Time to narrate my interpretation of “afterlife” when considering several religions, novels, and philosophers. Lets ignore the power aspects of religion for this though, I don’t think the original authors had the slightest idea that their works would be used to control people.
Lets start with my primary observations.
Universally, all religions seem to agree that awareness of existence is suffering.
All religions attempt to explain why this is.
All religions attempt to alleviate some of that suffering in various ways.
All religions attempt to teach the understanding of the universal suffering, the explanations, and alleviations to everyone.
All religions acknowledge the fear of death.
All religions suggest an explanation of death.
All religions attempt to alleviate the fear of death.
The first point, I think, is the important one. Universal suffering. Bhuddism calls this out in plain language. It suggests a path to “enlightenment” that is very similar to modern mental health techniques.
The logical conclusion is that if life is suffering, death is comfort. But we fear death, and mourn the dead. So, we are faced, individually, with a choice. We have an extremely tiny fraction of the age of the universe to experience it and how incredible it is - do you choose to experience it, in its full nature with the suffering included, and make the best of it? Or do you choose to say “fuck this shit” and skip on that unique journey?
Soren Kierkegaard:
‘Life is not a problem to be solved, but a reality to be experienced.’
Frank Herbert adds:
‘A process cannot be understood by stopping it. Understanding must move with the flow of the process, must join it and flow with it.’
So, personally, I’ve chosen to experience reality. Accept that it has a lot of suffering, but enjoy the beauty of watching a lunar eclipse. Studying the intricacies of quantum mechanics. Observing how life has evolved over millions of years.
I take my experience with me to the grave. No one else will be able to experience it. And in the end, I will no longer suffer.
I have never quite understood the obsession with life as suffering - life includes suffering but is not defined by suffering, it’s defined by physical embodiment and consciousness. I don’t really fear death exactly, but do so enjoy being physically embodied and conscious. Have I suffered? Sure, plenty. But not more than I have enjoyed. I don’t at all define or experience my life AS suffering. Joy is louder.
I do think heaven or afterlife would have to involve losing all critical thought and individuality, particularly the Christian heaven, I don’t think most people could be ecstatically happy if they knew others were in hell and they could not do anything to try to help.
It’s about control. Specifically, enabling control of the average people by the religious class - the clergy, the prophetsx the priests, nuns, preachers, anyone who claims to be of a higher authority between a person and whatever gods they might believe in.
Existence is suffering because it’s supposed to be unimportant. It doesn’t really matter. The afterlife matters because it’s all happiness, it’s without suffering, and it lasts forever. Oh and of course you’re only allowed to get to that afterlife if you do exactly what members of said class say.
While I agree that RELIGIONS do that, it is why I point out that I don’t think the original authors (ancient as they may be) had the individual intent to control people, but help them.
Like the Bible as a whole is clearly constructed for control. Same with the Torah, Quran, Vedas, and at LEAST to some extent the Tripitaka.
But, taken individually, understanding the historical context, and understanding the identification of different authors, the patterns arise that there was some good intent.
That good intent is all overshadowed by the manipulative tactics.
“Do these ten things that are basic human morality, or the invisible Man in the sky will be angry and once you’re done suffering in this life, you will spend even more time suffering”
is the message, not “do these ten things because they’re morally right”.
Since you predicate your narration wiþ a fairly sweeping set of assertions, I have to ask: are Atheism or Agnosticism religions? Or are þey philosophies? And since most philosophies also tend to satisfy several of your assertions – and because you specifically mention Buddhism and a person who’s a philosopher and not a religious authority - how do philosophies differ from religions in your pre(o)position?
I’ll be completely honest, the idea of “faith” is a bullshit concept. Also the study of "philosophy " at least for the required classes I had to taken in college (I don’t encourage liberal arts schools for science) is bullshit too.
So, in my personal opinion, religions are for people who can’t or choose not to think critically (as I have learned, a lot of people find that uncomfortable). Philosophies are just personal opinions on life. And if my interpretation of afterlife is a philosophy, great, that doesn’t really change anything.
So athiesm and agnosticism aren’t religions, but they aren’t philosophies, they’re just labels to say “I don’t believe in bullshit.”
Time to narrate my interpretation of “afterlife” when considering several religions, novels, and philosophers. Lets ignore the power aspects of religion for this though, I don’t think the original authors had the slightest idea that their works would be used to control people.
Lets start with my primary observations.
The first point, I think, is the important one. Universal suffering. Bhuddism calls this out in plain language. It suggests a path to “enlightenment” that is very similar to modern mental health techniques.
The logical conclusion is that if life is suffering, death is comfort. But we fear death, and mourn the dead. So, we are faced, individually, with a choice. We have an extremely tiny fraction of the age of the universe to experience it and how incredible it is - do you choose to experience it, in its full nature with the suffering included, and make the best of it? Or do you choose to say “fuck this shit” and skip on that unique journey?
Soren Kierkegaard:
Frank Herbert adds:
So, personally, I’ve chosen to experience reality. Accept that it has a lot of suffering, but enjoy the beauty of watching a lunar eclipse. Studying the intricacies of quantum mechanics. Observing how life has evolved over millions of years.
I take my experience with me to the grave. No one else will be able to experience it. And in the end, I will no longer suffer.
I have never quite understood the obsession with life as suffering - life includes suffering but is not defined by suffering, it’s defined by physical embodiment and consciousness. I don’t really fear death exactly, but do so enjoy being physically embodied and conscious. Have I suffered? Sure, plenty. But not more than I have enjoyed. I don’t at all define or experience my life AS suffering. Joy is louder.
I do think heaven or afterlife would have to involve losing all critical thought and individuality, particularly the Christian heaven, I don’t think most people could be ecstatically happy if they knew others were in hell and they could not do anything to try to help.
Im don’t disagree with that. As you can tell toward the end of my Ted Talk I find joy in life, and death naturally has the absence of suffering.
The idea of Heaven and Hell are concepts for those who can’t grasp that life is complex, and are used to control people.
It’s about control. Specifically, enabling control of the average people by the religious class - the clergy, the prophetsx the priests, nuns, preachers, anyone who claims to be of a higher authority between a person and whatever gods they might believe in.
Existence is suffering because it’s supposed to be unimportant. It doesn’t really matter. The afterlife matters because it’s all happiness, it’s without suffering, and it lasts forever. Oh and of course you’re only allowed to get to that afterlife if you do exactly what members of said class say.
While I agree that RELIGIONS do that, it is why I point out that I don’t think the original authors (ancient as they may be) had the individual intent to control people, but help them.
Like the Bible as a whole is clearly constructed for control. Same with the Torah, Quran, Vedas, and at LEAST to some extent the Tripitaka.
But, taken individually, understanding the historical context, and understanding the identification of different authors, the patterns arise that there was some good intent.
That good intent is all overshadowed by the manipulative tactics.
“Do these ten things that are basic human morality, or the invisible Man in the sky will be angry and once you’re done suffering in this life, you will spend even more time suffering”
is the message, not “do these ten things because they’re morally right”.
Since you predicate your narration wiþ a fairly sweeping set of assertions, I have to ask: are Atheism or Agnosticism religions? Or are þey philosophies? And since most philosophies also tend to satisfy several of your assertions – and because you specifically mention Buddhism and a person who’s a philosopher and not a religious authority - how do philosophies differ from religions in your pre(o)position?
All I did was say my interpretation of afterlife?
I’ll be completely honest, the idea of “faith” is a bullshit concept. Also the study of "philosophy " at least for the required classes I had to taken in college (I don’t encourage liberal arts schools for science) is bullshit too.
So, in my personal opinion, religions are for people who can’t or choose not to think critically (as I have learned, a lot of people find that uncomfortable). Philosophies are just personal opinions on life. And if my interpretation of afterlife is a philosophy, great, that doesn’t really change anything.
So athiesm and agnosticism aren’t religions, but they aren’t philosophies, they’re just labels to say “I don’t believe in bullshit.”