On The Hereafter

Thesis: It is not to be assumed that one’s memory and personal identity will be carried forward by the soul into a spiritual hereafter. Anyone who believes in Holy Books should take the trouble to understand what they really say. =================================================================

On the Hereafter Author: Peter M.K. Chan This is an excerpt of my book titled Soul, God, and Morality copyrighted and published 2004 All rights reserved ==================================================================

Ever since the days of Socrates and Plato, mainstream religious opinion has always been that personal immortality must pertain only to the rational parts of the soul. Its egoistic and emotional parts should be allowed to let go with the body. The reason behind this move is not difficult to seek. For one thing, a personal soul without desires and emotions is more likely to be peaceful. For another, it is more reasonable to think that only its more rational or divine-like of aspects are worthy enough to persist into eternity. But usually, this is not so explicitly and clearly specified in the dispensations of local religious clinics. This is why most religious folks are still under the impression that in addition to their memories about themselves, their self interests and feelings for someone would also be carried by the soul forward into their spiritual hereafter. What requires pointing out though is that as far as the more sophisticated of Buddhist teachings are concerned, personal identity and memory is not really a desirable commodity. According to this radical point of view, if eventual freedom from all suffering is really to be had, to let go of selfish cravings and emotional desires is not sufficient. Memory and the identity of self that it entails should also be transcended. For as long as

memory and self-identity persist, personal interests would continue to lurk—wanted to be seen, to be heard, to be loved, to be known, and so on and so forth. What that nurtures again would be psychological torment. Thus, if all sufferings were really to be overcome, all personal concerns (and thus memories) should also be put to rest. To be able to do that, according to this view, is to enter the state of spiritual emancipation called nirvana. This is a state of being free not only from the burden old memory, but also any sense of self that memory is able to concoct. It should thus be seen that contrary to popular understanding, nirvana is not a nostalgic and personal kind of place. What that implies is that those who enter would not know who they were. Such a state of being, if I may say so, is quite analogous to the situation of Adam and Eve before they ate the fruit of the ‘tree of knowledge’. Before they ate, according to the story, they had no sense of themselves -- being unable to recognize even their own nakedness. Of course, early Christianity also had much to say about the burden of our old and depraved selves. You see, one of its unique claims is that the human race does not only inherit the genes of Adam and Eve, but also their original sin (what in fact was the emergence of memory and self-identity, as I have just indicated). Thus, one of its key battle cries is about the renewal of one’s old and depraved self (not unlike the Islamic concept of self-directed jihad). Further, according to some of its promoters, this is be brought about by an act of faith and in virtue of the magnanimity of Divine grace. Only in this way, or so it is said, could the soul be redeemed and made ready for the Kingdom of Heaven. The trouble with such a doctrine is that a couple of subsidiary wrinkles would need to be ironed out. One

is the belief that departed souls are not amnesiacs. They need to know who they were for the purpose of final reckoning. The other is that straight entry for such personal souls into heaven would bring with them traces of human depravity unfit for what is supposed to be a holy kingdom. It is thus a case of ‘either-or’ but not both. To tackle this problem, some of those who were supposedly in the know were smart enough to propagate the idea that disembodied souls would first be herded into a sort of quarantined center or transit hall; and that it is only after the final judgment that those who have really been redeemed would be admitted into Heaven. This center or hall is known in Catholic circles as purgatory – a more sanitary sounding kind of place than the classical underworld mentioned in Apostle Peter’s account of where Jesus went before his resurrection. However, it should be observed that the introduction of purgatory buys only time but not solution. At the end of the day, redeemed souls with old memories and senses of self would still have to be kept in check. The rebellion of Satan or Lucifer in particular should be kept in view. In this connection, I should like to point out that despite other criticisms that one may level against the Apostle Paul on other issues of doctrine, he was at least quite clear-headed (in my view) about this one. It was to his credit to have taken the Genesis pronouncement of ‘dust to dust’ more seriously than most, and thereby appeared to have accepted what it entails. One must take seriously his contention that if there were not going to be any resurrection of bodies of an incorruptible kind, his Christian faith and commitment “would be in vain” (I Corinthians, Chapter 15). Why, may I ask, should he be so desperate for

an incorruptible body when he already had a redeemed soul? Let me tell you what I think. He seemed to be saying that old memories and personal identities should be allowed to disintegrate with the body. And the bodies of those who are redeemed would be resurrected new and incorruptible for the new heaven and the new earth. He also seemed to be saying that memory and self-identity are in fact on the side of the body, and that what is new about these incorruptible bodies is that they are ready to begin afresh with new memories of perhaps a more desirable kind. The problem with this scenario, I should like to point out, is that as far as personal immortality is concerned, this kind of hereafter is as good as none. For in the absence of old memories, new bodies and brains, incorruptible or otherwise, would not be able to know who they were or suppose to replace. That renders empty the hope of reuniting with friends and kin. It goes without saying therefore that this Pauline scenario is not very palatable to most. Thus, for purpose of making the hereafter more marketable, some later theoreticians were daring enough to suggest that these incorruptible bodies would in fact be reunited with their souls with old memories that have been kept waiting in purgatory. But the trouble of this move is that it is taking everything sort of back to square one. I said ‘sort of’ because the end result might turn out to be worse rather than better. Let me explain. Since the new incorruptible bodies and old souls with egos and memories are now both destruction-proof, who is to say what new complications might eventually ensue? Many new dramas of Eden and their aftermath, if I may be allowed to suggest, could in fact be played into eternity. This is why I said that the Apostle Paul was

clear-headed about this one. At least, what he envisioned was that in the complete passing away of all that which is old, a new game would be set for incorruptible brains and new memories. That, I suppose, is the only way to erase permanently the quilt of a tormenting soul (with respect to the terrible Roman cruelties he had once personally inflicted or helped to inflict on the early Christians). Some people, you see, would rather completely forget than to carry their past for an eternity. For those who are not religiously in the know, let me also point out that this scenario is in fact consistent with the Biblical pronouncements (in the book of Genesis) that “from dust thou art, to dust thou shalt return”, and that to die is to return to “the place of one’s ancestors” – a polite label for the ancient family graveyard. For those who are biblically in the know, let me also say that anyone that takes these pronouncements seriously should also accept what they literally entail. It is that there will not be any personal hereafter, and that this is what is meant to be a human creature. What comes into being, in other words, must in the course of time also peters away. The laments of King Solomon (in the book of Ecclesiastics) on the futility of human existence, if I may also point out, are lamentations about this very fundamental fact. That borrowed breath from God, the one that is supposed to be the original wherewithal of the human soul, or so he seemed to be saying, is not really the personal property of anyone. According to him, what comes from God will have to be returned (as a borrowed entity of sorts) to God (Ecclesiastics 12:7). This is also the right time and a good place to point out that for what the Bible has to tell, the classical Judaic view of what may exist in the

hereafter had always been in the form of visible bodies rather than invisible spiritual soul. It should be recalled that Elijah and Jesus were both said to have gone bodily stock and barrow, visible to the naked eye, straight into heaven. There is no mention whatsoever that it was their souls that had made the trip. Call these bodies transformed, new, and incorruptible if you like. But visible bodies they were (as depicted), not invisible spiritual souls. Eote should also be taken that what the ew Testament writers hoped for was not to go to heaven as spiritual souls, but for the “second coming” that would bring about the destruction of all that which is old in favor of the new. As for those who are already dead, the idea was that their bodies would have to be resurrected for the final judgment. And there is also no mention that such resurrected bodies would be judged only after they are team up with their souls, previously disembodied either (I Thessalonians Chapter 4, and Revelation Chapters 20-21). These canonical passages only says that those who are redeemed would be given new bodies of the incorruptible kind to enter the “new heaven and the new earth”. It is in this light, I believe, that the Eew Testament scenario on what is really to be had in the hereafter has got to be understood. In this connection, allow me also to point out that when Apostle Paul took the trouble to say that the body is to be looked upon as the ‘temple of God’, what should have come through is that our Paul the Apostle was actually theorizing not just within his Judaic tradition, but also like an Aristotelian or minimal dualist of sorts (one who hold that only the active intellect or power of consciousness would persist after bodily death). It is in this light, I believe, that the Eew Testament scenario on what to be had in the hereafter had got to be understood. Care should

be taken not to let spectacles of a Platonic kind to get in the way. Unfortunately, for reason of our human desire for more time to perpetuate our existing personal identity into a spiritual hereafter, this basic point has remained difficult for many to accept. It is distinctive of human nature not to take literally what it does not like. Besides, the neighborhood of truth is always less comfortable than the familiar circle of falsehood. This is also why religious dualism of the Platonic kind (with memories attached) is still able to attract and ‘hypnotize’ the immortality crowd. ============================================================

Peter M.K. Chan is the author of The Mystery of Mind (published 2003), and Soul, God, and Morality (published 2004). Recently, he has also competed any work titled The Six Patriarchs of Chinese Humanism (not yet in print). For details regarding the above, please visit http://sites.google.com/site/pmkchan/home http://sites.google.com/site/ancientchinesehumanism/home ==================================================