1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  2. Afterlife Forums is an online, interactive community designed to give seekers direct access to prominent researchers, to afterlife literature, and to one another in order to foster both spiritual growth and public interest in life after death.

Is it too easy?

Discussion in 'General Afterlife Discussions' started by Celera, Oct 12, 2012.

  1. Celera

    Celera Active Member

    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.
  2. I feel and wonder the same.
  3. Annie

    Annie Member

    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.
  4. I also feel the same. I agree with you.
  5. mac

    mac Staff Member

    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....

Share This Page