Originally posted by lucifershammer
1. I wouldn't call the need to recognise and worship God any more a curse than the human need to recognise and love one's parents.
2. If a person culpably refuses to recognise and worship God, then he/she finds that he/she gets her wish of not having to endure God's company for all eternity. That's just what 'hell' is.
3. I don't know of any ve aired moral faculties are not morally culpable for their actions; so they can be saved.
1. Indeed, many find it enjoyable and aesthetically enriching, e.g. Ramakrishna, a thoroughgoing Advaitist who nevertheless did bhakti—and myself, for that matter, even though I am no more a theist than he was (though I do not reject the “G-word,” I just use it in the same sense as Brahman).
2. (a) For you then hell is a consequence and not a punishment—and perhaps does not entail torment? (b) As a monist, I have to ask: “Where could there be that is absent God?” (Consider that a rhetorical question, since I know that you reject the premise....)
3 & 4. I would take the view that “all sentient beings have Buddha-nature.” If I can call something like that “soul,” then I see it as being as transient anything else—except in the sense that ayam atma brahma
, this very self is
Brahman (or, perhaps more correctly, of
5 & 6. Imagine the totality as an ocean (recognizing that the totality, as such, has no proper analogy). My existence is like a stream in the ocean: real, but not separate, transient. One day, that stream will disappear. But (to quote Ramakrishna): “Where could I possibly go
Since I am not too keen on reincarnation, or transmigration of souls, or an individual “after-life,” I guess that means I do not see a divine “jurisprudence” extending beyond this existence, either heavenly or hellish. Whether or not I think there ought to be is quite beside the point.