We Seek Proof

Most of us seek proof to believe in anything. Because we don’t have any proof, we would not want to believe the truth of who we really are.

What is the purpose of life? For instance, if somebody wants proof to believe that the railway track that he is traveling on in New York is connected to the railway track in San Francisco, how do we prove that to him? We can’t prove it, right? But if one uses common sense, logically, if there is a train is going from New York to San Francisco, then there must be tracks connecting the two places. The train is not going to fly in the air or move on the road.

Therefore, there is no point in seeking proof for the existence of those railway tracks that will take the train from New York to San Francisco. Instead, we need to infer from logic and common sense.

In the same way, when somebody says that we are not the body and are a divine spirit, let us understand this by inferring from what happens to us at death. At death, the body collapses. The body disintegrates into myth, into one, into ashes. Then, what was giving life to the body? What is that energy – the soul, the Atman, the Prana, or the Chi – whatever you call it – that was giving life to the body. It was there, but it disappeared. Therefore, when somebody dies, we say that he has passed away or that he has left his body. It means that he is not the body, and if those who die are not the body, then you and me too are not our bodies. But somehow, we don’t want to accept that fact. But if we do, our life will surely change. We would not live the same way as we live today.

If we realize that only the body dies, but we don’t die and that we live forever, then this is what we need – this should be the sole purpose of our life.

AiR

I don’t think this is true. Most of what people believe they believe on automatic pilot. What you might mean is that when people change beliefs they want proof. The odd thing about this is that they will stay with something they do not have proof of, instead of shifting to something that feels better or is utililable which has at least as much or more evidence in favor of it. They also tend to demand proof without new experience. IOW they will not explore something.

One of the big problems with deduction and what you are proposing here is a deductive approach, is that things can sound logical on paper or a screen without being real. I am not saying you are incorrect, just that your model means veyr little to people with other models of reality. Those sharing your model need experience of an approach and do not need to be convinced by deduction. Those not sharing your model will see you as making unjusitifed leaps in your deduction.

My challenge to you would be this: How can you take the position of KNOWER, in this case spiritual knower, when you do not understand, given your approach here, how people learn and think?

The ‘this’ is not clear here.

If there is some afterlife which is impersonal, which denies my attachments to friends and family, I don’t want to go there. I see this OP as yet another example of body hatred. Maybe I’m wrong. I write poems in attempts to lure the Muses into embodiment of meaning in thought, in words. The body or the word can be the temple in which spirituality can reside. And who knows for certain what we will know after death–everything or nothing. There is no proof that we will know either. I do not seek proof, I seek insight.

Well put. And I agree. I mean, I do not think that AIR should have to keep himself or herself as an individual. The name itself implies a lack of interest. But once the goal is stated as one we should all have, it is a problem. You have to wonder what the person is doing when they come and lecture as if their own predilictions should be everyone’s.

I am a body.

Sure, I mean, I understand that this is your belief and that any spirituality is going to be body centered.
I react negatively to Air’s spirituality, just not quite for the same reasons that you do.

I believe that if we exist for no reason, it is dumb for people to believe that there is no afterlife and its dumb to believe in eternal nonexistence.

It is rumored that Origen castrated himself in search of spiritual purity. If he did, that was a dumb thing to do. The body is not the enemy of any god. Neither is it an impediment to spiritual progress.

It is once said in a book that the Devil, after he fell from heaven, frequently masturbated, as orgasm reminded him of the same feelings of Heaven. So castration, is actually an unholiness, even something worse than the Devil would do.

It’s just an extreme example of religious body hatred. Is there no one here who reveres the body? Who understands that embodiment of meaning in words is what minds do? Did Teresa of Avila torture her own body? What did she gain by doing that? So many monks denied their masculinity; but Martin Luther wanted a wife and the sexual experience. There seems to be some problem of religion with human sexuality–as if coitus puts one in a state of oneness that the gods envy. Pure crap!
“All the way from sex to sanctity
God is shared love in any form.”

If God denies us Heaven on Earth, how can we trust him to take us to Heaven outside of Earth?

I’ve witnessed heaven on Earth. But I have no idea of what an afterlife might consist of.