If eternity is defined as the absence or negation of time, rather than simply as an unending future, then what implications would this have for my life after death?
Eternal life would not simply mean an unending future life but, rather, a life unfettered by time, freed from the temporal dimensions of past, present, and future.
Upon my death, I would not merely encounter in heaven only those persons who died before me, but I would also encounter in heaven all those persons who I thought I was leaving behind, and I would also encounter in heaven all those persons who would be my future descendants.
Any comments about this? — charles ferraro
What I proposed does not necessarily mean that I believe in an afterlife. I simply wanted to investigate the implications a certain interpretation of the meaning of eternity would have on an afterlife if one assumed it existed. — charles ferraro
Yes, because afterlife in another reality means transition of soul from this reality to another reality and the process as well as death is unavoidable.Upon my death, I would not merely encounter in heaven only those persons who died before me, but I would also encounter in heaven all those persons who I thought I was leaving behind, and I would also encounter in heaven all those persons who would be my future descendants. — charles ferraro
Death is not an event in life: we do not live to experience death. If we take eternity to mean not infinite temporal duration but timelessness, then eternal life belongs to those who live in the present. Our life has no end in the way in which our visual field has no limits. — Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus
:death: :flower:We each live awaiting this ultimate, inevitable cancellation of personal life. — charles ferraro
A free man thinks of death least of all things, and his wisdom is a meditation not of death but of life. — Ethica, ordine geometrico demonstrata
Eternal life, if it does exist, DOES NOT belong to those who live in the present, because eternity, unlike time, is dimensionless; it lacks past, present, and future.
Eternal life, if it does exist, transcends ALL temporal dimensions. — charles ferraro
Sariputta, do you take it on conviction that the faculty of conviction, when developed and pursued, gains a footing in the Deathless, has the Deathless as its goal & consummation? Do you take it on conviction that the faculty of persistence... mindfulness... concentration... discernment, when developed & pursued, gains a footing in the Deathless, has the Deathless as its goal & consummation?
Śāriputra, foolish ordinary beings do not have the wisdom that comes from hearing the Dharma. When they hear about a Tathāgata’s entering nirvāṇa, they take the wrong view of cessation or extinction. Because of their perception of cessation or extinction, they claim that the realm of sentient beings decreases. Their claim constitutes an enormously wrong view and an extremely grave, evil karma.
“Furthermore, Śāriputra, from the wrong view of decrease, these sentient beings derive three more wrong views. These three views and the view of decrease, like a net, are inseparable from each other. What are these three views? They are (1) the view of cessation, which means the ultimate end; (2) the view of extinction, which is equated to nirvāṇa; (3) the view that nirvāṇa is a void, which means that nirvāṇa is the ultimate quiet nothingness. Śāriputra, in this way these three views fetter, hold, and impress [sentient beings].
"eternal life belongs to those who live in the present" — 180 Proof
Upon my death, I would not merely encounter in heaven only those persons who died before me, but I would also encounter in heaven all those persons who I thought I was leaving behind, and I would also encounter in heaven all those persons who would be my future descendants.
Any comments about this? — charles ferraro
Death. The certain prospect of death could sweeten every life with a precious and fragrant drop of levity - and now you strange apothecary souls have turned it into an ill-tasting drop of poison that makes the whole of life repulsive.
Because the burden of proof falls both on the positive claim and on the extraordinary claim which is contrary to ordinary experience and facticity. One is born, one lives, one dies. On what grounds do you claim more than that? How do you know this? Or why believe it if you don't know? What's your evidence? :chin:Why should the burden be on the afterliver? — Haglund
Why should the burden be on the afterliver?
— Haglund
Because the burden of proof falls both on the positive claim and on the extraordinary claim which is contrary to ordinary experience and facticity. — 180 Proof
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.