Linear Vs. Cyclical

[Sub97]

So, which view of the afterlife is more valid to you? Linear (You die, and then you go to some place (Heaven, Hell, Nonexistence, etc.) for eternity. There's a clear end to it all.) Or Cyclical (You're in a cycle until you get out of it. Reincarnation.)

To me, a cyclical version of the afterlife makes more sense. This way, there's always room for you to become a better person. Also, things like terminal illness make more sense, because that could always provide a lesson on how to live in the next life. There's also the fact that I hate endings...

 

[Sunstone]

There are some things that make cycles seem plausible, at least on the surface. For instance, some people seem to be "born wiser" than others. That is, it's as if they've already made their share of certain kinds of mistakes and they skirt those mistakes almost intuitively from an early age. However -- I see no reason that couldn't be explained in ways having nothing to do with cycles of birth, death, and rebirth.

For me, I suspect linear is the way of things.

 

[Amechania]

Neither is more valid than the other since both are unsubstantiated by verifiable evidence of any sort. That being said I would suppose it would come down to what you want from an afterlife, eternal bliss or continuing growth. The problem I see with a cyclical afterlife is that unless you could somehow remember aspects of your previous life it wouldn't be of much use to you in this life.

 

[sandandfoam]

I'm inclined towards neither cyclical nor linear.
I think that maybe things just are.

 

[Sunstone]

The problem I see with a cyclical afterlife is that unless you could somehow remember aspects of your previous life it wouldn't be of much use to you in this life.

I can very well recall aspects of my previous life during which I had achieved bliss. Oh, wait, that's just my life before my ex-wives. Sorry. My mistake.

 

[Quintessence]

I used to subscribe to the idea of an afterlife, and then there was a sentence in a particular book by a particular author I read one day that made me throw that idea into the trash bin. I no longer remember what the book or the author or the sentence was, unfortunately, but it essentially pointed out a natural conclusion from things I already believed.

I already believed that existence was a continuity or more like a circle than like a line: that there are no beginnings and endings, that there is no birth or death, but only transformations or changes in state. What humans call "creation" always requires destruction of something else, and what humans call "destruction" always creates something in its place. What I read in that book made me recognize there can be nothing "after" a circle; there can be nothing "after" a continuum. It's a continuum. There is no "after" life, there is life. Or rather, an "after" life would be annihilation of all reality, forever.

I know this probably isn't what you were looking for, but maybe someone will find it interesting.

 

[George-ananda]

I'm going with 'cyclical'. But the cycle is swirling up to higher and higher spiritual levels.

 

[George-ananda]

I used to subscribe to the idea of an afterlife,

I read your post and understand and have sympathy for the view point you express. And I agree the term 'afterlife' is technically not a correct term for a spirit that knows no life or death.

However, in modern language saying 'I used to subscribe to the idea of an afterlife,' gives the wrong vibe to the majority of people. 'Afterlife' has come to mean the existence of a spirit beyond our physical death for most people.

This is one of my problems with someone like Deepak Chopra. Now I believe that guy knows his stuff. But his presentation comes off as mumbo-jumbo to too many people. He doesn't know his audience and speaks over their heads. He would rather talk about quantum consciousness than reincarnation for example.

But I guess in your case here, you are dealing with a sophisticated RF audience D) so they will read and deliberate on what you are saying and grasp what you mean by 'I used to subscribe to the idea of an afterlife,'.

 

[Willamena]

I'm inclined towards neither cyclical nor linear.
I think that maybe things just are.

Just so.

 

[Madhuri]

If there is an afterlife, reincarnation makes a LOT more sense than the heaven and hell scenario, imo.

 

[Jainarayan]

I'm in the cyclical camp. Reincarnation, rebirth, recycling or whatever one wants to call it makes more sense to me.

 

[illykitty]

If there is an afterlife, reincarnation makes a LOT more sense than the heaven and hell scenario, imo.

I agree, it is imo a sign of love from a higher being to let us develop and not judge us for eternity. Instead we are given as long as we need to learn. It just makes more sense to me too.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

So, which view of the afterlife is more valid to you? Linear (You die, and then you go to some place (Heaven, Hell, Nonexistence, etc.) for eternity. There's a clear end to it all.) Or Cyclical (You're in a cycle until you get out of it. Reincarnation.)

I don't think it makes any particular sense that god not only created this universe for us to live in, but whole other universes for us to live in "after" we live in this universe. Nor, do I think it makes any particular sense that people are important enough to get to live over and over again in different lives. Although, being aware of human narcissism and arrogance, I understand why both of these ideas appeal to people.

 

[Nakosis]

So, which view of the afterlife is more valid to you? Linear (You die, and then you go to some place (Heaven, Hell, Nonexistence, etc.) for eternity. There's a clear end to it all.) Or Cyclical (You're in a cycle until you get out of it. Reincarnation.)

To me, a cyclical version of the afterlife makes more sense. This way, there's always room for you to become a better person. Also, things like terminal illness make more sense, because that could always provide a lesson on how to live in the next life. There's also the fact that I hate endings...

Since I apparently have memories of other lives I have to stick with cyclical. Otherwise I've no personal evidence of either heaven or non-existence. Of course "memories" are no guarantee but I think a person has to stick with what seems to be true to them.

I suspect heaven is mostly the result of wishful thinking. I just couldn't imagine a place I'd want to stay at for all eternity. At least with non-existence I wouldn't have to worry about becoming bored.

 

[HexBomb]

I'm honestly not sure. I think each have their pros and cons. Linear means we're done after this life, and that would be a relief, though I think existence for eternity without changing is boring. Members of my family have always tossed cyclical ideas around, and there are some interesting studies and theories, I think it would be lovely because I'm a perfectionist who believes you are never done learning and that living over and over is far more preferable to a static eternity...and then there is the comfort of the thought of no afterlife as well. Were I to choose...I'd probably go with cyclical or none, but the afterlife isn't really a choice, is it?

 

[Twilight Hue]

So, which view of the afterlife is more valid to you? Linear (You die, and then you go to some place (Heaven, Hell, Nonexistence, etc.) for eternity. There's a clear end to it all.) Or Cyclical (You're in a cycle until you get out of it. Reincarnation.)

To me, a cyclical version of the afterlife makes more sense. This way, there's always room for you to become a better person. Also, things like terminal illness make more sense, because that could always provide a lesson on how to live in the next life. There's also the fact that I hate endings...

I would probably go for both simultaneously. Some aspects seem to point or suggest both can be applicable through the lens on how we are born and die. Some aspects of being will survive and some don't suggesting continuance while also at the same notion, suggesting a point to point beginning and end.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Cyclical. I believe in reincarnation/rebirth. But I don't think you have to make it a goal to escape the cycle, although you probably can because I think we're all ultimately in control of our individual destinies. I don't want to. I love the cosmos and want to keep coming back as much as I please.

Living one lifetime and your eternal destiny is decided on that doesn't make any sense. Plus, being in one place for eternity is boring and stagnant.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

I don't think it makes any particular sense that god not only created this universe for us to live in, but whole other universes for us to live in "after" we live in this universe. Nor, do I think it makes any particular sense that people are important enough to get to live over and over again in different lives. Although, being aware of human narcissism and arrogance, I understand why both of these ideas appeal to people.

That doesn't apply to animists. We don't think humans are special. If we have an existence beyond physical death, then so does a cockroach, an ant, a blade of grass and even a star.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

So, which view of the afterlife is more valid to you? Linear (You die, and then you go to some place (Heaven, Hell, Nonexistence, etc.) for eternity. There's a clear end to it all.) Or Cyclical (You're in a cycle until you get out of it. Reincarnation.)

To me, a cyclical version of the afterlife makes more sense. This way, there's always room for you to become a better person. Also, things like terminal illness make more sense, because that could always provide a lesson on how to live in the next life. There's also the fact that I hate endings...

I believe in impermanence, so it wouldn't make sense for me to believe that everything will constantly cycle around and around eternally. But it also wouldn't make sense for me to believe that something lasts in a linear state.

A finite cycle is more I like it. While spiritual energy that build the soul get put back into the recycling process of the spiritual world, the atoms that build the body get put back into the recycling process of the physical world. But eventually, those processes will end, things will stop being reused. Impermanence is inevitable for all things, and this does not exclude existence.

The soul requires a conscious entity to be attracted to it, and after consciousness ceases throughout existence, there will be no more of the cycle, souls will have nothing to attach onto.

No matter, though. If it is true what quantum physicists are saying; things only exist in the observed state, then post-consciousness will empty existence - nothing'll be left. All things, annihilated.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

That doesn't apply to animists. We don't think humans are special. If we have an existence beyond physical death, then so does a cockroach, an ant, a blade of grass and even a star.

I don't think it makes sense that grass and ants are important enough to live multiple lives either.