One thing I have found is there is a remarkable
consistency throughout human history about these beliefs. While there are times
where one predominates over the others, there is always a diversity of opinions.
In the medieval Catholic world there were thinkers who were Platonists, for
instance; while there were contemporaries of the Buddha who were
annihilationists. I think of the famous story of General Patton, who said he
remembered a past life when he had fought on the beaches of North Africa. We
are clearly entering a new time now of mass belief in annihilation, but it is
also a time when a diversity of opinions is accepted.
Having examined all these beliefs I have to admit
that on some level I agree with all of them; that is, I see the wisdom in each
of them. But, each is a wisdom operating at a different level of understanding.
1. Annihilationism
This view says that we have only this one life and
at death that is the end of it. This view is generally the materialistic
perspective; that there is only the physical universe. This perspective
believes consciousness is the product of the body and with the death of the
body experience ends. It attributes most experiences to accident; for example,
if someone dies at a young age or if someone is born into a wealthy family,
that is simply chance and it has nothing to do with merit or previous actions.
There are a couple philosophical issues with this
perspective – the main one being that raised by Kant. Kant’s critique stated
that all knowledge possessed by human beings was acquired through the five
senses. Due to this our knowledge of the world is limited. For example, there
could be a great deal of phenomena outside the senses but we could know nothing
about it. So, Kant's conclusion was a famous "agnosticism" - we
cannot say definitively what is true about these questions one way or the other.
With this perspective, annihilationism is arrogant because it is claiming
absolute knowledge when it really has only the very limited knowledge of the empirical
senses available to it.
Having said that, the annihilationist view is quite
reasonable to believe in and we find that many people subscribe to it. I have also
had friends who grew up in oppressive religious backgrounds, and they take
solace in this view as it is a kind of refuge for them. At the same time, I feel
this is a very unsatisfactory perspective when one fully confronts the problem of
our humanity. If the goal of philosophy is to overcome the human condition - that
is, the issues of suffering and death - then there is no solution here. One simply
lives a very unsatisfactory life and that is the end of it.
2. Eternalism
Here it is interesting that both Christians and
Muslims – though it would be anathema for them to acknowledge this – share
remarkably similar views of the afterlife. Both of these religions say that
human beings have this one life, and at death one goes on to either an eternity
in heaven or hell.
Only recently have I realized the remarkable paucity
of sources explaining these fates. For instance, everyone is aware of the
Christian teaching for "heaven" or "hell." But, have you
ever really examined this in detail?
As an exercise I set myself the goal of “today I
will find every reference to the afterlife in the Bible.” If you have never
done this I encourage you to try it as an experiment – as you will find the
results are remarkable. There is honestly a lack of anything concrete
describing either heaven or hell: the references are vague and open to a large
amount of interpretation.
This is the same issue that Judaism has. If we use
only the Old Testament as our source (excepting the works of the Kabbalists),
the Jewish scriptures have very few explanations of what happens upon death. This
is why many Jews do not believe in the afterlife.
The New Testament is slightly better, with a few
references from Jesus and Paul that are more concrete, but they are still not
very clear. Jesus mentions a place where there is "wailing and the
gnashing of teeth" and talks very occultly about a lack of people being
wed in the afterlife. Paul has places where he refers to being "out of the
body," but he himself is not sure of what the experience was.
A couple of questions one might ask here are “who
should I listen to for knowledge about these things?” and “who was the source for
'eternalism'?”
If we look at history, my theory is that the
original source for these ideas were the accounts of mystics and saints – those
with direct experience of the supernatural. However, over time
"theologians" - those concerned with enforcing beliefs and increasing
their power - hijacked those accounts and interpreted them in their own way.
This has led to the teachings of "heaven" and "hell."
So, we find that the scriptural basis for these
teachings is unclear, and that these ideas are incomplete.
3. Eternal Return
There are different terms used for this one – reincarnation,
rebirth, and eternal recurrence. We see examples of it throughout history, most
notably in Buddhism, Platonism, and Hinduism.
This view is generally rare in the West, but it is
interesting to note that most of humanity believes in it. This is a fact many
Westerners gloss over. We are so accustomed to the war between
"annihilation" and "eternalism" that we forget that most of
Asia does not subscribe to either.
This view says that there is something uniquely you - consciousness, awareness, spirit, or (at
minimum) the summary of your actions - that gets reborn again and again
linearly. It does this either because it is fettered to form-based existence, because
it is reaping the results of its actions (karma), or because it is learning something from each incarnation. This
view believes that all actions have consequences, although sometimes the
results of actions may take some time to be manifested.
One thing I find unique about this perspective is
that it allows the former belief to be placed into it. With this view,
"eternalism" is an incomplete perspective; it is just part of the
picture. Buddhist cosmology presents many possible fates on death - not just
heaven or hell. One might return as a human, animal, demon, ghost, or deva. Buddhism
is also unique for stating that all these states are temporary. Nothing is
eternal: existence goes in a great circle, life after life, until one returns
to the Source - Nirvana.
Platonism
The teachings of Socrates and Plato have always
existed in the West, although they have been confined mostly to the domain of
intellectuals. I wanted to add these two here, as I feel they build upon some
of the ideas for eternal recurrence.
The first idea of these two is that of the World of
the Forms. When one reads the Platonic dialogues, Socrates reasons through
one's experience in physical reality to try to get a sense of the Source from
which it all derives from. In the Symposium
he gives the famous story of the lover: first, the lover enjoys the body;
then, he begins to appreciate beauty in others in general; then, he begins to
contemplate beauty as an abstract Idea in itself. This process leads eventually
from form - the reality we all experience - to the formless - the origin of the
world.
Plato's idea here is that the physical world is an
emanation of the higher spiritual world, in which things can exist in a more
perfect or refined state; and that then above this reality there exists a
transcendent Source from which all ideas and potentialities derive.
We might connect this to Buddhism as this Source
would be none other than the state of Nirvana. By returning to the Source,
which is not comprehensible, we are returning to a place beyond form and beyond
limitation; we become nothing and we become all.
The other idea of Platonism I wanted to examine is
that of the Lethe. The Lethe was the river of forgetfulness in Greek mythology,
and we see it alluded to by Socrates when he explains the myth of Er.
In this myth, Er dies and finds himself in the
afterlife. Socrates explains when one dies and then chooses to be born again, one is
supposed to drink from the Lethe. However, Er does not drink from the river and
retains his memories, and later returns to his body, giving his account in the
process.
Er's story reads much like a modern NDE, and he recounts much the same
narrative of Buddhism. People take on many different forms over time, and reap
the results of their choices.
From here, Socrates explains his idea of
anamnesis: the idea that all learning is actually a remembering - recalling
knowledge we had in the past or that already exists within us. This idea is
quite interesting from a few perspectives. First, if we have been
transmigrating through time, then it is probable we have already learned
everything at some point. And second, if we are ultimately no different from
that originary Source, which is all and possesses all knowledge, then it is
true that in this way it is also a process of remembering.
The issue with the Lethe is it seems to be
self-defeating. As how is one supposed to be learning life after life if one
forgets everything with each incarnation? On the one hand it does allow the
experience of novelty and innocence; although it also complicates experience by
erasing a memory of former actions (one is unable to understand the causes of
the consequences that later happen).
In the East they sometimes refer to a siddhi by
which a spiritual master can recall previous lives; and it seems that if one
returns to the Source one is able to perceive all one's incarnations, in full,
and also simultaneously.
Why we take on all these forms is quite difficult to
understand. Perhaps the universe is a divine fecundity that can't help but
manifest itself in all these myriad ways; perhaps we are trying to learn
something; or perhaps it is all a divine "game."
