Buddhism question.

[Postmaster]

I need someone to enlighten me on the Buddhist view of the after life. Being a strong believer in the soul, a supreme fundamental EGO that will live on forever! Some of the philosophies of Buddhism scare the pants out of me because of the total opposite view towards mine! However I try to seek knowledge and common ground about faiths that scare me, instead of dismissing them as false or being hostile towards them in any sense. I noticed Buddhism is quiet a liberal and diverse faith but also extremely passive, probably way it is so diverse and liberal. My question is, can Buddhism accept the Christian view of the after life as a possible outcome of the after life?

[taijasi]

My answer would be yes, Buddhists could easily accept that part of our experiences after death include:

A) Some degree of experiences in one of the hell realms, or in what Tibetan Buddhists call pretaloka (the world of "hungry ghosts," where existence is characterized by extreme hunger or thirst - not for food, but simply in the sense of feeling unfulfilled, clumsy as that sounds) ... and
B) Also some degree of experiences as a Deva, or a sojourn through what some branches of Buddhism call The Pure Land (blissful, heavenly, but in & of itself not permanent).

Either way, and regardless, the experiences after death can be quite hellish ... but usually only for those who have lived extremely wickedly - and are thus destined to exhaust their negative karma. This is not punishment, it is simply the Law of Cause and Effect ("as ye sow, so shall ye reap").

For most of us, being unenlightened, but hopefully not particularly wicked, we might become very disoriented as we pass over, becoming caught up in many of the lesser lights as described in the Tibetan Buddhist Bardo Thodol (Book of the Dead). But again, this is not permanent - since the causes which generate our afterlife experiences are themselves, temporal & limited.

Ego definitely "loosens," or wanes, in the afterlife experiences - no matter what branch or sect of Buddhism one believes in. The very idea or notion of ego is, itself, regarded as but one of the many thoughts that occupy our attention during incarnation (made strong by self-cherishing). If we have a strong ego, we might, indeed, have a bit of a hard time as we sojourn through the bardo. But this is all for a purpose, and the happy result is that we "lighten our load," so to speak ... and return to a new birth free of much of the baggage that we might otherwise have accumulated (had ego been permitted to continue bloating).

So even ego-death, which is destined to occur following each earthly incarnation, is not regarded as inherently negative by Buddhists who understand the reasons for this (the natural effects of the Law of Karma, or rather, of our actions according to this law). Yes, there can be unpleasantness, but it's our own doing! And that's why we return to a new incarnation ... with the same skandhas (personality tendencies, qualities, etc.) which we left the last life with - hopefully a bit improved.

It's not that the slate is wiped utterly clean each time, else rebirth would truly be meaningless. It's our outer memory, our recollection, and yes - our personal ego - which doesn't carry over. However, the sense of ego ... does most certainly return (mmmm .... case in point, yours, mine, etc.). After all, Buddhists maintain that our `true identity' rests much more deeply - within our Buddha nature - and does not (ever) permanently reside in mind, emotional states, body, etc. So for the person who really likes ego, and doesn't want to let go of it, a Buddhist would simply try and help such a person to understand that ego is not the Self (not Buddha nature), and therefore they are clinging to an illusion (in the sense that it isn't meant to be permanent, not that it doesn't exist at all).

I may get slapped on the wrist a bit (since I'm not a practicing Buddhist), but this is my understanding. The closest that my exoteric beliefs come to any faith/religion/tradition ... is Tibetan Buddhism and the Egyptian tradition. So I hope that helps ...

andrew

[samabudhi]

I think where the Christian and Buddhist hells differ is in the nature they exist, as a permanent resting/suffering place, or as impermanent. So Buddhists might except hell, but a sentient being should be able to work through it. Why should good deeds in hell go unnoticed? In fact, it's easier to be virtuous whilst on earth or in heaven, but to be selfless when you are already suffering so much in hell, this would surely leed to more comfortable circumstances. This example demonstrates that even in hell, karma is at work, from the Buddhist perspective.

(The Bodhisattva Ksitigarbha purposefully takes rebirth in hell to help sentient beings who are caught there.)

[Postmaster]

Thank you for the replies.

I think where the Christian and Buddhist hells differ is in the nature they exist, as a permanent resting/suffering place, or as impermanent. So Buddhists might except hell, but a sentient being should be able to work through it.

This would be a Zoroastrian point of view also I think.. That Hell is a temporary place. Also this might be the originally point of the bible as written by the Greeks. But the moral implications on people could be negative with this view. As long as hell isn't permanent then why not commit evil? People would be more willing to do a crime if the prison sentence isn't permanent? It's not a very graceful way of thinking.

[taijasi]

I think the motivation not to do evil ... is at least twofold (regardless of one's beliefs):

1. There are potential legal consequences, regardless of what else might occur. And you may be able to shoplift 99 out of 100 times, but sooner or later, you'll get caught. So this is very practical.
2. The motivation not to do something wrong can also be the reward that comes from doing something right! For one, there is a natural Joy that comes from serving others (which in my opinion, is our Highest Purpose here on this planet). Further, there is a positive karma that can demonstrate in dozens of ways, even in the short term ... let alone in more "compound" ways in the long run (for instance, being loving & kind will win you friends, respect, trust, etc. - and some of these come only after you build a reputation as being a truly kind person).

The best part of all, is that nowhere in all of this ... does a person have to be threatened with an eternal punishment, or filled with fear over the state of their "immortal soul." Indeed you are right - that isn't a very graceful way of living.

Peace,

andrew

[Vajradhara]

Namaste Postmaster,

thank you for the post.

Originally Posted by Postmaster

I need someone to enlighten me on the Buddhist view of the after life.

you enlighten yourself, though perhaps we can provide some clues

there are several different Buddhist traditions represented on the forum, so you should get a good overview of several different views.

Being a strong believer in the soul, a supreme fundamental EGO that will live on forever! Some of the philosophies of Buddhism scare the pants out of me because of the total opposite view towards mine!

Buddhism has four distinct philosophical schools which is different than how we are typically using the term. normally when we refer to schools we are referring to things like Ch'an, and Zen and T'ien T'ai and so forth. within this framework, there will be several practice lineages which uphold the same philosophical schools

the belief that you are mentioning is typically termed "Atman" in Sanskrit and is used to denote the idea of a fixed, permenant aspect of being, either a soul or a self, which exists from it's own side.

the Buddhist teaching is called Anatman. the prefix "an" in Sanskrit denotes the negative form of the word, so, Anatman is the teaching that there isn't a fixed, permenant aspect of being, either a soul or a self, which exists from it's own side.

However I try to seek knowledge and common ground about faiths that scare me, instead of dismissing them as false or being hostile towards them in any sense.

that seems to be a good approach to actually gain an understanding of what others believe

I noticed Buddhism is quiet a liberal and diverse faith but also extremely passive, probably way it is so diverse and liberal.

we do have a great deal of diversity in our practice lineages, to be sure that is the natural outcome of a teaching which says that there are 84,000 valid methods to enter the Dharma

that being said, whilst it is true that Ahisma plays a large role in the Buddhist practice, it would be mistaken, in my view, to think that Buddhists, in general, are pacifist. the Samurai, as taijasi mentioned, incorporated aspects of Buddhist practice into their tradition.

perhaps, even more on point, are the various "fierce" aspects of the Bodhisattvas. Mahakala is the "fierce" aspect of Avelokiteshavara, for instance. Mahakala is a pretty fierce looking being:
http://www.cc.rim.or.jp/~atsuro/old/coridr/mahakala.jpg

within the context of Buddhist artwork, each aspect of a painting (Thangka) has a symbolic aspect to it. thus, the above referneced picture shows, in detail, what Mahakala does and why Mahakala is fierce about it. of course, without an understanding of the symbolism, one can still determine that this is not the typical aspect of Buddhism which is displayed

My question is, can Buddhism accept the Christian view of the after life as a possible outcome of the after life?

well... i think that this would be rather problematic on several levels.

one aspect of the Christian afterlife is the concept of a Judgement Day. such a concept is foreign to Buddhism as there is no Judge which could sit in Judgement.

another area where it seems that it would be hard to reconcile the two views is the idea that there is a soul or self which goes to heaven, as Buddhism doesn't hold with the idea of either one of those entites, provided that they are posited as permenantly existing, self sufficient entities.

additionally, the Christian (and most other theistic traditions that i am aware of) tradition posits that the afterlife states are permenant. this is something which is also foreign to the Buddha Dharma. within the, to borrow a term, Orthodox views of Buddha Dharma, none of the states of existence are permenant nor are the beings that take rebirth therein.

there is, however, the view that we could take in terms of what sort of things heaven is like and, looking at the Buddha Dharma, figure out where such a realm would be in our cosmology. so.. we could find common ground herein where the postive aspects and so forth are extolled. again, however, beings in any of the heavens, in the Buddhist view, are going to take rebirth.... included in this are the very deities that inhabit those realms.

there is, without question, quite a bit of common ground between both traditions, especially in the areas of morals and ethics, in my view and since that is really all that we have to work with at this present moment, perhaps those areas are sufficient to build the bridge of interfaith dialog and mutual respect.

metta,

~v

[Vajradhara]

Namaste PM,

thank you for the post.

Originally Posted by Postmaster

But the moral implications on people could be negative with this view.

it would certainly depend on if they were aware of the other aspects of the teachings, in my view. in regards to Buddha Dharma, this wouldn't be a correct cognition since both philosophy and karma are at work here.

As long as hell isn't permanent then why not commit evil?

jail is not permenant, either, yet it serves as an effective deterrent to many a criminal.

in any event, the main reason why Buddhists are not so keen on unskillful actions (we don't often use the terms "good" and "evil") is due to our understanding of karma.

also.. just because hell isn't permenant, does not mean that a being will only take rebirth there once. moreover, Buddhism has alot of hells... so you can continue to sink down through the hell realms once the process has started. there are, of course, some things that can mitigate this.. especially if a being encounters Kurukulla, who is a Bodhisattva that has taken rebirth in the hell realms to assist beings stuck there.

People would be more willing to do a crime if the prison sentence isn't permanent?

i wouldn't agree, especially in the Buddhist sense of what we are talking about. recall, that we are trying to put an end to this cycle of samsara, not extend it

It's not a very graceful way of thinking.

i don't know about graceful or not...

it is, however, not a correct cognition of the Buddha Dharma and the reasoning behind refraining from negative and unskillful actions.

i read an interesting quote the other day...

"what have i gained by philosophy? i do what is right which other men do only for fear of the law."

metta,

~v

[lucius]

Originally Posted by Postmaster

Thank you for the replies.



This would be a Zoroastrian point of view also I think.. That Hell is a temporary place. Also this might be the originally point of the bible as written by the Greeks. But the moral implications on people could be negative with this view. As long as hell isn't permanent then why not commit evil? People would be more willing to do a crime if the prison sentence isn't permanent? It's not a very graceful way of thinking.

According to Buddhism there is reincarnation, and a sojourn in a hell realm would be followed by a further incarnation in some other world, perhaps this one. The whole idea is that we are entangled in the illusion, the samsara, and this will continue indefinitely, through infinite cycles of time until we attain liberation, Nirvana. A period of time spent in a heavenly realm is also impermanant - the final destination is beyond heavens and hells.
Hence, morality is equated with good karma, ie deeds which bring either a higher rebirth with more facility for enlightenment, or indeed, enlightenment itself - the supreme good.

[Postmaster]

Thanks for your posts lucius ,Vajradhara.

another area where it seems that it would be hard to reconcile the two views is the idea that there is a soul or self which goes to heaven, as Buddhism doesn't hold with the idea of either one of those entites, provided that they are posited as permenantly existing, self sufficient entities.

Vajradhara let’s say the only way to have a soul and go to heaven is to be a permanently existing and self sufficient entity in the Buddhist term, how can one achieve this in your faith?

[samabudhi]

The problem with such questions is that nothing can be concluded from any answer given to them whatsoever, since the premise was unreal, as implied by the question.
If you were self-sufficient, then why go to heaven? If you were a permanently existing entity, then how can you lose by not going there? Your contenance is permanent, it would not change if you were in heaven or in hell.

[Postmaster]

You have a point there. So no ideology of a soul or a permanent heaven?

[samabudhi]

Nope
To take it a step further, the very idea of something having self nature is unacceptable, and yet phenomena manifest. And although there is nothing absolute, the unchanging nature of the Buddha mind can be realised.

[Postmaster]

Very scary! That means if one was to try unifying all religions of the world as the Baha'i faith attempts to, it's not possible making the Baha’i faith invalid. The only thing that I feel makes sense is, that reincarnation happens to a life force until the time has come when it finds God through acceptance and is accepted by Gods mercy and cultivates a soul. I was reading a post of reincarnation having some sense in the Judaic faith? If this idea can be accepted by the Baha'i faith I suppose it's valid. Is it possible to create a sound philosophic system for all religions? Or should they remain incomprehensible? Does not all relgions require intellect to fucnction? How far can we push intellect to discover answers?

[Vajradhara]

Namaste postmaster,

thank you for the post.

Originally Posted by Postmaster

Very scary!

to some points of view, this is absolutely the case

That means if one was to try unifying all religions of the world as the Baha'i faith attempts to, it's not possible making the Baha’i faith invalid.

i wouldn't say that it makes the Baha'i faith invalid it does, however, indicate a lack of proper understanding of the Buddha Dharma. by the same token, as they are not Buddhists, this shouldn't really surprise us much

The only thing that I feel makes sense is, that reincarnation happens to a life force until the time has come when it finds God through acceptance and is accepted by Gods mercy and cultivates a soul. I was reading a post of reincarnation having some sense in the Judaic faith?

that is a fair summation of the Jewish idea of Gilgul Neshamot, though i would suggest exploring this subject a bit more indepth with some of our Jewish members

If this idea can be accepted by the Baha'i faith I suppose it's valid.

you should ask them on the Baha'i section of the forum, i am sure you will find an informative response.

Is it possible to create a sound philosophic system for all religions?

well... quite frankly, i do not believe so. moreover, i'm not even sure why we human types would be interested in such things. do we not recognize that humans are a vast group of beings with different mental and emotional capacities? it seems strange to think that we could have a single philosophical point of view shared by all humans, to my way of thinking

Or should they remain incomprehensible?

i don't know about "should" or not... that they do not agree does not make them incomprehensible, in my view. i agree that it can be a struggle to make sense of a philosophical position which does not make intuitive sense

Does not all relgions require intellect to fucnction? How far can we push intellect to discover answers?

to some extent or another, i would agree that religious paths, in general, require one to have a valid cognition of what is being taught and the reasons therefor.

in my view, the question isn't how far can we use intellect to get answers, rather, when intellect runs its limits, are there still unaswered questions? if so, are there answers which intellect, alone, cannot adequately address?

good discussion topics, all

metta,

~v

[Postmaster]

well... quite frankly, i do not believe so. moreover, i'm not even sure why we human types would be interested in such things. do we not recognize that humans are a vast group of beings with different mental and emotional capacities? it seems strange to think that we could have a single philosophical point of view shared by all humans, to my way of thinking

Well a Japanese man can make a games consol that I enjoy to play just as much as he does! An Indian man can make one hell of a cuisine I enjoy as he does. An Egyptian can create a building such as Pyramid that are not only enjoyed by there own people but of people from all corners of the world and since they were a created a few thousand years ago. I can impregnate all human ladies on earth. Surely it's time for a common religion?


How about the internet and international air travel? We are all starting to synchronise with each other now.