So, your conclusion is that because it's an embodied person who does the reporting, it follows that disembodied existence is not true or couldn't happen? — Sam26
how could an embodied person report on something I believe is not possible. — Sam26
Just because someone can't answer all the questions of how it's possible, — Sam26
Yes, it's me that gets hungry and feels pain, etc, and it would be me as a disembodied being who would feel some of the same things. — Sam26
This is a review of a book by a Buddhist scholastic monastic, Bhikkhu Analayo. (Contains a further link to another article on current research.) For a serious discussion of the theory and philosophical issues this is probably the most reliable current source. There are no Western scientific or philosophical equivalents as the topic is a cultural taboo in the West; Stevenson' attempts to corroborate evidence of children's memories of past experience have all been dismissed as we've seen here. — Wayfarer
What I don't get is this:In phil of mind, the argument is sometimes about who has the burden if proof. Lacking facts, they resort to trying to discover the elephant like blind men.
It gets intricate, but at stake is the right to call your opponent a bonehead, so it gets intense. — frank
Why is that? — baker
I sympathize with the skeptics, though. The available accounts of the recollections of past lives are, at best, confusing, opening up more questions, and at worst, trifles. So someone recalls, say, that in a past life, they drowned in a river where there are trees in groups of three on the banks. This is an actual event that can potentially be corroborated with empirical evidence. But so what? Does that prove there is a soul, an unchanging substance that gets reincarnated? Does it prove that religion X is the right one? Yes, people sometimes drown, and sometimes, they drown in rivers where there are trees in groups of three on the banks. How is any of this metaphysically relevant or has metaphysically relevant implications? How is it ethically relevant?I don't see how you get more compelling testimonial evidence, it's overwhelming. Do I need to know the mechanism for OBEs in order to know if NDEs are veridical? Do I need to know the mechanism of any experience to know if the experience is real or genuine? Of course not. We have firsthand experiences all the time without knowing the mechanisms involved.
— Sam26
Correct. What seems to be happening here is that some people have decided in advance that reincarnation is impossible, irrational and evil, and that any consideration of the possibility should be suppressed by all available means. — Apollodorus
Does it prove that religion X is the right one? Yes, people sometimes drown, and sometimes, they drown in rivers where there are trees in groups of three on the banks. How is any of this metaphysically relevant or has metaphysically relevant implications? How is it ethically relevant? — baker
Of course, I'm not disputing that. (This is why, in terms of theory of morality, I linked to Thanissaro Bhikkhu's The Truth of Rebirth: And Why It Matters for Buddhist Practice).So, it is very relevant in terms of ethics, actually. — Apollodorus
*sigh*But I can understand if Marxists don't understand. — Apollodorus
But it is quite a stretch to conclude that because some kid in Australia remembered something from a past life, this means that I have/am a soul that gets reincarnated or that religion X is the right one. — baker
From the Visuddhimagga, linked to earlier:Plus Plato clearly uses reincarnation (the Story of Er) as a parable illustrating his belief that souls are rewarded in the afterlife according to their deeds on earth. So, it is very relevant in terms of ethics, actually. — Apollodorus
15. There are six kinds of people who recollect these past lives. They are: other
sectarians, ordinary disciples, great disciples, chief disciples, Paccekabuddhas,
and Buddhas.
/.../
17. Again, other sectarians only recollect the succession of aggregates; they
are unable to recollect according [only] to death and rebirth-linking, letting go
of the succession of aggregates. They are like the blind in that they are unable to
descend upon any place they choose; they go as the blind do without letting go
of their sticks. So they recollect without letting go of the succession of aggregates.
Ordinary disciples both recollect by means of the succession of aggregates and
trace by means of death and rebirth-linking. Likewise, the eighty great disciples.
But the chief disciples have nothing to do with the succession of aggregates.
When they see the death of one person, they see the rebirth-linking, and again
when they see the death of another, they see the rebirth-linking. So they go by
tracing through death and rebirth-thinking. Likewise, Paccekabuddhas.
18. Buddhas, however, have nothing to do either with succession of aggregates
or with tracing through death and rebirth-linking; for whatever instance they
choose in many millions of eons, or more or less, is evident to them.
/.../
19. Among these beings with recollection of past lives, the sectarians’ vision
of past lives seems like the light of a glow-worm, that of ordinary disciples like
the light of a candle, that of the great disciples like the light of a torch, that of the
chief disciples like the light of the morning star, that of Paccekabuddhas like the
light of the moon, and that of Buddhas like the glorious autumn sun’s disk with
its thousand rays.
20. Other sectarians see past lives as blind men go [tapping] with the point of
a stick. Ordinary disciples do so as men who go on a log bridge. The great
disciples do so as men who go on a foot bridge. The chief disciples do so as men
who go on a cart bridge. Paccekabuddhas do so as men who go on a main footpath.
And Buddhas do so as men who go on a high road for carts.
My intuition was on the right track when I questioned about the spontaneous recollection of past lives.21. In this connection it is the disciples’ recollection of past lives that is intended.
Sure, but what on earth can I do with that??In other words, people who are extremely unlikely to be telling you lies. It isn't "proof" but it makes it credible. — Apollodorus
Probably nothing, considering that you've made up your mind that souls don't exist. I was talking about myself though. — baker
I'm not sure what you believe to have "raised" as we haven't noticed anything. — Apollodorus
This.It is not simply a matter of explaining how it is possible but of giving a coherent account of whatever it is that inhabits or is tied to a body but is somehow separate from it. Whatever it is that perceives and feels and yet is not a body. — Fooloso4
There are two main factors, and obviously others too, that make us who we are, continuity of memory, and continuity of experience. There has to be continuity of the self in order for anyone to say that that is Banno. I can't make any sense out of reincarnation if this continuity isn't preserved. Otherwise, you could claim to be anyone from the past, and there would be no way to distinguish you from anyone else. This would be a genuine conceptual problem. — Sam26
atheists, materialists and communists — Apollodorus
who you callin' a materialist? — Banno
Are you feeling guilty or are you just upset? — Apollodorus
I think Apollodorus is about 14 years old — frank
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.