Hell Seems Possible. Is Heaven Possible Too?
Seven Jain Hells
#/media/File:Seven_Jain_Hells.jpg)
Spilling over from my previous thread, The Religion Unmarred By Violence: Jainism, it appears that, given the various ghastly, highly-detailed, descriptions of hell (the supernatural realm in religions), it seems possible to recreate it on Earth. All that's required is to implement, make real, the various tortures described in these descriptions. It takes a moment though to realize that hellish tortures are all practicable methods of inducing pain i.e. there's nothing supernatural, ergo impossible for us, about them. Hell is possible on Earth or this world.
Now take note of the fact that, unlike Hell which has been described in disconcerting detail, little information is available on what Heaven would look like. Aside from taking this as an indication of ignorance of what Heaven is, it could also imply that Heaven is an impossible world :sad:
Comments...
Spilling over from my previous thread, The Religion Unmarred By Violence: Jainism, it appears that, given the various ghastly, highly-detailed, descriptions of hell (the supernatural realm in religions), it seems possible to recreate it on Earth. All that's required is to implement, make real, the various tortures described in these descriptions. It takes a moment though to realize that hellish tortures are all practicable methods of inducing pain i.e. there's nothing supernatural, ergo impossible for us, about them. Hell is possible on Earth or this world.
Now take note of the fact that, unlike Hell which has been described in disconcerting detail, little information is available on what Heaven would look like. Aside from taking this as an indication of ignorance of what Heaven is, it could also imply that Heaven is an impossible world :sad:
Comments...
Comments (41)
Fear of hell is good thing, if it can make you stop bad habits. Like smoking, drinking etc. But weather if hell exist, or not is not important question at all, its the functions that belie. It is useful if it can stop wars, poverty, suffering. Least the belief in hell make people act.
Quoting Tzeentch
Something's not right, perhaps more accurately, something's wrong. No one, absolutely no one, since the Shakya sage Siddhartha Gautama about 2500 years ago, has been credited with a bona fide state of Buddhahood. Isn't this odd? The Buddha literally made it crystal clear what needs to be done to be enligthened and millions have journeyed on that sacred path but, strangely enough, not one of these spiritual travelers has ever achieved enlightenment in the same sense as Gautama Buddha's. This state of affairs should raise at least one eyebrow in surprise, if not both in shock. Reminds me of tales of explorers having found a hidden civilization, came back home with a map but when people use that map the hidden cilvilzation can't be found. Either there's no hidden civilization (enlightement is a lie) or we failed to recognize the hidden civilzation even though we actually found it (nobody actually knows what enlightenment is).
I don't think that's odd. Let's assume attaining complete enlightenment is indeed quite rare. Let's then say I were to attain it right now. Who'd be there to judge the legitimacy of that experience? Or perhaps a better question: would someone who has attained enlightenment even care about matters of legitimacy in the eyes of the world?
It's worth noting that there isn't one enlightenment experience, but many. This is true for both Buddhism and many other wisdom traditions which involve so called 'peak experiences'. These experiences are in fact not so uncommon and described by many to be quite wonderful. Could that not be regarded as a form of heaven?
Other possibilities:
1. Enlightenment is bogus
2. We don't know what enlightenment is and so, even if we do become enlightened, we don't know that we are. This possibility is germane to what I've been saying - we have no idea what heaven means and so would, quite naturally, fail to recognize it.
I haven't a clue but here's the intriguing bit...second guessing the Shakya sage, it's not entirely impossible that the Buddha knew there's something wrong about the idea of heaven and, ergo, offered us something else, to wit, nirvana - not earth, not hell, and, most thought-provokingly, not heaven.
Could we create such a place on the world where displeasure is completely eliminated, and every single need and want is fulfilled? We could try. I think you would need enough wealth that you did not need to work. Work would be optional, as in a pursuit that satisfies your personal desires. If you trained your mind and body to be healthy, and could do so with optimal nutrition and rest, to avoid pain or damage. Finally you would need safety, security, and people who loved you to the rate that you would find fits you best.
So heaven is freedom from having to do anything for others for survival, health, and adequate love. I think there are a few lucky individuals who fit this on Earth. What do you think?
Hm.
I'm not sure what you are getting at, but maybe you wish to elaborate further.
Coming back to your earlier posts, your point seemed to be that it is easier to conceive of a physical hell than it is a physical heaven?
What is interesting is that 'hell' or 'the underworld' (Hades, etc.) have often been associated with the physical world. One can even see parallels with Buddhism here, as attachment to the physical will prevent one from attaining (degrees of) enlightenment.
'Heaven' has more often been associated with the non-physical world. Perhaps that's why it's not so easy to conceive of a physical representation of heaven.
I think every person becoming “enlightened” would essentially be heaven on Earth. Also, if you’re interested, this conclusion is somewhat similar to Eckhart Tolle’s book “A New Earth.” Although I’m not exactly endorsing the book. It reads as too “self-help” oriented for my taste, which also makes me skeptical of the author’s intent. But anyway, a fully enlightened world would probably solve all pain that is caused by others. Of course there’s nothing you can do about natural disasters, accidents, aging, etc., but an enlightened person would likely handle these events without suffering as much as someone unenlightened.
Also in Christianity, where things “of the flesh” or “of the world” are regarded as negative or sinful, and matters of the soul considered positive, and worth pursuing even at the expense of physical pain or hardship. Maybe a bit off topic, but these parallels make me wonder if the concepts of heaven and hell are meant to be an allegorical representation and a projection of these values?
As someone who has had them, :100: :up: :clap:
You see echoes of this awareness in popular culture, especially today’s highly animated superhero and action-adventure films. They are populated by beings with supernatural powers or who can travel to other realms. Yet at the end of the day, they are fictional. Whereas in pre-modern culture, such tales are regarded as real.
I just listened to a long interview with a fascinating novelist, Kate Forsyth, who is an expert on the history of fairy tales. She’s brilliant on how these tales reflect cultural archetypes and morals from the cultures in which they originated, and on how they are transformed by them as they travel. (For instance, Cinderella started her life as a Chinese fairy-tale, hence the emphasis on bound feet, represented in the Western version by glass slippers.)
As to the reality of heaven and hell - I personally believe these term signify profound realities which it is impossible for the mortal mind to imagine. I don’t know, of course, but I’m certainly not convinced by the sceptics that they are merely folklore.
Heaven and hell on earth are possible, relatively speaking, but the earth based heaven would likely fall short of most definitions of utopia.
There is a proposed psychological reason for the absence of detailed depictions of heaven. "For what is the bliss of that paradise? Perhaps we might have guessed that already, but it is better for it to be expressly described for us by an authority we cannot underestimate in such matters, Thomas Aquinas, the great teacher and saint: "In the kingdom of heaven" he says as gently as a lamb, "the blessed will see the punishment of the damned, so that they will derive all the more pleasure from their heavenly bliss.” - Nietzsche
@StreetlightX
Bullshit. You're saying that the question of heaven vs hell, within Jainism specifically is not worthy of the Philosophy of Religion sub-forum?
Jainism is the entry point to the thread.
Try again.
I know you won't. What I really know is that folks like yourself will never even entertain the reality of something non-physical. Let's cut to the chase: you're scared of non-physicality, and that's why you keep relegating threads you don't like to the shoutbox, where they'll be conveniently forgotten.
I have no illusions that this post will change your behavior, but nevertheless I feel the need to point out despotism when I see it. I think you're fooling only yourself.
being a mod and other mods not calling him out.
An interesting thread with some interesting replies.
Always funny when a man speaks against political fascism yet acts like this in a public forum.
Ah,the hypocrisy of bureaucracy.
Describing Heaven as an unspecified awesome place is very clever from a PR standpoint.
It lets peoples imagination fill in the blanks.
So what can we learn? Wanna lure people in, be vague. Wanna scare people off, be specific.
Why would a moderator have opinions about a post? As long as the site rules are followed that should be it.
I agree with the move to The Lounge but after that all you should do is defend that move.
And we live in a world where moderators make their cases for why they move threads via middle-school-level ad homs. And this is a strategy that anyone who observes your posts is well aware of, @StreetlightX. Can you offer an intelligent reason for why you moved this thread, instead of this embarrassing ad hom?
If you're not aware, @Baden and @jamalrob
Read below:
Quoting Philosophim
It looks like there's unanimous consensus on what Hell is or could be like but none on the matter of Heaven. I and everyone gets what eternal means in Heaven's promise of eternal happiness but happiness is left vague and undefined. Perhaps it's got to do with the fact that on Earth we're more familiar with suffering and pain than with happiness - Earthly life can be Hellish sometimes.
Quoting Philosophim
We're getting to a definition of Heaven, a working description of what Heaven looks like.
Quoting Philosophim
Given what I said about how suffering and pain are more familiar experiences, I'd say there'll be a tendency to define and describe Heaven in the negative - as absence of pain and suffering.
Also, notice how you associated Heaven with wealth - money is a/the means of escape from suffering/pain, the kind we have to undergo if we don't possess it. However, wealth comes with its own share of suffering/pain or so I heard. Also, wealth is simply unable to provide a satisfactory solution to the greatest source of our fears and suffering, to wit, death. Now that I think of it, the eternal in eternal happiness is an essential part of what Heaven is.
Nonetheless, eternal life is also true of Hell and suicide evidences our unwillingness to endure suffering of that kind. I suppose it's a question of priorities - first thing we want is to end our suffering/pain and once we achieve that, we aim for immortality.
Heaven = being rich & immortal? :chin:
Quoting Pinprick
This is intriguing to say the least. Heaven can be had - is completely accessible to anyone, poor or rich, saint or sinner, man or woman, young or old - because it's not a place you go to but a state of mind. Can you paint a picture of a mind that's enlightened for us?
As always, great post.
Spit it out then...what does Heaven look like?
:up:
This description of Heaven is, well, unsatisfactory because it doesn't mention anything about happiness. Contrast this to the fact that Hell is very detailed on how anyone unfortunate enough to be condemned to it will suffer.
Unspoiled wilderness = almost paradise. What's missing? :chin:
Unbearable physical suffering/disease is another thing.
The other thing worth noting that in many ways people don't recover from things. The blind don't see again, the lame don't walk, the dead are not brought back to life, and so on. I think the best response to that is to not make moire blind people, but whatever!
Heaven, Earth and Hell are a descriptive analogy to the compartments of the human psyche: the mundane part which lives its day-to-day commnon-sense life on Earth; the moral, altruistic, co-operative conscience (sometimes called our 'better angel') and the dark, rapacious, evil part (sometimes reffered to as our 'demons')
We have been aware of this since the beginning of introspection. The ancient myth-makers of every culture had some ways of characterizing these aspects of human nature, whether personalizing them as animal totems, spirits or deities; poets and bards have sung about them in metaphor. Organized religions have located them as a vertical arrangement: the house of their chief god in the sky, this vale of tears, or land of opportunity on Earth; the dark, firelit underworld below. Modern psychologists have named them as superego, ego and id, or iceberg or archetypes.
The only difference is, the modern psychologists deny the good and evil in humans, so they attribute the good to correct nurturing and socializing and the evil to our primal, animal impulses.
That's true, as far as it goes, but not quite accurate. those primal impulses are turned to evil by the uniquely human compound of reasoning intelligence, imagination and capacity for self-delusion.
Why it's easier to describe hell than heaven: religions use hell as a threat for everyone equally. A threat has more teeth if it's specific, and we all experience pain and humiliation in a similar way, from similar sources. The promise of eternal happiness, however, doesn't mean the same thing to everyone, so it's best left to the individual imagination - just so it motivates each one to the good behaviour prescribed by his society.
When people lose confidence in the cohesion and values of their society, the psychological threats and bribes lose their effectiveness; people behave according to their own lights, some destroying all that stands in their way, while others strive to save things from destruction.
But hell is easy.
What's that to do with anything?
nothing. It's what's present and should not be that poses a problem. The lion cannot lie down with the lamb: he is impelled by nature to tear the lamb asunder and devour it. We can't have heaven on earth, simply because evolution has engendered predation and parasitism in the life-cycles of this planet. As much as humankind has been able to insulate itself from nature, the insulation is permeable to microscopic enemies and mankind is still subject to the predatory and parasitic tendencies in its own nature. Heaven is imagined as the absence of these flaws in creation.