Everybody knows the usual response to this simple question, and yet the answerer does not satisfy us. Some are satisfied, but as I am one of those few who have found the answer to these questions, I am duty-bound to broadcast it to everyone that helped me find that answer.
When you ask someone what happens when a person dies, the answerer would be inclined to say one of these things:
1. If the person has been good, he will go to heaven. If the person has been bad, he will go to hell.
2. He lives on in our memory, and therefore he never dies.
3. He reaches God, and God decides what to do with him.
4. Another usual answer.
All of us have found ourselves more or less unsatisfied with such answers, because if we pursued the conversation with the answerer, it was either deflected or the answerer changed the topic. We know that we can refute all these answers with simple logic we learned from our valuable lives, so I won't delve into them.
Let me explain why each of these answers are true. I shall use a principle to explain the truth behind these answers, but this principle need not be exactly only what I use here.
Begin principle - Out beyond ideas of wrong doing and right doing, there is a field. I’ll meet you there. - End principle. I am quoting Rumi, a Persian poet.
I shall use this principle to explain why all the usual answers are true.
1. "If the person has been good, he will go to heaven. If the person has been bad, he will go to hell." The principle used to explain that if the person had been good, it means that his life was an enactment of 'ideas of right doing'. If the person had been bad, it means that his life was an enactment of 'ideas of wrong doing'. His life has now ended, which means these ideas of right and wrong doing have stopped enacting themselves. Whenever a discussion about that person comes up, the answerer would say, 'He must surely be in hell now', or 'His blessed soul must be in heaven'.
One must know that the dead person has influenced the answerer in a positive or negative way, by his right and wrong actions, and the answerer chose to decide where to send him - hell or heaven. Which is why the answerer answers with his usual response.
2. "He lives on in our memory, and therefore he never dies." Using the principle, it can be said that our memory is simply a sum of ideas (about right and wrong doing). The answerer remembers the dead person simply as the memory of his good and bad, right and wrong actions. The dead person's life is remembered by people who survived him, be it a good or bad memory. This has nothing to do with God, heaven or hell.
3. "He reaches God, and God decides what to do with him." Using the principle, this 'field' that lies beyond ideas of right and wrong actions is God, and the answerer is not a person that can judge the dead person's actions. The answerer leaves the decision to someone outside these ideas, someone outside the race of the answerer. That is why the answerer leaves it to God.
4. Any usual response to the title question can be explained using the Principle. But, what we must note, is that the answerer influences our interpretation of the principle, for the answerer also influences the interpretation of life and death itself.
I mentioned that this Principle need not be exactly what I used here. Not all principles can be tied to this explanation, and I have much to think about what principles can or can not be used.
When you ask someone what happens when a person dies, the answerer would be inclined to say one of these things:
1. If the person has been good, he will go to heaven. If the person has been bad, he will go to hell.
2. He lives on in our memory, and therefore he never dies.
3. He reaches God, and God decides what to do with him.
4. Another usual answer.
All of us have found ourselves more or less unsatisfied with such answers, because if we pursued the conversation with the answerer, it was either deflected or the answerer changed the topic. We know that we can refute all these answers with simple logic we learned from our valuable lives, so I won't delve into them.
Let me explain why each of these answers are true. I shall use a principle to explain the truth behind these answers, but this principle need not be exactly only what I use here.
Begin principle - Out beyond ideas of wrong doing and right doing, there is a field. I’ll meet you there. - End principle. I am quoting Rumi, a Persian poet.
I shall use this principle to explain why all the usual answers are true.
1. "If the person has been good, he will go to heaven. If the person has been bad, he will go to hell." The principle used to explain that if the person had been good, it means that his life was an enactment of 'ideas of right doing'. If the person had been bad, it means that his life was an enactment of 'ideas of wrong doing'. His life has now ended, which means these ideas of right and wrong doing have stopped enacting themselves. Whenever a discussion about that person comes up, the answerer would say, 'He must surely be in hell now', or 'His blessed soul must be in heaven'.
One must know that the dead person has influenced the answerer in a positive or negative way, by his right and wrong actions, and the answerer chose to decide where to send him - hell or heaven. Which is why the answerer answers with his usual response.
2. "He lives on in our memory, and therefore he never dies." Using the principle, it can be said that our memory is simply a sum of ideas (about right and wrong doing). The answerer remembers the dead person simply as the memory of his good and bad, right and wrong actions. The dead person's life is remembered by people who survived him, be it a good or bad memory. This has nothing to do with God, heaven or hell.
3. "He reaches God, and God decides what to do with him." Using the principle, this 'field' that lies beyond ideas of right and wrong actions is God, and the answerer is not a person that can judge the dead person's actions. The answerer leaves the decision to someone outside these ideas, someone outside the race of the answerer. That is why the answerer leaves it to God.
4. Any usual response to the title question can be explained using the Principle. But, what we must note, is that the answerer influences our interpretation of the principle, for the answerer also influences the interpretation of life and death itself.
I mentioned that this Principle need not be exactly what I used here. Not all principles can be tied to this explanation, and I have much to think about what principles can or can not be used.
No comments:
Post a Comment