism? I would also pose the same question to Hindus on the list.

  • Mr Mark

    Dear Terra -I respect your right to believe whatever you want. That’s part of my being an American.However, that respect doesn’t extend to the imagined “truth” of those beliefs. If you want to believe in Santa, fine. That doesn’t mean that I must also believe in Santa. The same holds true for any god you wish to believe in. You say that no one is forcing me to believe anything, yet you seem to require that I treat ridiculous, unfounded beliefs – fantasies, in fact – with the same respect that I would proven fact. Why? Because some book written by a bunch of Bronze-Aged nomads says so? No thanks.If that’s strident, fine. I can live with that.

  • Mr Mark

    Dear Thor’s Child -1. I do show respect to people, but not their crazy ideas. If Terra wanted to argue that bush’s Iraq War was totally necessary and justified would I need to show respect for the argument? How many respectful paragraphs would I need to write before positing a counter argument?2. I disagree with the premise of your second statement, so I can’t provide a response beyond the disagreement. But nice try at framing the question.BTW – I will accept that I am a “strident” atheist the day that I post anything on this blog that equals the stridency of saying “you’re going to hell to burn for eternity,” a stridency that fairly seethes from many of the posts deposited here by the meek-and-mild of all faiths.

  • Jay

    I’m disappointed in Zed’s article. Like Mr Mark asks “where’s the proof?”

  • Thor’s Child

    MR. MARK, 1. So your initial post was a thoughtful interjection of reason into a discussion regarding the Hindu view of the afterlife? It reads more like you wanted to hop in merely to show disrespect to all those who would read this thread, reinforcing the negative stereotype of Atheists. We do not need that kind of publicity. 2. If you disagree with my premise, then you accept that Truth can be illogical, and your demand for proof falls to the ground, making your initial post even less sensible.

  • Gandalf

    Mr Mark…you know what your rants sound like? Eeriely similar to the crazy islamic fundamentalists. And remember, your “belief” is only a belief too, you cannot prove you are right any more than the other group. So drop the holier than thou attitude.

  • Nivedita

    What Rajan Zed illustrated is the Hindu way of explaining the concept of life after death. It may or may not be true, its one explanation and finally its just a comment. No one is forced to believe in the theory and Hindus don’t really care if atheists or anyone else for that matter think its just fanciful thinking. We’re not forcing it down anyone’s throat saying its the absolute truth. So, in essence live and let live. If some people choose to believe in it, its their choice and if others don’t, its their choice / opinion. There’s nothing right or wrong about it, its just another viewpoint. Period.

  • Mr Mark

    Dear Thor & Gandalf -Rajan Zed offers an opinion based upon…nothing. “Death is not final”? Your proof, please. “Life drifts on to achieve its triumph of the universal”? As opposed to paddling like there’s no tomorrow? “Physical death is not final”? Again, your proof for that would be…???And I thought Nietzsche was difficult reading.I thought that Mr Zed’s bromides got the respect from me that they deserved. They hold no more nor no less “truth” than any other religious musings. Why hold back in my analysis of the same? Why give an opening to the Christianistas to say that I typically use a bludgeon on their beliefs but keep my powder dry when the woo-woo “mysticism” of Hindu belief is the subject at hand.So, I’m an equal-opportunity skeptic. Big deal.

  • arrabbiato

    I don’t know about Mr. Mark and the rest of you, but in MY living room on MY altar table I have Buddha, (more than one!) AND Ganesh and Parvati-I like to have all my bases covered!Ganesh is my favorite Hindu god-he has the body of a human, and the head of an elephant. I will go to India in a couple of months to pay my respects by giving him an offering-he is the god of good fortune, and most of us can use all we can get of that, from whatever source possible!

  • Thor’s Child

    Mr. Mark,How about backing up your own belief that truth must be proven? Any proof of that? I’d prefer you used no bludgeon, if at all possible.

  • Dolores

    Bertrand Russell.”All the evidence goes to show that what we regard as our mental life isBertrand Russell.”Why I Am Not A Christian”,pp51

  • yoyo

    Its like we’re all computers

  • Paganplace

    “But, it also takes away in my humble view, the sense of urgency that a finite life offers to shape one’s life or contribute to the world in a meaningful and desirable way. Does it not?”Who taught you it *had* to?

  • Thor’s Child

    Mr. Mark,a) You need not have respect for beliefs you disagree with. However it would be more helpful to the Atheist cause if you showed respect for the people trying to carry on with the discussion at hand.b) Your first post here indicates that you agree with this statement: If it is not logical, then it is not true. Before you go demanding proof from everyone else, perhaps you should set out to prove the truth of that underlying assertion or its (logically equivalent) contrapositive: All truth is logical.

  • Nivedita

    Dave, I agree completely. Thank you.

  • arrabbiato

    Nivedita-that’s as good a description of a Hindu concept as ever I’ve seen, and so concise as well!

  • Terra Gazelle

    Thor’s Child,Spirit is all things. There is no seperation from what is Oneness. Pagans have a different concept of the Creator. People think of the Abrahamic idea of God and religion…One God seperate from Creation.That if you did something wrong that God would turn away from you. As a Wiccan I can not understand that concept…all things are part of what created us..how can what is a part of us, turn away? It would be like our breath turning away from us.We are all part of the Creation, made by the same life force…we call it by many names, but what’s in a name? We think more in poetry then scripture, what is more blessed then thou shalt not. terra

  • Terra Gazelle

    Mr. Mark,Faith is a feeling, an inner knowing that does not translate. I can not take what I feel and know at my altar and prove it to you…nor do I need to.You need to be able to prove that you are correct, that my faith is less then your logic.You are the one stateing we are fools.So it is up to you to prove your statement. I got interested in quantum machanics and String theory (M-Theory), “There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio…”terra

  • Mr Mark

    Terra -You make valid points about religion being what it is. I would disagree with you and say that, “Faith is a feeling, an inner BELIEF that does not translate.” You can’t “know” about these things. You can only believe. It’s an important distinction that must be made if words like “evidence,” “facts” and “opinion” are to have any meaning at all. Indeed, if you wish to have any chance to translate these feelings to non-believers, then you must approach such translation with a respect for language and what words mean. Otherwise, black is white, up is down and we’ve just entered a relativist nightmare.

  • Dave

    I like Nivedita’s comment. One of the basic tenants of Hinduism is not to shove anything down anyone’s throat. I would only add that there is a Hindu sect that includes atheistic beliefs. According to this paradigm, the existence of God is not necessary to have a moral compass or to add meaning to life. Atheists coexists peacefully with believers in India. In fact, my best friend (and his family for that matter) are confirmed atheists from Mumbai. So Mark is welcome to his views and there is no need to gang up on him. When it comes to matters of faith, mathematical or logical proofs are almost impossible to come by. In fact, such expectations are also illogical. Also please note that Buddhism is NOT a theistic religion.

  • Dave

    I like Nivedita’s comment. One of the basic tenants of Hinduism is not to shove anything down anyone’s throat. I would only add that there is a Hindu sect that includes atheistic beliefs. According to this paradigm, the existence of God is not necessary to have a moral compass or to add meaning to life. Atheists coexist peacefully with believers in India. In fact, my best friend (and his family for that matter) are confirmed atheists from Mumbai. So Mark is welcome to his views and there is no need to gang up on him. When it comes to matters of faith, mathematical or logical proofs are almost impossible to come by. In fact, such expectations are also illogical. Also please note that Buddhism is NOT a theistic religion.

  • Dave

    I like Nivedita’s comment. One of the basic tenants of Hinduism is not to shove anything down anyone’s throat. I would only add that there is a Hindu sect that includes atheistic beliefs. According to this paradigm, the existence of God is not necessary to have a moral compass or to add meaning to life. Atheists coexist peacefully with believers in India. In fact, my best friend (and his family for that matter) are confirmed atheists from Mumbai. So Mark is welcome to his views and there is no need to gang up on him. When it comes to matters of faith, mathematical or logical proofs are almost impossible to come by. In fact, such expectations are also illogical. Also please note that Buddhism is NOT a theistic religion.

  • Jihadist

    MR. MARKAh so! In full swing alone, and sometimes in tandem with E Favorite taking on theists I see:)You : “And I thought Nietzsche was difficult reading.”And I thought Voltaire is a brand of hair-dryers.I can’t spell Neetchee much less read the ponderous tomes by this German grandaddy of Aryan supremacy as understood (or misunderstood) by the swastika armband wearing blonde and blue-eyed types. Excuse me while I try to make pseudo-sense of strident anti-theist fellows to someone here. Meaning, I’m going to libel and slander you a bit and then claim freedom of speech for it:) TERRA GAZELLE:Merry Meet.About Mr. Mark, let us borrow some terms applied to NGOs – Advocacy NGOs, and Operational NGOs.Advocacy athiests – Harris, Hitchens, Dennet, DawkinsAbvocacy types yells a lot, very noisily and dramatically in front of CNN and BBC for Truth! Rights! Justice! Equality! Fraternity! Plight of the gay black, blind atheists!But alas, they yell a lot about “Your beliefs are dumb! I’m not gonna respect it! I’m going to thrash it? Why not? Nothing is sacred?”Wasted energy, talent and time there. Operational atheists – Berlinerblau, Jacoby et al in at least trying to point to atheists the issues and to guide them on ways to get their say in the wider society populated by the terrifying believers. Effective operational types collect funds, members, network with one another and others, and devise strategy to get whatever they want. Mr. Mark, our friend, has proudly and loudly announced himself as an anti-theist. This really means he is an advocacy atheist, a “streetfighter” too, that is against and will fight theists in the On Faith threads, in the beaches, in the fields, in the offices, in the schools, in the streets, in the shops, house to house, from the boathouse to outhouse. Without Mr. Mark in On Faith, it won’t be the same don’t you think? I getting to be quite fond of him regardless of what that anti-theist thinks of me as a believer. Best regards as everJ

  • Terra Gazelle

    Mr. Mark,I was trying to explain MY view. What I know is only important to me, I really do not care how you believe as long as you show me the respect any human deserves. Many years ago I got into an online tiff with a youngster…he made a statement that I had to earn his respect to start off…I said that I will respect him until he proves he has not earned it. I will respect the right you have to your view…even your view of my faith. Because it is my faith…and so not provable to be The One and Only Way…even if to me it has proven to be My One and Only Way. And as far as words go..Pagans tend to have words that create confusion to the Cowans. Akasha is understood by us that you as a cowan would not ken. So to talk about the Four Cornerstones would only make you scratch your head…Io EVOHE

  • Terra Gazelle

    Mr. Mark,I was trying to explain MY view. What I know is only important to me, I really do not care how you believe as long as you show me the respect any human deserves. Many years ago I got into an online tiff with a youngster…he made a statement that I had to earn his respect to start off…I said that I will respect him until he proves he has not earned it. I will respect the right you have to your view…even your view of my faith. Because it is my faith…and so not provable to be The One and Only Way…even if to me it has proven to be My One and Only Way. And as far as words go..Pagans tend to have words that create confusion to the Cowans. Akasha is understood by us that you as a cowan would not ken. So to talk about the Four Cornerstones would only make you scratch your head…Io EVOHE

  • Terra Gazelle

    Mr. Mark,Words are only sounds without the meaning of those words. Would you say that Chinese does not exist because you do not understand it? That China does not exist because you have never seen it?Not believeing can be as blind as believing the unseen. First off you take a lot for graqnted that you know what we believe, or if our beliefs translates to what you think they are.You seem to think that our beliefs coincides with the Christian belief, only with more gods. Or that the fairy tales or tales of the inquisition are correct. Have you bothered to get the real story and to put aside your bigotry long enough to learn the truth?But never the less, children are often not as blinded by loseing pure sight. We grow old and are blinded by what society tells us is real and what is not…we learn to not trust our vision.terra

  • Gandalf

    Another thing Mr Mark:here is what the dictionary says:a•the•ism (noun) The theory or belief that God does not exist

  • Gandalf

    Another thing Mr Mark:here is what the Oxford American dictionary says:a•the•ism (noun) The theory or belief that God does not exist

  • Mr Mark

    Dear Gandalf -Let me see if I’ve understood what you just wrote. You’re saying that non-belief is a belief? Do I have that right?

  • Mr Mark

    Gandalf -As far as dictionary definitions of atheism, I prefer that given in Merriam-Websters:”a disbelief in the existence of deity”As we atheists are already defined by society by what we are NOT, rather than by what we ARE, at least allow me to choose my own dictionary definition of how I wished to be so defined.Thanks! 🙂

  • Thor’s Child

    Mr. Mark,It is interesting that when confronted by the same question, the same answers are forthcoming (paraphrased, of course):Q: Can you prove a)your faith in the supernatural or b) the need for proof. Dave’s argument I concur with, since he is not asking for proof from anyone else. Mr. Mark’s on the other hand is subject to a different standard. Since he’s demanding proof from others (in an irritating way) on the fundamentals of their arguments, he should be subject to his own standard for his argument. So, Mr. Mark, the ball is still in your court. Since you clearly think that proof is the only way to truth, prove it.

  • Mr Mark

    Dear Thor’s Child -Thanks for the comments.I would think that a definition of proof that is “presented as objective reality” stands in stark and utter contrast to “proofs” that are “presented as SUBJECTIVE reality.” Of course, that does beg the question of whether or not reality itself is subjective, or if it’s only our assessment of reality that is subjective.As far as demanding proof: I’m not “demanding proof” as much as I’m averring that the absence of proof is NOT proof of whatever reality one wishes to assert. I take the position that – to date – the OBJECTIVE proof does not support your position. Will a Deus ex machina “proof” exert itself at some point down the road to “prove” the claims of the religionists? Based on the millenia of silence we’ve had from “god,” probably not. Would you be willing to bet your house on such proof? Didn’t think so.As far as your comment, “Since you clearly think that proof is the only way to truth, prove it.” That’s a very broad comment. Indeed, many of the great scientific truths were initiated as hypotheses that ran counter to received opinion – ie: beliefs that were held to be truths. One can assert anything with no proof at all (religion), but the road to truth doesn’t begin and end there. The road to truth is paved with proof. Again, it comes down to what you accept as proof. I would posit that you would not accept as valid proof your local waiter asserting that he was qualified to perform the gall bladder surgery you were about to undergo. On the other hand, if you wish to apply religion’s *subjective* standard of proof to your upcoming surgery, then maybe you’d believe that your waiter was the man for the job because the cross he was sporting on his necklace “proved” to you that he had the goods to perform your gall bladder surgery. Or, perhaps his dad is revered in the community and his family has a reputation for “being honest.” Others might wish to see more objective proof of his skills as a surgeon before going under the knife.I’ve learned that I don’t tend to trust people whose only proof offered to gain said trust are the words, “trust me.” That’s religion’s argument for faith in a nutshell – trust me. If it works for you, then good luck with that. You’ll excuse me if I chose to be a bit more circumspect in these matters.

  • Gaby

    Although I do not subscribe any to form of religion, I instinctively know that we are part of a whole. As such we can never die, we are being recycled.As Paganplace so aptly put it: “Spirit is all things. There is no seperation from what is Oneness.”And as Terra said: “Faith is a feeling, an inner knowing that does not translate. I can not take what I feel and know at my altar and prove it to you…nor do I need to.”Everyone has a right to believe as they wish in this country, and, yes, Mr. Mark, atheism is a belief, for beliefs are things that you do not know.My dear dad who passed away several years ago always said: “Believing is not knowing.”And that statement fits both believers and non-believers.

  • Gandalf

    Well said Gaby! Thanks Mr Mark and others, I enjoyed the discussion we have been having so far.

  • Thor’s Child

    Mr. Mark,You present a wonderfully mobile target ;)First: ‘presented as objective reality’ is exactly what creationists do when they point to the earth and say: “See! Obviously real and obviously created!’ You chose to focus on ‘objective,’ and missed ‘presented.’ You cannot define away the issue.Second: “I’m not ‘demanding proof’…” What part of ‘Got any proof of that?’ is not a demand for proof? ‘Absence of proof is not proof…’ Lovely (and pointless) tautology. Third: ‘it comes down to what you accept as proof’ For now, anything you have to offer will be a good starting place. So far, you haven’t given us *anything* to justify why we should accept that proof is necessary. Perhaps we should just trust you? It seems like a fundamental tenet of anti-theism, why avoid it? Dive in! Show us!

  • Gandalf

    Terra: I would not waste my breath arguing with the likes of Mr Mark. His arrogance makes him no different from the crazy fundamentalists (be they islamic or evangelical) and his unwillingness to have an open mind. It is funny (AND ironic) how someone with an atheistic “belief” would criticize the “believers” and say believing is stupid! Grow wiser, Mr Mark, your is just another belief and you cannot prove your belief to be right in any way!

  • Mr Mark

    Dear Gandalf -Of course we all have beliefs. You make the mistake of believing that all beliefs are equal.I would say that my beliefs comport with the dictionary definition that says, “conviction of the truth of some statement or the reality of some being or phenomenon especially when based on examination of evidence.” The important phrase in that definition is “examination of evidence.” The important word in that definition is “evidence.” I can offer PROOF for what I believe about this world based on those things that science has revealed and proven as fact. I can’t prove “everything” in this world because much remains to be explained.Your beliefs are based on faith, which means that you tend to believe things in the absence of – and sometimes, in defiance of – evidence.The difference between a realist’s view of the world and the religionist’s is that the realist can provide SOME level of proof for their beliefs while the religionist can provide NO level of proof for their beliefs. That’s quite a difference when you think about it. Here’s a test for you: the next time you’re ill, whose “proof” are you going to trust to get well? The realistic proofs of science and medicine, or your proof in some supernatural being to get you well? When push comes to shove, what do you REALLY believe?And, you make the usual theist mistake of saying that atheism is a belief. Right, as if your not being a stamp collector makes you a “believer” in not collecting stamps.You are correct in saying that there’s no use arguing with someone like me, not as long as you defend ideas and concepts along the lines of believing the Earth is flat and that unicorns existed, both “truths” of the Bible, BTW. It’s especially useless if you can’t even understand simple concepts – like atheism not being a belief.As far as having an “open mind”: is your mind open to the idea of succubi and unicorns? If not, how can you accuse me of having a closed mind?As far as “growing wiser” – there is no “wiseness” in religion. Religion is, in fact, the enemy of “wiseness.” History proves it as do the words of religion and the religionists. Is my saying so being arrogant, or just stating the obvious?

  • a-gnostic

    The essence of most “religious” teachings is that consciousness is the ground of being instead of material. Of course, with the Popper-esque paradigm dominating most of the current scientific thought, materialistic science views consciousness as merely an epiphenomenon of the material brain and no more. Clearly, this perspective limits the interpretation of phenomena such as near death experiences, out of body experiences, telepathy, etc. With the recent findings in quantum mechanics, however, this purely material paradigm is becoming outdated and lacking in explanatory theories. Consciousness appears to be much more than merely the epiphenomena that materialist scientist claim. To determine if there is an afterlife one must extrapolate and theorise from different findings and theories not merely rely on one type of method of inquiry, I.e. material science.I think that many enlightened mystics of human history have attempted to teach other people the methods necessary to be enlightened but their teachings have been co-opted by the “followers” who are self interested, egocentric and greedy people. The result of these organizers of religions is a “belief” system instead of a pure “practice” as you see in Zen. Simply “believe in this dogma and you will be rewarded” is the resulting misconception of many religion’s teachings. Jesus Christ seemed to be teaching his followers that they should be one with God and give up their entity of self in each moment. (See Matthew 6:28, Luke 17:21, John 15:13 and John17:21-23) This view seems to be similar to Buddhist thought (except the concept of God which could be interpreted as a personification of ultimate reality). Of course the followers of Christ misinterpreted his teachings in order to fulfill prophecy and to create a self-interested entity of “church”.Can we integrate the modern theoretical physics and the essence of the teachings of Jesus Christ, the Great Buddha, etc.? If the recent interpretations of quantum mechanics are correct, then the integration has begun!

  • Thor’s Child

    A-Gnostic,Which recent findings/interpretations of quantum mechanics are you referring to?

  • a-gnostic

    Thor’s Child:The following are excerpts of an interview with Dr. Amit Goswami, a theoretical physicist who wrote the book, “The Self Aware Universe”.“How it started happening first was that quantum objects—objects in quantum physics—began to be looked upon as waves of possibility. They are not waves in space and time. They cannot be called waves in space and time at all—they have properties which do not jibe with those of ordinary waves. So they began to be recognized as waves in potential, waves of possibility, and the potential was recognized as transcendent, beyond matter somehow.” “In quantum physics objects are not seen as definite things, as we are used to seeing them. Newton taught us that objects are definite things, they can be seen all the time, moving in definite trajectories. Quantum physics doesn’t depict objects that way at all. In quantum physics, objects are seen as possibilities, possibility waves. So then the question arises, what converts possibility into actuality? Because, when we see, we only see actual events. That’s starting with us. When you see a chair, you see an actual chair, you don’t see a possible chair.”“Now this is called the “quantum measurement paradox.” It is a paradox because who are we to do this conversion? Because after all, in the materialist paradigm we don’t have any causal efficacy. We are nothing but the brain, which is made up of atoms and elementary particles. So how can a brain which is made up of atoms and elementary particles convert a possibility wave that it itself is? It itself is made up of the possibility waves of atoms and elementary particles, so it cannot convert its own possibility wave into actuality. This is called a paradox. Now in the new view, consciousness is the ground of being. So who converts possibility into actuality? Consciousness does, because consciousness does not obey quantum physics. Consciousness is not made of material. Consciousness is transcendent. The material world of quantum physics is just possibility. It is consciousness, through the conversion of possibility into actuality, that creates what we see manifest. In other words, consciousness creates the manifest world.”

  • Terra Gazelle

    PBS had a special on called The Elegant Universe…It is still on their website. It is an amazing production and so beautiful. Another wonderful window into Quantum Machanics is “What the Beep do WE Know.” And a small movie that gives much to ponder is “Mind Walk.”All Witches need to watch “What the Bleep do We know. You will understand why things work…lol. It’s exciting.Now I have no idea if all this info is the last word in science, I doubt if it is. Science never claims to have the last fact…that is why science “guess-timation” is a Hypothesis and the last best known fact is a Theory.As a Witch I can attest to some unusual occurances happening when the Consciousness is changed..The definition of Magick,” “The art and science of causing change to occur in conformity with will.” All this leads to Quantum Machanics.terra

  • Terry

    For those quantum mechanics enthusiasts that want to wade through some dense but interesting stuff regarding ‘the new paradigm’ represented by quantum logic, try ‘Wholeness and the ImplicatePhysicists agree that physical reality exists only ‘potentially’ until an act of observation causes phenomena to manifest or appear (variously, according to the particular constitution of the observer and/or observing mechanism). Bohm postulates that the Implicate Order represents an infinite potentiality – where all manifestations/phenomena remain ‘enfolded’ until they are brought forth in the ‘explicate’ order by observation and/or selection. Buddhism has long said that consciousness or pure awareness at the most fundamental level is responsible for the manifest universe in all it’s variety and multiplicity. In this metaphysic, everything in it’s entirety is manifest from instant to instant, with no real past or future to be found, other than as a mental construct. We’ve all heard there is only ‘now’ and this appears to be true – otherwise nothing would be possible. In this view nothing has inherent independent existence or self-nature (emptiness) and there can be no ‘solid’ reality as common-sense indicates. As Nagarjuna says, all is mere appearance and emptiness – that is the fundamental nature of reality. At present, this can only be intuited as true – eventually science will probably find a way to prove it unequivically. I wonder if the Dalai Lama will share this revelation with our illustrious president???

  • addicted

    Mr. Mark:”Rajan Zed offers an opinion based upon…nothing.”This is where you are mistaken. Zed is simply explaining what he perceives the Hindu position on life to be. This is FACT. Hindus do believe in reincarnation. On the other hand, as several Hindus after have stated, it is a belief they hold, and are not forcing it down your throat as THE TRUTH.You would do yourself (and the rest of us atheists) a huge favor by showing some civility in your posts.