What is the world after death and spirit

　Good morning.
The Buddha did not clearly indicate spirits or the world after death. This is because the important part of Buddhism is not there. This is because Buddhism is not about “what happens when you die,” but “how to live.”
Also, I think you're right about spirits, the world after death, and science. I will wait for scientific progress.
Even if spirits and the world after death are scientifically proven, my position of thought does not change. This is because, as I wrote at the beginning, the theme of Buddhism is not “what happens when you die,” but “how to live.”

Hello. I saw it.

I wonder how Buddhism thinks about “spirits” and “the world after death.” As a monk, I say I'm interested in Buddhism, and I'm happy that you have taken an interest in it. Also, the fact that I thought so also means that there is a “Buddha connection.” That means Alpha Centauri has a relationship with the Buddha.

The Buddha's enlightenment is that he clarified “what are we born for and what happens when we die.” In the Buddhist world, it's basically not “the end when you die.” “Suffering” is “not ending even after death.” You will be reborn in the next generation after receiving rewards (self-earned) for the actions you have done in this life. That doesn't necessarily mean it's human. Therefore, I think it is very “precious” to have been born as a human being, and to have been born when you can listen to the Buddha's words. A world of eternal reincarnation, yet there is no escape from suffering. That's why the Buddha realized how to “never have to be reborn again.” If it ends with death, there is no need for ascetic practice, enlightenment, or Buddha. There are also “spirit-like things” (although it cannot be said that all spirits as commonly spoken of are like that). There are also posthumous ones. I can't see it, but I believe the Buddha's words and the words of those who have been enlightened.

I think opinions will change on how to view science, but I think there are many things that have not yet been proven in science. Not limited to the Buddha, we already knew things that great people in the past can only understand in the present day. I hope you can leave aside the things about adults who want to take place in a confrontational structure between science and religion, and take care of your pure questions and interests.

Gassho

In any case, don't be delusional about what no one has been able to prove at this point.
You also said “probably” at the beginning.
Brain power also has the power to materialize what is assumed, and it seems that if you assume that you are being chased by someone or that you have been grabbed, you can actually get a scratch on your back, etc., and you can get caught.
“Assuming that there is something that isn't actually there” is a power within the brain only within oneself.
Assuming that and “I want to” itself is already delusional and can be said to be a selfish opinion.
Believing in something that isn't there, and becoming emotional when you try to force yourself to believe “I want,” the one itself ceases to be in a clear state of thought.
So I won't believe it until it's scientifically proven.
So, isn't there an afterlife or a world after death?
In Buddhism, they just say “there is” or “not” depending on the denomination or individual, and this does not mean that anyone is representing “there is” or “not” in Buddhism. (Ω)
So what I'm about to say is very important.

The Zen monk who realized this is what he said.
The other world is one second ago, one second later.
Past lives are memories.
The afterlife is speculation.
The world after death is what we experience on this earth that continues even after that individual dies, and continues forever.

Humans are probably only able to live now.
Other than that, can you understand that everything one second before and one second later is nothing but “current thoughts” as a matter of reason?

Even though there is a world after death, I am living fine.
I am living fine even if there is no life after death.
Whether there is a world after death or another world, today, here, and on Earth, “the world after the death of our ancestors (this),” where many great people died, we are living with blood and blood so as not to leave for a fantasy world called thought.

☆ The problem is that the clear definition of the words “world after death, afterlife,” is not properly clarified from individual to individual.
When many people hear “destiny, the world after death,” etc., try to include yourself very carefully about the human nature that they themselves begin to create stories without permission from there.
I'll say it again.

Humans have a sense of doubt that they are deceived by such words and human language, whether they have read it, seen it, or heard it, and misinterpret uncertain things that cannot be proven and assume “that must be the case.”

If science is to be brought up, it is unscientific to rush to a conclusion when no conclusion has been reached through verification using scientific methods. It's not a question of denying or affirming.

Research is progressing in quantum mechanics... You told me an interesting story. I'm interested in this. However, during the research, it is just research in progress, and no conclusion has been reached. I don't understand what I don't understand. If you can't stand it and come to a conclusion, it's just that you are succumbing to the psychological stress of not understanding.

Such research results have been obtained from fields related to cognition.
http://karapaia.livedoor.biz/archives/52151355.html
But I'll prove the spirit! If you say that, that's the spirit and goodness. It is unscientific to regard one study or one scholar as sacred and not doubt it. The same goes for quantum mechanics, so please do your best.

Now, what did the Buddha say about spirits?
In an anecdote called “The Parable of the Poisonous Arrow,” to an apprentice who had no choice but to worry about things after death, the end of the world, etc., he said, “Please practice without thinking about things you can't come to a conclusion even if you argue!” I was scolded. The Buddha did not mention whether there is or not, and he said, “Even if you think about it, it only interferes with peace of mind.” Therefore, this teaching is called “ignoring.”

On the other hand, it doesn't mean that the afterlife isn't mentioned at all.
“Live honestly. There is no time to list the sutras that say, “If you do, it will be easier in the next life.” However, these kinds of teachings are definitely words for royal aristocrats and common people, in other words, non-monks. What is the message of this word? Will it be an afterlife benefit? Or is it the part where you have to live honestly? The monk's opinions are also divided depending on how they pay attention.

Personally, since the Buddha is also a monk, I think the teachings for disciples who became monks would be closer to the true intentions of the Buddha himself than the teachings for the general public. That's why I believe the main message for the general public is to live honestly. (CF, counterfactual theory, Brahmin religion)

Speaking more deeply, the afterlife that Buddhism preaches must be read on the premise of “all laws and nothing.” I don't have the number of characters anymore, but it's a teaching written by Master Tange.