I have often come upon the belief that to believe in an afterlife is to believe in weakness. That in order to escape the fear of death, one props up an imagined afterlife. Yet tonight I have finally asked a question that I ought to have asked from the beginning:

Is this so?

For what is strength but the desire for more life? And what is weakness but the desire for annihilation? One cannot be strong if one says "I do not want life!" for it is the fundamental foundation of weakness to cry out for reprieve from this stunningly wonderful (and terrible, also!) life in which we live. So to imagine - or to actually have - an afterlife which retains an individual ego either in a heaven or in reincarnation, would seem to be more desirous-of-life and thus, far more stronger than the alternative. That is to say, strong people would want this to be so. That it might not be so isn't changed one bit, but at the very least, if one is strong, it would seem one would want an afterlife.

What? We all want to live forever. Embracing a delusion for fear of the inevitable is the weakness. Believing something doesn't make it true.

Plunkies:

I addressed that in the last sentence.

I also never put forth that we should embrace any delusions whatsoever, only that it seems not to be weakness, but -strength- to desire an afterlife.

People just don't give eternal life enough thought. Forever is a long time... That sounds like hell. Even if there was a continuous supply of virgins, it'd get boring and there'd be no way out.

KennyJC:

Would not this then be weakness on your part? Not strong enough to live up to an eternity as yourself?

First and foremost, it can not be a weakness if you fear something that doesn't exist. It's blindingly obvious this is our one and only life and it will last several decades.

But as for the idea, call it weak if you want... I think even the brave would find an eternal life to be torture. If it's a case of being a sentient being, eternity can't possibly be a natural environment.

if i hadn't always existed, i wouldn't exist now either.

We all want to live forever.

not people who believe in eastern religions like buddhism and hinduism. their wish is exactly the opposite: to die and become non-existent, because they believe in eternal reincarnation.

you know... you can't fear death if you believe it is NONEXISTENCE!!! fear does not exist in non-existence, it's impossible to fear something like that!!!!! it would like an eternal liberation!!!

Believing something doesn't make it true.

sometimes it can make it true, especially if your beliefs are wrong/outdated.

But as for the idea, call it weak if you want... I think even the brave would find an eternal life to be torture. If it's a case of being a sentient being, eternity can't possibly be a natural environment.

it's not so bad because we don't remember our past lives. you don't remember your past life now. you may have lived a million lives before this, yet this "eternity" doesn't seem to bother you, and you keep believing there is an end.

but now you understand why i say such crazy things sometimes. it's because i have always existed and become really annoyed by this. consciousness will always exist.

KennyJC:

"First and foremost, it can not be a weakness if you fear something that doesn't exist. It's blindingly obvious this is our one and only life and it will last several decades."

If you fear the idea of something which does not exist, it is still a fear, and still a weakness.

Moreover, it is not "blindingly obvious", simply "the afterlife is unsubstantiated by empirical fact".

"But as for the idea, call it weak if you want... I think even the brave would find an eternal life to be torture. If it's a case of being a sentient being, eternity can't possibly be a natural environment. "

Reincarnational processes could mitigate the ennui that would be suffered by a personality persisting without alteration to memory throughout the aeons. Similarly, what is worse? Being oneself or not existing?

People just don't give eternal life enough thought. Forever is a long time... That sounds like hell. Even if there was a continuous supply of virgins, it'd get boring and there'd be no way out.

Therefore you see that there are certain qualifications to enter such realms - and desiring a truckload of virgins tends to get you relocated to a more "suitable" sphere - in otherwords the prospect of an eternal existence is more palatable when you are properly socialised around the principles it operates out of

For instance if you don't like god, or the very notion of a supreme controller makes you nauseous, then obviously there is no point you going to an eternal realm that operates out of such principles - the alternative - birth and death in a temporal world - seems to be more suited to what one is socialised around

PS - as for the truck load of virgins ..."Some of th e people all of the time but never all of the people all of the time" -lol

The Buddhist concept is of "rebirth" rather than "reincarnation".

Do you understand the difference?

--- Ron.
If Cty does I don't
:confused:

Therefore you see that there are certain qualifications to enter such realms - and desiring a truckload of virgins tends to get you relocated to a more "suitable" sphere - in otherwords the prospect of an eternal existence is more palatable when you are properly socialised around the principles it operates out of

Here is your 'qualified' fallacy again. Nobody is qualified in concepts that effecively do not exist. You are no more 'qualified' for eternal life than me, LG.

For instance if you don't like god, or the very notion of a supreme controller makes you nauseous, then obviously there is no point you going to an eternal realm that operates out of such principles - the alternative - birth and death in a temporal world - seems to be more suited to what one is socialised around

In other words if you "don't like God" (which I think you'd be more accurate in saying "don't believe in God"), then you don't get an eternal afterlife? This far-fetched assumption depends on 3 things; Existence of God, who awards people with an afterlife, but only gives this award out to those who believe in his existence. You can not even prove one of those concepts, let alone all three of them working together.

If you fear the idea of something which does not exist, it is still a fear, and still a weakness.

You can only fear it if it exists, or if you believe it exists. I don't fear the bogey man except of course when I was a child and believed it existed.

Moreover, it is not "blindingly obvious", simply "the afterlife is unsubstantiated by empirical fact".

It is blindingly obvious. Once my brain melts back into the universal ecosystem, nothing resembling me will live on.

Reincarnational processes could mitigate the ennui that would be suffered by a personality persisting without alteration to memory throughout the aeons. Similarly, what is worse? Being oneself or not existing?

Reincarnation is irrelevant. If I don't remember past lives or will become aware of future lives, then that is a different life altogether belonging to someone else.

You can only fear it if it exists, or if you believe it exists. I don't fear the bogey man except of course when I was a child and believed it existed.
What about fear of the unknown?

If I am going to fear the unknown, then I will fear what is likely to happen in an everyday basis. Like what happens if this plane I'm on crashes? It's highly unlikely, but it happens. Fear of what comes after death doesn't even register for me.

perplexity



so the process beyond death is a result of conditions created by the mind before death: The craving for life causes conditions conducive to further rebirth, by virtue of the mental preconception, or the lack of it, personality being a lack of truth rather a completeness of it.
similar concept in the vedas - the person takes a birth by the vehicle of the subtle body (ie mind) - whatever one is thinking at the time of death determines one's next destination

What would determine the continuity between one life and the next in buddhism since if the mind is inextricabley connected to the body, and the body perishes (thus the mind goes with it). How would you explain the phenomena of a person recalling previous lives since they would have no "hardware" for continuity??


It is also important to note that Buddhism supposes further possibilities apart from the possibility of rebirth in terms of what one might otherwise call reincarnation, and this is all eventually amenable to scientific appreciation, except for the shortage of the scope of our present purview, with nothing "supernatural" about it in principle.

such as?

Kenny
“ Originally Posted by lightgigantic
Therefore you see that there are certain qualifications to enter such realms - and desiring a truckload of virgins tends to get you relocated to a more "suitable" sphere - in otherwords the prospect of an eternal existence is more palatable when you are properly socialised around the principles it operates out of ”



Here is your 'qualified' fallacy again. Nobody is qualified in concepts that effecively do not exist. You are no more 'qualified' for eternal life than me, LG.
can't say it better than ron

Qualified to judge that a concept does not exist but not qualified to judge that it does exist?

That is not fair.



“ For instance if you don't like god, or the very notion of a supreme controller makes you nauseous, then obviously there is no point you going to an eternal realm that operates out of such principles - the alternative - birth and death in a temporal world - seems to be more suited to what one is socialised around ”



In other words if you "don't like God" (which I think you'd be more accurate in saying "don't believe in God"), then you don't get an eternal afterlife?
no - you get eternal life in the ephemeral sphere of birth and death amongst temporal material heavens and hells - and whats more you will like it because thats the principles you are socialised around (namely sensual enjoyment through a lump of dead matter - ie the material body)

This far-fetched assumption depends on 3 things; Existence of God, who awards people with an afterlife, but only gives this award out to those who believe in his existence. You can not even prove one of those concepts, let alone all three of them working together.
And you operate out of similar assumptions
1- I am qualified to determine whether god exists or not
2 - I am qualified to determine what god can and cannot do
3 - I am qualified to determine what is permissable for god to do within his power

Kenny

can't say it better than ron

Qualified to judge that a concept does not exist but not qualified to judge that it does exist?

That is not fair.

Perception shows that it effectively does not exist. I stand an infinitely higher chance of being correct in assuming it's non-existence. Same as I am probably right in saying that the tooth fairy does not exist.

And you operate out of similar assumptions
1- I am qualified to determine whether god exists or not
2 - I am qualified to determine what god can and cannot do
3 - I am qualified to determine what is permissable for god to do within his power

It doesn't work that way. You are making claims despite zero evidence of it's existence. I am merely pointing out that your claims are invalid because the things you are talking about effectively do not exist.

Kenny

“ Originally Posted by lightgigantic


can't say it better than ron

Qualified to judge that a concept does not exist but not qualified to judge that it does exist?

That is not fair. ”



Perception shows that it effectively does not exist.

Your perception does - which raises the question of the quality of your perception

I stand an infinitely higher chance of being correct in assuming it's non-existence.
why? simply because you cannot see it - hardly surprising
Just like it is hardly surprising why a high school drop out cannot see an electron


Same as I am probably right in saying that the tooth fairy does not exist.
What you are conveniently avoiding is that scores of intelligent philosophers and scientists have attested to the existence of god while absolutely none have attested any validity to the claims of the tooth fairy

Or are you going to try and present a new angle on this hackneyed straw man by bringing up th e loch ness monster, th invisible leprechaun, th epink unicorn or the FSM?


“ And you operate out of similar assumptions
1- I am qualified to determine whether god exists or not
2 - I am qualified to determine what god can and cannot do
3 - I am qualified to determine what is permissable for god to do within his power ”



It doesn't work that way. You are making claims despite zero evidence of it's existence.
And you are making claims of its non-existence
at least I address the question of qualification - you seem to think that it is sufficient to determine whether something is real by taking a vote (BTW - which even if you did in the world it would still turn up that more people believe in god than those that don't)


I am merely pointing out that your claims are invalid because the things you are talking about effectively do not exist.
A highschool drop out could say the same thing about an electron

Your perception does - which raises the question of the quality of your perception

Even your perception. If this thing exists that you believe in, you in no way can observe it. It remains an in-built fantasy.

why? simply because you cannot see it - hardly surprising
Just like it is hardly surprising why a high school drop out cannot see an electron

Electrons can be observed, otherwise they would not be verified by scientific enquiry.

What you are conveniently avoiding is that scores of intelligent philosophers and scientists have attested to the existence of god while absolutely none have attested any validity to the claims of the tooth fairy

Well because of course, the existence of the tooth fairy becomes an unpopular belief when we find out our parents put the money under our pillow. There remains no way to verify the non-existence of God which allows billions to continue the fantasy... yes, just as in Astrology.

And you are making claims of its non-existence
at least I address the question of qualification - you seem to think that it is sufficient to determine whether something is real by taking a vote (BTW - which even if you did in the world it would still turn up that more people believe in god than those that don't)

Think up something in your head, something you know doesn't exist, such as a human baby with the body of a spider. You would feel safe in assuming it didn't exist except in your imagination, wouldn't you? This is the same way I feel when people postulate things which can not be verified physically.

A highschool drop out could say the same thing about an electron

An electron can be verified physically. The best minds on Earth have never found such basis for the divine.

“ Your perception does - which raises the question of the quality of your perception ”



Even your perception. If this thing exists that you believe in, you in no way can observe it. It remains an in-built fantasy.
How do you know that no one can know more than you?
How did you arrive at that conclusion?


“ why? simply because you cannot see it - hardly surprising
Just like it is hardly surprising why a high school drop out cannot see an electron ”



Electrons can be observed, otherwise they would not be verified by scientific enquiry.
What makes you think god hasn't been observed?


“ What you are conveniently avoiding is that scores of intelligent philosophers and scientists have attested to the existence of god while absolutely none have attested any validity to the claims of the tooth fairy ”



Well because of course, the existence of the tooth fairy becomes an unpopular belief when we find out our parents put the money under our pillow. There remains no way to verify the non-existence of God which allows billions to continue the fantasy... yes, just as in Astrology.
For your analogy to be tight you would have to establish what is the equivalent of the parents putting money under the pillow - in other words you have to isolate exactly what all these philsopophers are perceiving when they come up with their apparently fantastic claims of god


“ And you are making claims of its non-existence
at least I address the question of qualification - you seem to think that it is sufficient to determine whether something is real by taking a vote (BTW - which even if you did in the world it would still turn up that more people believe in god than those that don't) ”



Think up something in your head, something you know doesn't exist, such as a human baby with the body of a spider. You would feel safe in assuming it didn't exist except in your imagination, wouldn't you? This is the same way I feel when people postulate things which can not be verified physically.
This raises the epistemological question "Verified by who?"


“ A highschool drop out could say the same thing about an electron ”



An electron can be verified physically. The best minds on Earth have never found such basis for the divine.
On the contrary scriptures and the historical precedent of associated writings are full of such findings

This raises the epistemological question "Verified by who?"
That isn't an epistemological question.

baum

I would respond to that if it was another thread

:D

It's not off-topic. The question of epistemology is not "Who knows?" but "How do I know?" If you want to philosophically evaluate the afterlife, you need to take this latter path; otherwise it isn't philosophy.

Baum
:D

Do you understand the difference?

i do now!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! =)

i was going to write rebirth instead of reincarnation but i thought reincarnation sounded better for that particular sentence!!!!!11

Some of you seem to embrace an eternity as you are right now, and make the conclusion that you wouldn't spend an eternity feeling that way.

But when you were very happy, you would like to stay forever.

Don't assume that what you feel like right now, is what you will allways feel like.

That's why it's so important to lay out your life so that it will bring peace in the end, don't give up.

But when you were very happy, you would like to stay forever.

You can't eternally be in one "state of mind" (like happiness) unless you are non-existent (which would be eternal)

Even nirvana is not eternal.

Perplexity

That is a good question, as would be a serious attempt to explain the often reported phenomena of "deja vu".

Firstly we need to revise the awkward illusion of memory as something owned, as if to define our personality.
To my way of thinking memory is more like an access to a central data base, a record of the possibilities that we chose for ourself, possibilities not unique to ourselves but occasionally recognisable by other people to the extent that history repeats itself.

I think of it thus in terms of patterns, patterns recognisable in the sense of the narrative as well as our those of material form.
If one then thinks in terms of karma as a manipulation of the patterns, with our memories appropriately constructed as a selection of universal themes, and with the notion of existence as something we thus actually create, it is not then so much of leap to suppose that the said selection may arrive as a part of the deal, so to speak, as a subset of the rest of the selection that you presently represent.

Then it seems that you are attributing consciousness to some universal homogenous entity - and given its job description it could easily be mistaken for god in a patheistic perspective



On this account I make no claim to report from direct exprience, rather to refer to this:



http://www.accesstoinsight.org/ptf/dhamma/sagga/loka.html

There are similar mentions in the vedas - they are material heavens and hells
So the idea is that reincarnation happens not only in the earthly sphere but also through out the other 14 planetary systems of the universe - its kind of like if you do a hell of lot of sin the earthly planetary system can not deal out your required allotments of suffering in big enough denominations so one is required to go to a planetary system more equipped for the job - similarly if you do a lot of piety you get upgraded to a higher sphere that operates on a higher rate of cash conversion - of course all these heavens and hells are tempoary and there is 8 400 000 species of equally temporary forms of life to become intimately familiar with them - the platform of liberation is completely outiside of this framework

KennyJC:

"You can only fear it if it exists, or if you believe it exists. I don't fear the bogey man except of course when I was a child and believed it existed."

Yet even the idea of eternal life apparently inspired enough fear of the idea for you to declare it an Eternal Hell. Therefore, when considered as a possibility, you imply a weakness in yourself.

"It is blindingly obvious. Once my brain melts back into the universal ecosystem, nothing resembling me will live on."

There are many arguments for existences of life after death. Moreover, even if not, the possibility is present even in the remote sense.

That is to say, it is not at all obvious. Science might be showing it as more and more unlikely as time goes by, though.

"Reincarnation is irrelevant. If I don't remember past lives or will become aware of future lives, then that is a different life altogether belonging to someone else."

Theoretically, you can unveil past lives it is said. But even without that, if it is a life which is causally linked to another, then in at least some way, one's existence does persist. Not a meaningful one, though, yes.

Westerns seek the eternal, Chinese seek immortality. However, greek were kinda pro-mortality, as were the Romans.

People seek a personality that does not have to adapt, a knowledge that does not need changing. That which does not change, but stays so eternally. And what cannot be achieved in life ("It's impossible to live forever"), should then be achieved in after-life! So in this it's strength.

Or you could see that these people just go "oh i cant do it boo hoo" and just trust in something vague. Then again, some people just pay lip service and think this will suffice. Others view that even if immortality is achieved in afterlife, it must be earned in deeds and thoughts in life. So belief in the after-life isn't really the problem...

Its all your interpretation...your opinion

The Ancient Egyptians believed that being non-existent was the worst thing that could ever happen to you

Hindus believe that being on with "Brahman" and free from material existence is the greatest thing ever, similarly with Buddhists

Its all your interpretation...your opinion

The Ancient Egyptians believed that being non-existent was the worst thing that could ever happen to you

Hindus believe that being on with "Brahman" and free from material existence is the greatest thing ever, similarly with Buddhists

On the contrary brahman is not the final last word on the absolute, what to speak of the happiness derived from it

"If brahmānanda, the transcendental bliss derived from understanding impersonal Brahman, were multiplied a million times, such a quantity of brahmānanda could not compare with even an atomic portion of the pleasure relished in pure devotional service."
-Bhakti-rasamrta sindhu

SB 1.2.11
Learned transcendentalists who know the Absolute Truth call this nondual substance Brahman, Paramātmā or Bhagavān.

This topic is dealt with specifically in the bhagavad gita

Arjuna inquired: Which are considered to be more perfect, those who are always properly engaged in Your devotional service or those who worship the impersonal Brahman, the unmanifested?

BG 12.2: The Supreme Personality of Godhead said: Those who fix their minds on My personal form and are always engaged in worshiping Me with great and transcendental faith are considered by Me to be most perfect.

BG 12.3-4: But those who fully worship the unmanifested, that which lies beyond the perception of the senses, the all-pervading, inconceivable, unchanging, fixed and immovable — the impersonal conception of the Absolute Truth — by controlling the various senses and being equally disposed to everyone, such persons, engaged in the welfare of all, at last achieve Me.

BG 12.5: For those whose minds are attached to the unmanifested, impersonal feature of the Supreme, advancement is very troublesome. To make progress in that discipline is always difficult for those who are embodied.

BG 12.6-7: But those who worship Me, giving up all their activities unto Me and being devoted to Me without deviation, engaged in devotional service and always meditating upon Me, having fixed their minds upon Me, O son of Pṛthā — for them I am the swift deliverer from the ocean of birth and death.

BG 12.8: Just fix your mind upon Me, the Supreme Personality of Godhead, and engage all your intelligence in Me. Thus you will live in Me always, without a doubt.

On the contrary brahman is not the final last word on the absolute, what to speak of the happiness derived from it

"If brahmānanda, the transcendental bliss derived from understanding impersonal Brahman, were multiplied a million times, such a quantity of brahmānanda could not compare with even an atomic portion of the pleasure relished in pure devotional service."
-Bhakti-rasamrta sindhu

SB 1.2.11
Learned transcendentalists who know the Absolute Truth call this nondual substance Brahman, Paramātmā or Bhagavān.

This topic is dealt with specifically in the bhagavad gita

Arjuna inquired: Which are considered to be more perfect, those who are always properly engaged in Your devotional service or those who worship the impersonal Brahman, the unmanifested?

BG 12.2: The Supreme Personality of Godhead said: Those who fix their minds on My personal form and are always engaged in worshiping Me with great and transcendental faith are considered by Me to be most perfect.

BG 12.3-4: But those who fully worship the unmanifested, that which lies beyond the perception of the senses, the all-pervading, inconceivable, unchanging, fixed and immovable — the impersonal conception of the Absolute Truth — by controlling the various senses and being equally disposed to everyone, such persons, engaged in the welfare of all, at last achieve Me.

BG 12.5: For those whose minds are attached to the unmanifested, impersonal feature of the Supreme, advancement is very troublesome. To make progress in that discipline is always difficult for those who are embodied.

BG 12.6-7: But those who worship Me, giving up all their activities unto Me and being devoted to Me without deviation, engaged in devotional service and always meditating upon Me, having fixed their minds upon Me, O son of Pṛthā — for them I am the swift deliverer from the ocean of birth and death.

BG 12.8: Just fix your mind upon Me, the Supreme Personality of Godhead, and engage all your intelligence in Me. Thus you will live in Me always, without a doubt.

I don't really understand how anything you stated contradicted what I said....I said Krishna states that freedom from material existence is better than existing in the material world...The Buddha says being reborn is suffering and we should try to escape from rebirth

Krishna also states that he is equal to the impersonal brahman, the absolute truth, the ulimate happiness

if i hadn't always existed, i wouldn't exist now either.
The cup of coffee I'm currently drinking didn't exist until I made it.
you know... you can't fear death if you believe it is NONEXISTENCE!!! fear does not exist in non-existence, it's impossible to fear something like that!!!!! it would like an eternal liberation!!!
Ah, the eternal liberation of death. I'll stick with the bondage of life. Free free to embrace "liberation" yourself.
it's not so bad because we don't remember our past lives. you don't remember your past life now. you may have lived a million lives before this, yet this "eternity" doesn't seem to bother you
That's always been my problem with the whole reincarnation idea. What's the difference between there being no reincarnation and having reincarnation but not being able to remember it?