Quote:

For self-protection man has created God, on whom he depends for his own protection, safety and security, just as a child depends on its parent. For self-preservation man has conceived the idea of an immortal Soul, which will live eternally. In his ignorance, weakness, fear, and desire, man needs these two things to console himself. Hence he clings to them deeply and fanatically."

---

I want to focus on the eternal life part of it. My first question is, how does any human know for sure that there isn't consciousness after physical death.  What is this teaching that assumes a final end to consciousness based on?

Next, from everything I have learned about child development, boundaries and limitations are what makes them feel more safe and secure and what you use to console them when they are feeling anxious or prone to anxiety.

That said regarding the scientific research on human psychology, wouldn't the belief that there is a limit to conscious existance be more consoling to a human being?

Consider eternal life for a moment, existing for and within infinity. Contemplate, being conscious for 80 trillion years, and then, multiply that amount of time by another 80 trillion years and that by another 80 trillion and go on for infinity and imagine being consciously aware of existence through it all without end?

Does that thought or not, possibly produce some anxiety, discomfort, and need some consoling?  Is the thought to incomprehensible or overwhelming to handle?

Would putting a beleif on an end to it at some point, limit on it, make it more manageable to handle and easier to comprehend and accept?

If that makes more sense, then the opposite would be true of that Buddhist teaching.

What about the sects of Bhudism that beleive in reincarnation? How does that not qualify as an understanding of an eternal life, of some sorts?

Quote:

how does any human know for sure that there isn't consciousness after physical death. What is this teaching that assumes a final end to consciousness based on?

---

Quote:

Next, from everything I have learned about child development, boundaries and limitations are what makes them feel more safe and secure and what you use to console them when they are feeling anxious or prone to anxiety.

That said regarding the scientific research on human psychology, wouldn't the belief that there is a limit to conscious existance be more consoling to a human being?

Consider eternal life for a moment, existing for and within infinity. Contemplate, being conscious for 80 trillion years, and then, multiply that amount of time by another 80 trillion years and that by another 80 trillion and go on for infinity and imagine being consciously aware of existence through it all without end?

Does that thought or not, possibly produce some anxiety, discomfort, and need some consoling? Is the thought to incomprehensible or overwhelming to handle?

Would putting a beleif on an end to it at some point, limit on it, make it more manageable to handle and easier to comprehend and accept?

---

Quote:

What about the sects of Bhudism that beleive in reincarnation? How does that not qualify as an understanding of an eternal life, of some sorts?

---

Quote:

An ancient Hindu idea was that if you're really good, you can come back as a god. Many people - including many Buddhists - believe that if you're pretty good, but not top-notch, you can come back as a human. If not, you might come back as an animal or a plant. And if you've really blown it, you might come back as a mineral of some kind.

What all of these concepts have in common is that they suppose some enduring entity - incarnate, here and now - that persists and, after it dies, disintegrates, only to reemerge as something else again.

But there's a problem here. If it becomes something else, then in what way is it the same? How is it still, in some manner, what it used to be? And if it's not then how is this reincarnation? Indeed, what does the term it even refer to?

We have no idea. How can anything be both what it is AND something else?

Yet many of us persist in believing that there's this aspect of who we are - this soul, this self - that persists and is somehow recaptured or reembodied in future incarnations.

Here is what many people miss (or ignore) about the Buddhadharma: the Buddha himself pointed out that this view is inaccurate and extreme. It's called the eternalistic view - the view that there's an enduring self, a soul, that survives the body and persists in some fashion, perhaps through reincarnation.

---

Icelander said:

Who is honest and courageous enough to face admitting to that?

Me. I create boundaries all the time. Many of them are limits to my experience of fully living and unnecessary for survival although I may think otherwise, and some are physically necessary and seemingly helpful at this time.

I'm not sure I understand everything you said but I believe that fear of nothingness is frightening to any personality structure or ego that is invested in it's continuation. Much of this may be on the subconscious or unconscious level. But I'm not the expert here.

---

Me too so I really don't mind having such a sort of finger pointed my way. I prefer knowing where my next meal and glass of water is coming from then finding myself in the middle of a barren desert. Have no qualms about admitting how finding myself in the middle of never ending sand dunes would be a tad anxiety producing

About the other part. When you really cognitively think about how rational a fear of facing nothing and not even knowing you are is, it sounds really silly doesn't it? Why would that require courage?

Wouldn't the person who prides themselves on being brave enough to face the final death of consciousness with physical death, have to have a fear about it to feel proud about being able to courageously face it. Wouldn't that fear, be it subconscious or unconscious the fear of ego death?

The courageous are called that not because they resolve the fear, but because, they move forward anyway.

I think that root, if it applies to anyone also applies to anyone who acts like facing the final death of consciousness with physical death is something that requires courage in the first place.

Whats with the tough guy act some people put on about being able to face nothing and not even know they are unless they are hiding a deeply rooted fear of ego loss with the Bravado?

Who walks around needing to say all of the time, "I don't fear death, I am brave, I'm not afraid of nothing." but someone who is really insecure and anxious about it?

It's like that sort of constant talk is a form of self comforting and self consoling when feeling anxious about it. If not, there really is no reason to run around saying it so much is there?

Just a thought, a question to ponder.

It's sort of funny really....all of this! Egos lol!

Icelander said:

I don't see that facing death with courage is nearly as important as using our impending death as an advisor.

Physical death most likely brings up animal fears (instinctual) but those who are unable to surrender to life and living might just find it hard to surrender to death knowing that they have run out of time. Usually we believe we can afford to put off the things we might do feeling there is time, lots and lots of time.

---

NICE!


Makes me wonder how a fear of surrendering to life and "being something more then nothing" thread would go.