Is it too easy?

[Celera]

So, being misplaced in California, I particularly enjoyed spending last week in Omaha (I was there for business). My last day there, I stepped out of an office building and walked four blocks to my hotel, facing a persistent 36 degree wind. There were trees with leaves of gold, burgundy and softening green. My nose got a bit numb. It was great.

This brought to mind something that has always sort of bothered me about descriptions of the after-life. It's great that there is a lot of love and learning and happiness. But so much of what makes our current existence wonderful is those physical pleasures -- coming in from the snow to a blazing fireplace and a cup of hot chocolate. The bracing tannins of Zinfandel. The beauty of art that you have labored to master. The one-ness and other-ness of physical intimacy -- whether it's with a lover or a nursing infant or a snuggling child. Even the terrible cold depths of Lake Superior (if you've been there you know what I mean.)

An existence full of light and love and peace seems wonderful -- but does it only seem wonderful because in this life those are scarce commodities? In this context, explanations of the afterlife always seem so sterile and soft and easy. Like spending eternity in a pool of rice pudding (which is delicious, but still I wouldn't want a steady diet of it.)

I'm not trying to be argumentative, but I just wonder about this. If any of you have a different perspective, I'd be interested to hear it.

[mokandi]

I feel and wonder the same.

[Annie]

Honestly, I've always gotten the impression that you DO feel those physical things. Even though you don't need to eat over there, you might still crave a nice, warm chocolate chip cookie, or a nice plate of spaghetti and meatballs. And you can have them, and you won't even gain weight. You can have sunshine or rain, you can smell flowers and hear music. You can touch people too, just like you did in real life, but my theory is only with people who want you to, and vice versa. Not that anyone wouldn't want you to, I'm just saying that no one can physically harm you or anything.

[jenniechan]

I also feel the same. I agree with you.

[mac]

You can go one stage further and consider the oft-used name - The Summerland. Many seem to see life in the etheric as a desirable 'summerland' compared with life in-the-body for which 'winterland' is a metaphor.

Or maybe this summerland word was one coined by those who experienced lives of extreme hardship in winter and for whom summer was much more enjoyable? A few moments of thought would reveal just how inappropriate it would be for those who had lived in extremely difficult summer conditions and would much prefer temperate weather - as they might have found in their winters. An opposite experience.

Personally I don't use the summerland word other than when others need me to. And I point out that after passing we'll likely see matters altogether differently after we've acclimated to the conditions we'll find there. But just the step of accepting that life is continuous, that death doesn't signal the end of us, is a huge step and any argument about a name to describe life in the etheric realms is a minor issue.

And might be seen, by some, as slightly bourgeois....

[mac]

One step further from considering the name, and the environment experienced, leads on to a notion that Roberta's often brought up - that of the etheric dimension following the physical being an illusory one. In this the element of personal preference for one's environment can be further considered. In one sense it is an illusory world because what's found there has been brought about (to some degree) by the needs and expectations of those journeying through it.

But that world feels just as solid and 'real' as all other dimensions. (however they're perceived by their occupants) For all intents and purposes it can be considered as real as everything else we feel to be real. BUT in the so-called summeland we can influence (to a degree) what we experience; should our psyche be so deeply influenced by our current preferences for weather, food or whatever, to some degree we may create for ourselves the things we desire. We may even find that others there, maybe many others, have already done that very thing and we may then be attracted to the conditions they've created to match their own needs/expectations. The like-attracts-like principle.

It's been taught that our specific desires will be transient - desires for sun, wind, rain, cups-of-coffee, blazing log fires whatever your preference - but they can be satisfied, at least in some degree and for as long as the individual(s) hold those needs/desires. But once adjusted to the many changes, those desires will begin to fade.

[Birki]

I think the senses afforded to us by our human body are very limited. I think we have no idea what wonders are in store for us, and really we cannot comprehend the joys and delights we will find in the afterlife. If you want something from earth there you can have it, but after a while you may find you don't even want it, becuase it is so lackluster compared to what is possible there. Of course both the earth and the summerlands are all an illusion, anyway, on our journey to rejoining God/Mind.

[vic smyth]

...It's been taught that our specific desires will be transient - desires for sun, wind, rain, cups-of-coffee, blazing log fires whatever your preference - but they can be satisfied, at least in some degree and for as long as the individual(s) hold those needs/desires. But once adjusted to the many changes, those desires will begin to fade.

And once the desires fade, we will experience contentment.


With Lovingkindness (metta),
vic

[mac]

And once the desires fade, we will experience contentment.


With Lovingkindness (metta),
vic

and much more....

[Celera]

Reading this again this morning, I see that I have rather sloppily combined two different, although perhaps related questions.

1. What replaces physical pleasures when we have no physical body? This question is answered to some degree by the comments so far. We can still experience those pleasures, or something like them, if we want to. And it makes sense that if we have no physical body, we won't miss the things that now give it pleasure.

2. This one is harder (for me anyway). If everything is available freely, then what is it worth? Sure, I can imagine a winter-land or autumn-land if that suits my tastes -- but part of the pleasure of the cold wind is that it dares you to survive it, and the pleasure of a fire in the fireplace is that you had to go through the cold to get to it. Part of the pleasure of building something or creating something or learning something is that it takes you some effort to do these things, and there is challenge and often a risk of failure. Part of the pleasure of good wine or a great painting is that these things can't be found all over the place.

On Star Trek (hey, I'm a geek) there is an omnipotent character named Q. He can go to any place or time in the blink of an eye. If something doesn't please or amuse him, he just thinks it into something different. The thing is, Q is a very disruptive being, because he is just so bored.

Again, not trying to be negative or dispute anything that anyone has said about the other levels. It's just so hard to conceive of a world so different from ours.