Is Heaven/Nirvana Boring?

Many of us fear the "oblivion" of death. This fear is based on a strange notion that "I" (a something) will be surrounded by oblivion (a condition of nothingness." Strange indeed. I've always said that the notion of "being dead", being in a state of death is meaningless. Obviously, I will someday die and, thus, cease to function as a living, experiencing being. At least that's obvious to me. But I cannot imagine "being dead." If there is no longer a "subject" (no me), how can there be a "predicate" (being dead). How can a non-being be in a STATE OF DEATH? But as most of you know by now, like some others here, I do not believe in the existence of my "ego-being" even now, during the life of my body.

I've found some hellish and heaven-like places/spaces right here on earth in this life.

Both passed eventually. When I was in the heavenly place, I remember thinking "this can't last." Regrettably, I was right. Cling or let it go as I might, the heaven-like place vanished in the haze.

JL: Isn't it extremely bizarre that here we are, and no one really knows what happens after we die? Sure, we have all the religions, books, gurus, masters, but really, it seems most come down to "I think this; I believe that. Oh really, well I believe that and this over here." Here we are, and no one really knows what comes next. Weird. Is there a reason we are put in this situation?

Search me.

JL ... "Up against the wall, red-neck mutha!"

Sounds familiar.

Kind of ironic, isn't it, that the two most outspoken Buddhists on the site are from what many would regard as red-neck country.

Tex sat back on his heels, and pushed his sweat stained stetson back on his head revealing a pale line between his sun-scortched face and his hair. His partner, Tiny, who stood six feet six in his stocking feet, slowly moved a matchstick from one side of his mouth to the other. It had been a long day rooting the unbranded out of thorny washes, and both men were tired. Their supper was a couple of cold corn dodgers and a cup of coffee, the reward for the almost ten hours in the saddle. Now the day was drawing to a close, slowly. They sat facing west, silent. The sun dropped below the horizon, and back-lit the clouds that were gathering over distant peaks. One by one the stars began to show themselves, but Tex and Tiny sat silent, unmoving on their heels. The moon drifted upward, and was reflected in the watertank at the bottom of the hill. Still the two sat. "Guess its about time to turn in pard". "Yep".

My first debate! Please forgive my somewhat clumsy style. It's been a long time since I've written anything!

I alway felt that In death you become what you were before you were born, knowing that there is no "You" before and after. YOU come into being by an incipient chemical process; you are maintained by a correctly functioning body and cease when it's maintenance ceases, a kind of equalization payment. Thereafter you can be moulded into a magnificient gem for a mere $15,000 - perhaps to be sold or auctioned by heirs who may not have liked you when alive but now behold your value shining forth.

I guess what I'm trying to repeat - as others throughout the ages have said it considerably better than I- is that an immanence prevails in transcendency that makes it impervious to time; a deep-diving pscyhic implosion penultimate to an after-death experience. What follows is the virtual death of being reborn in its wake - of what is remembered and retains the experience of but only for as long as one is alive - the Peace that preludes happiness; the after-effect of insights that seem to make life immortal. Is it necessary to wish for more? Is anything more really required? What follows is to sleep in the single-mindedness of everything that has ever lived - and await (without having to wait) the next Kalpa. This is what I - and I speak for "I" only - imagine Nirvana to be; a potential born in the temporality of life blended to eternity when fulfilled.

As for heaven, it's boring. Satan was bored singing incessant Hosannas; a too-intelligent creation who's had enough of making a hell out of heaven and so decided to make a heaven out of hell instead but first he had to get evicted. He must have felt the need to get a life and so retrained himself to make war not love. This eventually came in handy for us because as it turned out a scapegoat was a good thing to have.

Again I must say... Yes! Good thinking.

Asherman, that was the longest koan I've ever read.

Thanks again, Agrote. But please note that whatever it was it was not "good thinking" in the sense of careful logical reasoning. It was no more than a simple set of intuitions, of what does and does not make intuitive sense to me. These are not empirical or logical propositions, just assertions of what seems right to me. But thanks anyway. Apparently the utterances also agree with your intuitive stance.

Asherman, I am also a Buddhist though I am from Boston and probably not as outspoken as I ought to be.

In my mind, there is one heaven, and that heaven is death. The concept of Heaven is a way for us to try to imagine our deaths. And no, it isn't boring. It's nothing. You can't be bored, you can't be happy, you can't experience eternal orgasms. Because you are officially . . . dead.

Anyone who has ever squashed a bug knows exactly what it must be like to be dead. We are all just bugs.

I don't see how that's logical or even possible.

What does that mean...people from Boston are not outspoken?

Kickycan, I know it's counter-intuitive. Moreoever, it has nothing to do with empiricism or logic. If it doesn't make intuitive sense for you, you can either ignore it or work hard to acquire the necessary intuitive perspective. Do so for your sake, not mine.

JL, I just had to post that because I agreed with you completely on your ideas on death, and then that statement just popped out at me. Can you give me the short version of how that's intuitive? Or what you mean by the term "ego being".

In support of JLN...

"I" agree that intuitively this "loss of ego" appears hard to take !

But consider a few elementary observations...

(1) Where does this "ego" go during sleep ?

(2) Who is arguing with whom in those internal conversations ?

(3) Are we not aware of "different persons" in the span of behaviour of "self" and "others"?

These observations might hint at a concept that a "unified self" is a fiction...a social device evoked by the constancy of one's "name"...a shifting node of responsibilities and memories. That which observes all this is technically free from such ephemeral ties and the transient flux in which they occur.

So perhaps
<<Thinkers of the world unite. You have nothing to lose but your "selves".>> (With apologies to Marx).

Well not exactly - I've never really thought of how impossible it would be to actually experience nothingness - so that wasn't my stance before. But your utterances seem to make a lot of sense, whether or not they're a result of logical reasoning - so I haven't really got much to say to you other than, "yes!" If that's alright

Could we clarify what people actually mean by ego here? It seems some people are using the worde to mean "mind" - is that right? It's original meaning was a part of the mind wasn't it. So what do you lot mean by the word:?:

Well, according to our old buddy Freud:

Id

As the baby emerges from the womb into the reality of life, he wants only to eat, drink, urinate, defecate, be warm, and gain sexual pleasure. These urges are the demands of the id, the most primitive motivational force. In pursuit of these ends, the id demands immediate gratification: it is ruled by the pleasure principle, demanding satisfaction now, regardless of circumstances and possible undesirable effects. If a young child was ruled entirely by his id, he would steal and eat a piece of chocolate from a store regardless of the menacing owner watching above him or even his parents scolding beside him.

The id will not stand for a delay in gratification. For some urges, such as urination, this is easily satisfied. However, if the urge is not immediately discharaged, the id will form a memory of the end of the motivation: the thirsty infant will form an image of the mother's breast. This act of wish-fulfillment satisfies the id's desire for the moment, though obviously it does not reduce the tension of the unfulfilled urge.

Ego

The eventual understanding that immediate gratification is usually impossible (and often unwise) comes with the formation of the ego, which is ruled by the reality principle. The ego acts as a go-between in the id's relations with reality, often supressing the id's urges until an appropriate situation arises. This repression of inappropriate desires and urges represents the greatest strain on, and the most important function of, the mind. The ego often utilizes defense mechanisms to achieve and aid this repression. Where the id may have an urge and form a picture which satisfies this urge, the ego engages in a strategy to actually fulfill the urge. The thirsty five-year-old now not only identifies water as the satisfaction of his urge, but forms a plan to obtain water, perhaps by finding a drinking fountain. While the ego is still in the service of the id, it borrows some of its psychic energy in an effort to control the urge until it is feasibly satisfied. The ego's efforts at pragmatic satisfaction of urges eventually builds a great number of skills and memories and becomes aware of itself as an entity. With the formation of the ego, the individual becomes a self, instead of an amalgamation of urges and needs.

Superego

While the ego may temporarily repress certain urges of the id in fear of punishment, eventually these external sources of punishment are internalized, and the child will not steal the chocolate, even unwatched, because he has taken punishment, right, and wrong into himself. The superego uses guilt and self-reproach as its primary means of enforcement for these rules. But if a person does something which is acceptable to the superego, he experiences pride and self-satisfaction.

The superego is sub-dividable into two parts: conscience and ego ideal. Conscience tells what is right and wrong, and forces the ego to inhibit the id in pursuit of morally acceptable, not pleasurable or even realistic, goals. The ego ideal aims the individual's path of life toward the ideal, perfect goals instilled by society. In the pursuit, the mind attempts to make up for the loss of the perfect life experienced as a baby.

What is the sound of one hand clapping? Only the castanets know for sure.