Why bother responding irrelevantly to my response to Wayfarer's interpretation of "reincarnation" when his differs substantively, so to speak, from your own? — 180 Proof

What are you talking about??
He and I are having a discussion here too.

Discuss, man, don't score points.

I'm getting tired of all these balls I'm supposed to drag around ...

Just out of interest, do you identify as a Buddhist? — Tom Storm

Not at all. Discussing it in this context is part of my effort to find closure to my involvement with it.
(In a Buddhist setting, there is such immense pressure to approve of and agree with the doctrine that it paralyzes one's critical thinking abilities.)

Do people have agency in Buddhism? That's often how reincarnation is interpreted in the west: as a solution to earthly injustice. That's obviously the main use of the concept of immortality of the soul, though that's not at all what Plato had in mind.

I think that deep need to see divine justice comes from Christianity's role as the religion of the weak and oppressed. — frank

No, Christians don't hold monopoly over this notion, as there is a parallel in Eastern folk theories of karma.
The basic formula in such folk beliefs about karma is: "If this time around, you suffer from X, this means you did X to someone in a past life. If you do X to someone this time around, you will suffer from it now or the next time around."

The actual, scripturally based doctrines of karma suppose that the process of how the consequences of actions play out over the course of lifetimes is much more complex than what those folk beliefs have us think.

You're a sunshine full of hope and optimism!
:halo: :starstruck: :love: :blush: :up: :hearts:

Ethics/morality is more or less the study of what you should do. So, when saying “why should I be moral?”, surely that is no different to saying: Why should I do what I should do. — Georgios Bakalis

It is inevitable that one follows some moral code. The question is, which one, and how to make that choice.
"Why should I do what I should do?" asks about the justification for the choice of one moral code over others.

The question is actually asking:
"Why should I behave in line with moral code A, as opposed to moral code B?"

Practically, this translates into questions such as:
"Why should I not steal, instead of stealing?"
"Why should I always speak truthfully, instead of speaking the truth only sometimes and lie at other times?"
"Why should I follow the Christian moral code, instead of the Muslim or Viking one?"

No, more basically, and not just in reference to leaders. In religious/spiritual circles, a measure of cockiness and haughtiness is an absolute necessity for day-to-day survival.

The fallacy fallacy: The mistake of thinking/inferring that the conclusion of an argument is false because it contains a fallacy.

Comments... — TheMadFool

It makes sense to call something out as a fallacy provided that the other person handed in their text as the final version, the final product of their reasoning.

This is mostly not the case in forum discussions like this, which, whether people acknowledge it or not, are often a collaborative effort where many or all the posters involved are still looking for and working on their final version of the argument, so that the discussion is primarily a process of testing for errors and making corrections.

Do you know any solipsists? Exactly.

I hear God likes virgins. — unenlightened

But not when they are 80 years old, eh?

Problem with Bartricks is that his polemics are powerful but he constantly insults and derogates anyone who challenges him. — Wayfarer

It's Mahayana/Vajrayana style. Some Tibetan monks, for example, regularly have debating practices where heavy insults are part of the course. The practice of dishing out and handling insults is supposedly good for one's ego, or for overcoming one's ego (it works both ways).

I don't think that you'd get it, though. — thewonder

*sigh*
I would love to be wrong on this matter. I still sometimes hope I am wrong on this matter. I fear that I am not wrong, though.

In any case, there is said to be continuity between births, although the theory is, that there is no eternal changeless core or entity. — Wayfarer

It's difficult to discuss these things with people who aren't fluent in Buddhist doctrine, specifically, in dependent co-arising, and it's too much to try to present these doctrines in forum posts and discussions.
(Earlier, I posted some passages from the Visuddhimagga, but nobody took note of them. If already that is too much, then what about the suttas that explain dependent co-arising?)

So ... no need for me-of-this life to be concerned because that "next life" won't be, or affect, me-of-this life. — 180 Proof

Oh, but it will affect you, because you do not simply stop when your heart stops beating. The "stream of kamma" that is "you" continues on after the death of this current body. -- But this doesn't mean much to you, does it ...

Like I said above, the discussion here breaches what is normally possible for forum discussions. I cannot rightfully expect other posters to study a topic that even many Buddhists shun because of its complexity and extent. So I'm kind of at a loss here ...

( I write here about Buddhism to test my own understanding of it, not because I'd be an advocate.)

Convicted felons are not allowed to run. — Wayfarer

But then they first need to be convicted felons. And even then ...

There are all kinds of rules. Someone has to make this argument. If he flouts the rules then he can’t be allowed to play the game. Very simple.

Our prime minister was found guilty by a court of law and should now be serving a prison sentence. He isn't. Anything is possible.

The last four-hundred and forty-five pages are just NOS4A2 trying to convince a single other person here to support Donald Trump. — thewonder

No, they're not, you're not being precise. Some of it is abstract discussion about the US legal and political systems and other political systems. Some of it is people letting off steam. Etc.

Besides, letting things continue as such will have the effect of reminding me a period of American history that I would just as soon forget sooner rather than later. — thewonder

Die fighting or perish on your knees.

What I’m saying it, the price of being allowed to run, must be the acknowledgment that he lost. He can’t have it both ways. Get it? — Wayfarer

That would be a matter of honor. Pffft.

Who decides who is allowed to run??
Is there a law about it?
Is there an official election commission in the US who decides on such matters?

You're barking up the wrong tree. I'm not an advocate of reincarnation or the existence of a soul. For myself, I resolved this issue by taking a middle way in that I contextualized it (ie. by pointing out how the key terms have different meanings in different discourses, and that the choice of which discourse to consider authoritative cannot be conducted deliberately), thus rendering it moot. I think that's a fine solution (it's based on the standard psychological approach of dealing with double binds), and I wonder how come more people don't accept it.

Trump’s GOP should be ruled ineligible to stand candidates, unless Trump recognises the 2020 election. — Wayfarer

Ruled ineligible -- by whom?

We're a scared, petty nation. — StreetlightX

Who isn't?

Why give him the floor in that sense? — thewonder

It's a challenge, isn't it? How should a moral, liberal, democratic, cooperative person treat someone who refuses to cooperate?
Banning them would be against one's own moral principles. So what's left?

So I guess the question is, if Trump refuses to recognise the result of the 2020 election, and the party falls in behind him, then how can they qualify to contest an election? Unless they’re prepared to acknowledge they lost, then they should be disqualified from running on the grounds that that party won’t honour the democratic conventions that govern elections. — Wayfarer

Have you not learned anything?!
They are winners, they don't dwell on old failures and they don't listen to naysayers. Mark my words, they'll breeze over all past troubles, toward new victories.

Reviewing his term, when elected the Republican Party had a majority in both chambers of congress and held the executive branch. They lost it all in only four years, and particularly ungracefully at the end. Republicans don't learn is what you seem to be saying. — praxis

Or they'll view it as a minor hiccup. They are resilient, tough folks with a winner mentality.

Perhaps it looks like that because you yourself have extreme views? — Benkei

The prime minister here (the most powerful position in the country) congratulated Trump for the victory in the presidential election. So -- I'm not so hopeful.

"The soul is what gets reincarnated" is the part that several soul doctrines have in common. Where they differ is in the details. From this point on, one has to choose which soul doctrine to go with. I haven't made that choice, so I can't say.

f you need coalitions to rule, the dynamics change a lot. — Benkei

Sure, and I live in a country that has such a system. There is a trend toward simplification, polarization into two camps. The political parties sometimes differ pretty much only in name.

The mind boggles as to how you could actually campaign on that. — Wayfarer

Sedevacantism is a thing.

His ongoing appeal is still a symptom of some dreadful malady regardless. — Wayfarer

Or just evidence of how the world really works.

Don't be silly. You know damn well that the term has many definitions.

What is it that is born and dies? If we can clear that up, then probably there's nothing further to discuss. — Wayfarer

As far as Hindu-style reincarnation goes, it's the soul that gets reincarnated, and the body is that gets born and dies.

The question as to what, specifically, belongs to the body and what to the soul, is answered differently by different soul doctrines.

I think the real question is which soul doctrine to choose and commit to, and whether such a choice can be made and justified rationally or not. I'm inclined to think it can't.

What is it that is reincarnated?

Telling us that there is no problem will not do. — Banno

I already told you, several times: the soul. Do we really need to go through a couple of hundred pages of summaries of soul doctrines?

I find it hard to believe that while chanting the Names of of the Lord and eating all that curry, you didn't pick up on the theology.

the discussion — spirit-salamander

The mistake is in thinking it's a discussion. It's not a discussion, it never was.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acedia

It's been pretty simple for thousands of years.
— frank

Well, for the average person it was simple.
— frank
How?? — baker

Do answer this.


I imagine that it's been "pretty simple for thousands of years" for "the average person", but that's not because the average person would have the advanced knowledge required to figure out which soul doctrine is the right one, but simply because they lacked knowledge of any other soul doctrine than the one they were familiar with, and/or because they had real life commitments that would be threatened by them even considering some other doctrine.

Or what? Do you think that "average people" have access to a higher wisdom that philosophers are barred from?

It's not okay, because we're still left with the issue of how to decide which doctrine is the right one, and with the necessity and urgency of said decision.

Conceivability was the issue. — frank

I can conceive of a flying spaghetti monster!!!

The basic idea is pretty simple. If you don't understand it, I don't know what would remedy that.

To understand others you have to shift to their point of view. Temporarily adopt their metaphysics. If you can't do that, I suspect that you just don't want to. — frank

Odd that you say that, given your earlier objections to my points about intelligle and good communication.


Temporarily adopting another's metaphysics doesn't change anything, though. I can even argue in favor of Catholic, ISKCON, and Early Buddhist doctrine as well (and sometimes even better) than their members can. And yet it doesn't shift me in the direction of believing any of it.

Banno and several others are asking 'what is it that reincarnates'. The argument is that as 'the soul' which is the purported entity that reincarnates, is impossible to define, and impossible to know, then it mitigates against there being any possibility of reincarnation. — Wayfarer

But there are soul doctrines that have all this figured out.

The Hare Krishnas come to mind. (In fact, one of the objections that the more traditional Hindus have against Hare Krishna theology is that it is too clean, too coherent to be something that was inspired or narrated by God himself long ago and preserved throughout the ages, but that instead, it looks like a doctrine that was painstakingly developed specifically to address the pitfalls and objections that might be raised against a theology and a soul doctrine.)

It's been pretty simple for thousands of years. — frank

Well, for the average person it was simple. — frank

How??

I do wonder, however, in the case of young musical prodigies, and other kinds of genius kids, whether there’s a sense of past-life recall at wor, or alternatively, tapping into some kind of supra-personal form of intelligence. — Wayfarer

Theoretically, as far as the workings of kamma go, it seems possible that something that one cultivates in one lifetime should come easier the next time around.

Of course, this doesn't mean that if you drop dead halfway through your doctoral dissertation, next time around you'll pick up where you left off, but your academic tendencies could be carried on.
However, in Buddhism, a lot depends on your intentions for doing things, so the continuations between lifetimes might not be externally obvious. For instance, if you took up a dissertation with the intention to please your parents, next time around this intention could show as you marrying the person your parents chose for you. The exact ways in which kamma works out are extremely complex.


Also, recalling past lives might be quite common -- it's just that one recalls such ordinary things that they don't seem like being parts of a past life at all, but seamlessly merge with this one.

When you die, your memories, experiences, desires, intentions - all that stuff - dissolves into nothing. However your energy and substance persist. — Banno

There's more to it: You've probably left behind buildings, works of art, heaps of trash, you might have changed the landscape, etc., things that other people and other beings have been and will be affected by. The things you do involve your memories, experiences, desires, intention; at the same time, the things you do affect other people and other beings, so others are indirectly affected by your memories etc.. So that even when you, as a legal entity, cease to exist, your legacy lives on, not just the chemicals that make up your body.

You do have to let the world become however it naturally does and can't impose your will upon the world — thewonder

Why not??

Suit yourself.

The problem is using a term that has various meanings does not tell us what it is that endures beyond life. Neither Aristotle's psyche or the Hebrew ruach does. Calling it "soul" means no more than calling it "something". "Something" is not an account of that something. — Fooloso4

Indeed. This is why doctrines about the soul tend to contain the desription of the mechanism by which the soul gets reincarnated. The "downside" is that one actually has to find and read those texts ...

I'm going to quote myself:
Interesting, isn't it, that folk suppose that because "I am convinced", it follows that "Hence, you ought be convinced". Going both ways. "I am not convinced, hence, you ought not be convinced".
— Banno
There's apparently an imperative in being convinced of something. One expects others to be similar convinced. — Banno

This is true for some people.

But beyond that, a discussion about reincarnation/rebirth needn't be more than just about learning the terms of the discourse at hand and engaging in the discourse accordingly. There's no need to believe any of it.