Friedrich Nietzsche wrote…
“What if a demon were to creep after you one night, in your loneliest loneliness, and say, ‘This life which you live must be lived by you once again and innumerable times more; and every pain and joy and thought and sigh must come again to you, all in the same sequence. The eternal hourglass will again and again be turned and you with it, dust of the dust!’ Would you throw yourself down and gnash your teeth and curse that demon? Or would you answer, ‘Never have I heard anything more divine’?”
This is some serious existential stuff as a thought experiment. How would you respond? Would it be a curse or a blessing to you, this eternal recurrence? At once, it would seem, life becomes totally meaningless, because what you do wouldn’t really make a difference. Yet, everything also becomes totally meaningful, in the sense that every little thing you do will matter – forever – because it is going to repeat indefinitely. Whether there is free will or not is not the concern. You can only do your best now, for a better future, whether it will truly be repeated or not. Is the demon an angel then? Existential trap or freedom? You decide!
I do like Nietzsche’s idea, and some theories of physics also lend it some credibility. But it’s problematic for some: If we have no recollection of past recurrence, then how is it us repeating? Isn’t consciousness defined by continuity of experience? Repetition isn’t continuity, so by definition it isn’t continual consciousness, so you could argue it neither adds nor detracts from our actual existence. Indeed it’s questionable whether an eternal recurrence is really relevant to me at all.
Yet I agree somehow the concept affects us, and does add some kind of comfort (although slightly perverted). They say imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, having my life ‘copied’ even by something that isn’t truly ‘me’ still somehow adds value to my life. A little like feeling we’re always on camera. Perhaps this is what is meant by God’s omnipresence. People always act differently when people are watching, it’s in our nature.
John
The answer is here: http://www.bartleby.com/45/3/207.html The consciousness from life to life is not exactly the same or totally different as you can read in the link.
Here is the Buddhist perspective on the concept of God:
http://thedailyenlightenment.com/2010/12/did-the-universe-have-a-creator/
Is there, in fact, any Buddhist concept of God?
If one believes in the ‘eternal recurrence’ then nothing was actually created at all, because existence was eternal, which puts any concept of God as being pantheistic at best. Of course Nietzsche was an atheist, although he clearly had a longing for the religious treasures of eternity and meaning in his life. I would hazard to say that, for many of us, God is simply affirmation of a personal absolute. The inner voice of our conscience that yearns for peace and comfort, a personal, common voice with whom we can dialog when searching for answers. Fictitious? Wishful thinking? To be honest, so long as God remains the personalization of all that is comforting to us, I think that the ends justify the means. This same God surely stands by while we suffer, but not without offering his hand… even if our imperfections often blind us to its presence.
This isn’t Buddhist or Christian or tied to any such superficial taxonomy. It’s bare, naked, honest humanity.
John
Here is another Buddhist perspective on the classic God idea:
http://www.budsas.org/ebud/ebdha068.htm
Buddhism does not subscribe to eternal recurrence. It is just that there is some resemblance in the sense that if we stick to our old habits, we don’t change and are ‘reborn’ in similar manners. We can change and we do change.
It makes sense to discuss the God idea in the classic way. If not, it’s better to call ‘God’ another name – to avoid confusion via creative interpretation.