If existence is a burden and you just keep coming back then its hell and there's nothing anyone can do to help.

Wait, you believe that you existed prior to your conception?

What is this "me" and "I" notion you keep mentioning?

There's two options, either I existed prior to this lifetime, or I didn't. I don't claim to know either way.

But the point is that either way, reality brought me/my experience/my life into existence where prior it did not exist at all. So let's say when I die, I don't exist in any way anymore. How do I know I won't come into existence in some form or another once again? How do I know I will cease to exist and CONTINUE ceasing to exist. Reality already (at least) once before interrupted my non-existence, why wouldn't it do it again? It's already proven (?) that I can not exist in any way, and then exist in some way, so when I die and cease to exist in any way, there's no guarantee that this will continue indefinitely. In fact it seems to me it's likely it will happen again. Nothing stopped it happening for my lifetime right now, don't see why when I next cease to exist in any way it will be any different?

Why is non existence before this lifetime any different than non existence after our deaths? They're both the same, right? Non existence is non existence. So to me it seems likely I'll exist in some way again after my death. I don't see why it's justified to believe that non existence after death is permanent, when the non existence before our present lives wasn't. Seems to me the logical conclusion is that non existence is not permanent.

So the argument here is
1. Non existence before this life is the very same thing as non existence after this life
2. Non existence before this life was not perpetual (I came into existence)
3. Therefore non existence after this life will not be perpetual either

Because we exist right now, and presumably didn't exist before this life, we can conclude that the nature of non existence is that it's not permanent. Non existence post death won't last forever?

It's hard to talk without using pronouns. I'm not really thinking I'll exist again as this human, or personality.

But even if there is no subject of experience, there is still an individualised experience existing (and it has a first person quality to it). What's to stop that existing again?

Or maybe there IS a subject of experience and it doesn't cease to exist when our bodies we experience die?

It just doesn't seem logical that the non existence before our lives now would be any different from the non existence when we die. Why was one impermanent and the other permanent, if they're the same thing?

I think what's most likely here is my/our understanding of time, the past, ourselves, and non/existence is seriously flawed. Maybe there is no past and times not linear, or maybe it is and I'm a soul which intermittently occupies various bodies.

Point is the more I think about the more illogical permanent non existence after I die is. Which sucks, I want to die and then stay dead. Life is mostly suffering I don't want to be bothered by it again unless it's really good.

By understanding the meaning of 'dead' you can know that once you die you're going to stay dead.

You better crank up your karma, dukkha.

you cease to exist and rot in the ground ), but lately I'm not so sure. — dukkha

Well, dearest Dukkha, let's try an experiment: you die and then we'll put your corpse out in a field. We'll check it every now and then. How long do you think we should wait before we decide you are going to stay dead?

As soon as the vultures, coyotes, rats, weasels, and various insects and beetles start working on your former abode, I think we can say, "Yep; he's not coming back."

Deal?

Why is non existence before this lifetime any different than non existence after our deaths? — dukkha

It isn't. If you are non-existent you have nothing (literally) to worry about, or more to the point, nothing to worry with.

... or more to the point, nothing to worry with. — Bitter Crank

Exactly.

Neither a "me" nor "I."

Reality already (at least) once before interrupted my non-existence — dukkha

Oy vey. No it didn't. Prior to conception, there's no you with "a non-existence to interrupt"

You screen name is taken from Buddhism, maybe you should study Buddhism, if you're not already.

Trying to summarise what Buddhism says about this subject in a few words would be impossible, but suffice to say that it teaches that all beings are caught up in the wheel of birth and death ('samsara'). Buddhists believe that the karmic causes that are set in motion during this life, re-form themselves into beings in the various domains of existence in future lives. This process is essentially beginningless, although it is not endless, as the Buddha represents the one who has 'escaped the cycle of re-birth' thereby bringing the process to an end.

This story is the subject of the well-known Tibetan iconographic paintings called the Bhavachakra (which literally means the 'wheel of becoming'.) Each of the six divisions in the wheel represent one of the 'six realms of being'; in the very centre, a pig, rooster and snake are chasing each other round in a circle; these represent greed, delusion and hatred, respectively.

The Buddha is at the top right, outside the circle, representing his escape from it.

A couple of things:

The OP's question is reasonable only if one accepts that there is some integral part of the personality that exists outside of the corruptable brain. That is, if there was some magic moment when a soul dropped into your body prior to birth, why can't that same magic soul drop into a new body after it becomes disembodied after my death and I can live again? The trick for the OP is to explain how the body and mind are not intrinsically connected so that the permanent destruction of one does not necessitate the permanent destruction of the other. It would seem you'd need to resurrect my body if you wished to resurrect my mind and that would be the only way to recreate me.

Second, a real pet peeve of mine is the reference to Eastern theology in response to philosophical questions. We're all pretty attuned to the inappropriateness of references to Western theology (i.e. biblical cites), but every now and again we have to hear about Eastern systems like they matter here.

What is this nonexistence that a person can go into and come out of? One must first decide what actually exists. If the universe is all that exists, then consciousness is an emergent phenomenon and necessarily ceases with the death of the body. This is one mode of thought. I would argue that this falls apart if you demand a reason for the existence of the universe, since there can be no reason that doesn't rely on the existence of yet another thing, ad infinitum. Something cannot come from nothing.

The other way of looking at it is that nothing exists. It is all about how you define nothingness, or rather how you can't define it, since nothingness has no definitions. An undefined state appears to be all things, but these things don't technically exist. In this way, nothingness is True and the universe is false. So all things have their basis in nothingness, including your mind and what you might call your 'soul'.

So let's discuss the concept of going in and out of existence. One can perhaps fall into a void in which there is no space, but if time still exists and definitions still exist then it isn't nonexistence. It may still contain all the laws of the universe and other concepts, perhaps even the mind. To fall further, one would have to abandon all concepts, all definitions. But there again you are left in an undefined state, a state where anything could seem to happen. It is a meaningless state, and since it is without time you spend no time in it. In fact, upon reaching such a state you immediately 'rebound' into all experience, since like dividing zero by zero all answers are possible and all equally false.

In short, you cannot cease to exist, for the core of your being is not based in the illusion of the universe but in the Truth of nothingness which does exist and from which all universes appear. The core of your being in a very real sense created them and you are now in the process of experiencing them, along with all the other manifestations of your core essence.

a real pet peeve of mine is the reference to Eastern theology — Hanover

Buddhism is not 'theology' which pertains to theistic belief systems. Furthermore the poster's screen name is a Buddhist term. And finally the question by its very nature has religious implications.

if there was some magic moment when a soul dropped into your body prior to birth, why can't that same magic soul drop into a new body after it becomes disembodied after my death and I can live again? — Hanover

There is a lot of documentation concerning children with memories of past lives. This comprises interviews with children who claim to remember having been another person in a previous life, the accounts of which are then checked against external (i.e. journalistic and documentary) sources (see this article. It is of course a truism that belief in rebirth is taboo in Western culture.)

1. There was a time in the past in which I (presumably) did not exist. Prior to my birth there was no me, my experience, my brain, anything.
2. I presently exist.
3. So we have Time A (1.) where I had no existence, and Time B (2.) where I do
4. Let's call the time after I die Time C, where presumably I won't exist in any way. I cease to exist at death.

What's the difference between Time A and Time C? Such that Time B followed from Time A, but a Time D *WONT* follow from Time C? What's my justification for believing time C will be permanent/unchangeable (i.e. an 'atheistic' death), when I know for a fact that Time A wasn't?



Note I'm not specifically talking about the same body or brain, or personality existing for a second time. All I mean by Time D is that it is not identical Time A (i.e. there exists something, there is some sort of existence. What form that takes I have no clue, but there is *something*).

"For the living know that they will die, but the dead don't know anything. There is no longer a reward for them because the memory of them is forgotten." - the holly bibble.

I wouldn't take the death and rebirth thing literally. Remembering past lives, and already innately knowing the forms as Socrates suggested, and one need only "remember them" sounds a lot closer to the mark.

The living know only one thing, the dead don't even know that.

. . why can't that same magic soul drop into a new body after it becomes disembodied after my death and I can live again? . . . — Hanover

Right, and why talk of one's death in the first place under the assumption that a part of oneself lives on? Reminds me of talk of ghosts assumed to be immaterial yet capable of rattling chains and the like.

But even if there is no subject of experience, there is still an individualised experience existing (and it has a first person quality to it). What's to stop that existing again?

I think this is akin to asking: after all humans go extinct, is it possible for 'experiencing' at all to come into existence (i.e. would it be possible for a population of observers/first person experiencers to come into existence). And I do think that's possible.

Individualized experiencing/first person experiencing doesn't seem to be a 'personal' thing (in the sense of belonging to any one in particular). I.e. it just seems to be a general property of human bodies to be able to experience in the first person. My body's capacity for fist person experience isn't unique in any way -- and so it's more reasonable to say that experiencing would occur again (if bodies capable of it were to be formed again) than to say 'my experiencing' would occur again. What individuates any particular 'first person experience' is what's structuring the experience -- not the fact of experiencing: i.e. the memories, identities, beliefs that structure the immediate experience. But none of that carries over past the death of a person.

I think what's most likely here is my/our understanding of time, the past, ourselves, and non/existence is seriously flawed. Maybe there is no past and times not linear, or maybe it is and I'm a soul which intermittently occupies various bodies.

Considering what I wrote above, what that's particular to 'you' would carry over to the new body?

Second, a real pet peeve of mine is the reference to Eastern theology in response to philosophical questions. We're all pretty attuned to the inappropriateness of references to Western theology (i.e. biblical cites), but every now and again we have to hear about Eastern systems like they matter here. — Hanover

The sheer arrogance here! As Wayfarer points out, there are no Eastern "theologies." Secondly, I doubt you've read more than a page about them, because if you did you would realize that Eastern systems do matter and do provide compelling philosophical answers to philosophical questions. The analogy to biblical citations is absurd, as there is no notion of dogma or revealed scripture in the East, generally speaking, that is comparable to what one finds in Abrahamic religions. Even the word "system" is too limiting, when one considers the plethora of different schools of thought, which, though often outwardly opposed in many ways, are still accepted as orthodox according to the religion in question (Hinduism, Buddhism, etc).

I used to subscribe fairly strongly to an atheistic notion of death (I.e. You cease to exist and rot in the ground ), but lately I'm not so sure. — dukkha

This isn't an "atheistic notion" of death. Atheism is the denial of the existence of any god. One could therefore be an atheist and hold to belief in an afterlife of some kind.

Let's say I cease to exist at death. What is going to prevent me from coming into existence again? What's going to keep me dead? — dukkha

The answer to this depends on your metaphysic. If you are a materialist, then the fact that the material world is the only world there is would prevent you from coming into existence again, since the dissolution of your body would be the dissolution of "you" entire.

This is kind of worrying me, I don't want to be burdened with existence again and again. How do I make sure I stay dead and reality doesn't bother me again? — dukkha

There is none if in fact it turns out that you will be reborn. You have to show that it is possible to not do so in order to make sure you stay dead.

The Eastern systems offer nothing by way of authority, meaning reference to them is unhelpful. If you wish to prove there are 6 realms of being (as indicated in the post), then start there.

There are no "authorities" in Western philosophy, either. There's no official church of Plato, church of Kant, etc. There are simply individuals who read and interpret their ideas.

The six realms of rebirth is not a monolithic concept. It can and has been interpreted in a number of different ways, so your request to "prove it" betrays your naivety once again.

What's the difference between Time A and Time C? Such that Time B followed from Time A, but a Time D *WONT* follow from Time C? — dukkha

You didn't define a time D above that comment by the way. I understand what you're asking though, but I'm just pointing out that you didn't actually define a time D.

What's my justification for believing time C will be permanent/unchangeable (i.e. an 'atheistic' death), when I know for a fact that Time A wasn't? — dukkha

This question is confused. You're asking as if you're asking about time being "permanent/unchangeable"--which it never is, but you're thinking about it as if you're asking about you being in some state or other. In time A, there's no you to be in any state, permanent, impermanent, etc. In time C (or D, whichever you want to call it), there's likewise no you to be in any state, permanent, impermanent, etc. Nothing can happen or refrain from happening to an existent you, because there is no you at that point.

Talking of arrogance, both sheer and wooly...

How do I make sure I stay dead and reality doesn't bother me again? — dukkha

In the gospel of the Egg-man it is sung:

"I am he as you are he as you are me
And we are all together
See how they run like pigs from a gun see how they fly
I'm crying."

There is no escape, settle down and be kind to your other incarnations.

meh

When you came into this existence, you were a baby, (I presume), with no memory of any prior existence, your consciousness and identity were formed by genetics, environment and experience. Everything that would prove your specific identity with respect to other identities you gained during that existence. Therefore, I think it is a contradiction to say "you" woke up again. The individual at that future point in time won't be "you", violating the law of identity. That consciousness becoming aware in the future is not you and any connection to this other identity would be arguing for some special connection.

I came to this conclusion thinking about those "duplicating machine" thought experiments. If a machine somehow duplicated everything about you, including memories, then whether that duplicate shared the same identity ended up relying on how we assign identity, by convention. It also made me wonder about those groups who anticipate some afterlife existence, especially if our genetic, environment or memories were altered in anyway would require special pleading for a connection of identity that we might or might not grant. Who is granting it and can they be objectively justified in granting identity in a way that contradicts our current conventions? If you took some historical figure and duplicated that person down to every detail, would we still be able to grant them the same identity without a physical "story" of how they were connected, or were they just a simulation of the original.

So, no need to worry about it. If something wakes up and thinks it is you, it won't be you. It also leads to the fact that we will never be able to "upload" our consciousness into computers or robots or inhabit other bodies.

...there is no notion of dogma or revealed scripture in the East, generally speaking, that is comparable to what one finds in Abrahamic religions. — Thorongil

Actually not so clear-cut as that. I regard Buddhism as revealed religion - the Buddha's teaching is described as a 'sasana' which is a 'dispensation', and the Vedas are regarded as revealed texts. What is radically different in Indian religions, generally, is that external authorities are deprecated, and experiential insight is emphasised; 'many paths up the mountain', which is quite inimical to Semitic religions. But had some Indian faith tradition been adapted by Latins in the early days of the Christian church, it quite easily might have become the same kind of dogmatic authoritarianism that was typical of medieval ecclesiastical Christianity. Have a look at this (non-scholarly) blog post, http://veda.wikidot.com/dharma-and-religion . I wouldn't defend everything in it, but I accept the basic point.

I think it is a contradiction to say "you" woke up again. — swstephe

It seems to me indisputable that infants are born with some innate characteristics, talents, predispositions, attributes, and so on. Of course that is very controversial as the standard empiricist dogma still clings to the 'tabula rasa'. But child prodigies and even the abilities of 'savants' don't seem to me to be amenable to any kind of genetic explanation. I think it's possible that there's a medium of transmission that science doesn't understand - something like biological field effects.

I don't quite buy it. Yes, the word "religion" is of Western origin, but that doesn't mean it can't still pick out non-Western (or non-Abrahamic) systems of belief and practice. And for Buddhism to be a revealed religion, it would have to be that its scriptures were inspired by a god. For the most part, this is not what Buddhists claim.

The Vedas and the Upanishads are shruti, or revealed texts, true, but as your link makes clear, a diversity of opinion still exists within Hinduism. Can one be an orthodox Hindu and reject the existence of the gods and so reject the divine inspiration of certain men, the rishis? Yes. One could disclaim divine inspiration in the case of Christian scriptures, but then one would essentially be a Jeffersonian Christian and so not be considered orthodox at all. Most churches require belief in divine inspiration.

And for Buddhism to be a revealed religion, it would have to be that its scriptures were inspired by a god. For the most part, this is not what Buddhists claim.

It isn't 'revealed by God', because the Buddha was not a God. But it is still 'revealed' in the sense that up until Guatama discovered the 'principle of dependent origination', this was not known by anybody, it was a genuinely novel discovery. Furthermore throughout the early texts, there is a formulaic expression regarding the Buddha's dharma that it is 'subtle, profound, difficult to fathom, perceivable only by the wise'.

Anyway, it's tangential to the thread and the OP seems to have no interest in the Buddhist account of the matter, so I'll leave it at that.