"life" and "afterlife"?

[Jean-Baptiste]

Well, this does seem to have taken on a somewhat Kantian formula for looking at the world beyond experience. Would it be out of line to assume that Kant would think it alright to make a judgement based not on empirical evidence? I have not made a thorough study of the "Critique of Pure Reason," but that is my limited understanding so far.

Dontknow, that is a very good quote by Tolstoy. Do you know if his writings contain any similar implications?

byquist, I have not been acquainted with Mary Baker Eddy, but the things that you mention place her ideology nicely in line with my own. Thank you for the introduction.

bhekti, one of my favorite bits for T.S. Eliot's "The Wasteland" is
"He who was living is now dead
We who were living are now dying
With a little patience"
This seems to relate to your first post.

I would like to add a seemingly more relevant question, which will perhaps take this discussion out of the realm of religion, not that that's my intention: Can we depend on the human perspective of time and assume it to be a universal phenomenon when related to any idea of the spiritual world? There is definitely a difference between time as perceived and actually tracked. Could this imply that there may be a more proper way to think about time and sequential phenomena than comes naturally to our perceptions?

please continue the discussion; it is looking very interesting. Thank you all.

[Virgil]

bhekti, one of my favorite bits for T.S. Eliot's "The Wasteland" is
"He who was living is now dead
We who were living are now dying
With a little patience"
This seems to relate to your first post.

I would like to add a seemingly more relevant question, which will perhaps take this discussion out of the realm of religion, not that that's my intention: Can we depend on the human perspective of time and assume it to be a universal phenomenon when related to any idea of the spiritual world? There is definitely a difference between time as perceived and actually tracked. Could this imply that there may be a more proper way to think about time and sequential phenomena than comes naturally to our perceptions?

please continue the discussion; it is looking very interesting. Thank you all.

Funny you should mention T.S. Eliot. I've been studying his Four Quartets and I think he takes up this question of time that you ask. But he links it with religion. Have you read it?

[mono]

Yes that is the fact: we have no empirical evidence of pre-life or after-life.

But, mono, do you think empiricism applies here, I mean, in this area of thought?

No, not necessarily. I entirely agree with you that the basis of pre-life and/or after-life have no place in empiricism, nor does empiricism belong in the subject, for the subject seems vastly faith-based. For many individuals, faith seems enough 'proof' to believe in pre-life and/or after-life, which I would never discriminate; and, though I do not consider myself an empiricist, I think I would require slightly more proof to feel more confident in the subject. Que sera, sera most would say at my proposition, yet, just as George Berkeley wrote (in a very, very summarized form), perception cannot exist without both the perceiver and the perceived; this, I feel, includes any belief and attempted empiricism regarding the understanding of pre-life and after-life.
Just as you very wisely said:

Because, on the basis of empiricism we can neither prove or disprove the existence of pre-life or after-life, which means, there's no discussion.

I agree.

[bhekti]

bhekti, one of my favorite bits for T.S. Eliot's "The Wasteland" is
"He who was living is now dead
We who were living are now dying
With a little patience"
This seems to relate to your first post.

Ah, that's it! Now I'm going to read "Wasteland". Thank you for the information Jean.

...Can we depend on the human perspective of time and assume it to be a universal phenomenon when related to any idea of the spiritual world? There is definitely a difference between time as perceived and actually tracked. Could this imply that there may be a more proper way to think about time and sequential phenomena than comes naturally to our perceptions?

In Greek (if I'm not mistaken) time can be recognized as "kronos" and "kairos". Time as "kronos" is that which is measured by seconds, minutes, hours, days, and so on. Time as "kairos" is what we call the moment; it is not conceived in numerical measurement, but in something which is more spiritual in nature. Now, all of us, I believe, have "kairos" in the span of our "kronos". The content of "kairos" may differ according to individuality of every person, but the nature of that content, I believe, is universal (means: everybody can know and understand... there is an english word for this, but agh I forgot!)

So I think human perspective on time (as kairos) is a universal phenomenon, and it can be taken as the ground to relate whatever happens in the 'kronos' to the spiritual world.

[Jean-Baptiste]

from "Burnt Norton"
in "Four Quartets
by T.S. Eliot
"Time present and time past
Are both perhaps present in time future,
And time future contained in time past.
If all time is eternally present
All time is unredeemable.
What might have been is an abstraction
Remaining a perpetual possibility
Only in a world of speculation.
What might have been and what has been
Point to one end, which is always present.
Footfalls echo in the memory
Down the passage which we did not take
Towards the door we never opened
Into the rose-garden. My words echo
Thus, in your mind."

Yes, Virgil, I love this book. Thank you for bringing it up. It does seem to treat this subject very directly.

[byquist]

J-B,

Regarding your follow-up inquiry, while surfing the boob-tube today I stopped at a John McLaughlin interview with husband-wife, clearly perfect soul-mates, Joel Primack and Nancy Abrahms who co-wrote "The View from the Center of the Universe." They were somewhat interesting songbirds talking with ultra seriousness as to the nature of the universe - beginning to end. According to Nancy, "we're made of star dust." We were cooked inside a star before it exploded. And McL asking Joel, "Do you believe this?" Joel replies, "Absolutely." Also Joel is asked, Are there "no invisible human beings out there?" Joel replies with certitude, "No."

I'm somewhat (but only somewhat) amazed at the stark ultra-confidence of these types of authors as to their easy possession of assumed infinite wisdom. Personally, I like to see more humility, which neither of these showed much of in the interview, although they were very amiable and humanitarian. Anyways, they and their natural science venue, including the Swiss/French border supercollider that's presumably going to indicate for us the final answers to everything, is worth looking up through googling.

Personally, I tend to trust folks that also have a tad of frivolity and, for instance, might not take the Big Bang theory as absolutely astute and undeniable fact. Some, perhaps many, advanced physicists, so I've gathered, see things in ways that they are finding words insufficient to explain. Don't know to what extent the above-mentioned book pushes the envelope and goes into new territory, or if it just retreads the same old hash. But it certainly is contemporary, 2006, and presumes to be on to something regarding the subj. you bring up, -- time, creation, meaning, etc.

[Jean-Baptiste]

That's very interesting, byquist. Yes, I agree that overmuch self-assuredness is quite disconcerting.

I was watching a program the other night: a presentation by a Jesuit physicist on the connection between science and religion. His views were quite startling, coming from a Priest. His name was George Coyne, director of the Vatican Observatory. He was advocating the Big Bang theory, and outlining the evolutionary progress of the Universe. Nothing in his presentation seemed contradictory with the Creation theory, a thing which I've heard of happening, but had never had the connection explained in such depth. Though I'm not Catholic, I was heartily in agreement with his views.

"Some, perhaps many, advanced physicists, so I've gathered, see things in ways that they are finding words insufficient to explain."
Yes, there is apparently much left to explain about what's going on here in the Universe. And yes, it is nice when a serious authority is direct about our limited knowledge.

[Virgil]

That's very interesting, byquist. Yes, I agree that overmuch self-assuredness is quite disconcerting.

I was watching a program the other night: a presentation by a Jesuit physicist on the connection between science and religion. His views were quite startling, coming from a Priest. His name was George Coyne, director of the Vatican Observatory. He was advocating the Big Bang theory, and outlining the evolutionary progress of the Universe. Nothing in his presentation seemed contradictory with the Creation theory, a thing which I've heard of happening, but had never had the connection explained in such depth. Though I'm not Catholic, I was heartily in agreement with his views.

"Some, perhaps many, advanced physicists, so I've gathered, see things in ways that they are finding words insufficient to explain."
Yes, there is apparently much left to explain about what's going on here in the Universe. And yes, it is nice when a serious authority is direct about our limited knowledge.

Why is that surprising? The Roman Catholic Church has supported modern physics and evolution for years. The difference as i see it between the Church and say atheist sacientists is that the Church believes that God is the hand of science and atheists believe that science just is.

[Jean-Baptiste]

Oh yes, quite right, Virgil. Sorry that I was no more forthcoming in coverage of the man's statements. I'll try to clarify my reason for surprise. Many of my friends are Catholic, and I've never heard from them any such notion of evolution as an evil heresy. The thing that struck me about this man's view was that he asked the question, whether God knew that the Human brain was the inevitable outcome of the chance/opportunity/necessity of the universal evolution at the 2 billion year point after the Big Bang (on a 13 billion year scale) and the answer that he gave was No. This seems to be a definite divergence from the God-knows-all-and-has-always-known position that seems rampant in modern Christendom. Of course, I could be wrong, and this could be a definite point of doctrine with the Church; if so, please straighten me out.

"The difference as i see it...the Church believes that God is the hand of science and atheists believe that science just is."

I very much like your statement of comparison. I'm going to quote you on that. As always, Virgil, thanks for your contribution.

[Virgil]

"The difference as i see it...the Church believes that God is the hand of science and atheists believe that science just is."

I very much like your statement of comparison. I'm going to quote you on that. As always, Virgil, thanks for your contribution.

Your welcome. And feel free to use it.

[subterranean]

I have some somewhat silly questions for the echatologists in the forum.

Do you think it’s strange that “this world and the next” are in chronological order in the human perspective?
Is it simply a matter of parallax?
Is there any reason behind the terminology of “life” and “afterlife”?
This does presuppose an assumption of afterlife, but does the term “afterlife” necessarily indicate a position in time relative to a living person?
Why not prelife and then life? I guess that that could be found in some form of metempsychosis.
Are there any religious texts that you can suggest that deal with such a topic? I'd be very interested in finding something along these lines, from whatever religious background.

Any suggestions or answers would be welcome.

Hi J.B., suppose you want to check this page

http://www.experiencefestival.com/a/..._death/id/9725

There's a writing by Sri Swami_Sivananda in title of Life after death: What Becomes Of The Soul After Death. I have only briefly checked out some of the chapters, and I think his writing covers some fundamental aspects related to life/death/after life.

[Shield&Sword]

Hello all.
Long time i didnt post any thing and didnt disturb you with my bad spelling, i was in my country spending summer with family, now study is back, i wish good school/univ. for all.

I will talk as always from islamic point of view.
In arabic this life we are living now is called Alhaya Addonia, this word mean the lower life (in value). The life after death is called Alhaya Ala'khera this mean "the last life". I think calling this life we are living now "Pre-life" or calling it "life" depend on pearson. When i read in Holy Quran about the other life and what God sw prepaired for people who believe in him and do as He want, i dont consider this life here a life, it seems to me so cheap, and the real life will be after death, where eternity will begin, and every one will meet his deeds. Its all matter of believing in God sw, believing in life after death mean believing in soul, because most of the material body will vanish and remain the soul, so death is a "between life" between this life and other life. If you want the truth i dont explain this matter in philosofic terms, i prefair to look at things throght a window without glass, directly to the point, there is no need to say what Smeth and Mat and Hillary and so on names said. I am in the 1st life now, and i am sure i will be in the 2nd life and will be 2 m underground and then in the 3rd and last life. No matter how i explain things, it wont change facts, 2 more to pass.

[Jean-Baptiste]

That's very interesting, Shield&Sword. Can you tell us anything about the origin of the soul, according to the Holy Quran? Is there perhaps a glimmer of a prior existence in the Islamic faith? I don't think that there is much of such a thing in the JudeoChristian view, but I could be mistaken. I too look forward to another form of existence, but I like to take a more Existential point of view, and attach importance to my present form of life. I cannot go along with the Gnostic sentiment that physical being is evil or lowly. I think it's necessary, and its goodness is dependent on the individual. Not to draw a connection between Islam and Gnosticism, of course.

Thank you, Subterranean, for the link. It looks very interesting. And, by the way, I love your new Avatar. I have Radiohead's similar blinking smiling thing as a tiled wallpaper on my computer. It's very mesmerizing.

[subterranean]

Thank you, Subterranean, for the link. It looks very interesting. And, by the way, I love your new Avatar. I have Radiohead's similar blinking smiling thing as a tiled wallpaper on my computer. It's very mesmerizing.

No problem, J.B. And likewise, thank you for the compliment on my avy. Not many people appriciate this cute blinking bear

I forgot to post this before, but some nights ago I read something in Psalm, which I think related to prelife condition of man:

Psalm 139:
13 For thou hast possessed my reins: thou hast covered me in my mother's womb. 14 I will praise thee; for I am fearfully and wonderfully made: marvellous are thy works; and that my soul knoweth right well. 15 My substance was not hid from thee, when I was made in secret, and curiously wrought in the lowest parts of the earth. 16 Thine eyes did see my substance, yet being unperfect; and in thy book all my members were written which in continuance were fashioned, when as yet there was none of them.

[Shield&Sword]

In islam soul is something that was created by God, and its connected in the body in every part of it, when the person die this soul begin to disconnect from the body begining as i remember from the lower part of the body untle it reach the throat, that why we hear the person who is deing try to breath inside, because he is trying to get his soul back when it reach the throat, especially people who didnt behaive as God wanted or didnt believe in him. At this point its finished, death period began and the person will meet what made in his life before death, did he admit God created all? did he do as God wanted or he prefaired to live as he want saying there is no god and bad?. Some islamic scholars described the connection of soul with body like water that enter in a stick in a nice way.
I forget to say that Angel of death is the one wh get the soul go, he sit near the head of the one who is deing and call the soul of the good person "good soul" and there are angels that come with him and they begin to take it of from the different part of the body, thats why people who are deing look at one point and alot of them dont care about people who sit near them because they can see angels. I remember my grandfather when he died he began to sweat alot and didnt scream he knew it was the moment and said to my grandmother hold my hand, and its all over in few mintues without pain, he was pure and strong believer, even in the moment he was deing from the last words he said: "i thank Allah i didnt make adultery in my whole life" ,because the person begin to remember what good and bad he did in life. If the person is good his soul will be taken like a hair from dough, if the person is bad his soul will be taken like taking thistle from cotton thats why some people who are deing begin to shout. When the soul leave the body the eyes of the person are opened and concentrated in one point above, they are concentrated on the soul and follow it, prophet Muhammed pbuh ordered us to close the eyes of the died person.
Exactly what is soul no one know only God know, what it's nature and so on questions. Not knowing the soul i think its another test for people, who believe and who doesnt.
Death give more meaning to life, thats why prophet Muhammed pbuh encoureged us to visit cemetery so we will always remember our last home and believe in God and do good deeds as we can. all are sure that they will taste it, no one will excape it, what did people prepaire for it?