I've got a death wish: not to die

Death isn't to die for. At least, that's how my churchless psyche looks at mortality. I like being alive. Being dead -- that has a disturbing ring of nothingness to it.

If it was up to me, I'd pass on the whole dying thing. And who wouldn't? Almost no one, aside from those who find life so painful, not existing seems preferable.

This is a big reason why religions, philosophies, and belief systems that promise continued life after death are so popular. The Bible says that Jesus removed the sting of death.

Hey, if there was convincing proof of this, I'd sign up for Christianity in a heartbeat. Or convert to any other faith that offered me eternal (or at least really lengthy) life.

A good life, of course. No hell. Or Fox News.

Dinesh D'Souza has written a book that purports to prove that the afterlife is real. "Life After Death: The Evidence" is an appealing title. Only problem is, D'Souza doesn't supply what he promises -- evidence.

I base this statement not on having read the book, but on some articles that summarize D'Souza's arguments. I read "Heaven Can Wait" in Newsweek, and "The Dead Are Dead" on the Pharyngula blog.

If I simply went by the Amazon product description, I'd probably have ordered a copy by now.

Unlike many books about the afterlife, Life after Death makes no appeal to religious faith, divine revelation, or sacred texts. Drawing on some of the most powerful theories and trends in physics, evolutionary biology, science, philosophy, and psychology, D Souza shows why the atheist critique of immortality is irrational and draws the striking conclusion that it is reasonable to believe in life after death.

That's false advertising. D'Souza is a fervent Christian. His web site says that he is a co-founder of the Y God Institute, "Fresh Arguments, Science, History and Reason to Support Christianity."

So he definitely does make an appeal to religious faith and sacred texts. In an interview, D'Souza makes the ridiculous claim that we should believe in the afterlife because Christian dogma says that Jesus was resurrected. Huh?

If the resurrection stands up to historical scrutiny, if it is an historical event by the standards of historical verification, then the Christian view of the afterlife rises above the pack. It is the one to take seriously.

Well, those are two big "if's."

If I had a hundred million dollars, I'd be sitting on the patio of my beachfront Maui mansion right now, enjoying the tropical warmth rather than a freaking cold day in Oregon.

If''s are easy to conjure up. I'm interested in afterlife evidence that has some substance to it.

The Newsweek piece reviews D'Souza's flimsy arguments (human goodness, quantum physics, multiverse notion in cosmology -- a bunch of if's) and ends with mention of what could be a genuinely solid reason to believe in the survival of consciousness after death.

The AWARE project, a scientifically rigorous study of near-death experiences in hospitals around the world. Some results are expected next year. (But believers in the afterlife are already offering up reasons why AWARE won't come up with evidence of non-bodily consciousness.)

Not surprisingly, it doesn't sound like D'Souza talks at all about the many anecdotal stories in Eastern faiths -- Buddhism, Hinduism, and such -- about mystic transport out of the body and into higher realms of reality.

I'm not saying that these are any more credible than the Christian tale of Jesus' resurrection. But they are a lot more recent, so have a higher potential of being verified in some fashion (or, not).

I've been there and done that -- embracing a belief in soul travel and survival of personal consciousness after death. I hope it's true. I also hope that the Maui mansion pops into my life. I've got lots of hopes.

Having practiced various meditation disciplines for about forty years, my current approach is this: do nothing and see what happens.

Meaning, make nothing my meditative mantra. And assume that nothing needs to be done to find out what happens after death. What will be, will be. And what won't, won't.

I'm open to other possibilities.

That's why I enjoy churchlessness, not embracing any particular faith. I'll roll in whatever direction the evidence (or lack thereof) for life after death takes me.

Comments

[Ta Wan]

The idea of eternal life/suffering/being dead for a long time etc are the result of the false concept of time.

Did you fear birth?

[Blogger Brian]

Ta Wan, I wasn't alive before I was born, so obviously I didn't fear birth. Now I am alive, so I'm able to be aware of death.

There's a big difference between (1) being born and (2) dying. One is coming into existence, and the other is ceasing to exist.

If there supposedly is a false concept of time, then what is the true concept? And how can time be a concept? Isn't it more an experience?

[The Rambling Taoist]

For me, I think you may be confusing two different concepts: dying and dead. I'm not eager to die and, to be frank, the idea of dying is a bit scary to me, particularly if it's traumatic and/or painful.

But death itself doesn't cause much anxiety in me at all. For one, I'm betting there is no concept of self, so it will be like going to sleep forever and, with no self-consciousness, there will be nothing to generate bliss, anxiety or unease.

If I'm wrong and there IS an afterlife, then it is what it is and I'll have to deal with it at the appropriate time. Since no one else genuinely knows what it entails, we're all in the same boat.

[Rain]

My suggestion is savor life as fully as possible and then if it's really just over, well you got all you could from drinking it. Whether something of us goes on or not, our body does not (contrary to some religious teachings) and this lifetime has only one chance to experience all possible from it. As was mentioned above, dying is the scary part but for some it comes fast and is instantly over (both of my parents). To me, since we don't know what lies beyond (if anything) then enjoy what we have to the fullest, all dimensions, and try to live in such a way that we can go fast when we go.

[rakesh bhasin]

It comes to my mind a short story of Guru Nanka that once he asked his pupil to go to the market and get him - truth for two takka and false for two takka. The pupil moved from shop to shop but could not get it. At his last attempt he went a shopkeeper who was very old and asked the same. That old man him two slips of paper.The pupil brought those slips to GuruNanka and he read it to his disciple in which it was written that TO LIVE IS FALSE AND TO DIE IS TRUTH.

Even if it is a truth, yet no one wants to die. When I do not know what lies beyound death. Nothingness after death haunts perhaps all of us............................................

[Blogger Brian]

Rakesh, why is living false? Doesn't make any sense. Why should anyone believe that what we are experiencing now is untrue, while something no one has experienced here on Earth (a supposed afterlife) is true?

Stories are just stories. I could make up a story that comes to the exact opposite conclusion. Isn't natural reality more substantial than human imagination?

[tucson]

Here's what comes to me right now about death. Sorry, nothing profound or earthshaking that's likely to liberate you from the fear of eternal annihilation. But here we go.

While we are fond of our bodies, especially when they work reasonably well, the real fear is the death of the self or ego as evidenced by the fact that millions of people are comforted by the belief that although their bodies die there is a part of them, soul or whatever, that continues on in heaven or is reborn as a kangaroo. I mean, being a kangaroo or even a three-toed sloth with moss on its back is better than eternal nothing I guess, right?

I have attempted here on numerous occasions to demonstrate how our concept of ego-self and the resulting sense of separation is purely conceptual and thus, in that sense, illusory. I am not going to go into that now so you can accept it or not, or go through the archives or not. I don't care and really you shouldn't either.

The question is, how can something die that doesn't exist? How can something die that is an appearance and that presents itself in perception only as sensation, memory or idea? Remember, the sensation only appears in awareness. There is no way to prove it exists outside of awareness or mind.

There is no creator OR creation. There's only one "self" (Shity word, but it will have to do) which is infinitely unfolding. Nothing is ouside of it because it not a thing with boundaries to be outside of. Since there is nothing outside of "self" there can't be a separate creator or creation. That's what I mean by no creator or creation. Out of this unfolding, the "I" as awareness becomes the thought "I am" and from that thought comes the feeling "I am an object in time." But really there is nothing but the unfolding and not the "I" that is a result of a misinterpretation of the unfolding.

So, when there is no god or creation to perceive as separate things in a relative space-time context you remain as you are, total emptiness and that total emptiness is right now. It is as it is right now. It can't be said whether you are or are not when there is no actual "I" to be identified with except a ficticious concept in mind. So, at worst, if you want to look at it in good or bad terms, when you die you simply remain as you already are now without the illusion of any ideas or subject-object perceptions. It is formless pure being without any idea of itself as any sort of 'thing'.

So, in being without form 'who' is it that needs one? Just see that what exists in form exists in 'no form' also. What you are exists in any and every circumstance. The circumstances of birth and death can never touch you. Who is there to be touched? You are prior to the sensation of birth and death. What you are existed before and affter the body lives and dies because what you are never was born in the first place and thus could never die.

Rest in peace.

[David]

D Souza has the annoying ability of confounding the ressurection of Jesus with an afterlife, even though coming back to life in a physical form on earth, per the jesus story, doesn't actually say or prove anything about any afterlife existence.

I have watched his debates with atheists etc on Youtube for a few years now and he strikes me as being a completely incompetent task manager for the points raised in the debates. His appeal to is to emotional understandings without a shred of rationality to back them up except that he uses various parts of the gaps in scientific understanding to make his false claims. And to boot he presents his arguments with passionate flair and raised tone of voice as if people with any reason would take that kind of stance seriously.

It is just annoying to me that i have to witness this kind of debate exchange in this day and age. He is nothing but a failed echo chamber down the ages and also the brains of internet viewers.

The real truth is that depsite claims to the contrary there is no actual REAL evidence of any afterlife. If there was, there would be no debate to begin with, notwithstanding psychic claims from people like John Edward and Sylvia Brown (who, incidentally, tend to get many of their insights completely incorrect).

Death is inevitable. If you want to exclude the word "Death" from the dictionary you should also be bold enough to provide some kind of fool proof evidence for its non-realistic base. Not only has this NEVER been done but it is also unlikely to ever be done.

Sure, i don't want to die. Who does? But at the same time i like to think of death as part of life and not seperate from it. In other words, it is natural. And so in that sense it is ok.

The fear of death is warranted because we have no choice in the matter. We didn't choose to be born. We weren't there when our parents "chose" to concieve us. So why do we fret about the end when we equally have no choice? Pain is much worse than death. For me, to cease to exist forever is infinitely better than continuing to live in this world in the face of such complete bullshit we see around us every single day. And i don't even think this view is pessimistic. I love life when the going is good just like everyone else. But why do i need to pine for eternal existence? I will get on with my life, not think about death too much, enjoy it while i can, abhor it when i can't, and say "fuck you" to whatever or whoever deems it necessary for me to disagree. My life belongs to me and i have the sole absolute right to dictate to myself how i will enjoy it and when i have had enough, how to end it, so long as i am in control. When i lose control completely it is not in my hands. Then i will be glad that i lived and that this theatre of life needs me no longer.

[David]

And just for clarification, no - i don't want an afterlife.

It is not important to me to have to exist in any life other than this one right now.

What is important to me, and to the vast majority of living people, is to make the most of the life we ALL KNOW is here, on this earth, right now - to love our family and friends, not strangers. This is the only infinitely rewarding present that life can give us. And i don't consider that meaningless either. You see, i am not a pessiment and i don't desire to escape from reality.

I will have my cake, i will eat it and other people, who desire no cake because it interferes with their enlightenment or emancipation from the sufferings of life, will just have to accept this. Those people are really missing out. There truly is only one life, which is happening to you NOW, and you have no idea about any afterlife existence because you aren't there YET. Keep your stupid beliefs about afterlifes to yourself. Embrace life NOW. If you don't do that, on your death bed you won't regret not having known mysteries that history provides no evidence for at all - you will say, "i lived my life the best i could, i loved my family and friends the best i could, i was respectful of strangers the best i could, and i feel content now to release it all and plunge into the void."

[rakesh bhasin]

Dear Blogger Brian,

Let us differentiate between abstract and physical. Guru Nanka is to spiritualism as Newton is to Law of Gravitation.Translation of his scripture can not be ascribed as a story alone. Anyway it is not a issue.

Life has also been equated to like a dream in the night which appears to us as unreal only when we are awakened. So long as we are sleeping, the dream is truth and it becomes false only we are awakened.

Those who are awakened while living i.e. have expereinced death while living, know that life is false and death is truth. Life is transient and death is must.

These are the little explanatios alone that I know about and I believe. Moreover, I am in no conusion and realy steadfast on these points.

with regards,

[tAo]

Well said David, well said.
You took the words right out of my mouth. So I'll just give you this...

An Old Gaelic Blessing

"May the roads rise with you,
And the wind be always at your back,
And may the Lord hold you in the hollow of his hand."

[Roger]

"What is important to me, and to the vast majority of living people, is to make the most of the life we ALL KNOW is here, on this earth, right now - to love our family and friends, not strangers. This is the only infinitely rewarding present that life can give us."

---I was given my name, Roger, after a baby that lived for only 45 days. This baby would have been one of my uncles if he had lived. I have wondered why he didn't have an opportunity to make the most of the life we ALL KNOW that is here, on this earth. After all, it as been stated, "This is the only infinitely rewarding present that life can give us."

[Blogger Brian]

David, good comments.

tucson, I agree that a great solution to a fear of death is to realize, somehow or other, that there is no "I" to die. This seems to be what enlightenment is mostly about: experiencing that an individual's seeming separate existence is an illusion of sorts, that what each of us is isn't really how we appear to be.

I've written about how I was told a story about a man who had a brain tumor that was fatal, but which affected a part of the brain that controlled his fear of death. So he knew he was dying, but didn't care. That sounds great (not the dying, the not caring).

My problem, though, is along the lines of what the Pharyngula science blogger wrote in the link above in this post:
------------------
We are not just "energy". We are a pattern of energy and matter, a very specific and precise arrangement of molecules in movement. That can be destroyed.

When you've built a pretty sand castle and the tide comes in and washes it away, the grains of sand are still all there, but what you've lost is the arrangement that you worked to generate, and which you appreciated. Reducing a complex functional order to nothing but the constituent parts is an insult to the work.

If I were to walk into the Louvre and set fire to the Mona Lisa, and afterwards take a drive down to Chartres and blow up the cathedral, would anyone defend my actions by saying, "well, science says matter and energy cannot be created or destroyed, therefore, Rabid Myers did no harm, and we'll all just enjoy viewing the ashes and rubble from now on"? No. That's crazy talk.
----------------
Right now each of us exists as a complex orderly arrangement of...something or other. This will change at death. We can say that nothing really changes when we are born, or when we die, but it sure does seem like it does.

Isn't "nothing really changes" more conceptual than our direct experience of existing as a conscious entity? To me it is. But I accept the possibility that for some people, an experience of non-egoity is the real thing, and feeling that I am an "I" is falsity.

[Jen]

If we are “a pattern of energy and matter” then when we die the matter part of us ceases and returns to its physical origins and then the energy part is freed and still exists in a more refined non-physical energetic realm.

We do not find a very lengthy description of the inner realms in Sant Mat where the emphasis is on experiencing these for ourselves with the assistance of the inner guide (master).

Wikipedia has a description of Buddhist cosmology. Also, this link is to a Theravada description of the different forms of existence:

http://www.theravada.gr/cosmology.html

[Blogger Brian]

Jen, that's a big "if" you started your comment with.

[tucson]

Dear B.B.

You stated: "My problem, though, is along the lines of what the Pharyngula science blogger wrote in the link above in this post:
------------------
We are not just "energy". We are a pattern of energy and matter, a very specific and precise arrangement of molecules in movement. That can be destroyed."

tucson: "Yes, the pattern (body-mind) loses cohesiveness as the dream morphs into something new, but not the "consciouness" which it actually is."

Pharyngula says: "When you've built a pretty sand castle and the tide comes in and washes it away, the grains of sand are still all there"

tucson: "See, even Pharyngula says the grains of sand are still there.

Say you are asleep and dreaming of riding a horse in a field. The dream fades and suddenly you are dreaming you are at the office pouring coffee for a client. The content is completely different but the awareness in which it occurs is the same.

We misidentify with the grains of sand rather than the matrix that binds and permeates it and all manifestation."