Discussion Afterlife (and related) general discussion

[waterstrider]

Maybe we all should care less about what comes after death since nobody will ever truly know and focus more on how to improve our current state.

 

[nex]

My take.

An insect may seem primitive but perhaps its brain has developed some primitive sense of self if it served its evolution. A rat brain may have developed a higher sense of self. Cats, dogs, elephants, dolphins, monkeys may have developed an ever higher sense of self in their brains because that was beneficial in their evolution. But it's still no more than a fabrication within the machinery of their heads that turned out to be an evolutionary advantage. Just like the insect, the dog will simply cease to exist when it dies.

We humans are really full of ourselves, thinking about everything, having fantasies about our superiority, denying that at the core we're pretty much the same thing as a dog. We like to think that our sense of self is some sort of actual insight and we like to believe that our self somehow transcends nature, because we're aware of death but can't imagine what it means to our self. But this is all fabricated by our brains which have evolved to a point where we think of ourselves as eternal beings, but in most cases haven't evolved so far as to realise that that's an illusion. We struggle to find narratives that somehow preserve our selfs after death, without any evidence of any such thing actually happening.

When this brain dies, everything within it dies, including all those ideas of self. All those ideas, all those concepts die with the brain that created them. We just cease to exist because this "self" was a fabrication of the brain that just died.

There's not even "eternal nothingness" because there is nothing eternal about our brains. When the brain dies, there's simply nothing left. There's just nonexistence without any awareness left, because again awareness is a feature of a living brain.

 

[dreadpirateroberts69]

When you consider whether there's afterlife or not you need to ask - afterlife of WHAT? There are three things here - self, personality and body. I believe death is a destruction of both body and personality. Yet self is not destroyed simply because existence of self is not dependent upon existence of any particular body or personality. It's just people conflate personality with self but think of it this way - if long time ago say at age 3 you were put in entirely different enviroment then by this time you would have totally different memories and probably a different emotional structure too. Yet it would still be you wouldn't it? Or take you at 3 years old. Personally I don't even remember how it was, what this kid felt and remembered yet for him it was an immediate reality. So any kid at 3 right now is more like him than I am right now at my age of 35. Even though it was me. So in a way this kid is gone already and to me there's no problem here.

I know this is a very very old post but I just gotta say, that is some galaxy brain shit right there. I like the way you think.

 

[Pluto]

There is no evidence of hell from any religion. Only written accounts.

Using Christianity as an example, my understanding is that hell was originally described as a place of punishment, possibly temporarily, in the afterlife. The Catholic Church - which was really a conflation of Christianity with vast political masterminding - turned it into an eternal torture for non-Catholics. I think of it as the greatest scam of all time; manufacturing a terrifying problem that can never be disproven and then taking people's money and power in order to sell them an imaginary solution.

A minority of NDEs have hellacious imagery, though it could be argued that this is a manifestation of the person's own fears, and it will never be eternal. There's "nothing to fear but fear itself."

 

[mlha]

I know this is a very very old post but I just gotta say, that is some galaxy brain shit right there. I like the way you think.

There's a perspective which pretty much disagrees with it. The self of yours emerges inside the body of yours which already exists and is alive, i.e. the self is contained in the alive body, therefore the self "submerges" (ceases to exist) when the body dies. And the personality of yours is just an attribute of the self of yours.

 

[Imustbefree]

Quotes from the Seth material:

"You cannot be afraid of the opinions of the world unless you value its opinions above your own. This is a difficult lesson to learn, and many live lives in which the entire question is never encountered."

"Physical reality itself is a dream within a larger existence, from that existence you seem to be dreaming while you are in physical life."

"There is no past, present, or future. These only appear to those who exist within physical reality."

"Intuition represents the directions of the inner self, breaking through conscious barriers."

"If you understood to begin with that you are a spirit, and therefore free of space and time yourself, then you could at least consider the possibility that some such messages were coming to you from other portions of your own reality."

''You may make a note here that Nostradamus saw the dissolution of the Roman Catholic Church as the end of the world. He could not imagine civilization without it, hence many of his later (psychic) predictions should be read with this in mind."

"Let me take this moment to state again that there are no devils or demons, except as you create them out of your belief."

 

[Rollo]

There's a perspective which pretty much disagrees with it. The self of yours emerges inside the body of yours which already exists and is alive, i.e. the self is contained in the alive body, therefore the self "submerges" (ceases to exist) when the body dies. And the personality of yours is just an attribute of the self of yours.

Body is a thing. Matter. So it's only things and other types of physical phenomena like electric impulses that can be inside the body. Self is not thing, rather things are part of self's experience. The only way and sense in which self can be actually inside the body is if self (you) opens it and looks or touches inside of it. Or in any other way feels inside of it like when your tongue feels inside of your mouth. In the same spirit memories are not 'inside' the brain, despite being dependent upon brain. "Inside", "outside" etc are all part of physical universe and as such are part of self's experience and self's memory.

 

[mlha]

Body is a thing. Matter. So it's only things and other types of physical phenomena like electric impulses that can be inside the body. Self is not thing, rather things are part of self's experience. The only way and sense in which self can be actually inside the body is if self (you) opens it and looks or touches inside of it. Or in any other way feels inside of it like when your tongue feels inside of your mouth. In the same spirit memories are not 'inside' the brain, despite being dependent upon brain. "Inside", "outside" etc are all part of physical universe and as such are part of self's experience and self's memory.

A self has an important property: it references itself, it's both a subject and an object (a thing). It can examine itself and during that examination it finds out that it resides in a body.
Memories + current qualia of stimuli are identified with a self, if the self finds out that it resides in a body so do the pertinent memories.

(I have never experienced not being in my body.)

 

[lonerclown666]

im surprised how many suidicial people here dont care about after life on what happen next i care i wonder if we just go to another dimension or its darkness forever

 

[Rollo]

A self has an important property: it references itself, it's both a subject and an object (a thing). It can examine itself and during that examination it finds out that it resides in a body.
Memories + current qualia of stimuli are identified with a self, if the self finds out that it resides in a body so do the pertinent memories.

(I have never experienced not being in my body.)

Thank you for your response, sir (ma'am).

To be perfectly honest I don't always enjoy when my opinions are being challenged, however it gives me an opportunity to work out an old noodle and that's something I truly appreciate.

I don't really like the word 'references' in this context cause to me it has a vague meaning here. However then you use the word 'examine', and that's the word I do clearly understand. I agree with you - self does have a property of examining itself. At least my sure does. That is to say - I can examine myself. I and myself (or my self) has an identical meaning to me. For this reason I also don't quite like the designation of self as "it". I am not a thing and so self is not a thing. Being is not a thing. Animal beings are referred to in english language as 'it', precisely for the reason to deny that they are spirits but rather simply moving things like robots. Which is not true either. There is only one specific sense in which you can say that self is a thing. Which is that everything in the world, including things, are part of self's experience and thus part of self. Still both in language and in reality there's distinction between environment and a being existing in this environment, experiencing it. Thus for example words 'human' and 'human body' are not synonyms. Still purely to follow rules of the language I will refer to self as it, but it should be understood that a living being is meant.

Now getting back to self-examination. You should agree that self is capable of not only examining itself but also of examining everything else it's presented with, most notably physical environment. I earlier said that only things can have location, which wasn't really correct. Sure self can determine it's location in relation to things as well. For example right now I'm located inside my house. I also understand this process by which you determined that you're located inside your body. I can do the same. However the phrase 'inside the body' is not really correct. For once you can look at your finger, you can touch it too. You're clearly looking at it from outside and touching it from outside, not from inside. Even the sensation of touch from this finger comes from the SURFACE of this finger coming into contact with other surfaces. All of it hardly 'inside'. And the same can be said about any part of the body including eyeballs, which you can see from the outside using the mirror and touch from the outside too (not that I'm a fan of touching eyeballs). So AT THE VERY LEAST you're located as much OUTSIDE of your body as inside, and the reality is much more on the outside. Still on the inside too, through muscular feelings, through feeling of air being sucked into the lungs etc. Having said that you're ofcourse attached and connected to your body - that's true. What's not true is that neither you ARE a body nor you are some thing. It's just seems that you conflate you (your self) with some sort of imaginary substance, and then believe that this substance is located somewhere inside the body (inside the brain I guess). Which is a pure work, or rather malfunction, of imagination and has no bearing on reality.

Now we can proceed to the main point that you responded to, which is not the location of self but rather whether self survives the destruction of an individual body. My point is that self survives simply because self is not distinct from one being to another. Say I cloned you right now exactly as you are, body and personality wise, and put one copy of you on another planet, while another copy remains on Earth. Which one is you? Clearly both. Then say I killed one copy. Have you survived? You clearly did cause here you are walking the Earth, or another planet, doesn't matter. While it's also true that an individual being was killed. Because both these copies are identical. But let's say a year passed. Now the copies are not identical. Different experiences, different memories, perhaps even different life outlooks. Which one is you? Still both right? Because they both are modifications of personality state that you identify as you. Given the magnitude of the physical universe it can even be that the exact copy of your body and personality exists right now either on Earth or on another planet, but in any case most likely the one exists which bears all the same qualities and types of memories of your personality which you consider as important, while some minor unimportant details may vary. Thus your individual death won't even annihilate your personality, cause another individual personality just like yours will carry on. And ofcourse it won't annihilate your self. Because even though to your state of mind self is inseparable from personality, in reality they are separate and self is the same not only from human being to human being, but even from human being to animal being. And so once again given the size of the universe, even if our planet explodes tomorrow - self will be in no slightest danger of disappearing.

 

[mlha]

I and myself (or my self) has an identical meaning to me.

Yes, for me too.

Being is not a thing.

Beings are existing things and usually it's narrowed down to things imbued with selfness, but if you don't like that word we could use entity. (Btw. I'd probably say I'm not Platonist, a notion of a perfect mathematical circle isn't a being for me.)

There is only one specific sense in which you can say that self is a thing. Which is that everything in the world, including things, are part of self's experience and thus part of self.

Things induce qualia which are perceived by my self, but things aren't part of qualia. (I believe things which induce qualia exist.) My self also perceives I, here I concede that I is akin to a quale and not to a thing, the thing inducing it is probably a conrete activity in my brain (similarly as a whirl in water is a thing, at least I'd say it's a thing). I also believe there are other selfs which I cannot perceive, but I can perceive their acts in the environment.
Experiencing is an integration of particular perceptions and possibly some of my acts thus things and other selfs aren't part of my self.

However the phrase 'inside the body' is not really correct. For once you can look at your finger, you can touch it too. You're clearly looking at it from outside and touching it from outside, not from inside.

There's a boundary between me and the environment, on that boundary* I perceive qualia. When I touch my body, I feel pressure at two places on that boundary. When I look at my body I can see its image, where does that image exists? It's on the boundary, in this case retinas. This boundary isn't outside of my body.

*and also inside or think of that boundary being very intricate discontinuous around all sensorical cells.

Earlier I said, that I identify with memories + current qualia (I should also add the current thought) so in this case the boundary is part of me; however, it's not outside of my body.

What's not true is that neither you ARE a body nor you are some thing. It's just seems that you conflate you (your self) with some sort of imaginary substance, and then believe that this substance is located somewhere inside the body (inside the brain I guess). Which is a pure work, or rather malfunction, of imagination and has no bearing on reality.

Yeah, I'm not my body and with being a thing I'm not so sure anymore as I mentioned above. Nonetheless, my qualia have never been at other places than that boundary, I've never had perceptions outside of my body.

My point is that self survives simply because self is not distinct from one being to another.

That's where we differ, I believe there are other selfs which I cannot perceive.

Say I cloned you right now exactly as you are, body and personality wise, and put one copy of you on another planet, while another copy remains on Earth. Which one is you? Clearly both. Then say I killed one copy. Have you survived? You clearly did cause here you are walking the Earth, or another planet, doesn't matter.

If and only if I percieve being at two locations simultaneously, then my body would consist of two parts and yes I'd survive, I'd percieve being only at one location.

While it's also true that an individual being was killed.

I disagree, only a body would be killed, not the individual being, me, who was at two locations simultaneously.

Because both these copies are identical. But let's say a year passed. Now the copies are not identical. Different experiences, different memories, perhaps even different life outlooks. Which one is you? Still both right?

If I can perceive from two parts of my body and control them, the perceptions would be integrated into common experiences and I would form common memories.

Because they both are modifications of personality state that you identify as you.

I don't identify with personality, I attribute personality to myself.

Given the magnitude of the physical universe it can even be that the exact copy of your body and personality exists right now either on Earth or on another planet, but in any case most likely the one exists which bears all the same qualities and types of memories of your personality which you consider as important, while some minor unimportant details may vary.

Contrary to the magnitude of the physical universe, I only perceive being at one location.
And it's possible it can't be changed, provided my self is subject to the no-cloning theorem.

Thus your individual death won't even annihilate your personality, cause another individual personality just like yours will carry on. And ofcourse it won't annihilate your self. Because even though to your state of mind self is inseparable from personality, in reality they are separate and self is the same not only from human being to human being, but even from human being to animal being. And so once again given the size of the universe, even if our planet explodes tomorrow - self will be in no slightest danger of disappearing.

Therefore I'll cease to exist. Selfs have the same property of perceiving themselves, but they're distinct.

 

[The Disinherited]

If you believe we live in a good Universe then you HAVE to believe there's an afterlife.

If just one person lived and died miserably and unfulfilled that would invalidate the goodness of the universe (so if 99.9999etc% of people lived orgasmic lives but just one person lived a less than satisfactory life, died and then had no afterlife then that would, as I've said, invalidate the goodness of the universe because it would have been better for there to have been nothing (and no universe) because the one sad soul could have been spared the misery of existing however mild that misery was)

So for us optimists we acknowledge the survival of our identity in whatever way necessary whether that be bodily resurrection by Jesus or reincarnation, the survival of our identity is absolutely necessary to justify the universe as good (and I must make it explicitly clear regarding reincarnation that the "Insight" that one was another person who, let's say, lived a dreadful life that one's current good life has redeemed / justified is essential, without this insight, which would prove albeit subjectively (and unscientifically) the continuation or survival of one's identity, reincarnation is pointless. (silly inklings such as merely saying that I think I was a farmer, pirate or pigeon in a past live don't compare to the direct knowledge that one was someone that you could then go and verify for yourself through records like their address or birth records which you will know before verifying through the supernatural insight that "they" were/are really you (and you could say verifying what you already know is a waste of time))

A bad universe is the universe that current scientific consensus supports. It's (a bad universe) one where humans come into being (beginning with that first single celled organism or whatever) to have our "fitness" tested by natural selection, where our genes constantly mutate (or whatever) to adapt to the environment around us and strive to replicate themselves and thus live forever, consciousness is seen as a byproduct of evolution (I believe popular contemporary jargon is that consciousness is an emergent feature (or is the word property?) of the brain that was somehow conducive to our survival (senseless drivel I'll admit because there's no good reason here as to why we coudn't have done just as well in the game of natural selection unconsciously)), and it's tough luck if you're assortment of genes are such that you experience your one particular and finite life as painful, life is a lottery with mother nature calling the winning numbers. In this worldview there's no reason for an afterlife because one's experience will cease with the death of the body and therefore the universe is an evil place unless you're a utilitarian who believes the 99.9999etc % of people living orgasmic lives (which isnt even the case in reality although surveys suggest most people aren't depressed/miserable/suicidal so you get my point) justify just one person who lived and died unhappily without some continuation of his/her identity to justify their bad life.

 

[EliphasBlackwood]

Reincarnation would be neat. Another chance to actually live a decent life and be happy and maybe just maybe not be plagued with mental illness so bad that it completely ruins any resemblance of happiness. That being said there probably is no afterlife because that would mean we live in good and caring universe. We don't so we get jack and shit.

 

[171S]

Reincarnation would be neat. Another chance to actually live a decent life and be happy and maybe just maybe not be plagued with mental illness so bad that it completely ruins any resemblance of happiness. That being said there probably is no afterlife because that would mean we live in good and caring universe. We don't so we get jack and shit.

A random reincarnation is a terrible idea, most lives in the planet are not worth having, and more than one reincarnation would expose you to even more suffering.

Why would anyone view the universe as having a personality with emotional human qualities? Its just a dimensional concept of the space things in.

Why do you asume an afterlife needs to be a pleasant experience as a requirement?

Maybe its just a void of very limited sensory perception that lasts some period of time, maybe a few minutes or hours, or a random length of time.

Or maybe you just think you are sort of floating around space and you vaguely sense that your subconscious is connected to some sort of grid that covers the whole earth and is connected to all life forms but you cannot see or hear anything and you forget your past quickly because you barely have any conscious energy left at your disposal and just drift for some time between the tangles and waves of this grid but quickly or eventually just sort of melt away in between thus grid that takes you apart without you even noticing or being able to reason, because your consciousness no longer serves it since you are no longer connected to a physical body capable of sensory input and you no longer feed any valuable energy into this grid system that only serves to connect life forms in some consious way in order transfer and communicate information between the subjects simple information regarding threats and opportunities for its survival and evolution.

Maybe thats all there is to what people call the spiritual world, a grid but they feed into it information that is way more complicated than it should be and maybe thats why we have all these accounts for different positive and negative religious experiences because intense and recurrent feeds into it have created semi-autonomous information systems that exist in nodes and sort of reach out to some people at given times given certain circumstances that have been programmed into the system, and similarly peoples concscious will reaches into the system to seek information and energy from this synthetic creation that resembles a computational machine with its variables and constants and has in it different personalities, modes of action, but its dependent on the input of mind energy from the sensorial will of the like minded people that connect to it or are reached out from this sum total of different desires, instincts, and experiences that it has accumulated for who knows how long.

But without a body to feed energy into it you cant connect for long or maybe at all and certainly you cant actually live in any part of this grid or its multiple nodes since its just like a machine being fed and distributing to the physically and mentally alive, its sole purpose being to serve the living persons and creatures on earth.

 

[LONE WOLF.]

Personally I believe in Flying Spaghetti Monster religion, which has its own sacred books, churches and priests. The afterlife includes a beer volcano.

Would you be able to prove that Flying Spaghetti Monster is not real?

@MrNobody Please tell me more about the beer volcano! How often does it erupt or is it a 24/7 gusher???

 

[ghost_]

all I want is for peace


I want it all to stop

 

[EliphasBlackwood]

A random reincarnation is a terrible idea, most lives in the planet are not worth having, and more than one reincarnation would expose you to even more suffering

True. I do like the idea of beginning again with a clean slate. But chances are you would be reincarnated into someone in a much worse place. And considering the approaching environmental apocalypse that new life might not last that long. I don't believe in any of it anyway.

 

[...]

If I had to bet I would say it is either one of only two things

My most likely belief 1) nothing happens after we die, our consciousness is the result of electrical impulses in our brain and that will cease upon death. nothingness in the sense that we can't even feel nothing. and nothing happens because all of this is a simulation of some sorts which we can't comprehend. a bunch of variables have been created and though we have odds and choices between multiple options in life, the options we have are all predetermined. i reckon one day humanity could build a computer drive big enough that we could run a simulation with enough variables in it to mirror a universe type program. like a random Sims generator but on crack.

then the only other theory i give anytime to is 2) reincarnation. - though i think that's less likely.

 

[tieiwi]

Based on reading some near death experiences, I've come to the conclusion that the "afterlife" is just us experiencing the last moments of our subconscious mind. People wrote about how when they were "dead", time in their mind went by slow when in reality not much time had passed. There's also been proof of there still being some brain function even after someone has died. I think those few seconds or minutes are considered that persons "afterlife". Only minutes could have gone by but in the mind it could be years. This theory though doesn't explain some people seeing nothing, maybe they hadn't really "died". But then again none of the people who have NDEs really die.

 

[dropintheocean]

I have the impresdion that theres even some scientific evidence about conciousness not being produced by brain even though theres connection obviously. Some talk about non localized conciousness. I do feel we have a mind or soul that continues after our bodies die. Therefore I want to take refugee in something bigger. Like people do in spirituality/religions; taking refugee on God/Buddhas/Jesus/ones own buddha nature. But thats just me. Everyone can ofcourse choose themselves. I like the idea of Amitabha and his pure land. Praying to him so that he would help ones soul to get there after this body dies.

Im sending love and support for you all!

 

[WearyHSP]

Interesting thread. Wish it was continuing.

I believe in reincarnation, mostly because it makes sense to me and feels right in my body. Also because while searching for relief from childhood trauma, I did years of clairvoyant training. The training was as a therapy, the theory being when you give a healing, you get a healing and people can mirror you in a way that you can see, when you can't see yourself. (long story.)
As a result I've given hundreds of "past life" readings and they've frequently landed in unexpected, affirming ways.

The situations I've been placed in this incarnation have been intolerable with no solid ground in any area and no way out. To me, that doesn't mean a different life in a different body would neccesarily be so tragic as this lifetime has been.

I'm not afraid of being judged. I've been a decent person despite the horrible things that have happened to me.I believe the harsh old testament God was born of man's need to control, AKA Not the truth of divinity.

Also, if I ctb into nothingness, I'm absolutely fine with that.

 

[aprilshowers]

I won't bother speculating on the existence of an afterlife or a god, since those higher mysteries are far beyond my mind's capabilities. What concerns me is if there is an afterlife, then, given that I am not unshackled from innate human ignorance upon death, my suicide is pointless. Worse still, if there is a god/creator entity, they are malevolent enough to curse man with ignorance in the first place.

 

[Julgran]

Having lost much joy of life, I was struck by a strange thought recently, that I surely am not the only one to have pondered.

Why does anything at all exist? This question does not revolve around the meaning of life, but rather, the physical existence of everything - from plants, to animals, space, planets and time. Imagine that we could remove all planets and stars in space, along with everything on them, including us humans. Then we remove space itself. What is then left in "reality"? Why would anything ever be created in the first place, including time and space? Why wouldm't there just be nothing instead, as if "reality" was a movie on a TV screen that never even started to play?

This is just a philosophical question that's interesting to think about, and by chance, it will remove some angst that some may have about things that they feel that they need to accomplish in life - because, in the end, we are living in a "reality" that we don't even understand what it is.

 

[mlha]

Having lost much joy of life, I was struck by a strange thought recently, that I surely am not the only one to have pondered.

Why does anything at all exist? This question does not revolve around the meaning of life, but rather, the physical existence of everything - from plants, to animals, space, planets and time. Imagine that we could remove all planets and stars in space, along with everything on them, including us humans. Then we remove space itself. What is then left in "reality"? Why would anything ever be created in the first place, including time and space? Why wouldm't there just be nothing instead, as if "reality" was a movie on a TV screen that never even started to play?

This is just a philosophical question that's interesting to think about, and by chance, it will remove some angst that some may have about things that they feel that they need to accomplish in life - because, in the end, we are living in a "reality" that we don't even understand what it is.

Perhaps nothingness resembles a contradiction in classical logic then by the principle of explosion there exists anything and some of these things generate self-awareness. (We are self-aware and we're humans so it'd make sense only if the easiest way to be self-aware-generating is via the anthropogenic route.)

 

[Julgran]

Perhaps nothingness resembles a contradiction in classical logic then by the principle of explosion there exists anything and some of these things generate self-awareness. (We are self-aware and we're humans so it'd make sense only if the easiest way to be self-aware-generating is via the anthropogenic route.)

That's an interesting input, but wouldn't that assume that there is something that can explode, in the first place?

For examlpe of what I mean - I don't happen to believe that we are living in a simulation, but imagine that we are - what if that simulation contained everything, including God, but that simulation never existed at all, to begin with? Who is to say that a God would exist within the boundarie of the simulation or "reality", or if it would be an outside presence that observed that simulation or "reality"?

 

[mlha]

If I understand it correctly, it's a question: if we have an implication from the contradiction (nothingness) to something as an axiom what drives the actual derivation? I don't know, I'm not a Platonist, but there are views which unify mathematics with reality, that all which can be derived exists.

 

[birthright]

In Theravada Buddhism, we exist, but not how we think we exist. We are really psycho-physical organisms in a constant state of change. It is an illusion that we are independent self entities. When we "conceptually speaking" die, another being takes life as the conditioned after effect of our current existence. This is not us being reborn, but some other being carrying our kamma. Any act of killing, including oneself, is unwholesome kamma, and has the potential to diminish the next beings, or furure beings existence. All that said, I personally believe it is completely rational to end ones life if terminally ill, or if quality of life due to medical problems has sunk too low to tolerate. Unwholesome kamma has varring degrees of weight, and I believe a final exit with dignity is worth the kammic cost, if handled peacefully, and with respect for others.

 

[_Minsk]

I think of it as the greatest scam of all time; manufacturing a terrifying problem that can never be disproven and then taking people's money and power in order to sell them an imaginary solution.

Well said

 

[Pluto]

Why does anything at all exist? This question does not revolve around the meaning of life, but rather, the physical existence of everything - from plants, to animals, space, planets and time.

In the ultimate sense, the question of why anything exists is intrinsically impossible to answer. Why is there be anybody to ask the question in the first place?

According to the greatest seers such as Ramana Maharshi, physical reality is no more real than a dream. And yet you know with 100% certainty you exist, regardless of any belief systems you may have accumulated.

The question then must follow: what exactly are you? If physical reality is not real, that means that all body-mind identities (past memories, future anticipations, gender/age/culture/opinions/etc.) are in their entirety the mother of all illusions which afflict us in the waking state. Even so, we are not victims of some God because that would itself be another false identity.

From this perspective, the highest purpose of life is to awaken before the body dies (if reasonably possible, assuming the life is somewhat livable) which necessarily implies relinquishing all worldly attachments and beliefs. This awakening is said to be more blissful than anything else in life and many seekers have at least tasted it, though few people achieve permanent awakening.

What concerns me is if there is an afterlife, then, given that I am not unshackled from innate human ignorance upon death, my suicide is pointless.

This is possible, but NDE accounts vary on this point. Eliminating ignorance is a very noble goal. It is not about finding another belief system, but just the opposite - get rid of all beliefs about yourself to directly experience your own true nature. I don't want to sound like I'm preaching but can point you in the right direction if this topic is genuinely of interest.

 

[Julgran]

In the ultimate sense, the question of why anything exists is intrinsically impossible to answer. Why is there be anybody to ask the question in the first place?

According to the greatest seers such as Ramana Maharshi, physical reality is no more real than a dream. And yet you know with 100% certainty you exist, regardless of any belief systems you may have accumulated.

The question then must follow: what exactly are you? If physical reality is not real, that means that all body-mind identities (past memories, future anticipations, gender/age/culture/opinions/etc.) are in their entirety the mother of all illusions which afflict us in the waking state. Even so, we are not victims of some God because that would itself be another false identity.

From this perspective, the highest purpose of life is to awaken before the body dies (if reasonably possible, assuming the life is somewhat livable) which necessarily implies relinquishing all worldly attachments and beliefs. This awakening is said to be more blissful than anything else in life and many seekers have at least tasted it, though few people achieve permanent awakening.

Those are certainly intelligent follow-up questions. I appreciate your view, as it shows that there may be no clear answer to what life is, or why we perceive what we do. In the end, all we will ever know is what we perceive - in other words, perception is our reality - and who knows what the origin of it all is..?

In the end, it may be very difficult to find those answers, and any answer that we find may be wrong, because we may not understand how to interpret it correctly.