Buddhism and afterlife

[honu]

I wrote a blog post about Buddhism and afterlife. That blog is generally just a place for me to collect some ideas, a work space, not really for others to read, but I may as well ask what others think of it.

Others might see one particular answer jumping forward as the Buddha's own take on reincarnation / rebirth (with the former said to assume a permanent soul, so a wrong designation, but in ordinary English these terms don't really mean anything all that specific). Per reviewing some texts and reading some online takes different answers came up, so I've just talked around that, and cited some of those.

So you can believe whatever you want, and find the texts and citations and plenty of company in doing so. Rebirth is good; lots around on that. Belief in a heaven is a bit more of a stretch but why not, if one is really so inclined. Agnosticism is a bit unsatisfying for most but also an option. Atheism isn't a great fit but those people tend to be on their own page anyway; not so much need for ancient wisdom and mystically oriented sets of ideas. For me personally I just go with the not knowing; no need to stake a claim to a final truth.

We don't even get the comfort of concluding "we will know soon enough" since a lot of the different takes sort of say we won't. Probably the most standard, related to rebirth, doesn't have us coming back in a similar enough fashion to remember it all, although that's not necessarily a given; all those Tibetan kids really do, the former lamas. That post:

http://2monkeysbuddhism.blogspot.com/2016/01/buddhism-and-death-what-comes-next.html

[only1]

We will not know whether we can reach heaven or not by believing any religion.

We are not even sure whether heaven or hell existed or whether we will reach it.

But some things and logic are sure:

1) Religions that claimed a creator God and promised that by believing them one can goes to heaven lacked logic(since such religions are not the oldest and their offshoot religions are killing each other) and in fact, proven wrong by science(evolution).

2) What if there is really life after death and how does one feel if he don't find heaven ?

3) If I can follow a religion(which is not debunked by science or logic) that leads me to heavenly bliss and peace right in my present life through living right but not on placebo effects, why not ?

Edited January 6, 2016 by only1

[DogNo1]

4. If one can lead a happy and contented life without following any religion (eg., following true Buddhist philosophy) why not do that?

[only1]

DogNo1,

Of course you can. If one can lead a contended life, he is living the same as a Buddhist but without being called a Buddhist. Just like a person who has good medical knowledge but he need not be a doctor, good science knowledge but not a scientist.

[honu]

I'm well past the point of advocating any one take on Buddhism but this is an interesting idea, that of a "natural Buddhist."

On the one hand that's absurd; the Buddha was talking about an unusual state of perspective one wouldn't just naturally happen onto. On the other hand it does seem someone could be closer or further from a natural acceptance of things that approximates that, so although someone being "naturally enlightened" doesn't work being closer or further from a related perspective could work, better at least.

Who's to say, right? It really doesn't hurt to look into what the Buddha really was saying to get a feel for it, but then that's not so easy to do. The range of attributed teachings are diverse, even within something like the Pali Canon, and related schools and later developments blow that up to an unreachable broad range of takes. You can't even read most of the Pali Canon because it's still in Pali, and once you try to start in to what is translated you're at the mercy of limited interpretations adding what they think terms that can't transfer directly mean based on their own bias. Mix in diverse later schools and there's no sorting it all out.

Per the other comment, I don't think logic or contradictions in outcomes of people interpreting religions necessarily tell us much. Christianity could be completely accurate, one particular take, even a literal one, and it would mean nothing that the rest of the range of related interpretations is so far off. It's counter-intuitive that an accurate description of reality outlined by a creator God could be interpreted diversely and believed by such a narrow percentage of the people, but that outcome doesn't contradict the possibility that it could be accurate, it would just seem strange.

The same for evolution: the Pope believes there is no contradiction between evolution and Catholicism, and other Popes did believe there was, but different predominant interpretations don't change the facts of the matter, or make any less likely.

Logic might point towards not making a decision about Gods or afterlife, since there are lots of alternatives and no actual evidence to support any of it being accurate. Interpreted differently some sort of hedge could make sense, beliefs and practices that cover the most functional range in case this or that aspect turns out to be accurate, but that really drifts towards decision analysis instead of logic.

[VincentRJ]

Hi Honu, (or should I write John B )

That's a very detailed and well-written blog you've linked to, and I can't help but agree with most of your points.

A major principle of Buddhist teachings which attracts me and which seems profoundly sensible, is the advice given in the Kalama Sutta. I cannot fault it.

In the Kalama Sutta, the Buddha basically advises people (the Kalamas specifically) not to uncritically accept a teaching, or claim, or pronouncement, merely because of the imagined reputation of the source, such as an ancient scripture, a cultural tradition, or a person in a position of authority.

In this Sutta, the Buddha appears to be advising people to only accept 'apparent' truths from the so-called wise, after the issues have been examined by them and understood as to how the advice could be good for themselves and others.

Also, the impression I get from various Suttas, that the Buddha appears to have brushed aside many unaswerable question relating to an afterlife and the existence of a Creator God, is another attraction for me. In the absence of demonstrable evidence about such matters, answers would tend to be mere speculation and hearsay.

On the other hand, I can see that the reason why those above-mentioned aspects of Buddhism appeal to me, is at least partly because of my conditioning within an agnostic-oriented family as I grew up, and as a result of an emphasis on science at school.

[only1]

2 reasons why there are no records of Buddha saying anything on a Creator God:

1) During his time, the Creator God known is Brahma, not the one from Judaism; Christianity and Islam wasn't there yet. Judaism had not reach him and Brahma had not claimed to be omnipotent or influential on humans.

2) The Buddha already gave a complete teaching on ALL ABOUT LIFE. He need not give details of what he felt is not right.(What Vincent highlighted the Buddha did mentioned already meant enough) For example when you teach a kid what's the taste of sweetness like with sugar, you don't need to mention that that taste is not sour, spicy, salty, or bitter etc.

As for whether there is the type of afterlife or heaven claimed by other religions, actually there is no need for Buddhism to touch on it. It's self-debunked by science, logic or common sense

[only1]

honu,

You created that blog trying to criticize Buddhism and after I commented to refute your opinions, you deleted my comment.

What does that prove about you ?

[sirineou]

in order that you know you must die, and since you know nothing when you are dead , you could not possible know

You don't know, I don't know, and they don't know, it is as simple as that everything else is simply speculation

[honu]

I didn't delete anything, anywhere, so I guess it says something about something else.

I'm not really clear on where the criticism of Buddhism occurs. Maybe you can explain what you mean by that?

The post goes through citations of people claiming Buddhism supports reincarnation / rebirth, more or less the standard take, along with citing some passages of core texts in support of that. The next part is citations of people claiming Buddhism is clearly agnostic or rejects endorsing any afterlife scheme, with more from other passages. Someone could see either set of ideas and citations as rejecting the other but it's hard for me to see either really rejecting Buddhism; it's all from others' interpretations and core texts, it's all part of Buddhism, just different parts.

I do mention I'm agnostic, not in any determined camp, but you sort of don't need to refer to an authority to justify that, even though some passages work for that.

[honu]

in order that you know you must die, and since you know nothing when you are dead , you could not possible know

You don't know, I don't know, and they don't know, it is as simple as that everything else is simply speculation

What about those near-death experience cases, or kids in Tibet or Nepal with past life memories? Accepting either is a leap of faith of a different type, of course.

[only1]

Speculation can also be determined by science, logic, common sense and evidence, based on the claims made by the religion concerned:

1) Science - with evolution, Adam and Eve claimed proven fake.

2) Logic - if the claim of heaven is by a religion that claimed of an omnipotent God, why can't he send someone back to verify there was heaven ? How could a "Creator God" religion came later than other religions ?

3) Common sense - Why should a creator God created 2 more religions to betray the original religion and later fight among each other ?

4) Evidence - there are enough evidence to show that Jesus story was copied from Buddha's(refer to my other thread), meaning Christianity cannot be believed or trusted. Also see the way they suggest donation from monthly income and how they collect money in the church, as compared to a donation box as in most other religions. What does it proved ?

Do I need to say more ?

Edited January 7, 2016 by only1

[only1]

honu,

That is strange. My reply was posted successfully in your blog last night but disappeared now. Never mind. Your title of "2 monkeys" for Buddhism doesn't sounds like you are trying to seek for answers.

In life or anything in the world, there is nothing that doesn't have an answer. At least, Buddhism have all the answers to evetything(and never debunked by science or logic).

As for your last 2 posts, I will provide the answers another day :-)

[honu]

Maybe I should mention that I used to be a philosopher, of sorts, that I studied both religion and Western philosophy in getting two related degrees. That cures you of looking for certainty and using reason to solve those difficult puzzles, or at least it did in my own case.

It seemed the more progressive, modern interpretations of any of it moved away from the most literal, superstitious, text-defined versions. Even the Catholic Pope doesn't take the story of Adam and Eve literally now, all the less most believers.

Logic doesn't get you far when it's arguing for or against generalities, for example, God as a underlying order to nature, a type of creative force leading to higher order structures and beings, rather than as a persona that said a lot of things in the Old Testament.

In my Christianity classes my professors accepted that the more superstitious and fantastic aspects of the New Testament were probably later additions. This was not exactly proven but supported by text analysis that could date the different works to different times, and could track changes over time.

I can't follow atheists that track these same lines of thought all the way to saying there can be no God, though. The more personality-oriented version is probably a fabrication, but even that doesn't seem possible to prove, just more where reason seems to lead, for some of the reasons you mentioned. It's hard to follow the final step of either argument, that the universe requires a more personal first cause, a creator entity, or that reason insists there is no such agent. These just seem to be belief preferences.

[only1]

In my Buddhism and Christianity classes, I always tell my audience to take the truth and reality with honesty and common sense; and never rule out the possibility of a scam with God as a camouflage.

[DogNo1]

Well, deletions of posts which are contrary to the dogma being espoused are not unusual. So far as calling yourself a "Buddhist," what's in a name? People who don't believe in a god are termed atheists but many don't label themselves as atheists. It's an appelation with baggage.

[sirineou]

in order that you know you must die, and since you know nothing when you are dead , you could not possible know

You don't know, I don't know, and they don't know, it is as simple as that everything else is simply speculation

What about those near-death experience cases, or kids in Tibet or Nepal with past life memories? Accepting either is a leap of faith of a different type, of course.

Near death experiences are like near sex experiences close enough but no cigar. As far as past life memories, have you notices that all those who had the were always a prince, or some short of famous person, no one was ever an idiot or whore.

[VincentRJ]

People who don't believe in a god are termed atheists but many don't label themselves as atheists. It's an appelation with baggage.

I've often found that people who have a firm belief in God, seem to consider atheism as another belief system, but just a contrary belief to theirs. Even some dictionaries define atheism as a 'belief'..... a belief there is no God.

However, speaking for myself, I see a distinction between a 'lack of belief' in something, and a 'belief in the lack' of something.

Only1 gives the impression, in my opinion, that he falls into this latter category of having an actual belief there is no God because he thinks science, reason and logic have debunked the concept of a Creator God.

Whereas my own view is that it is just extremely unlikely that a mere human, sharing 98% of the same genes as a monkey, 60% of the same genes as a fruit fly, and 50% of the same genes as a banana, could have any, even remotely accurate, personal knowledge of the creator of this vast universe.

However, the possibility of the existence of some sort of 'intelligent designer/s', perhaps inhabiting another universe, cannot be completely dismissed. Such matters are just beyond our ken, so why waste time speculating on them. I understand this is probably similar to the view of the Buddha and other notable characters in history, such as Confucius. There are too many practical things to attend to.

So one might well ask why am I bothering to write about this issue on this forum, if it's purposeless? Just for a bit of fun and amusement!

[only1]

VincentRJ,

You assumed me wrongly.

I have never said I believe there is/are no god/gods. I also never said I don't believe there is no creator god(neither will I think I believe there is one too). I SAID I don't believe in a god that could be omnipotent and I don't believe that Christianity God is the Creator because their religion existed much later(a creator God religion should be the first and oldest). Bear in mind that Hinduism's Brahma was the first creator God believed and they don't have the Adam and Eve part.

Yes, I believe in science, logic and common sense and not any belief or claims that had be debunked by any one of them.

I can believe in anything supernatural or superstitious too so long as it makes sense and not debunked by science yet.

So which catergory I should be ?

[honu]

Suspending belief in anything, including the belief there is no God, accepting that we can somehow reasonably conclude that any god or God can be disproven, is just agnosticism, isn't it?

[VincentRJ]

Suspending belief in anything, including the belief there is no God, accepting that we can somehow reasonably conclude that any god or God can be disproven, is just agnosticism, isn't it?

The distinction between agnosticism and atheism is interesting. We often tend to understand the meaning of words in a dualistic, either/or manner, whereas in reality, given the wide range of opinions and feelings with regard to any topic, simplistic descriptions involving single words, such as agnostic or atheist, are often not adequately precise.

I tend to the view that the meaning of these two words merge. If one wishes to make a distinction between the two, I would say that agnosticism is about 'not knowing', whereas atheism is about 'not believing'. These two states are both separate and related, in the sense that 'not knowing' is frequently a reason for 'not believing'.

If someone strongly promotes a view that belief in a God is bunkum and that science and rationality have disproved or debunked the existence of a God, then that view would more accurately be described as anti-theism, rather than atheism, in my opinion.

A person who is asocial simply avoids social life, whereas a person who is anti-social tends to act against the social mores.

Hope that's clear.

[DogNo1]

Well, there's a difference between suspending a belief and discarding a belief. The term "atheist" seems to be mostly used by people for those who don't believe in their gods. It's sort of like the terms non-Thai or non-white which imply that there is some intrinsic value in being Thai or white. Using the term "Atheist" implies that the proper thing is to believe in a god. Those of us who see ourselves as secular humanists could be called atheists but by whom and why? For an in-depth treatment see some of the talks on YouTube by Tom Harris.

So far as Buddhism goes, there are indeed many sects and many synchretic forms of the religion. There is also the teaching of Eckhart Tolle whose teachings are not explicitly religious but are based on various kinds of ancient wisdom including the Buddhist philosophy. Personally, I prefer this secular presentation of the wisdom but I certainly can't disparage any belief that espouses kindness and wisdom. Unfortunately, many religions have their dark side or perhaps it's not unfortunate since people need their defensive beliefs as well as their positive beliefs, otherwise they will perish.

[VincentRJ]

I prefer to describe myself as an atheist rather than an agnostic because it feels like a clearer and more precise position to be in. To think of myself as an agnostic feels a bit like being in a continuous, state of dithering uncertainty.

I also get the impression that a state of mind described as 'agnosticism' could more easily lend itself to hypocracy, along the lines of Pascal's Wager.

I suspect there might be many 'apparent' Christians who attend church regularly but who are in fact agnostic in the sense that they would admit that they don't really know if the God they are worshipping actually exists, and that they are just going along with the process because, according to Pascal's Wager, if it's all true and God really does exist as described in the scriptures, then they will get their just reward in the afterlife when they die.

On the other hand, if the truth and reality is, there never was any God, and there is no afterlife, then no harm done, (except perhaps for the lost opportunities resulting from the restrictions imposed by the religious practices they followed).

[only1]

VincentRJ,

You opinions, as usual, is full of uncertainty and contradictions. Or you are simply not honest.

An agnostic could have better reason and knowledge for believing or not believing compared to an an atheist or theist, so it is not right to say an agnostic is "not knowing" or "more" not knowing compared to others.

In the case of loss or harm IF afterlife of hell or heaven is not there, believer could suffer loss more. What if a Christian find himself in hell instead of heaven ?

If you are really an atheist, you should be neutral in your belief and not leaning towards any particular God or religion.

[only1]

honu,

An agnostic do necessarily mean he believe there is no God. An agnostic person could believe there are gods, not one but maybe more too.

An agnostic believe that gods, if they existed are unknown,to men. They don't believe in all the claims that any religion made on any God.

A deist, on the other hand, believed in a creator or universal God but he don't believe God could have any influence on men.

Both of them are much more rational or reasonable compared to any theist or atheist. They are more open minded.

English is certainly short of words.

[only1]

DogNo.1,

I agree with you. In fact, I believe Agnosticism was created to opposite Theism, which was meant for Abrahamic religions.

Such words could be created from a viewpoint of a certain religion.

I also find many religious people rather dishonest in their behaviour.

For example, a theist always ask "Do you believe in God ?" instead of asking do you believe in "any religion" or "any God".

Edited January 9, 2016 by only1

[camerata]

According to the dictionary, an atheist is "a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings," i.e. "There is no God(s)" or "I don't believe there is a God(s)." The first is not a rational statement since the nature of God is not specific enough to be tested by science. The second is just a view/opinion/belief.

According to the dictionary, an agnostic is "a person who holds that the existence of the ultimate cause, as God, and the essential nature of things are unknown and unknowable, or that human knowledge is limited to experience," which could be summarised as "I don't know," i.e. an absence of an opinion.

Since the Buddha cautioned his monks against holding (fixed) views, agnosticism would seem to be the best approach to everything metaphysical. That way one can still practise according to the Buddha's instructions without abandoning reason. As Ven Thanissaro has said, some teachings can be taken as hypotheses to be proven.

As for nibbana, I don't see why a radical new state of mind with no suffering can't exist, and it can be proven by our own experience in this life rather than a future one. According to the scriptures, nibbana cannot be just a state of mind because nibbana is unconditioned whereas mental states are not. My heretical but rational take on this is that the experience of nibbana includes the intuitive knowing that it is unconditioned. Since nibbana is the deathless, there would be no experience of death and therefore it would seem to be unconditioned.

[VincentRJ]

VincentRJ,

You opinions, as usual, is full of uncertainty and contradictions. Or you are simply not honest.

Only1,

It's a pity you cannot clearly identify and explain my contradictions or dishonesty so I might learn something, because I'm certainly not aware of any dishonesty or contradictions on my part. However, I do see lots of contradictions in your posts, some of which I will attempt to explain for your benefit, hoping you might understand what I'm talking about, despite the fact that English is not your native language.

Let's take the following comment you made.

An agnostic could have better reason and knowledge for believing or not believing compared to an an atheist or theist, so it is not right to say an agnostic is "not knowing" or "more" not knowing compared to others.

Do you not understand that the fundamental meaning of 'agnostic' is 'not knowing'?

English is my native language. When discussing such subjects as this, it's absolutely essential to be clear about the meaning of the key words that one uses, otherwise confusion can result.

Whilst many words in the dictionary can have variations of meaning, depending on the context, there's no doubt that the fundamental meaning of 'gnosis' is knowledge, especially knowledge of spiritual mysteries. Gnostic is the adjective, and the prefix 'a' simply means 'not', or if you prefer, 'without' or 'lacking'.

An agnostic is therefore a person who has no knowledge of, or who lacks knowledge of spiritual entities, deities or gods. On such matters, one could say the agnostic is ignorant..

Theism has a different meaning to gnosis, to the extent that 'belief' is different from 'knowledge'. Atheism means, not having a belief (in gods etc), whereas 'agnosticism' means not having any knowledge of gods etc.

The interesting issue for me is, whether or not there is any real difference in practice between these slightly different positions. For example, I cannot imagine how it would be possible for a person to claim to be an atheist without also being an agnostic.

It would seem irrational and foolish for anyone to declare, 'I have no belief in a god or gods, but I do have knowledge of such gods.' I think it's therefore reasonable to deduce that all atheist must also be agnostics.

However, I don't think that all agnostics are necessarily atheists. It's quite common for people to believe in things they have little knowledge of, or are agnostic about. I gave an example previously of someone practicing Pascal's Wager, someone who might admit that he has no direct knowledge of the God he is worshipping, and is even skeptical of the existence of such a god, but nevertheless goes through the motions of worship, just in case. some of the beliefs eventually turn out to based upon reality, and perhaps also because it makes him feel good, and provides some sort of hope.

Hope that is all clear.

[only1]

Only1 gives the impression, in my opinion, that he falls into this latter category of having an actual belief there is no God because he thinks science, reason and logic have debunked the concept of a Creator God.

Vincent RJ,

I think I have enough replies to you to show why I think you are not very honest. I think I even asked you whether you believed in Christianity or the Christianity God but you did not reply.

You should know not to quote me out of context and reply something else. When I mentioned I think you are not honest or have contradictions, I did show you why. But now you spin or divert to something else. It has nothing to do with English or whether I am good or poor at it. My earlier replies are clear enough.

Now let me show again this paragraph of yours that you mentioned about me. Do you realise or admit that the message is self-conflicting as well as having some dishonest opinion in it ? How could anyone make such a mistake ? Need me to highlight why I say you are dishonest especially in relation to your own words ?

Be careful with your reply, everyone is watching.

Edited January 9, 2016 by only1

[only1]

Do you not understand that the fundamental meaning of 'agnostic' is 'not knowing'?

Of course I know, and now only you put it slightly clearer after caramata's comment ?

Earlier you implied differently.

Let me make it clearer for you:

"not knowing" there is God, and God is "unknown" can be quite different in meaning. Earlier, you implied more towards the former, but I think a more honest and accurate meaning for agnostic is the latter.

Edited January 9, 2016 by only1