Do you believe in life after death?

Do you believe in life after death?

  • Yes

    Votes: 72 40.7%
  • No

    Votes: 73 41.2%
  • I don't know

    Votes: 32 18.1%

  • Total voters
    177
Apr 2018
1,032
Mythical land.
Yeah .... but it doesnt really work as ... what are all the stacked turtles standing on ?

In other words ... where did all the souls in those animals come from in the first place to supply all the souls for all the human population expanding over the earth ? And what about all the 'spiritual mess' and 'sin' and materialism nowadays ... a lot of people should be re incarnating back as animals .

Thats why I think, s far as things like this go, the H.K.s have a better (or more shifty ;) ) reason in the 'other planets' theory .

View attachment 13333


Make it 'easy' - people will love it !
according to hindu philosphy all the souls are eternal,they are manifestation of brahman.
basically they were there.

and AFAIK,materialism is not really considered a "sin" as in "bad" thing in hinduism,but with materialistic aims one can only be reborn in this world,with spiritual aim a person can break free from cycle of rebirth to kind of "join" brhman.
 
Mar 2012
4,103
Personally I am a Philosophy graduate having a diploma issued by one of the most important public universities in my country, so I have a level of knowledge on the subject which is more than "subjective" and allows me to appreciate yours very well, I have seen nothing from you except using terms whose meaning is not very clear and uttering platitudes which you fancy to be profound philosophy. Which of your claims and quotes I haven't addressed yet? Yes, people may start from different ultimate assumptions, but I'm not sure if you distinguish between the case when an intellect is limited by intelligibility and the case when it is limited by something else.
You can claim whatever you want, the fact is, you couldn't understand a basic published philosophy paper and asked me to clarify it. That is already displayed in post number 505, when you said you couldn't follow my post.

I know Yogacara is too abstract for you and uses terminologies often far removed from conventions, but I quoted a prominent western philosopher in Sartre, and you didn't understand what he wrote. If most philosophy graduates have no problem understanding him, then you are the one who has problems understanding mainstream philosophy, not me.

If you are an actual philosophy graduate whose worth his salt as you claimed, then interpret this article yourself, don't ask me to babysit you with an explanation (not that I haven't already done that multiple times):


To quote W Chan's paper "Yogacara Buddhism and Sartre's phenomenology":
Ueda declared: “Vijnaptimatra does not simply mean that the seen does not exist, and only the seeing exists. Rather, it aims to say that the object seen by the seeing consciousness, which is outside consciousness as its opposition, would be nothing, if it is apart from consciousness.” This means: “If there is no object, then there is no consciousness." But it is also implied in the thesis that “if there is consciousness, then there must be object.” Therefore, in contrary to the idealistic interpretation of vijnaptimatra which claims that the world is only an image produced by the substratum consciousness, Ueda is willing to grant a reality to external objects. To be sure, here we should be careful in speaking of the reality of the external object. Right at the start, Yogacara Buddhists are anti-realist. Accordingly, it is impossible for Ueda to grant any independent reality to the external object in the manner of realism. That is to say, his concept of external object must not be understood in the realist sense. For him, though objects are external to consciousness, they cannot exist apart from consciousness. In reality, Ueda argues for the essentia l correlation between consciousness and its object: apart from consciousness, there is no object; and apart from the object, there is no consciousness. As a result, for Ueda, the object is only “external’ in the sense that it is not any “immanent” part of consciousness. In contrast to realism, the “externalilty” of the object does not imply that it can exist independently from consciousness.


Ueda’s thesis of the essential correlation of consciousness and its object can
find an interesting parallel in Sartre’s following phenomenological position. In
Being and Nothingness, Sartre wrote:
“The For-itself is defined
as presence to being.”
“But the For-itself makes itself presence
to being by making itself be For-itself,
and it ceases to be presence by ceasing to be for-itself.”
“This means that originally the For-itself is presence to being which exists in
the form of a witness of
its being of co-existence.”

On the one hand, Sartre uses the term “For-itself” to stand for consciousness. On the other hand, he employs the term “In-self” (or “being”) to refer to things in the world. In brief, for Sartre, apart from its co-existence with being, no consciousness is possible. Ueda’s thesis of the fundamental correlation between consciousness and the object also implies that there is an opposition between them. While consciousness is the other of the object, the object is the other of consciousness. Interestingly enough, such a thesis of difference between consciousness and the object is reminiscent to in Sartre’s following position:
“It ‘is’ in the mode of the For-itself; that is, as a separated existent inasmuch as it reveals itself as not being being.”
“Thus the For-itself is presence to being implies that the For-itself is a witness of itself in the presence of being as not being that being; presence to being is the presence of the For-itself in so far as the For-itself is not.”
“Furthermore in itself the For-itself is
not being, for it makes itself be explicitly
for-itself as not being being.”
 
Mar 2012
4,103
@heavenlykaghan

Just to give you a sample of your reasoning qualities:

1. An object can't exist without a subject. This is obvious, because "object" means in philosophy what appears to a mind, and mental representations can't exist without the subject endowed with mind.
2. A subject can't exist without an object. If by being a "subject" you mean "being actually aware of something" (I think that I explained you very well the philosophical meanings of the word "subject"), it is obvious that without an object of awareness you can't be aware of anything and there is no actual awareness, so in your meaning you are not a "subject".

1&2 above are simple platitudes, I am curious how do you argue that at our ontological level objects are not related to something existing independent of the subject or how do you argue against solipsism.
Whether its a platitude does not change its validity. So far despite your comical claims of being a philosophy graduate, other than simply pushing on your premise to be true, you have not even demonstrated the methodology to substantiate your premise; and from the exact type of posts you've made throughout this forum I have trouble believing you are even capable of doing that. Also, definitions relying on their opposites to exist is only the very basic idea that one needs to start off to enter the more difficult aspects of Yogacara philosophy. If you can't even understand that, or attempt to look into that, then you are not even ready for the basics of the philosophy; which is much more than that.

I am curious how do you argue that at our ontological level objects are not related to something existing independent of the subject or how do you argue against solipsism.
W Chan just did in the quote above. As did Sartre and Yogacara philosophy. You are assuming that your premise is a given, its not. Its easy to argue against objects existing independently of a subject, for the simple reason you cannot prove their independent existence. Whenever you even talk about an object, you are merely speaking of a concept one experienced and constructed. Not the thing in itself. Solipsism is also easy to argue against, because not only is the concept of subject conditioned on its surroundings and its hard to draw a line between the subject and its surroundings (everything the subject experiences is a creation of the mind, the only difference is that solipsism claims its the personal mind, materialism claims its a creation of the brain, whereas Mahayana Buddhism claims its the product of conditions from previous mental actions, all of which is ultimately the delusional manifestation of the non-personal, non-self, Alaya consciousness), the self itself is subject to change every split moment and you cannot grasp any moment that is unchanging and self existing. Even western idealism is moving beyond solipsism, you cannot possibly not have heard of Sartre or Hegel if you are a philosophy graduate, but you don't even have a clue what these philosophers argued, and your lies are transparent.

I forgot about your "smart" comparison of the relation between subject and object with that between right and left. Right and left don't exist except in relation to a third which is the point of reference, which is the "point of reference" that makes possible the subject vs object correlativity?
The whole point of emptiness Ficino, is that there is no point of reference whatsoever, and that's why it is empty of self existence. Left also doesn't just rely on right, it relies on everything that is not left, and that includes up, down, space, time, and the totality of everything. Dependent origination doesn't posit why things happen, it merely uses observation to point out the dependent nature of all concepts and experiences. Instead of asking me to explain, which I did many times in the past, why don't you just read up about Buddhist philosophy (and through a philosophy publication, not some popular religious explanation), you should have the competence to understand it yourself if you are a philosophy graduate.
 
Last edited:

Ficino

Ad Honorem
Apr 2012
6,593
Romania
@heavenlykaghan

If you continue on such immature and disrespectful tone, be assured that this is the last time I when I waste my time trying to explain something to you. I asked you to clarify the passage with your own words and in a concise manner because I was just curious if you are able to do it.

"Seeing" is the relation between "sight" and what is actually "seen", and there can be no "seeing" without "sight" and "seen". The "object" is what you actually see, and it is obvious that without sight, which is the ability to see, you can't actually see anything, so there is no "object". But if there is no "object" of sight it doesn't necessarily mean that there is no sight or nothing that can be seen, for example if you are in the darkness there is nothing actually seen by you, despite the fact that you still have sight and there are still things that can be seen once the light appears. So both the subject endowed with consciousness and the subjects that become "objects" for the first once the actualizing cause appears continue to exist independently.

Just for fun:

“Furthermore in itself the For-itself is
not being, for it makes itself be explicitly
for-itself as not being being.”

What means "being" for you, what is "for-itself" that makes itself explicitly "for-itself" as not being being, and which is the difference between "not being being" and "not being"? Is "for-itself" as a supposed negation of "in-itself" in the sense in which what is "in-self" can't determine itself while the "for-itself" determines itself) a negation of being or just a negation of being-in-itself?

The rest doesn't deserve any kind of comment from my part.
 

Ficino

Ad Honorem
Apr 2012
6,593
Romania
@heavenlykaghan

Just to give you some clues: in your quote above "being" means "essence", and for Sartre, at his level of understanding, what has an essence has no self-determination, it always being what it is, according to its essential (pre-)determinations, and nothing else, i.e. it will always be what its essence "dictates" (this is the "in-itself") . OTOH for him what is "for-itself" (or "self-aware", if you wish), once actually "for-itself", is always self-determining, and as such it doesn't have any essence, in this meaning it is "nothing", always becoming what itself makes of itself. I hope that the things are clearer to you now, and you are able to understand better such quotes. I got bored to be bashed on this board by all kind of intellectually immature individuals who fancy themselves knowledgeable and smart without being able to correctly explain even the elementary notions used in their own discourse.
 
Last edited:
Jun 2012
6,955
Malaysia
@heavenlykaghan

If you continue on such immature and disrespectful tone, be assured that this is the last time I when I waste my time trying to explain something to you.
Aah. I see. So, this is your standard tactic for deflecting an opposer's argument. Resorting to words like 'immature', 'disrespectful', 'impolite', 'childish' etc. etc. etc. And threatening for it to be 'the last time I reply to you'. When you can't argue back properly. Only now we know. Okay.
 
Oct 2018
106
Adelaide south Australia
No.

I call myself an agnostic atheist:

atheist; from the greek 'theos'; god, 'a' ;without

agnostic; 'a'; without, 'gnostic' from 'gnosis'; knowledge

That means I disbelieve, I do not unbelieve. I make no claims. I simply do not believe in the soul, gods, angels, heaven, hell, demons, ghosts, dragons, mountain trolls or fairies at the bottom of my garden. The reason for my disbelief is a complete lack of proof.

I'm agnostic because I truly don't know. I may be wrong. I hope I am. If there IS an infinitely just and compassionate God (as opposed to the petty, petulant, vindictive and cruel god of the Torah) I trust him/her to forgive me my sincere disbelief . It took me over 40 years to arrive at this position, beginning with chronic Irish Catholicism.


I include the quotes below because they're pithy and more articulate than I.

Epicurus on god:

“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?”
―Epicurus

Somewhat more profound, is 'Russell's teapot' :


"Russell's teapotis an analogy, formulated by the philosopher Bertrand Russell(1872–1970), to illustrate that the philosophic burden of prooflies upon a person making unfalsifiableclaims, rather than shifting the burden of disproofto others.

Russell specifically applied his analogy in the context of religion.[1]He wrote that if he were to assert, without offering proof, that a teapot, too small to be seen by telescopes, orbits the Sun somewhere in space between the Earth and Mars, he could not expect anyone to believe him solely because his assertion could not be proven wrong.

Russell's teapot is still invoked in discussions concerning the existence of God, and has had influence in various fields and media."


Russell's teapot - Wikipedia
 

Similar History Discussions