Why the afterlife idea as a fake remedy for fear is the worst definition of religion?

The idea of a Santa Claus is marvelous until it kills the very idea of generosity, on the grounds that Santa Claus doesn’t really exist.

When speaking of the afterlife projections and everlasting life expectancy, we tend to identify the birthplace of religion in our fear of death. But our problem is not fear. The major problem is its source. Fear lives on expectation and uncertainty. And this is all that a possible future afterlife is about: hope and fear, that is – expectation. Religion is not a cure for fear; religion is a cure for expectation.

We cannot get rid of our fear of death so we discovered a substitute: the afterlife. Is it so? I don’t think that the “afterlife” idea is very good, in the first place, because this isn’t proper medicine, it is L.S.D. It could be good material for mythic stories, but not a good rendering of a factual reality. The afterlife scenario will always leave considerable room for doubts. The idea of the afterlife is the very pillar that stands between you and life. Placing an obstacle between you and a possible total annihilation might seem reassuring, but is, in fact, a dream full of horrendous possibilities.

We should bring the so-called “afterlife” here. Those insightful people whom we call saints or rishis experienced personal epiphanies and recounted visions of the “afterlife” not because they were hoping to survive somehow after death, physically or even spiritually, but because they dropped-off expectations and replaced the “after-life” with “life”. To them, the blissful and timeless “afterlife” had been already here.

And anyway, religion cannot be reduced to the idea of the afterlife, it can’t be explained only by our fear of death, because religious human behavior doesn’t deal solely with the idea of an “afterlife”, religions’ scope comprises also the idea of reconciliation between fragment and totality, time and eternity, flesh and spirit.

The idea that the afterlife projection can cure the fears and unhappiness of the present moment is flawed by the simple fact that the incessant movement from the present moment to an ever projected “future better life” or “the afterlife”, or whatever is better than the present moment doesn’t make the present moment satisfying for too long. “The afterlife” is just an idea in the mind and just as any other idea - it cannot quench the human thirst for eternity for too long. It’s only a substitute.

The Buddha refused to answer any questions regarding the realm of the afterlife, not because he denied the afterlife itself, but because in terms of both rationality and imagination we tend to perceive “timeless” and “eternity” as mental projections of an “ever-lasting” experience of some sort.

We tend to empirically project realities of a noumenal order. And it is wonderful that we can do this, unless we contemplate our source, the numinous as a hard fact-sort of reality, which somewhere, “out there” and “then” or “afterwards”.

We forget that the circumference of our circle of life is only the reflection of the center.

 “Out there” imagined things are meant to drive your attention “in here”. The “afterlife” is meant to make you focus on “life”. I always try to avoid reductionist approaches, but if I were asked to say in one sentence what religion and mythology is all about, I would answer that it’s about walking the circumference of the circle as long as you need to figure out the right direction to the center. We need to the find the center, not another point on the circumference. 

“But I tell you truly, there are some standing here who shall not taste death till they see the kingdom of God” (Jesus Christ)

 

Joseph Campbell broken down? Ethnic vs. World Religions

“Buddhism was the first of the world religions, as contrasted with the ethnic religions, the local religions into which one is born. One is born a Hindu; one is born a Jew; one chooses to profess Buddhism, Christianity, or Islam.” (J. Campbell: Myths of Light: Eastern Metaphors of the Eternal)

After being admonished myself by a contributor to Philosophy of Religion Community that there is no such thing as “ethnic religion”, I admitted that he might be right and that J. Campbell's distinction should pass some tests, since the respective contributor told me that he knows personally quite a few Hindu converts.

 I am always eager to experience new things. After getting myself auto-excommunicated recently from the Atheism Community, under the charges of posting on spiritual communities, which is a mortal sin and heresy in any respectable system of militant atheism, I decided to seek various public views whenever I come across such inciting ideas as “ethnic vs. world religions”, because this kind of public discussions are more able to enlarge my own perspectives an get a clearer picture than traditional scholarly works.

I think this is the new kind of scientific approach, not only from the perspective of a comparative History of Religions, so I decided to ask our readers and contributors to share their views on the subject, provided that the overall attitude is a moderate one and, whenever possible, academic references are provided.

The fruitful, rational and moderate dialogue on religion, art, philology and philosophy between the Occident and the Orient that had been enlivened by the European pioneering sanskritists and sinologists during the 18^th century was followed by various cultural and religious exchanges throughout the following two centuries. These in turn have led to so many mutual influences upon the studied religious systems themselves and even to undeniable syncretism. This long and complex evolution makes a hard toil out of any 21^th century attempt to write a coherent and systematic history of religions, because many distinctions and characteristics which were common-sense prerequisites to a proper religious interpretation and scientific methodology 100 years ago are now obsolete.

I arrived, therefore, to the conclusion that such distinctions as “East and West” and “Ethnic and Universal” are mere valuable tools for organizing the colossal amount of available material in the hands of those enthusiastic scholars preparing a new “History of Religion”-sort of analytical work in five volumes, which requires them to append the afferent bibliography to the book. The boundaries between East and West, ethnic and global, tend to be erased in our era dominated by internet and scientific discoveries.

Such a discussion on “ethnic vs. world” distinction in a comparative approach of religions is meant solely to provide some directions and signposts in this large and complex area of religious-related studies referred to in academic area as “History of Religion” discipline.

In order to arrive to fruitful conclusions we should focus on the following two central aspects that can lead to a possible answer. Please feel free to pick-up one of them, or address them collectively, or in whatever manner it might seem more convenient to you, or even try a different approach, from an original perspective.

1.      One’s ethnicity is or is it not essentially linked to one’s religious affiliation in the so-called “ethnic religions”?

If you tackle this item from a Hindu or Jewish perspective, please also address my additional queries, assuming that I am a Christian – a word that defines my religious orientation and I am also Romanian –a word that defines my ethnicity:

a)     Can I become a Hindu? Can I become a Jew? Can I chose to be a Hindu/Jew (as religion), but at the same time keep my declared ethnicity (Romanian)? 

b)     If yes, is this a wide-spread phenomenon and (for instance) can I show-up tomorrow along with 20.000 Romanians in Benares and ask to become Hindus, all of us? Will we get a green light for this?  

c)      If yes, can anyone trace back from at least three generations a significant amount of people who initially were, ethnically, non-Hindu/non-Jew, but their grandsons are now recognized, socially and religiously, as Hindu/Jews? Or is this kind of “Hindu converts” phenomenon just an isolated, recent, phenomenon that might be considered only as some sort of extravagance or cultural fashion by the mainstream Hinduism/Judaism?

2.      As a consequence to the above, if we want to point out some flaws to J. Campbell distinction, we will have to try to:

a)     provide scientific references that there is a Hindu/Judaism religion (but not an isolated cult) independent from any Hindu/Jewish ethnic group;

b)     deny the fact that there is an essential requirement to be born a Jew/Hindu or meet any other ethnicity-related requirement in order to be a Jew/Hindu;

c)     provide substantial evidence (references to public, secular sources are required) that for at least three generations there are Hindu converts and/or Jewish converts that are also recognized as Hindu/Jews by mainstream Hindu/Jewish communities, in order to avoid generalizing isolated cases or accidents;

d)     ascertain that there is such a group or a community of people that cumulatively and explicitly: a) declare themselves Christian/Buddhist and 2)when asked about their ethnicity they declare themselves Christians/Buddhists;

3.     Possible consistent arguments against Campbell’s distinction, but only when one reads his statement literally:

a)      “one chooses to profess Buddhism, Christianity, or Islam” vs. “one is born a Hindu; one is born a Jew” is contradicted in practice, by the fact that one’s religion is usually handed-down from parents to children, so the statements “one is born a Hindu” and “one is born a Christian” are interchangeable, to some extent, unless we take into account that one can be born a Christian irrespective of his parents’ ethnicity; Usually, the individual is not expected to become an adult and only then asked to make his choice (“I chose to profess Buddhism” etc.).

b)      “one chooses to profess Buddhism, Christianity, or Islam” kind of statement doesn’t cover religious practices in industrialized societies, wherein the majority of people who are, formally, Buddhist or Muslim or Christian are in fact non-practicing Christians etc. or even atheists and attend religious services just on such occasions as : when getting married, when being baptized, when dying etc.

When sharing your views, please take into account that this is not a debate on the universal value of this or that belief system, but an attempt to figure out to which extent one’s ethnicity is linked to one’s religious orientation. Likewise, the adjective “universal” in “universal religion” or “world religion” kind of wording doesn’t equate with “universal value”, but only with the ability to accept new followers without any ethnical requirements. I am myself a big admirer of the Bhagavad-Gītā, the big scripture of Hinduism, whose universal value has gained a huge recognition in the Western hemisphere – that is: in another cultural environment, different in many aspects from that in which Bhagavad-Gītā originated. And still, according to J. Campbell theory, which is raised for discussion here, Hinduism is an ethnical system of religious beliefs and practices. 

Any offensive statement will be ignored/deleted, as well as any political/harsh dogmatic attitude.