The After Death Question

[Sunya]

And so, back to the subject matter, no, the question of life after death to an Atheist has no value whatever. However, it does to a Buddhist, Christian, Moslem, ...

 

Atheism is simply the denial of theism, which is the belief in a creator God (monotheism) or multiple gods (polytheism) and has nothing whatsoever to do with the continuity of consciousness after the death of the body.

 

 

 

And while I do understand that there are many who believe in what you spoke to and all I can say is that if it helps those people through their life then it is good.

 

All I am suggesting is that we ask the tough questions before accepting someone else's declaration of the 'truth'.

 

Asking tough questions also requires a strict open mindedness that your answer could very well be wrong. Many have experiences that solidify their beliefs. If you have none such experiences, you will not share their beliefs. You will even deny their truths based on your logic. Faith in logic and reason are good and well, but not absolute indicators of certainty, and certainly shouldn't be when it comes to these tough questions.

 

But then, does that even matter? Not really. If a particular belief system makes us feel good why would we even want to ask the tough questions?

 

Of course it matters. It matters a lot I'd say. I don't know any Buddhist that feels good about rebirth. I certainly don't. I know death can come at any moment, but I'm also open to the fact that I could be reborn as a mosquito. Now that would suck. Death becomes much more serious once you open to the possibility that your consciousness will continue, and that your actions in this life will affect what happens after death.

 

Pascal's Wager was on the existence of God, but can be applied to practicing for death as well. If you believe in the continuation of consciousness after death and prepare for death by meditating, ridding attachment to the self and body, building positive qualities, etc, then you have everything to gain if rebirth is true. If it is not true, then you didn't really lose much and lived a good life anyway.

 

Now, if you didn't prepare for death and there is rebirth, you're screwed big time. So from a rational perspective, it actually makes sense to have faith in some after life than not to.

 

But, as I said earlier, a logical argument shouldn't be the basis for a belief in after life, though it certainly is better than blind faith. I think the best indicator for certainty is direct experience, but you can't have direct experience unless you have open mindedness. What makes me open minded is reading the accounts of others. I don't think the many mystics throughout the ages, and the many people today, were lying or hallucinating. I think they had genuine experiences, and that motivates me. We all need some sort of faith.

Edited January 25, 2011 by Sunya

[Marblehead]

Righto, if I only had a dollar for every 25 cents I've spent on repairs I'd be pretty well off

 

Yeah. In my younger years I got caught up in that cycle. No more though.

 

"We need to have our own truths so we have no inner conflicts", MH.

 

Problemo is that if one had their own truth counter to Tao they would soon cease to exist. (paraphrase per the T.T.C., chapter 30)

 

Ah! There lies the essence of this entire discussion. How do we know the Way of Tao? In my opinion, the best way to know the Way of Tao is to observe its processes - the processes of Nature. So whatever our belief system, if it is consistent with the processes of Nature it will be consistent with the Way of Tao. If we go to supernatural concepts it is my opinion that we are straying from the Way of Tao.

 

But then an alternate view is that whatever the belief system it is still within the realm of Tao because the only thing beyond the realm of Tao is 'absolute nothingness'. This then would mean that even my Buddhist friends are within the realm of Tao although their way may be questioned.

 

"See? That's basically what I have been saying".

Ok if this is the case then it would seem that you would have no hard and fast rules as to what "delusion" is?

 

I don't know how well I will be able to respond to this.

 

I will first say that I consider anything that is not consistent with the processes of Nature to be an illusion or delusion. But then this is not totally true because we (man) oftentime alter the processes of nature but we are still following the way of nature, for example, when we create a medicine to kill a virus that kills people.

 

I have said before that I hold to illusions and delusions when I am at home and I have no human guests. This allows me to live spontaneously - I can do whatever I am inspired to do. But I know what these illusions and delusions are and I never (anymore) take them with me when I leave my property.

 

Now, as I have given myself the right to hold to illusions and delusions I must also allow this right to everyone else on this planet. So, if a person holds to concepts within their belief system that are not consistent with the ways of nature they have every right to do so.

 

Of course, having said this, it might sound like I am being contradictory considering some of my earlier posts in this thread. But I'm really not. What I was point to in the above posts is that I think it is better if we question our beliefs to see if they can be supported with examples from nature. But it is fine if one wishes to not question, or if one has questioned, found no supportable proof but still hold to the belief out of faith.

 

Afterall, if we are at peace with our Self and our belief system presents no inner conflict, what more can a person ask for in life?

[Marblehead]

Wow, don't check in for a day and suddenly there's four pages! Thanks for the great replies and discussions, everyone! I'll get to responding either later tonight or tomorrow.

 

Hehehe. I was going to post to you yesterday before I shut down the computer and say, "See what you started with your short opening post!"

 

This is always a fiesty topic because there are so many different belief systems.

[Marblehead]

Hi Sunya,

 

Really great post. I will attempt a quality response.

 

Atheism is simply the denial of theism, which is the belief in a creator God (monotheism) or multiple gods (polytheism) and has nothing whatsoever to do with the continuity of consciousness after the death of the body.

 

I would suggest that 99.9~% of Atheists (true Atheists, not Agnostics) do not believe in a life after death.

 

Asking tough questions also requires a strict open mindedness that your answer could very well be wrong. Many have experiences that solidify their beliefs. If you have none such experiences, you will not share their beliefs. You will even deny their truths based on your logic. Faith in logic and reason are good and well, but not absolute indicators of certainty, and certainly shouldn't be when it comes to these tough questions.

 

Yes, asking the tough questions requires a lot of courage. Even asking the questions will initially cause confusion. And don't get me wrong - I believe in the value of intuition. My intuitional inspirations oftentimes cannot be explained through reason and logic. And yes, I will agree that it is good to have faith if one cannot rely on reason and logic (for whatever the reason).

 

Of course it matters. It matters a lot I'd say. I don't know any Buddhist that feels good about rebirth. I certainly don't. I know death can come at any moment, but I'm also open to the fact that I could be reborn as a mosquito. Now that would suck. Death becomes much more serious once you open to the possibility that your consciousness will continue, and that your actions in this life will affect what happens after death.

 

Hehehe. Only the female mosquito sucks.

 

Seriously though, excellent consideration. As I have mentioned before, short term, everything matters, very long term, nothing matters. That is, in our day to day life everything matters so we try to live as good as possilbe a life so that we do not create problems for ourself. But very long term, it doesn't matter because if we have done well in the short term everything in the long term will be fine so there is no reason to worry about the long term.

 

Of course, I don't believe in reincarnation but I do believe in 'cause and effect'. What we cause today could have serious effects many years down the road. I wouldn't want to intentionally, without just cause, try to make someone very angry with me because they may one day decide to get even. In this case I would only be setting myself up for possible troubles later on.

 

No worry about death. We all are going to experience that. It's just that we should not fear it, regardless of our beliefs.

 

Pascal's Wager was on the existence of God, but can be applied to practicing for death as well. If you believe in the continuation of consciousness after death and prepare for death by meditating, ridding attachment to the self and body, building positive qualities, etc, then you have everything to gain if rebirth is true. If it is not true, then you didn't really lose much and lived a good life anyway.

 

My mind cannot find Pascal's Wager so I will respond as best I can. Hehehe. Rereading what you wrote all I can do is totally agree. Being good is good. Sounds logical to me.

 

Now, if you didn't prepare for death and there is rebirth, you're screwed big time. So from a rational perspective, it actually makes sense to have faith in some after life than not to.

 

Agree with your first sentence. If your second sentence read something like: 'So from a rational perspective, it actually makes sense to be good just in case.' I would agree with it as well.

 

But, as I said earlier, a logical argument shouldn't be the basis for a belief in after life, though it certainly is better than blind faith. I think the best indicator for certainty is direct experience, but you can't have direct experience unless you have open mindedness. What makes me open minded is reading the accounts of others. I don't think the many mystics throughout the ages, and the many people today, were lying or hallucinating. I think they had genuine experiences, and that motivates me. We all need some sort of faith.

 

I am totally unable to argue against other's personal experiences. There is no way I can experience another's experience. All I have ever suggested is that we question these experiences in order to test their validity. Were they truely our experience or was it something we added to an experience from something we had read or had been taught that was not true?

 

If it doesn't matter how the understanding of the experience came to be then it doesn't matter, does it? I just think that it is better that we understand why we have the thoughts and understandings we get from our experiences. How does that go? "Know thyself."

 

Yes, to be open-minded is good. Agree. But to have blind faith is not so good. To have knowledge based in varifiable truth is called wisdom. (At least I just called it that.)

[3bob]

Yeah. In my younger years I got caught up in that cycle. No more though.

 

Ah! There lies the essence of this entire discussion. How do we know the Way of Tao? In my opinion, the best way to know the Way of Tao is to observe its processes - the processes of Nature. So whatever our belief system, if it is consistent with the processes of Nature it will be consistent with the Way of Tao. If we go to supernatural concepts it is my opinion that we are straying from the Way of Tao.

 

But then an alternate view is that whatever the belief system it is still within the realm of Tao because the only thing beyond the realm of Tao is 'absolute nothingness'. This then would mean that even my Buddhist friends are within the realm of Tao although their way may be questioned.

 

I don't know how well I will be able to respond to this.

 

I will first say that I consider anything that is not consistent with the processes of Nature to be an illusion or delusion. But then this is not totally true because we (man) oftentime alter the processes of nature but we are still following the way of nature, for example, when we create a medicine to kill a virus that kills people.

 

I have said before that I hold to illusions and delusions when I am at home and I have no human guests. This allows me to live spontaneously - I can do whatever I am inspired to do. But I know what these illusions and delusions are and I never (anymore) take them with me when I leave my property.

 

Now, as I have given myself the right to hold to illusions and delusions I must also allow this right to everyone else on this planet. So, if a person holds to concepts within their belief system that are not consistent with the ways of nature they have every right to do so.

 

Of course, having said this, it might sound like I am being contradictory considering some of my earlier posts in this thread. But I'm really not. What I was point to in the above posts is that I think it is better if we question our beliefs to see if they can be supported with examples from nature. But it is fine if one wishes to not question, or if one has questioned, found no supportable proof but still hold to the belief out of faith.

 

Afterall, if we are at peace with our Self and our belief system presents no inner conflict, what more can a person ask for in life?

 

 

Good morning MH,

 

I have to go to work soon so only a short response for now: "Nature" is a great word... but the natural laws are not so simple in manifestation for instance, the "Ten thousand" are under are far more jumbled ways or laws than the ways or laws of the "Three" - which gave them *birth; thus in that sense the Three could be said to be super-natural in comparison. Considering that I do not use the term supernatural lightly or only in one definition to mean something like spiritual fakes out to make a buck or have influence over others with palor tricks. (which seems to be your drift?)

 

(*paraphrase TTC 42)

Edited January 25, 2011 by 3bob

[Marblehead]

Good morning MH,

 

I have to go to work soon so only a short response for now: "Nature" is a great word... but the natural laws are not so simple in manifestation for instance, the "Ten thousand" are under are far more jumbled ways or laws than the ways or laws of the "Three" - which gave them *birth; thus in that sense the Three could be said to be super-natural in comparison. Considering that I do not use the term supernatural lightly or only in one definition to mean something like spiritual fakes out to make a buck or have influence over others with palor tricks. (which seems to be your drift?)

 

(*paraphrase TTC 42)

 

Hi Bob,

 

Have a great day at work.

 

I won't discuss 'spiritual fakes' here in this thread as that would take this thread too far off topic.

 

Interesting though your comparison of "Three" and "Ten Thousand" and their ways. Not sure how well it would fit into this discussion but if you wish we can follow up on this thought.

[devoid]

Hehehe. I was going to post to you yesterday before I shut down the computer and say, "See what you started with your short opening post!"

 

This is always a fiesty topic because there are so many different belief systems.

 

Marblehead - you did it again: Left out individual experience and rest on some common belief - is that intentional?

[Sunya]

I would suggest that 99.9~% of Atheists (true Atheists, not Agnostics) do not believe in a life after death.

 

I'm not sure where you got that statistic from, but I stated what a true atheist was and it has nothing to do with life after death You're talking about skeptics, and yeah I'd say skeptics only believe in what they experience and have memories of experiencing.

 

 

If it doesn't matter how the understanding of the experience came to be then it doesn't matter, does it? I just think that it is better that we understand why we have the thoughts and understandings we get from our experiences. How does that go? "Know thyself."

 

Yes, to be open-minded is good. Agree. But to have blind faith is not so good. To have knowledge based in varifiable truth is called wisdom. (At least I just called it that.)

 

Yes I completely agree, and I think the best way to gain such wisdom, to know thyself, is to attempt to have such experiences yourself. That's at least why I do it. The faith in others' experiences is only a fuel to have them subjectively and see what they're all about

[Marblehead]

Marblehead - you did it again: Left out individual experience and rest on some common belief - is that intentional?

 

No, it's not intentional. It is just that I cannot speak to it because I have no way of being able to understand another person's 'experiences'. I can speak only to my own. No matter what I say everyone else has every right to interpret their experiences any way they wish to. No one can take that away from anyone.

[Marblehead]

I'm not sure where you got that statistic from, but I stated what a true atheist was and it has nothing to do with life after death You're talking about skeptics, and yeah I'd say skeptics only believe in what they experience and have memories of experiencing.

 

Oh, I just pulled that figure out of the air. I don't like to say 100%. I would hope that all Atheists are skeptics. I would be disappointed if someone called themself an Atheist just because they hated the church that their mom and dad made them attend every Sunday.

 

Yes I completely agree, and I think the best way to gain such wisdom, to know thyself, is to attempt to have such experiences yourself. That's at least why I do it. The faith in others' experiences is only a fuel to have them subjectively and see what they're all about

 

Yeah, well, I am an old man some I have intentionally limited my openness to new experiences. I have a good life and don't want anyone screwing it up.

[FT88]

In life one should consider themselves as dead. Doing this puts them in unison with the universe, and they see the manifistations for what they really are. Therfore benefit comes from what is there..usefullness comes from what is not there.

[Marblehead]

In life one should consider themselves as dead. Doing this puts them in unison with the universe, and they see the manifistations for what they really are. Therfore benefit comes from what is there..usefullness comes from what is not there.

 

Hi FT88,

 

Thanks for joining in the discussion.

 

I think what you have said is valid. I have not yet attained that condition. (But I can say that I do not fear death.)

[Tree Stump]

In life one should consider themselves as dead. Doing this puts them in unison with the universe, and they see the manifistations [sp] for what they really are.

 

Which is what, an illusion? That sounds awfully nihilistic. Quite dangerous in fact.

 

I often wonder whether such nihilistic interpretations of Taoism and Buddhism have somehow contributed to the apparent human rights abuses in China.

[Marblehead]

Which is what, an illusion? That sounds awfully nihilistic. Quite dangerous in fact.

 

I often wonder whether such nihilistic interpretations of Taoism and Buddhism have somehow contributed to the apparent human rights abuses in China.

 

Hi Tree Stump,

 

Good observation however I think you are looking only at the surface of what FT88 has suggested.

 

Considering oneself already dead removes all attachments (no, I'm not going to say 'liberates') with the manifest world so that one can live totally spontaneously.

 

In the real world we all live in this is almost impossible. But it was a concept that was held to by many a great warrior in the distant past, especially in China and Japan.

 

No, it's not really nihilistic thinking. It is more at being totally free. But again, at this present time and this world we live on total freedom is not possible either. Of course, total freedom would require perfect virtues.

[Tree Stump]

Considering oneself already dead removes all attachments (no, I'm not going to say 'liberates') with the manifest world so that one can live totally spontaneously.

 

Hi marblehead,

 

So by 'living totally spontaneously' you mean "Not being 'tied down' " ?

 

Ok, fair enough. But I'm not sure 'considering oneself as dead' cultivates freedom any more than *being* dead cultivates freedom. Surely freedom comes from being grounded, working with and for nature. Nature certainly distinguishes between dead and live trees. Freedom isn't stepping out of the process, it's stepping further in. Isn't it?

 

Or in your view are we just trying to escape the cycle of life?

Edited January 25, 2011 by Tree Stump

[NeiChuan]

 

a whole new world...

 

I Lol'd hard at this.

 

Personally.. I think death is just another concept we label to try to get a better understanding.

 

In a sense there is no ending to the search for finding why "it" (the search itself) started. So this "death" is a bump in the road within the search.

Edited January 26, 2011 by NeiChuan

[Marblehead]

Hi marblehead,

 

So by 'living totally spontaneously' you mean "Not being 'tied down' " ?

 

Ok, fair enough. But I'm not sure 'considering oneself as dead' cultivates freedom any more than *being* dead cultivates freedom. Surely freedom comes from being grounded, working with and for nature. Nature certainly distinguishes between dead and live trees. Freedom isn't stepping out of the process, it's stepping further in. Isn't it?

 

Or in your view are we just trying to escape the cycle of life?

 

Excellent questions. Not certain I can adequately answer them but I will try.

 

Yes, 'living totally spontaneously' is similar to "Not being tied down". However, remember that I mentioned that we need have perfect virtues. That means we still must honor our commitments, whether it be to a king or to a family. But even these acts would be spontaneous because they are driven by our virtue.

 

"Considering oneself dead" should not be taken too literally. The pleasures of life are still enjoyed. We continue doing whatever it is we do. It is just that if we die tomorrow we know we have done everything we needed to do while in this physical form. If we do not die for another forty years that is good too but we will continue to do what we need to do.

 

But yes, freedom comes from being grounded. Being grounded includes knowing that we are on this earth for only a limited period of time. I will go along with your 'working with nature' but I'm not sure I can agree with 'for nature'. And yes, living spontaneously is part of the processes of nature. All living things do it except for many humans.

 

I really must agree with this: Freedom isn't stepping out of the process, it's stepping further in. Isn't it? In fact, I think you said that very well.

 

Hehehe. To your last question, no, I'm not one of them. I have no life cycle to escape from.

[Tree Stump]

Hi marblehead,

 

Then I think we're, for the most part, in agreement and I thank you for your thoughtful comments.

 

I still maintain that 'Considering oneself already dead' is both easily misunderstood and misdirected.

 

Contemplating death of course is important. But contemplating life is more so, because our most natural experiences in life (eg. love, fear of death, pain, sex) are to be united with nature's very being and its will. To be united with the Tao, no? Such experiences are surely the most valuable treasure one could have in this world. Wouldn't you agree?

 

I understand that *contemplating* death can reveal just how precious life is. But 'considering oneself already dead' seems to be a blatent disregard for the gift of life itself. Attachments detract from natural life, but not fearing death is detaching from life itself, it is detaching from nature. I cannot see how it isn't nihilistic to be honest.

 

Sorry to harp on...

Edited January 25, 2011 by Tree Stump

[3bob]

I think a better saying than the "dead" one would be, "to live in the world but not of it" - with "of it" partially defined as more or less being caught in trival distractions and binding or limiting habits (namely of mental, emotional or physical forms) that deplete a person. (so in that sense a person would be dead to such as being counter to their particular disciplines which do not deplete a person)

[Tree Stump]

I think a better saying than the "dead" one would be, "to live in the world but not of it" - with "of it" partially defined as more or less being caught in trival distractions and binding or limiting habits (namely of mental, emotional or physical forms) that deplete a person. (so in that sense a person would be dead to such as being counter to their particular disciplines which do not deplete a person)

 

Or perhaps if a term needs that much qualification, it's best to find a different term?

 

You use a term like 'not of the world' - but I don't think there are many people who would readily define 'the world' as 'being caught in trival distractions and binding or limiting habits (namely of mental, emotional or physical forms) that deplete a person'. Didn't the tao create the world, as most of us know it?

 

It would seem that a term of more clarity is needed.

 

In fact, I would hazard to say that such a way of being is in fact death. Being dead is the problem and considering ourselves dead just as much.

 

Disagree?

[3bob]

Or perhaps if a term needs that much qualification, it's best to find a different term?

 

You use a term like 'not of the world' - but I don't think there are many people who would readily define 'the world' as 'being caught in trival distractions and binding or limiting habits (namely of mental, emotional or physical forms) that deplete a person'. Didn't the tao create the world, as most of us know it?

 

It would seem that a term of more clarity is needed.

 

In fact, I would hazard to say that such a way of being is in fact death. Being dead is the problem and considering ourselves dead just as much.

 

Disagree?

 

Well many people are not strangers to the connotation I've implied... thus there are also terms like "the rat race", "keeping up with Jones", "burned out", "meaningless", "ado", "unsustainable", etc..

thus mine was a different connotation from what it sounds like you are implying with the word world?

Btw, I hear your concern about the potential misuse or misunderstanding of the earlier "dead" saying (which I'm not 100% sure about from the poster?); there are also many other saying which we need to be careful with.

[pennyofheaven]

I know this can of worms has probably been beaten into glue already, but I wanted to bring it up.

 

For me, the question has always been "does experience end with death?" Many state they have had personal experiences which leave them with no doubt, but personally I expect I'll never know until I actually die.

 

Recently, though, I have been thinking a new question about this issue. And that is..."does it matter?"

 

In other words...should the existence or non-existence of after-death experience be allowed to affect our decisions in life?

 

I'm curious to hear your opinions.

 

Depends on your view. Now is all we have. Our yesterdays have gone, our tomorrows not yet here. What do you want to spend your now on? Thinking about your tomorrows or yesterdays? Or being fully present in the now.

[Marblehead]

Hi marblehead,

 

Then I think we're, for the most part, in agreement and I thank you for your thoughtful comments.

 

I still maintain that 'Considering oneself already dead' is both easily misunderstood and misdirected.

 

Contemplating death of course is important. But contemplating life is more so, because our most natural experiences in life (eg. love, fear of death, pain, sex) are to be united with nature's very being and its will. To be united with the Tao, no? Such experiences are surely the most valuable treasure one could have in this world. Wouldn't you agree?

 

I understand that *contemplating* death can reveal just how precious life is. But 'considering oneself already dead' seems to be a blatent disregard for the gift of life itself. Attachments detract from natural life, but not fearing death is detaching from life itself, it is detaching from nature. I cannot see how it isn't nihilistic to be honest.

 

Sorry to harp on...

 

Hehehe. Harp on my friend.

 

The points you make are very valid.

 

And I will point out that I did say that I am not there yet when I first responded to the concept of considering oneself already dead.

 

Yes, I enjoy think on life. Not only mine but the life of all things. I care deeply about my cats, fish, frogs, flowers, friends, the weather, Oh! the list goes on and on.

 

I wish I could live forever but I can't. Yes, I will remain attached to life. I will not embrace death but will accept it freely when it comes my way.

 

And I agree. Our experiences are the most valuable thing we have. Living life! What more can one do?

[Marblehead]

I will opt for this:

 

Or being fully present in the now.

[Cat Pillar]

Okay, there's just no way that I could reply to everyone individually who posted. That's more time than I have, unfortunately.

 

This is a great discussion though, and I'm glad so many people participated!

 

My personal take on it so far is that I haven't had any experiences that confirm for me one way or the other what happens when we die. I remain open to either possibility, but if I could pick one it would be continuation of experience.

 

I'm drawn towards the approach in pennyofheaven's post; just being present in the now. Regardless of what comes after, I'd like to focus on what's here and now. Letting the unresolved question create anxiety is unnecessary stress. Granted, I have a hard time "letting go," but it's something I work on everyday. Practice, practice, practice...