Share on Facebook
Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast

Thread: An agnostic position towards death

  1. #1

    An agnostic position towards death

    This is an excerpt from an article by Stephen Bachelor:


    An agnostic position toward death seems more compatible with an authentic spiritual attitude. In many cases we find ourselves drawn to doctrines such as rebirth not out of a genuine existential insight or concern, but rather out of a need for consolation. At the level of popular religion, Buddhism, as much as any other tradition, has provided such consolation. Yet, if we take an agnostic position, we will find ourselves facing death as a moment of our existential encounter with life. The fundamental spiritual confrontation of human life involves the realization that we have been thrown into this world, without any choice, only to look forward to the prospect of being expelled at death. The sheer sense of bafflement and perplexity at this situation is crucial to spiritual awareness. To opt for a comforting, even a discomforting, explanation of what brought us here or what awaits us after death severely limits that very rare sense of mystery with which religion is essentially concerned. We thereby obscure with consoling man-made concepts that which most deeply terrifies and fascinates us.

    Nonetheless, among otherwise critical and discerning practitioners of the dharma, the subject of rebirth is often treated as out of bounds for honest and penetrating inquiry. While Tibetan Buddhists tend dogmatically to assert it, practitioners of Zen and vipassana tend either to overlook it or explain it away as a metaphor. Both these attitudes can equally serve to sidestep the awesome encounter with the "Great Matter of Birth and Death." Failure to summon forth the courage to risk a nondogmatic and non-evasive stance on this central issue is also liable to blur one's ethical vision. For if my actions in the world are to stem from an authentic encounter with what is most vital and mysterious in life, then they surely need to be unclouded by either dogma or prevarication. A truly agnostic position is not an excuse for indecision. If anything, it is a powerful catalyst for action; since in shifting concern away from a hypothetical future life to the dilemmas of the present, it demands precisely the kind of compassion-centered ethic advocated by Shantideva.

    A genuine spiritual attitude implies the courage to confront what it means to be human. All the pictures I entertain of heaven and hell, or cycles of rebirth, merely serve to replace the overwhelming reality of the unknown with what is known and acceptable. In this sense, to cling to the idea of rebirth, rather than treating it as a useful symbol or hypothesis, can be spiritually suffocating. If we are to take Buddhism as an ongoing existential encounter with our life here and now, then we will only gain by releasing our grip on such notions.

    https://www.stephenbatchelor.org/ind...st-agnosticism


    Any thoughts?


    .

  2. #2
    Forums Member Olderon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Location
    Concord, New Hampshire, U.S.A.
    Posts
    188
    Hi, Aloka. Thanks for the excerpt.

    First, let me say that I am attracted to and appreciate Bachelor's thinking towards death and mankind's religious rationalizations regarding death. I am particularly fascinated by the phrase "remain hidden from the prince of death" found in the suttas: AN 4.184 PTS: A ii 173
    Abhaya Sutta: Fearless as translated from the Pali by Thanissaro Bhikkhu.

    https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipi....184.than.html


    ...which discusses those who live in fear of death vs. those who have though practice come to a point where they no longer fear death. I highly recommend this as a primary (fundamental) read for all Buddhists, but especially for those who are currently enduring illnesses, which potentially bring them to death's door (interesting metaphor).

  3. #3
    Forums Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    293
    Agnosticism, by definition, means you give up on letting go of things, a central tenet of my particular take on Buddhism at least. The alternative for those who need something to cling to right now is to understand that these ideas are just a raft, to be let go of when you no longer need them.

  4. #4
    Previous Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    Posts
    20
    I haven't found that Zen teachers overlook reincarnation or refer to it as a metaphor, but can certainly understand why people might think that is so if they don't understand the nuances of Zen. Oddly enough, I find Zen to have a deeply spiritual side to it, but it's in a form that most people aren't used to. There are no beliefs per se on this subject, nor on any other subject for that matter, as Zen isn't a belief based practice, but one based on experience. There is a time when a lot of practitioners have an experience of what may be called the unborn, or what is often referred to as the answer to the koan.....show me your original face. The one you had before you were born.

    It's not necessary to have heard this koan to experience this state of the unborn, and in a lot of ways it's probably better to have never heard of it. As we are all unborn, then we do not "die" (I'm referring to our original consciousness before ego), so there is nothing to really come back. We have always been here, and we will always be here, but not in this form, as all things are impermanent. In fact, the truth of impermanence, which is a central tenant of Buddhism, would preclude a literal belief in rebirth, as again, there is nothing to be reborn since all things eventually go away, unless one brings yet another belief into it, that of karma. Cause and effect are demonstrable, but karma requires a belief. My Zen teacher is fond of saying that reincarnation is a fact. We reincarnate every moment of our lives. From moment to moment we are not the same person. If we are if we are stuck in our head, then forget it, that state is not "us" anyway, it's the state of ego. But when we drop that, it's a whole new ball game. Every moment is an opportunity to wake up to enlightenment

    The Korean Zen teacher Seung Sahn had an interesting way of looking at this, and his way was perhaps closer to a variation of Tibetan thought than Zen. In his book The Compass of Zen, he stated that millions and millions of sentient animals were murdered every year for food, so he asked himself the question..... where does their consciousness go? He felt that if you looked closely at people, you would see that some are a fox, some are a rabbit, some are birdlike, some are wise like an owl, etc. To him, this showed that animals were being reborn into human bodies, but with their previous animal characteristics.

    I personally don't have a horse in this race. My thinking is that if reincarnation happens but you don't remember your previous life, then it essentially really didn't happen. I would not rule out coming back as a rock, or a sparrow, or something like that either. But not ruling something out doesn't mean I think it's true. While I am not anxious to die, what happens then is something that all of us will find out.
    Last edited by steve marino; 19 Sep 18 at 00:03.

  5. #5
    Technical Administrator woodscooter's Avatar
    Location
    London UK
    Posts
    1,489
    Stephen Bachelor said
    All the pictures I entertain of heaven and hell, or cycles of rebirth, merely serve to replace the overwhelming reality of the unknown with what is known and acceptable.
    Of course any artist or storyteller will represent life outside this earthly plane in terms of what is familiar. (1) It gets some kind of meaning across and (2) there's nothing to base an alternative representation upon.

    This applies not only to artists and storytellers, but also to those who promote a vision of former lives or post-death activity in a spiritual sense, i.e. religious teachers.

    I think that Bachelor is missing something in describing the unknown as having "overwhelming reality".

    This is what he misses: Only the present moment exists. There is only now.

    Past life, previous lives, life-after-death, none of these have any reality at all. The thought of the unknown may well be overwhelming to Bachelor, but 'overwhelming' applies only to his thinking, not to the reality of the unknown.

    My conclusion is not agnostic but firm. Past lives and reincarnation are imaginary. We exist solely in the present moment. Time and memory are convenient concepts but they have no existence outside of our consciousness.

  6. #6
    Forums Member CoachDonSul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2018
    Location
    Near Austin, TX, USA
    Posts
    2
    Quote Originally Posted by woodscooter View Post
    My conclusion is not agnostic but firm. Past lives and reincarnation are imaginary. We exist solely in the present moment. Time and memory are convenient concepts but they have no existence outside of our consciousness.
    Well said. I agree completely.

    I especially dislike agnosticism. To me it is a stance that signifies and unwillingness to do the thinking necessary to come to a conclusion. That lacking of commitment creates unnecessary stress in our lives and in the world.

  7. #7
    Forums Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    293
    Quote Originally Posted by CoachDonSul View Post
    Well said. I agree completely.

    I especially dislike agnosticism. To me it is a stance that signifies and unwillingness to do the thinking necessary to come to a conclusion. That lacking of commitment creates unnecessary stress in our lives and in the world.
    Perhaps we can do away with agnosticism and replace it with the statement 'There is neither a God nor not a God' which seems to fit the bill for me. It steps aside from the yes/no debate which buys into the whole God thing whichever you choose.

  8. #8
    Forums Member Olderon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Location
    Concord, New Hampshire, U.S.A.
    Posts
    188
    Thanks to all for sharing of personal insights, experiences, thoughts, conclusions, and opinions there from derived. (mouthful !)

    We ( my wife & I along with several friends & family) shared Thanksgiving Dinner ( a holiday event celebrated in The Colonies of The U.S.A.).

    The host and his wife are dealing with the host husband's recovery and interactions with the medical community as related to pancreatic cancer. The gentleman is a discharged U.S. Marine, veteran of the early wars in Iraq, post Iraq's invasion of Kuwait. So far he has survived surgery and excision of the affected portions of his pancreas. He has a nine year old extremely brilliant son, who is wise to all the medical proceedings and potential consequences of his father's disease. His wife, my wife's niece is a professional psychologist and because of the potential for loss of her husband was and is distraught, all because of the realization the life is what comes between birth and death, in their case death brought on by disease.


    When the rest of the dinner guests had left, and we were on our way out the door, I raised the definition of "Dukkha", concluding that birth, aging, disease, and death, are all mandatory parts of life, but that "suffering" is not, that in times when we come to the realization of our mortality and it is nearing, that it is time to "let go" of the suffering, especially that brought on by worry, and anxiety related to life's end growing nearer in our perception, whereas before we kind of put off the idea of death as some remote event as an inevitable part of life.


    Now, these folks are practitioners of The Mormon Faith, and not only get their own planets to manage after their deaths, but they get to remain married for all eternity. So, the question which arises, is can the spouse remarry after the death of their spouse in this life? Neither one of them knew the answer to that question within the context of their faith's teachings. This is but one of the angst raising complexities of faiths, which propose life after death. In the case of Christianity of the non-Mormon type, Christ responded that all humans, male & female, wives and husbands, appear before The One True Creator God, as angels without any more marriage bonds. The point being that afterlives raise such questions and logical disputes, whereas the rejection of the notion of an afterlife does not.

  9. #9
    Quote Originally Posted by CoachDonSul
    I especially dislike agnosticism. To me it is a stance that signifies and unwillingness to do the thinking necessary to come to a conclusion. That lacking of commitment creates unnecessary stress in our lives and in the world.
    Quote Originally Posted by philg View Post
    Perhaps we can do away with agnosticism and replace it with the statement 'There is neither a God nor not a God' which seems to fit the bill for me. It steps aside from the yes/no debate which buys into the whole God thing whichever you choose.
    In my opinion, "agnosticism," in connection with Stephen Batchelor (opening post #1) and Secular Buddhism, means something rather different to notions of one kind or another about the existence of a God. It refers to a setting aside of supernatural beliefs, and of superstitious ideas about rebirth/ reincarnation, in favour of a practical application of the Buddha's teachings which are relevant to daily life in the here and now.

    The Wikipedia definition of Secular Buddhism states that it is also refered to as "agnostic Buddhism".



    PS

    For anyone who isn't familiar with Secular Buddhism, here's Doug Smith of the Secular Buddhist association with a 7 minute video "What is Secular Buddhism?"



  10. #10
    Technical Administrator woodscooter's Avatar
    Location
    London UK
    Posts
    1,489
    Quote Originally Posted by CoachDonSul View Post
    I especially dislike agnosticism. To me it is a stance that signifies and unwillingness to do the thinking necessary to come to a conclusion. That lacking of commitment creates unnecessary stress in our lives and in the world.
    I don't want to be picky, but I don't think that agnosticism reveals an unwillingness to think. I believe that it means "I have thought about this and reach the conclusion that it's not possible to know the answer". From the Greek, meaning without knowledge.

    Quote Originally Posted by philg View Post
    Perhaps we can do away with agnosticism and replace it with the statement 'There is neither a God nor not a God' which seems to fit the bill for me. It steps aside from the yes/no debate which buys into the whole God thing whichever you choose.
    I'm going to be a bit picky about this, though. If the agnostics are sitting on the fence, coming down neither one side of the other, then how is 'There is neither a God nor not a God' any different? If you want to not buy into the whole God/no God thing, then you can't help ending up in the no-God camp.

Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Los Angeles Mexico City London Colombo Kuala Lumpur Sydney
Sat, 9:30 PM Sat, 11:30 PM Sun, 5:30 AM Sun, 11:00 AM Sun, 1:30 PM Sun, 4:30 PM