Where Do We Go When We Die?
January 12, 2007 8:57 AM Subscribe
What are some religions or philosophies that teach that at death (or any other time) one's discrete soul is absorbed into a greater entity such as God and so the individual is no more?
Emerson and the American Transcendentalists believed in this Over-soul thingie.
posted by steef at 10:49 AM on January 12, 2007
posted by steef at 10:49 AM on January 12, 2007
Hmm. This is a toughie (and I am a religion journalist!) OK, I'll look into this and get back to you. But, Buddhism is a start, as is Taoism, Shinto, Hinduism. I cannot say for sure about Zoroastrianism. But it's a hallmark of many Indo-Asian religions and most of those which have a belief in reincarnation. It is definitely not a hallmark of Christianity.
I was about to say Swedenborg, but I am reading Heaven and Hell and it doesn't even come close. The Moravian Church is also out, sadly - because they were so fucked up it might have been part of their deal.
posted by parmanparman at 11:10 AM on January 12, 2007
I was about to say Swedenborg, but I am reading Heaven and Hell and it doesn't even come close. The Moravian Church is also out, sadly - because they were so fucked up it might have been part of their deal.
posted by parmanparman at 11:10 AM on January 12, 2007
Response by poster: Thank you. This is all a help so far. More details please.
posted by partner at 11:15 AM on January 12, 2007
posted by partner at 11:15 AM on January 12, 2007
In Taoism - philosophical Taoism, (Tao Chia) anyway - one "returns to Tao" when one dies, but there is no soul and no reincarnation of the soul. There may be a reincarnation of sorts, since the atoms, molecules and energy that make up your body will end up in other physical objects, but there is no soul and when you are dead, you, as an individual, are dead.
As Tao is NOT a conscious being with any sort of awareness, returning to Tao is not joining with some sort of over-soul.
At least, that is Tao Chia as I understand it and IMHO.
posted by tommyD at 11:54 AM on January 12, 2007
As Tao is NOT a conscious being with any sort of awareness, returning to Tao is not joining with some sort of over-soul.
At least, that is Tao Chia as I understand it and IMHO.
posted by tommyD at 11:54 AM on January 12, 2007
tommyD, thanks for the clarification.
posted by parmanparman at 12:02 PM on January 12, 2007
posted by parmanparman at 12:02 PM on January 12, 2007
Neoplatonism, and relatedly, Manichaeism. Also Sufism (though you'll need to find your own link for that).
posted by alms at 12:32 PM on January 12, 2007
posted by alms at 12:32 PM on January 12, 2007
partner: "What are some religions or philosophies that teach that at death (or any other time) one's discrete soul is absorbed into a greater entity such as God and so the individual is no more?"
In Plato's Phaedo, Socrates argues that the soul is immortal. However, the only argument that he gives that seems to be serious, and that is finally convincing (to me at least) is the argument that the soul is immortal because it partakes of some everlasting 'form' of soul. This is interesting because if the only part of the soul which lasts is form, then all individual characteristics and qualities of the soul disappear.
It's important to note, I think, that in the Phaedo this discussion is linked with the discussion of whether knowledge is possible. It seems to me that the belief that the soul is stripped of individuality and returns to something eternal after death is a very rationalist one; that is, rationalism requires that the soul have eternal qualities in order that it may understand unchanging things, but, because we observe that the soul has changeable characteristics, it cannot be completely immortal to a pure rationalist.
parmanparman: "It is definitely not a hallmark of Christianity."
On the contrary, I am a Christian who believes just that. What's more, it is a "hallmark" of Christianity in the larger sense; it's very hard to read Jesus' teaching in the gospels as saying anything other than that the soul is stripped at death of individuality, and that we must prepare ourselves for that eventuality by freeing our souls of undue attachment to all that is not-soul.
In a specific way, this was the explicit teaching of Origen: that all souls, whether they have 'gone to heaven' or not, eventually return to God. In this, Origen cited the prophet Isaiah, who said: "Do not all return to the same place?" It is true that a minor pope later condemned Origen for this; but his condemnation is the subject of great bitterness among many Orthodox Christians I know, and especially among those with a mystical bent, as Origen was a great teacher and spiritual leader, and is still seen as such even among the Catholics and Protestants who disagree with him on this point.
posted by koeselitz at 1:15 PM on January 12, 2007 [1 favorite]
In Plato's Phaedo, Socrates argues that the soul is immortal. However, the only argument that he gives that seems to be serious, and that is finally convincing (to me at least) is the argument that the soul is immortal because it partakes of some everlasting 'form' of soul. This is interesting because if the only part of the soul which lasts is form, then all individual characteristics and qualities of the soul disappear.
It's important to note, I think, that in the Phaedo this discussion is linked with the discussion of whether knowledge is possible. It seems to me that the belief that the soul is stripped of individuality and returns to something eternal after death is a very rationalist one; that is, rationalism requires that the soul have eternal qualities in order that it may understand unchanging things, but, because we observe that the soul has changeable characteristics, it cannot be completely immortal to a pure rationalist.
parmanparman: "It is definitely not a hallmark of Christianity."
On the contrary, I am a Christian who believes just that. What's more, it is a "hallmark" of Christianity in the larger sense; it's very hard to read Jesus' teaching in the gospels as saying anything other than that the soul is stripped at death of individuality, and that we must prepare ourselves for that eventuality by freeing our souls of undue attachment to all that is not-soul.
In a specific way, this was the explicit teaching of Origen: that all souls, whether they have 'gone to heaven' or not, eventually return to God. In this, Origen cited the prophet Isaiah, who said: "Do not all return to the same place?" It is true that a minor pope later condemned Origen for this; but his condemnation is the subject of great bitterness among many Orthodox Christians I know, and especially among those with a mystical bent, as Origen was a great teacher and spiritual leader, and is still seen as such even among the Catholics and Protestants who disagree with him on this point.
posted by koeselitz at 1:15 PM on January 12, 2007 [1 favorite]
Does everyday materialism count? You cease individual thought, but you're still part of the universe.
It may seem like one of the least spiritual ideas out there, but especially considering how dead things often turn to materials that contribute to and become part of the growth of other life, there can be a spiritual cast to it, a lá Wendell Berry.
posted by weston at 1:24 PM on January 12, 2007
It may seem like one of the least spiritual ideas out there, but especially considering how dead things often turn to materials that contribute to and become part of the growth of other life, there can be a spiritual cast to it, a lá Wendell Berry.
posted by weston at 1:24 PM on January 12, 2007
Buddhism teaches that there is no discrete soul in the first place, just the illusion of one. Part of achieving nirvana (which is the ending of the cycle of birth and death) is destroying the illusion that you were ever separate from anything else.
posted by Quonab at 1:26 PM on January 12, 2007
posted by Quonab at 1:26 PM on January 12, 2007
Definitely Hinduism, sort of, except that there is no belief in an individual soul. This doctrine of Advaita Vedanta (non-duality) establishes that there is one universal reality that underlies everything, called Brahman. The idea of a self or a soul or a reality outside of Brahman is an illusion, and when one achieves liberation they become one with Brahman. This doesn't necessarily happen at death.
Both Hinduism and Buddhism believe in samsara (a cycle of rebirth) to achieve enlightenment/liberation. But the distinctive Buddhist teaching is that of no individual soul or self, (anatta, literally "not self"), along with a lack of the ultimate reality. The obvious philosophical problem in Buddhism between not having a soul and yet continuing a cycle of rebirth after death is explained by a doctrine of causal continuity named the doctrine of conditioned genesis, and (imho) it's pretty confusing and doesn't really solve anything.
posted by wearyaswater at 1:28 PM on January 12, 2007 [1 favorite]
Both Hinduism and Buddhism believe in samsara (a cycle of rebirth) to achieve enlightenment/liberation. But the distinctive Buddhist teaching is that of no individual soul or self, (anatta, literally "not self"), along with a lack of the ultimate reality. The obvious philosophical problem in Buddhism between not having a soul and yet continuing a cycle of rebirth after death is explained by a doctrine of causal continuity named the doctrine of conditioned genesis, and (imho) it's pretty confusing and doesn't really solve anything.
posted by wearyaswater at 1:28 PM on January 12, 2007 [1 favorite]
In versions of Buddhism, becoming one with everything is a condition that can never be achieved- it is a source of desire and suffering. From this point of view, Nirvana is the overcoming of the joint illusions of being part of everything or distinct from something.
That probably doesn't make anything much clearer, though.
posted by TheWhiteSkull at 3:00 PM on January 12, 2007
That probably doesn't make anything much clearer, though.
posted by TheWhiteSkull at 3:00 PM on January 12, 2007
In Dantes paradiso he has just kings incarnated as birds, which spell out a word, and then form together to make a giant eagle composed of them all.
posted by scodger at 4:24 PM on January 12, 2007
posted by scodger at 4:24 PM on January 12, 2007
Ah, at the risk of sounding weird ... in Vodun, a person's soul is composed of two parts, the ti bon ange and the gros bon ange. The former is the personality, whereas the latter is a generic life force that returns to the universe upon death, uniting with the loa.
posted by adipocere at 11:03 PM on January 12, 2007
posted by adipocere at 11:03 PM on January 12, 2007
Aristotle's theory of the soul is sort of like this: there's passive and active nous (intellect,) and the only thing that survives the body's death is the active, rational portion. This isn't memories, the passively absorbed images and ideas of life experience, but rather the ideas engendered by the mind that now become available for all. From this interpretation, the scholastics pick up the notion of a divine nature that survives our death and the pathological, earthly nature that dies with us. This scholastic conception has been transmuted by Descartes and Kant into our modern conception of the mind/body split.
So the real question is: what do you mean by 'soul' in the first place?
posted by anotherpanacea at 7:50 AM on January 28, 2007
So the real question is: what do you mean by 'soul' in the first place?
posted by anotherpanacea at 7:50 AM on January 28, 2007
« Older Resources for headhunting and recruiting... | Italian GSM card in US phone - PAC and PIN? Newer »
This thread is closed to new comments.
posted by stratastar at 9:44 AM on January 12, 2007