/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.16909594]

Has any author explored the link between near-death experiences, gnosticism and dharmic conceptions of the afterlife?
Is it too early for something cohesive to be written about this, seeing as these ideas have only been linked together fairly recently?

[doubtposting !!0CYbMy7gCdH No.16909622]

>>16909594
Jung
Also me

[Anonymous No.16909629]

>>16909622
>Jung
Where?
>me
So what do you have to say on the subject?

[doubtposting !!0CYbMy7gCdH No.16909646]

>>16909629
>Where?
It's dispersed throughout his writings, but reading the notes on his lectures on kundalini yoga, the seven sermons to the dead, Aion, as well as the relevant parts of his red book should give you what you're looking for. I'm sure Eliade has something written tangential to this idea as well, but as far as I know Jung's the first to connect it to near-death experiences.
>So what do you have to say on the subject?
Probably nothing you haven't already thought of.

[Anonymous No.16909658]

>>16909646
>dispersed throughout his writings
I had no idea, thanks. So Jung did know something was going on, I'm surprised this is the first time I'm hearing about it.
>Probably nothing you haven't already thought of.
I'm still interested in reading your take, surely you're going to phrase it in a different way and that alone might give me a better perspective.

[doubtposting !!0CYbMy7gCdH No.16909714]

>>16909658
>Jung did know something was going on
I may be reading into him quite a bit but I still think he was way more perceptive than we give him credit for.

>I'm still interested in reading your take
Alright I'll try give you a QRD: The gist of it as I have it is that what's understood symbologically by the phenomena of death, unconsciousness, the 'unknown' are representatives of the same ontological pre-conscious reality. Near-death experiences appear to us the way they do because the structures underpinning conscious reality itself starts to unravel as the subject approaches the singularity which the aforementioned phenomena represent (death etc.) Transformations of the conscious structure, of the personality, are equivalent to, or equally, indistinguishable from a real ontological change. Inscribed in the myths of yore are inscribed quite literally insights into the potential manifestations of the pre-conscious reality. Forgive me if this is a bit jumbled but I'm still in the process of working things out.

[doubtposting !!0CYbMy7gCdH No.16909740]

>>16909714
Yeah no I completely butchered this one. Sorry, I'm writing off the top of my head here. I've edited below
>What's understood symbologically by the phenomena of death, unconsciousness, the 'unknown' is the same ontological pre-conscious reality. Near-death experiences appear to us the way they do because the structures underpinning conscious reality itself start to unravel as the subject approaches the singularity which the aforementioned phenomena represent (death etc.) Transformations of the conscious structure, of the personality, are equivalent to ontological shifts. Inscribed in the myths of yore are quite literally insight into the potential manifestations of the pre-conscious reality.

[Anonymous No.16909770]

>>16909740
See I told you it would be interesting, since my own take is an /x/-tier pedestrian interpretation, I wasn't expecting this at all.
>the same ontological pre-conscious reality
Does the fact that you call it a singularity imply that it is entirely ontologically independent from currently perceived reality?
You call it a transformation of the conscious structure, but as far as I know, the subject's sense of self is not substantially altered by the near-death experience, or at least, not to a point of complete transformation. Does pre-conscious imply pre-ego, or something else?

[doubtposting !!0CYbMy7gCdH No.16909816]

>>16909770
>Does the fact that you call it a singularity imply that it is entirely ontologically independent from currently perceived reality?
I call it a singularity because it's pre-conscious, and can't be reached by consciousness. Death appears like a singularity, an 'event horizon', so to speak. In that sense it's ontologically independent, but it's not really reasonable to ascribe ontological independence to a reality which is marked by the disappearance of conscious reality, either. Much like how it's nonsensical to talk about the 'occurrences' happening at the singularity of a black hole, since a black hole is marked by such an extreme time dilation that the notion of the 'event' is rendered mathematically nonsensical or contradictory in the hole's interior. I suspect there's a connection between the idea of death and the logical idea of a singularity, but I haven't hammered out the intuition yet, so I'll leave it at that.

>Does pre-conscious imply pre-ego, or something else?
Pre-conscious implies pre-ego, yes. Neumann (student of Jung) has a great discourse on how ego-consciousness might develop out of pre-conscious psychic constituents. Neumann is also a big influence on me here; What I'm in part trying to do is bridge the gap between the metaphysical domain and the depth-psychological domain, since they both deal with the science and logic of symbols, albeit respectively from the perspectives of transcendence and immanence.

>the subject's sense of self is not substantially altered by the near-death experience
This is because the sense of self is exactly what marks ego-consciousness, something that identifies by itself in some measure. As I said, the singularity is a horizon and while approaching it entails a gradual disappearance of everything the ego-consciousness holds to, the ego-consciousness itself doesn't 'transform' in its essential character until it arrives at the horizon. This allows you to both account for transformations of the personality at the hand of NDE (increased altruism, feeling of unity, etc.) while still thinking of the person as self-same.

[Anonymous No.16909853]

>>16909816
So what you're saying is that the death process is more or less a progressive disintegration of ego-consciousness into the pre-birth state. That would imply that the pre-birth state is some sort of unqualifiable panpsychic entity, right? If the return to the pre-birth state presupposes the destruction of the self, I mean. Though I don't necessarily agree with this.

[doubtposting !!0CYbMy7gCdH No.16909905]

>>16909853
>So what you're saying is that the death process is more or less a progressive disintegration of ego-consciousness into the pre-birth state.
Exactly.
>That would imply that the pre-birth state is some sort of unqualifiable panpsychic entity, right? If the return to the pre-birth state presupposes the destruction of the self, I mean.
Panpsychism is a dubious term but when you use it like that, yes. Here is where you can bridge the gap between death and 'self-realization'. The singularity is the unqualified or unmanifest Godhead of the non-dualist traditions. The same process that a person undergoes when approaching death is the same one replicated consciously by adopting the metaphysical schema of, say, advaitins.
>God is the infinite Being, while Jiva is only a finite being. How then can the finite grasp the Infinite? It is like a doll made of salt trying tofathom the depth of the ocean. In doing so the salt doll is dissolved into the sea and lost. Similarly the Jiva, in trying to measure God and know Him, loses its separateness and becomes one with Him.
Sri Ramakrishna
It's also worth noting describing it as 'disintegration' only makes sense with regard to the materially minded self, that self which most westerners inhabit. To the yogi, the gnostic and the buddhist, it's the other way around, the universal, pre-individuated or pre-ego self (better called pre-ego 'state') is the true self. How the ocean-simile is used by the different traditions is really illustrative of how the sense of self has developed in the west vs. the east. Compare the above with the parable of Jesus saving Peter from drowning:
>But Jesus immediately said to them: “Take courage! It is I. Don’t be afraid.”
>“Lord, if it’s you,” Peter replied, “tell me to come to you on the water.”
>“Come,” he said.
>Then Peter got down out of the boat, walked on the water and came toward Jesus. But when he saw the wind, he was afraid and, beginning to sink, cried out, “Lord, save me!”
>Immediately Jesus reached out his hand and caught him. “You of little faith,” he said, “why did you doubt?”

[Anonymous No.16909939]

>>16909905
>the unqualified or unmanifest Godhead of the non-dualist traditions
Not all nondualist traditions have such a concept, though. Isn't it only Hinduism that posits this kind of "higher self"?
>describing it as 'disintegration'
"Reintegration" then, would that be more appropriate?
You mention gnostics, but I don't think they believed death to be a process of direct union with the divine.
I think western thought is more reluctant to accept this idea because there is, in practical terms, no real difference between "reintegrating" the self into the Godhead and simply ending the self altogether with no implication of an afterlife of any kind.

[Anonymous No.16910066]

>>16909740>>16909853

symbols are for atheists who love mind games and playing detective between two orgies

no wonder those assholes love jung so much

[Anonymous No.16910318]

>>16910066
Why?