Schopenhauer's views on the after death state.

[safi]

Here is part of the very interesting dialogue on immortality by Schopenhauer. Deep down this is basically what all traditional religions teach.

 

 

Student

 

—Look here, I shalln’t give two pence for your immortality unless I’m to remain an

individual.

 

 

Philosopher

 

—Well, perhaps I may be able to satisfy you on this point. Suppose I guarantee

you that after death you shall remain an individual but only on condition that you first spend three

months of complete unconsciousness.

 

 

Student

 

—I shall have no objection to that.

 

 

Philosopher

 

—But, remember, if people are completely unconscious, they take no account

of time. So, when you are dead, it’s all the same to you whether three months pass in the world of

unconsciousness, or ten thousand years. In one case as in the other, it is simply a matter of believing

what is told you, when awake. So far then you can afford to be indifferent whether it is three months

or ten thousand years that pass before you recover your individuality.

 

 

Student

 

—Yes; if it comes to that, I suppose you are right.

 

 

Philosopher

 

—And if by chance, after those ten thousand years gone by, no one ever thinks

of awakening you, I fancy it would be a great misfortune. You would have become quite

accustomed to non-existence after so long a spell of it—following upon such a very few years of

life. At any rate you may be sure you would be perfectly ignorant of the whole thing. Further, if you

knew that the mysterious power which keeps you in your present state of life had never once ceased

in those ten thousand years to bring forth other phenomena like yourself, and to endow them with

life, it would fully console you.

 

 

Student

 

—Indeed! So you think that you’re quietly going to do me out of my individuality

with all this fine talk. But I’m open to your tricks. I tell you I won’t exist unless I can have my

individuality, I’m not going to put off with ‘mysterious powers’, and what you call ‘phenomena’ I

can’t do without my individuality, and I won’t give up.

 

 

Philosopher

 

—You mean, I suppose, that your individuality is such a delightful thing—so

splendid, so perfect, and beyond comparison—that you can’t imagine anything better. Aren’t you

ready to exchange your present state for one which if we can judge by what is told us, may possibly

be superior and more endurable.

 

 

Student

 

—Don’t you see that my individuality, be it what it may, is my very self? To me it is

the most important thing in the world.

“For God is God and I am I”.

I want to exist, I, I. That’s the main thing. I don’t care about existence which has to be

proved to be mine before I can believe it.

 

 

Philosopher

 

—Think what you’re doing. When you say, I, I, I want to exist, is it not you

alone that say this? Everything says it, absolutely everything that has the faintest trace of

consciousness. It follows then, that this desire of yours is just the part of you that is not

individual—the part that is common to all things without distinction. It is the cry not of the

individual, but of existence itself; it is the intrinsic element in everything that exists, nay, it is the

cause of anything existing at all. This desire craves for and so is satisfied with nothing less than

existence in general—not any definite individual existence.

 

No! that is not its aim. It seems to be so only because this desire will attain consciousness only

in the individual, and therefore looks as though it were concerned with nothing but the

individual. There lies the illusion, an illusion it is true, in which the individual is held fast,

but if he reflects, he can break the fetters and set himself free. It is only indirectly, I say,

that the individual has this violent craving for existence. It is the will to live which is the real

and direct aspirant—alike and identical in all things. Since then, existence is the free work,

nay, the mere reflection of the will; where existence is, there too must be a will; and for the

moment, the will finds its satisfaction in existence itself, so far, I mean, as that which never

rests, but presses forward eternally, can ever find any satisfaction at all.

 

The will is careless of the individual, the individual is not its business; although I have said, this

seems to be the case, because the individual has no direct consciousness of will except in

himself. The effect of this is to make the individual careful to maintain his own existence; and

if this were not so, there would be no surety of preservation of species. From all this it is clear

that individuality is not a form of perfection, but rather of limitation; and so to be freed from it

is not loss but gain. Trouble yourself no more about the matter. Once thoroughly recognise

what you are, what your existence really is, namely, the universal Will-to-live, and the

whole question will seem to you childish and most ridiculous.

Edited February 15, 2013 by safi

[Vanir Thunder Dojo Tan]

Here is part of the very interesting dialogue on immortality by Schopenhauer. Deep down this is basically what all traditional religions teach.

 

 

Student

 

—Look here, I shalln’t give two pence for your immortality unless I’m to remain an

individual.

 

 

Philosopher

 

—Well, perhaps I may be able to satisfy you on this point. Suppose I guarantee

you that after death you shall remain an individual but only on condition that you first spend three

months of complete unconsciousness.

 

 

Student

 

—I shall have no objection to that.

 

 

Philosopher

 

—But, remember, if people are completely unconscious, they take no account

of time. So, when you are dead, it’s all the same to you whether three months pass in the world of

unconsciousness, or ten thousand years. In one case as in the other, it is simply a matter of believing

what is told you, when awake. So far then you can afford to be indifferent whether it is three months

or ten thousand years that pass before you recover your individuality.

 

 

Student

 

—Yes; if it comes to that, I suppose you are right.

 

 

Philosopher

 

—And if by chance, after those ten thousand years gone by, no one ever thinks

of awakening you, I fancy it would be a great misfortune. You would have become quite

accustomed to non-existence after so long a spell of it—following upon such a very few years of

life. At any rate you may be sure you would be perfectly ignorant of the whole thing. Further, if you

knew that the mysterious power which keeps you in your present state of life had never once ceased

in those ten thousand years to bring forth other phenomena like yourself, and to endow them with

life, it would fully console you.

 

 

Student

 

—Indeed! So you think that you’re quietly going to do me out of my individuality

with all this fine talk. But I’m open to your tricks. I tell you I won’t exist unless I can have my

individuality, I’m not going to put off with ‘mysterious powers’, and what you call ‘phenomena’ I

can’t do without my individuality, and I won’t give up.

 

 

Philosopher

 

—You mean, I suppose, that your individuality is such a delightful thing—so

splendid, so perfect, and beyond comparison—that you can’t imagine anything better. Aren’t you

ready to exchange your present state for one which if we can judge by what is told us, may possibly

be superior and more endurable.

 

 

Student

 

—Don’t you see that my individuality, be it what it may, is my very self? To me it is

the most important thing in the world.

“For God is God and I am I”.

I want to exist, I, I. That’s the main thing. I don’t care about existence which has to be

proved to be mine before I can believe it.

 

 

Philosopher

 

—Think what you’re doing. When you say, I, I, I want to exist, is it not you

alone that say this? Everything says it, absolutely everything that has the faintest trace of

consciousness. It follows then, that this desire of yours is just the part of you that is not

individual—the part that is common to all things without distinction. It is the cry not of the

individual, but of existence itself; it is the intrinsic element in everything that exists, nay, it is the

cause of anything existing at all. This desire craves for and so is satisfied with nothing less than

existence in general—not any definite individual existence.

 

No! that is not its aim. It seems to be so only because this desire will attain consciousness only

in the individual, and therefore looks as though it were concerned with nothing but the

individual. There lies the illusion, an illusion it is true, in which the individual is held fast,

but if he reflects, he can break the fetters and set himself free. It is only indirectly, I say,

that the individual has this violent craving for existence. It is the will to live which is the real

and direct aspirant—alike and identical in all things. Since then, existence is the free work,

nay, the mere reflection of the will; where existence is, there too must be a will; and for the

moment, the will finds its satisfaction in existence itself, so far, I mean, as that which never

rests, but presses forward eternally, can ever find any satisfaction at all.

 

The will is careless of the individual, the individual is not its business; although I have said, this

seems to be the case, because the individual has no direct consciousness of will except in

himself. The effect of this is to make the individual careful to maintain his own existence; and

if this were not so, there would be no surety of preservation of species. From all this it is clear

that individuality is not a form of perfection, but rather of limitation; and so to be freed from it

is not loss but gain. Trouble yourself no more about the matter. Once thoroughly recognise

what you are, what your existence really is, namely, the universal Will-to-live, and the

whole question will seem to you childish and most ridiculous.

 

 

 

I am using this. rolling out with it. may i copy it and use it in the future? I hope to gently assist closed eyes opened...

[safi]

 

 

 

I am using this. rolling out with it. may i copy it and use it in the future? I hope to gently assist closed eyes opened...

 

Sure. It's Schopenhauer's not mine. I liked it a lot as well and that's why I'm sharing it.

[safi]

Just to clarify something. This is part of the dialogue and not all of it and I copied it from a book by Sivananda not from the direct source. I searched for the original text and I found one that was worded a little differently but they're both good.

Edited February 16, 2013 by safi

[oildrops]

"You don't own yourself." is what I got out of this dialogue.

[Vanir Thunder Dojo Tan]

if "self" is not in its own possession it cannot be self; whatever is in possession and control is self.