• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Is the Survival of the Self or Ego an Important Facet of your Afterlife?

Runewolf1973

Materialism/Animism
Yes my beliefs are apparently different. How did you come about your beliefs?

Long hours of contemplation... I came to the realization that anything we know to exist exists physically and therefore anything we don't know but we think might exist, can only exist if it too is something physical. I came to the realization that we can still have such things as ghosts and still have a natural, physical explanation for them. This is a physical universe full of energy and matter and there are many things we do not know. The way I see it, there is no need for "spiritual" or "supernatural" explanations for things which might otherwise be purely natural to exist. Why must ghosts be "supernatural"? What if they do in fact exist? If they do in fact exist, would that mean they are still "supernatural", or would they simply be a natural unknown to science?
 

George-ananda

Advaita Vedanta, Theosophy, Spiritualism
Premium Member
Long hours of contemplation... I came to the realization that anything we know to exist exists physically and therefore anything we don't know but we think might exist, can only exist if it too is something physical. I came to the realization that we can still have such things as ghosts and still have a natural, physical explanation for them. This is a physical universe full of energy and matter and there are many things we do not know. The way I see it, there is no need for "spiritual" or "supernatural" explanations for things which might otherwise be purely natural to exist. Why must ghosts be "supernatural"? What if they do in fact exist? If they do in fact exist, would that mean they are still "supernatural", or would they simply be a natural unknown to science?

It comes down to definitions: Lets look at definition 1 from Websters:

Supernatural-

1: of or relating to an order of existence beyond the visible observable universe; especially : of or relating to God or a god, demigod, spirit, or devil


To me it means everything beyond our known visible physical plane and that would include ghosts even though I believe ghosts use matter and energy of higher planes.

To me supernatural does not mean 'magical' but involving matter and energy beyond the visible observable universe (per the definition).

As you say ghosts have a natural explanation but that explanation includes things beyond the visible observable universe; hence supernatural.
 

Runewolf1973

Materialism/Animism
It comes down to definitions: Lets look at definition 1 from Websters:

Supernatural-

1: of or relating to an order of existence beyond the visible observable universe; especially : of or relating to God or a god, demigod, spirit, or devil


To me it means everything beyond our known visible physical plane and that would include ghosts even though I believe ghosts use matter and energy of higher planes.

To me supernatural does not mean 'magical' but involving matter and energy beyond the visible observable universe (per the definition).

As you say ghosts have a natural explanation but that explanation includes things beyond the visible observable universe; hence supernatural.

Whatever works I guess. It is just my opinion that in order for spirits or ghosts to exist as a part of nature, they must be subject to the same natural, physical laws by which everything else exists. To me an all-powerful god which creates a planet by waving hs hand can not exist naturally.There is just no way physically that such thing can exist.
 

Quagmire

Imaginary talking monkey
Staff member
Premium Member
I don't claim to lack an ego nor was I the one to describe an egoless state yet still with ownership and identity.

I'm simply exploring what was said, asking about what would come next in such a situation (It always seems to stop with "and they lived happily ever after". I figure we should hear about their grandkids once in a while.) and pointing out that the description itself seems to still have properties of an ego and would seem at least to be more accurately described as an expanded ego rather than a lack of an ego if it still does have properties of an ego.

I wonder if squirrels and birds have egos. I mean, I watch them sometimes and I wonder what the world looks like to a mind that isn't cluttered up with opinions, memories, worries, expectations, (I'm assuming they don't have any of that going on).

You can still apply pronouns to them though: they, she/he, him/her, or "you" if you talk to them (what?).
 

Penumbra

Veteran Member
Premium Member
I wonder if squirrels and birds have egos. I mean, I watch them sometimes and I wonder what the world looks like to a mind that isn't cluttered up with opinions, memories, worries, expectations, (I'm assuming they don't have any of that going on).

You can still apply pronouns to them though: they, she/he, him/her, or "you" if you talk to them (what?).
I suppose it depends on the animal. I've wondered before about whether animals are like in a constant state of blissful mindfulness or not.

Some animals, including at least one bird (the magpie) can pass the mirror test, meaning they provide sufficient evidence that they understand that it is their own self in the mirror. So that's kind of the first main ingredient, I suppose. Some visual or other sense of what a "self" is.

Baboons (who haven't even passed the mirror test), do things like bully each other, abuse each other, use babies to shield themselves from attacks, etc. Pretty nasty animals, generally. They demonstrate the ability to remember and to worry. When stressed from bullying and abuse and dominance, their blood cortisol levels increase, like humans and other animals. That's the major stress hormone. Based on how they're acting and based on having very similar physiology, they seem to be experiencing something like what we experience but not with the filter of language.

We can apply pronouns to animals that presumably do not have an ego, but would they apply pronouns to themselves?

Your description was talking basically from the perspective of some true self, casting away the human form and personality, yet remembering it, and then eventually using another form. Ego simply means a sense of "I", a sense of self, distinguishing itself from other things to some extent. And it sounds very much like your description is some consciousness that distinguishes itself, for example, from that human form it just finished, in a similar way that you might distinguish yourself from any specific part of your body such as a leg or an arm. Part of you, yet not you. Or do you mean it differently? Why did that thing take a human form in the first place, in your opinion? And why another?

_____

Btw have you ever read Emerson's essay, The Over-Soul?

Excerpt from The Over-Soul said:
Man is a stream whose source is hidden. Our being is descending into us from we know not whence. The most exact calculator has no prescience that somewhat incalculable may not balk the very next moment. I am constrained every moment to acknowledge a higher origin for events than the will I call mine.

As with events, so is it with thoughts. When I watch that flowing river, which, out of regions I see not, pours for a season its streams into me, I see that I am a pensioner; not a cause, but a surprised spectator of this ethereal water; that I desire and look up, and put myself in the attitude of reception, but from some alien energy the visions come.

The Supreme Critic on the errors of the past and the present, and the only prophet of that which must be, is that great nature in which we rest, as the earth lies in the soft arms of the atmosphere; that Unity, that Over-soul, within which every man's particular being is contained and made one with all other; that common heart, of which all sincere conversation is the worship, to which all right action is submission; that overpowering reality which confutes our tricks and talents, and constrains every one to pass for what he is, and to speak from his character, and not from his tongue, and which evermore tends to pass into our thought and hand, and become wisdom, and virtue, and power, and beauty. We live in succession, in division, in parts, in particles. Meantime within man is the soul of the whole; the wise silence; the universal beauty, to which every part and particle is equally related; the eternal ONE. And this deep power in which we exist, and whose beatitude is all accessible to us, is not only self-sufficing and perfect in every hour, but the act of seeing and the thing seen, the seer and the spectacle, the subject and the object, are one. We see the world piece by piece, as the sun, the moon, the animal, the tree; but the whole, of which these are the shining parts, is the soul.

[.....]

All goes to show that the soul in man is not an organ, but animates and exercises all the organs; is not a function, like the power of memory, of calculation, of comparison, but uses these as hands and feet; is not a faculty, but a light; is not the intellect or the will, but the master of the intellect and the will; is the background of our being, in which they lie, — an immensity not possessed and that cannot be possessed. From within or from behind, a light shines through us upon things, and makes us aware that we are nothing, but the light is all. A man is the fasade of a temple wherein all wisdom and all good abide. What we commonly call man, the eating, drinking, planting, counting man, does not, as we know him, represent himself, but misrepresents himself. Him we do not respect, but the soul, whose organ he is, would he let it appear through his action, would make our knees bend. When it breathes through his intellect, it is genius; when it breathes through his will, it is virtue; when it flows through his affection, it is love. And the blindness of the intellect begins, when it would be something of itself. The weakness of the will begins, when the individual would be something of himself. All reform aims, in some one particular, to let the soul have its way through us; in other words, to engage us to obey.
 

Alex_G

Enlightner of the Senses
I believe that when I die not only will my body return to star stuff but whatever spirit that animates and informs Cynthia will return to it's source. In other words the Divine Spark within me will return to God. In this process, I will have achieved theosis, My Will and Self will be completely transformed into God and the person and personality known as Cynthia will be subsumed and obliterated by holiness of the Divinity.

In other words, the things that make me me will not survive the transformation into divinity, anymore than the things that make up your physical body will survive the transformation into star stuff. My persona, my identity and individuality will be gone. And I am perfectly fine with this and this belief is a source of comfort to me. There is more to it than that but I am just offering the simplified version.

Anywho....

How important is it to you for your ego and self to survive death and enjoy an afterlife?

If you're asking my ego, the answer may already be obvious through some inbuilt guarantee.

In reality i don’t really believe any aspect of who i am will transcend death other than through work done and the memories of those still alive. No more will i be after death than before birth.

I’m always stuck with some level of shock by a lot of language that seems so casually used when talking religiously about God 'Cynthia will be subsumed and obliterated by holiness of the Divinity.' I don’t know if its just me but it seems so aggressive and scary in nature.

If there was indeed some eternal afterlife whereby a 'me' could continue existence, im unsure it would work out for the best. To live for eternity would surely drive you mad by that fact alone if not before by having to make small talk with dead aunties and uncles you 'sort of know' forever! Like some perpetual family reunion nightmare: P

One bit of irony i see within a lot of religious talk about this subject relates to humility. Religious people are often the first to claim they are humble people, yet based on things they say demonstrate an incredible degree of arrogance. That in this vast cosmos they are what is important, and its they who have a seat in heaven at the end. The whole framework of the afterlife within such a religious tradition is entirely fabricated for the ego of those who subscribe to it! Asking what degree of yourself or ego will go to the afterlife is quite hilarious, trust the ego to deliberate on even that!
 

Debater Slayer

Vipassana
Staff member
Premium Member
How important is it to you for your ego and self to survive death and enjoy an afterlife?

I find the idea of my current self carrying over to another realm of existence or life after death in which I get to enjoy bliss with loved ones to be appealing, but that has no bearing on how likely or unlikely I consider it to be. So it's not an important part of my worldview, and I won't be able to care about its lack of existence after dying anyway.

I think it's more important to place emphasis on how to utilize my current life to improve the world in whatever ways I can, even if they're relatively small. As long as I could do something to make the world a better place (without harming anyone) than when I first came into it, at least for those around me, then I think that would be a life well spent even if my self didn't get to survive death and transfer to another life.
 

Quagmire

Imaginary talking monkey
Staff member
Premium Member
I suppose it depends on the animal. I've wondered before about whether animals are like in a constant state of blissful mindfulness or not.

Some animals, including at least one bird (the magpie) can pass the mirror test, meaning they provide sufficient evidence that they understand that it is their own self in the mirror. So that's kind of the first main ingredient, I suppose. Some visual or other sense of what a "self" is.

Baboons (who haven't even passed the mirror test), do things like bully each other, abuse each other, use babies to shield themselves from attacks, etc. Pretty nasty animals, generally. They demonstrate the ability to remember and to worry. When stressed from bullying and abuse and dominance, their blood cortisol levels increase, like humans and other animals. That's the major stress hormone. Based on how they're acting and based on having very similar physiology, they seem to be experiencing something like what we experience but not with the filter of language.

I don't know if primates are the best example: it's been shown that at least some species are capable of abstract thought, which I would call the monkey wrench in pure mindfulness (for that matter, it's why I used birds and squirrels instead of raccoons. They've shown indications of abstract thinking too).

We can apply pronouns to animals that presumably do not have an ego, but would they apply pronouns to themselves?

Your description was talking basically from the perspective of some true self, casting away the human form and personality, yet remembering it, and then eventually using another form. Ego simply means a sense of "I", a sense of self, distinguishing itself from other things to some extent. And it sounds very much like your description is some consciousness that distinguishes itself, for example, from that human form it just finished, in a similar way that you might distinguish yourself from any specific part of your body such as a leg or an arm. Part of you, yet not you. Or do you mean it differently? Why did that thing take a human form in the first place, in your opinion? And why another?

I think when we're talking about "ego" in relation to this sort of thing it's usually in reference to a persons sense of self-importance, rather than just self-awareness. But even using the latter definition, the state of mind I envision in this scenario is one that could be aware of itself, but doesn't, because it has no reason to.

Any more than a squirrel sitting in a tree eating a nut would stop and think, "Here I am, sitting in a tree, eating a nut".

_____

Btw have you ever read Emerson's essay, The Over-Soul?

I'll read it later. :D
 

CynthiaCypher

Well-Known Member
I’m always stuck with some level of shock by a lot of language that seems so casually used when talking religiously about God 'Cynthia will be subsumed and obliterated by holiness of the Divinity.' I don’t know if its just me but it seems so aggressive and scary in nature.

Why does that seem so shocking and scary to you?
 

Alex_G

Enlightner of the Senses
Why does that seem so shocking and scary to you?

Its just such evocative and apocalyptic language/choice of words. Not for example 'I finally became part of a whole, one with God' but 'will be subsumed and obliterated by holiness of the Divinity'. I dont know it just seems like a pattern ive noticed whereby such heavy duty language is more often used within religious circles. I guess it just catches me by surprise sometimes :p
 

CynthiaCypher

Well-Known Member
Its just such evocative and apocalyptic language/choice of words. Not for example 'I finally became part of a whole, one with God' but 'will be subsumed and obliterated by holiness of the Divinity'. I dont know it just seems like a pattern ive noticed whereby such heavy duty language is more often used within religious circles. I guess it just catches me by surprise sometimes :p

How about if I put it this way: I shall be devoured by the Godhead and it shall feed upon my essence until I am totally consumed by it's hunger for me.

Is that better?
 

idav

Being
Premium Member
What I'm saying is all consciousnesses are really only One (Brahman). We are all Brahman. Below Brahman are multiple planes of matter, the densest is our normal physical world.

We are a ray of Brahman consciousness reflected through our soul body, astral/mental body and physical body. Each of these layers/bodies limits the infinite consciousness (Brahman).

Some use an onion analogy. The onion has its core/seed center surrounded by layers/rings of matter.

So does this all encompassing oneness have memory and further should it hold all memories of every individual with an ego? And does this oneness have an ego as well, an 'I'? I try hard not to treat the oneness like humans. Consciousness is a human construct and an all pervading awareness has no use for an ego.
 

George-ananda

Advaita Vedanta, Theosophy, Spiritualism
Premium Member
So does this all encompassing oneness have memory and further should it hold all memories of every individual with an ego? And does this oneness have an ego as well, an 'I'? I try hard not to treat the oneness like humans. Consciousness is a human construct and an all pervading awareness has no use for an ego.

This One/Brahman has best been described by the sages as pure sat-chit-ananda (being-bliss-awareness). It can only be experienced and can not be adequately explained by words.

The entire universe is a great play/drama; a thought-form created by Brahman's creative aspect. Things like individual memories and individual egos are just parts in the play. Individuals are an illusion ('Maya' in Hinduism). In the end all the characters realize who they really were all the time, Brahman. This is non-dualism (God and creation are not two).
 
Last edited:

Penumbra

Veteran Member
Premium Member
I don't know if primates are the best example: it's been shown that at least some species are capable of abstract thought, which I would call the monkey wrench in pure mindfulness (for that matter, it's why I used birds and squirrels instead of raccoons. They've shown indications of abstract thinking too).
Corvids (ravens, magpies, etc) have members that pass the mirror test and show critical thinking and toolmaking. So interestingly, some form of abstract thought can occur in birds as well as mammals. I had a parrot that could open the mechanism of its cage to free itself on a regular basis when I was a kid and show other forms of intelligent behavior. (I usually kept him out of the cage because a caged bird is a sad thing. Actually related to the discussion, parrots can get very stressed from lack of handling/affection and painfully rip all of their feathers out and show other signs of what is basically depression and self-mutilation. So without real language or passing the mirror test, they show great ability to suffer if not cared for properly.)

But yes, we can stick to animals that are cognitively simpler, like bunnies or something. I suppose that a valid question is whether bunnies can feel suffering from pain or not. Would suffering be an indication of some basic ego rather than pure mindfulness? Because a human monk can use methods of pure mindfulness to burn to death with perfect stillness. We can't know for absolute sure the inner subjective feelings of any animal (including other humans), but bunnies do seem to indicate actual suffering if they are grievously injured. They have some sense of memories, and memories and negative stimuli from pain work together as a basic teaching mechanism. Bunnies have the same basic brain structure as humans, including neurotransmitters that for humans regulate mood. Even organisms as simple as nematodes use dopamine for food-acquiring behavior, like humans, apparently as a reward system.

Moods and thoughts are somewhat separate, although they can influence each other. For example, a drug like cocaine fills the brain with dopamine, so one gets pleasure which is separate from thinking about anything nice in particular. Likewise, depression is related to a depletion of certain neurotransmitters like dopamine, serotonin, and norpineephrine, and so a person could be thinking about nothing negative in particular and yet simply feel terrible. So even without actual higher thought, an animal can conceivably have a mood based on what's going on with its neurotransmitters.

So the question there is whether the ability to suffer, or the ability to experience moods but not thoughts, is indication of at least some simple ego or not.

I think when we're talking about "ego" in relation to this sort of thing it's usually in reference to a persons sense of self-importance, rather than just self-awareness. But even using the latter definition, the state of mind I envision in this scenario is one that could be aware of itself, but doesn't, because it has no reason to.
I think ego is often used both ways here. Many religions preach literal oneness and to strive for pure awareness and zero separation between subject of awareness and the object of that awareness. That would be a complete lack of an ego, a self, rather than simply an inflated-self-importance type of ego.

The type of soul that Emerson describes and the type you seem to describe, is one that still has something "more" than just absolute pure awareness. For Emerson it was virtue, beauty, genius, along with some sort of sense of interrelatedness and intermingling of subject and object. For you, you're describing something along the lines of motivated behavior, as far as I can tell. The soul experiences bodies/egos, discards them, and then moves onto more. For what purpose? What you describe is action, and action without purpose is essentially random behavior. So I guess the question for how your worldview of the soul relates to an ego, is how you'd describe the reasons or lackthereof for why that soul goes through this process of having bodies in the first place, why it's taking this highly specific action.
 
I believe that when I die not only will my body return to star stuff but whatever spirit that animates and informs Cynthia will return to it's source. In other words the Divine Spark within me will return to God. In this process, I will have achieved theosis, My Will and Self will be completely transformed into God and the person and personality known as Cynthia will be subsumed and obliterated by holiness of the Divinity.

In other words, the things that make me me will not survive the transformation into divinity, anymore than the things that make up your physical body will survive the transformation into star stuff. My persona, my identity and individuality will be gone. And I am perfectly fine with this and this belief is a source of comfort to me. There is more to it than that but I am just offering the simplified version.

Anywho....

How important is it to you for your ego and self to survive death and enjoy an afterlife?
you can believe in what you want but don't call it theosis, in the greek and christian idea of theosis the individual keeps his individuality although he is deified.

This is another idea you are talking about here, that of the dissolution of the self.
 

Wildswanderer

Veteran Member
There's no after life if you are just absorbed into... whatever.
It's not the ego that survives, it's the soul.
That soul is the essential you without the garbage. That's pretty important IMO.
 

Fool

ALL in all
Premium Member
I believe that when I die not only will my body return to star stuff but whatever spirit that animates and informs Cynthia will return to it's source. In other words the Divine Spark within me will return to God. In this process, I will have achieved theosis, My Will and Self will be completely transformed into God and the person and personality known as Cynthia will be subsumed and obliterated by holiness of the Divinity.

In other words, the things that make me me will not survive the transformation into divinity, anymore than the things that make up your physical body will survive the transformation into star stuff. My persona, my identity and individuality will be gone. And I am perfectly fine with this and this belief is a source of comfort to me. There is more to it than that but I am just offering the simplified version.

Anywho....

How important is it to you for your ego and self to survive death and enjoy an afterlife?

the ego is what is known as the beast. referred in ecclesiastes 3:18

so the personality is an illusion and that illusion collapses as soon as the person that projected it, is no longer able to do so. it can be something the individual is unaware of but attempts to impress upon others. like an actor in a play, playing a part that really isn't self.

like a child playing dress up
 

idea

Question Everything
Drop returns to the ocean.
Some seek love, together forever - what deeper togetherness than actually mixed together? What greater equality, or justice, or mercy than joined in the universal ocean? The trinity - one - united in all things. All-knowing connected and mixed with all.
 

Terrywoodenpic

Oldest Heretic
I have no Idea if we will have any sort of ego, or even remember our past lives.
I can not see that what happened in a past life could have any relevance in a future one.
If we return to God it could only be as a blank sheet.
 
Top