[literallyaduck]

Having seen a post for Christianity, Islam, and now Tibetan Buddhism recently, I believe the first two were to show off Apis, but this one appears to have nothing technical to offer, so I must look within for the meaning to this post.

From a scientific perspective I see no evidence of thought after death. To stand before judgment is a theme among Christians and apparently Buddhism.

With Christianity the judgment is external, with Buddhism it seems from the article to be an internal balance between actions and the perception of actions in one's own consciousness. If you are an expert on the topic and can show me the error, please let me know. Having seen many deaths recently I am drawn to the tests from Houdini to those performing an attempt at contact from the afterlife. If contact post death has not been proven how can I rationally accept anyone's account of an afterlife? I am not attempting to challenge your beliefs, but am willing to hear an explanation.

[kitotik]

Another perspective on such topics is to not take them so literally.

The texts can be extremely useful not just for the friends and family of the deceased, but also for when there is no literal loss of life and just intense life changes (‘ego death’, ‘rebirth’).

Regarding judgement, you could look at this as simple data analysis to make decisions on one’s life - did the efforts achieve the desired outcomes? We’re the efforts insufficient? Was the impact of prior life choices as expected?

With esoteric teachings, assuming they can only be useful when followed religiously would be akin to reading programming tutorials and assuming they are only for creating todo lists and chat apps(even if they may be!)

[poulsbohemian]

The answer is midway through the article "Sitting with my relatives and the lamas, I remembered that The Tibetan Book of the Dead is meant to be as much for the living as the dead. Bardo is generally viewed as the journey from death to rebirth, but birth to death is also a bardo."

Like many traditions surrounding death, it has nothing to do with the one who has passed but rather is a process for those still living to grieve and/or reflect upon their own lives.

So why is this on HN? Well, probably because it has generally been a place for intellectual curiosity of all types.

[cratermoon]

Yup. Bardo isn't just about the afterlife. See e.g. https://www.lionsroar.com/four-points-for-letting-go-bardo/

[ianai]

I think we need a much deeper understanding of consciousness before I’m comfortable with scientific arguments ruling things out. Science is greatest when it’s humble about what it knows and doesn’t. (It’s through this humility that science leads to deeper understanding than doctrine.)

Relatedly, NDE stories can be incredibly compelling. YouTube of course has many at the ready. It’s definitely not rigorous nor science, but does seem like something could be there.

[rixed]

> Science is greatest when it’s humble about what it knows and doesn’t.

I wish science could get some inspiration from religion on that matter !

/s

[LunaSea]

> but does seem like something could be there.

Based on what? Magic thinking?

[mping]

In my opinion, science has no tools to verify life after death, regardless of what one believes. Besides, the onus of (dis)proving life after death is for the individual, not for the religious group. Most of them already have their systems set up.

My understanding is that Buddhism doesn't say that you "stand before judgment", but instead explain what is the process of life and death, cause and effect, that was observed through the eyes of superior individuals who cultivated and developed great concentration and wisdom.

[LunaSea]

> that was observed through the eyes of superior individuals who cultivated and developed great concentration and wisdom.

If you believe that said individuals have said authority.