One possible approach to the explanation of the relationship between
Existenz and death is the following. We understand that one
aspect of the human being is Dasein, that is, existence in the world. This empirical existence is finite and after a while it perishes.
Existenz, however, is a mode of Being which is connected with, and
rooted in, Transcendence, that is to say it is connected with the all- encompassing realm, the overall totality. We also understand from Jaspers’ assertions that Existenz is not subject to death and is eternal. But if Existenz needs Dasein, and if Dasein is mortal, can Existenz be eternal? If Existenz knows no death as Jaspers says, then what happens to it when Dasein perishes? Since it is not subject to death, it cannot perish with Dasein. Nor can it appear again in the world as a possibility, since each Existenz is unique to a particular Dasein. In order to answer these questions, one must reconsider the intimate relationship between Existenz and Transcendence in terms of the
Mystical Interpretation.91
As already discussed, Transcendence is itself a mode of Being which appears in a multiplicity of its modes in the empirical realm. For Jaspers, without Transcendence there is no possibility of achiev- ing Existenz, and he adds that without Existenz the meaning of Transcendence is lost. He also emphasises that the origin of Existenz is grounded in Being itself. If one’s Existenz is immersed in Transcendence as Jaspers suggests, then Existenz would also be immersed in Being itself, the ultimate reality, since Transcendence is
a mode of Being. Let us assume that when one dies, that is to say when one’s Dasein perishes, Existenz, one’s true self, returns to its original source, Transcendence. Let us further assume that one’s Existenz becomes and remains a part of Transcendence after physical death, not as a self but simply by being absorbed into the overall totality, ultimate reality. The following passage seems to support this inter- pretation of Existenz’s ‘deathlessness’:
We take our life from a primal source that lies beyond the being-there that becomes empirical and objective, beyond consciousness and beyond mind. This aspect of our nature is revealed . . . in the con- sciousness of immortality, that is not a survival in another form, but a time-negating immersion in eternity, appearing to him [man] as a path of action forever continued in time.92
But how can Existenz, a mode of Being, merge into Transcendence? If one takes Jaspers’ assertion of ‘time-negating immersion in eternity’ to mean the return of Existenz to the overall totality which is time- less and eternal, then it is possible to conceptualise Existenz as immersed in Transcendence. It can be said that Existenz returns to the transcendent realm so to speak, and becomes one with its source of Being. Within this framework, Existenz can be said to be timeless and eternal by virtue of its being dissolved into eternity and being part of the overall totality. Since it is not subject to death, it is possible to interpret it as becoming a part of Transcendence. Although some might disagree with this viewpoint, Jaspers’ concept of ‘immersion in eternity’ points to the idea that one’s true self is capable of tran- scending one’s finitude and become part of ultimate reality. If the rela- tionship between Existenz and Transcendence is considered within this framework, then it is possible to interpret Existenz as part of eternal Being and as timeless.
In view of the above interpretation, some similarities with trad- itional mysticism spring to mind – Sufism, for example. One could, highlight the similarity between the Sufis’ notion of the ultimate reality (God) and Jaspers’ notion of Being, the all-encompassing tran- scendent reality in the explanation of death.93According to the Sufi
tradition, the individual can transcend his worldly being and become one with the all-encompassing totality within the framework of his own belief system. The Sufi desires to return to his origin and the absorption into the divine source is one of the central concepts of Sufism. For the Sufi being a part of the empirical world is a mode of Being and it is a necessary path one has to take in order to achieve
higher levels of consciousness. Sufis believe in the transformation of man into ‘eternal substance’, that is, overall totality. They do not often use the term ‘eternity’ in discussing one’s return to ultimate reality, but it is understood in the context of ‘total union with the Unseen’.
The Sufis are able to find the true self within themselves by achiev- ing higher levels of consciousness and dissolving themselves into that Being, in the here and now, through their rituals. By means of such rituals the self is prepared for the final return to the overall totality after death. In their belief, this experience is regarded as the possibility of experience of God. When the Sufi reaches the state of union with the Absolute Being, this can be manifested in a state of ecstatic trance which is a transcendent experience. In this respect Jaspers’ notion of one’s subjective experience of the Augenblick corresponds to the Sufis’ experience of oneness with the ultimate reality.
The meaning of death for the Sufi is returning of the inner self to the universal totality and being One with the Deity. The physical body decays and disintegrates at death, but the individual consciousness is absorbed into this ultimate reality and returns to its original source which is infinite and eternal.94 For the Sufi, too, there is no subject/
object distinction in ultimate reality.95This view is not very different
from Jaspers’ view of Transcendence, the all-encompassing ultimate reality.96 Since Being, the ultimate reality, is eternal, and since there
is no subject/object dichotomy in Being, it could be argued that one’s Existenz, by becoming One with the overall totality, also becomes eternal and timeless, and thereby deathless. Expressed in this way, Jaspers’ view of Existenz’s ‘deathlessness’ can indeed be inter- preted as ‘a time-negating immersion in eternity’. As Jaspers says, immortality is not to be understood as continued existence for the individual. Then it could be argued that ‘time-negating immersion in eternity’ suggests that one’s true self unites with the overall total- ity, which is infinite and eternal, and becomes a part of the all- encompassing realm. Seen in this context, this explanation does not seem very different from the Sufis’ perspective on death. The question, however, is whether it is philosophically justified to correlate the Sufis’ mystical view of death with Jaspers’ concept of Existenz’s ‘immersion in eternity’.
One may object to this interpretation on the grounds that Jaspers’ views on the eternal aspect of the human being have no connection with religious faith or mysticism.97One might ask whether Existenz’s
‘immersion in eternity’ needs to be explained in terms of religious mysticism. It can be argued that not all mysticism is tied to religion. Some pre-Socratic ideas, for example, may be compatible with what Jaspers says about the all-encompassing and ‘immersion in eternity’. Democritus, Anaximander and Anaximenes all advocated ‘one-substance’ theory in their explanation of ultimate reality. Accordingly, everything is a modification of one substance, which pervades all reality just like Plotinus’ concept of the One. In their explanation of the structure of reality, different forms of pre-Socratic one-substance theories, e.g. atoms, water, ether, Aperion, and so on, do not relate to a divine Creator but simply to laws of nature. The rel- evant point here is that one does not have to be limited by a religious mystical outlook in order to elucidate Jaspers’ image of ‘immersion in eternity’. Some might even consider the pre-Socratic material explanation more appropriate than the religious mystical perspective, as there is no connection with religion or God in the former.
Furthermore, Jaspers himself was critical of some mystics’ ‘unbal- anced’ attachment to the transcendent realm.98 Some, on the other
hand, might respond to this objection by reminding us that Jaspers’ philosophical concepts of Existenz and Transcendence are intimately bound to his notion of philosophical faith. Given the mystical ele- ments in Jaspers’ philosophy, it is possible to claim that the philo- sophical faith Jaspers defends, in theory, is no different from religious faith and mysticism. It may also be claimed that Jaspers seems to have replaced religious faith with his concept of philosophical faith, which still bears religious overtones. For example, Jaspers’ existential con- cepts of Being, the all-encompassing and Transcendence are similar to what is in some religions called the concept of God. Jaspers’ term
Existenz is not identical but not dissimilar to the traditional concept
of soul. Jaspers also takes the view, not unlike some religious doc- trines, that one’s finitude can be transcended, not as a person, but as
Existenz, the non-phenomenal aspect of the self. It may be argued
that all these elements in Jaspers’ philosophy point to a kind of mys- ticism or religious faith.
There is another problem with the idea of becoming a part of ulti- mate reality. Some might challenge this line of thinking and ask ‘What happened before mankind appeared in the world, and what will happen when mankind disappears?’ ‘What happens on a planet with life but no humans?’ ‘To what extent is ultimate reality relevant to this interpretation?’ These are all interesting questions. However, any attempt to answer them would divert us from the main issue.
How should one respond to the Mystical Interpretation of ‘death- lessness’? One can affirm certain conceptual similarities between the Sufis’ understanding of immortality, and Jaspers’ concept of ‘death- lessness’ as ‘immersion in eternity’. However, the Sufis’ concept of eternity/infinity is not entirely consistent with Jaspers’ concept of a moment of eternity in the Augenblick experience. The sense of ‘death- lessness’ for the Sufi is not confined to one’s momentary experience in the attainment of selfhood. ‘Deathlessness’, for the Sufi, means being immersed in the ultimate reality and becoming One with it after death. The ultimate reality is regarded as endless duration, and exist- ing forever as overall totality, whereas Jaspers does not see eternity as endless duration, but rather as non-temporal duration in the here and now. Furthermore, Jaspers insists that a moment of eternity can be experienced while one is alive, and the Augenblick is not nec- essarily a once-and-for-all experience. That is, it can occur many times in one’s lifetime. Most importantly, in Jaspers’ view, Existenz and its ‘deathlessness’ are not to be understood in religious or mysti- cal terms, nor is there a connection with God. This is important to Jaspers.
Even though there may be some similarities between the Sufis’ view of ‘deathlessness’ and Jaspers’, it seems that it is implausible to rep- resent Existenz’s ‘deathlessness’ in mystical terms. Although it may be tempting to assume that Existenz will merge into Transcendence and become eternal, on balance the Mystical Interpretation does not rep- resent Jaspers’ metaphysical thinking in this respect. One is thus led to the conclusion that the Mystical Interpretation of Existenz’s ‘deathlessness’ is not compatible with what Jaspers has in mind regarding this issue. But I would like to reiterate that this interpreta- tion of Existenz’s ‘deathlessness’ is useful in that it provides an alter- native and a contrast to the second interpretative model to which we now turn.