The Afterlife... a question of perspective?

I recently read a book called Sum: forty tales from the afterlives by David Eagleman. Not the most insightful or deep book but it did present several versions of possible afterlives in a quick and witty format. Which led me to think a little bit about how much our personal perspective about the afterlife/afterlives plays or should color our approach to our present life. 

What you believe about the afterlife, what form you think it may or may not take, the existence of some form of continuity after this life, could make a big difference about how you live during this one. Without going into extremes about those who give up this life for promises of virgins, riches or paradise in another life, it seems like an important point that needs to be verified by each one of us. However, this question leads us, naturally, straight into the arms of either philosophy or blind faith (or both) as the answer cannot be known in this life. A bit of a paradox isn't it?!

Anyway, while thinking this over a song by Prince, which may or may not have a direct relation to philosophy or blind faith, which is called Let's Go Crazy. Some of the words go like this:

Electric word life

It means forever and that's a mighty long time

But I'm here 2 tell u

There's something else

The afterworld

A world of never ending happiness

U can always see the sun, day or night

So when u call up that shrink in Beverly Hills

U know the one - Dr Everything'll Be Alright

Instead of asking him how much of your time is left

Ask him how much of your mind, baby

'Cuz in this life

Things are much harder than in the afterworld

In this life

You're on your own

The final line of the above lyrics, which is not the last line of the song, is a bit brutal or honest or brutally honest (depending on how you want to see it). But depending on your perspective on both life and the afterlife, this may not be your own truth. 


As you mull over that, it is interesting to consider the role that the afterlife has played in different religions, philosophies and quasi-religions like Buddhism. The perspective on the hereafter definitely colors everything else. Oddly enough, in Judaism and Christianity, mentions of the afterlife seem to have been edited out of the religion as it has been presented to the masses. While discussions and texts refering to the afterlife have been debated among scholars, mystics and the 'initiated'. 


One interesting approach is that each individual experiences the afterlife as they imagine it. For those who imagine a fiery hell, that is what they get, just as those who imagine floating from cloud to cloud playing a harp will get to experience that image. Maybe this is the universe's way of allowing everyone to be right : ) 


The joke is on us though as we will be able to say 'Aha! I was right!' but we may possibly not have anyone to say it too!


I have one book that has been looking at me from my bookshelf for some time now. Heaven and Hell by Emmanuel Swedenborg, someone who took a very long look at the question. If I finally heed it's call, I will let you know what I think about it. In the meantime, be careful about your own perspective - because in this instance you may get what you wish for...

I am dualistic about Buddhism

Following up on my last post (a bit late due to an intense work schedule) I would like to comment on another text on Buddhism. After my last post I had an exchange with a former student of mine from China who is one of those people with whom you feel "spiritual toughness". What I mean by that is that you do meet occasionally people who seem illuminated or extremely spiritual or having some special "white" energy. At other times you feel people (and I mean feel as a synonym for a form of meeting people) who are extremely solid and grounded thanks to their spirituality. This was the feeling I received from this former student, now a friend, when he spoke of different elements of Taoism and Buddhism. After my last post I sent him a copy by e-mail as some blogs are blocked occasionally in some countries and cannot be consulted directly (another thing to be thankful for). In reply we had an interesting exchange. One thing he wrote me was the story used by Taoists to speak about Taoism.

The story goes something like this. A Taoist is like a man with hands and feet bound in ropes dangling over a cliff and holding on to a branch only with his teeth. Knowing this, we must be careful when we talk about Taoism. Knowing this, we talk about Taoism.

I thought this was a great image! If you open your mouth it's over, and yet we need to open our mouths... This was also his feedback, politely, concerning my writing about Buddhism. I should be careful I guess before I open my mouth. And this is true. Throughout this blog I am writing mostly about things of which I know very little of. I read a bit, according to the hasard of books, texts, ideas that cross my path, and react without the depth that comes from true understanding. Knowing that, I still open my mouth : ) 

As a follow up to my exchange by e-mail I was also sent a text called Buddhism in a Nutshell, written by Dzongsar Khyentse Rinpoche of siddhartasintent.org. The text is quite interesting and really does get to the essence of what Buddhism is and is not. In four points, DKR explains that:

1. All compounded things are impermanent (and all phenomena are compounded).
2. All emotions are painful.
3. All phenomena are empty.
4. Nirvana is beyond extremes.

Even the path (Dharma) and the Buddha is impermanent, empty and an illusion. However DKR uses a wonderful image to explain why it is necessary. If you are trying to find someone you have never met, I can describe the person, show you a picture of the person, tell you what I know about the person and that way you can go and find the real person.

One of the reasons I am dualistic about Buddhism (pun intended) is that even Siddharta taught Buddhism three different ways. Instead of saying that his thinking evolved, Buddhists show some marketing moxy by calling it The Three Turnings of The Wheel and explaining it not as a "change of mind" (another intended pun) but as necessary evolutions in his teaching - which in all fairness does make sense.

In case you are curious, the three turnings are about a central element of spirituality, the mind. In the first turning the Buddha taught that there is a mind. In the second turning he taught that there is no mind. In the third turning he taught that mind is luminous. Different Buddhist commentators have interpreted the meaning of this evolution in Buddha's teachings, of which I know little. So on this subject of Buddha's change of mind concerning mind I will not open my mouth and leave you while dangling over the proverbial taoist cliff...