:ok: Gotcha, mate.

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

...simple...

Well, for the average person it was simple.

Besides, this thread has it's little moments... did you notice:

But I think that in philosophical terms Bartricks and one or two others have done a good job so far. — Apollodorus

??

:joke:

:yikes:

The reincarnated Jimi Hendrix would not be born with his ability to play guitar — Fooloso4

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. I don't see any feasible genetic explanation for those abilities, not least because being an excellent pianist will not, for example, prevent you being gored by a wild buffalo. :-)

What is reincarnated? The Soul. What is the Soul? That which is separate from the body and functions and endures without it - ie, that which is reincarnated. — Banno

That is the 'ship of Theseus' problem. If every timber is replaced, is it still the same ship? I would say 'yes' if it maintains the same shape and is owned and operated by Theseus. That doesn't mean it has an intrinsic essence, but it does preserve it's identity. If for instance it was replaced by a totally different kind of ship then obviously it wouldn't be 'the same ship' even if owned by Theseus.

The Buddhist doctrine is that there is no individual self or soul who transmigrates from one life to another. That is actually a heretical belief in Buddhism and for that reason, it is said that Buddhism doesn't accept reincarnation as such (although in Tibetan culture, where there are incarnated lamas, it seems like a somewhat artificial distinction.) When asked why there is no person who is reborn, comparisons are given to, for example, a fax transmission - the information that appears on the sending and recieving ends is the same information, but the individual pieces of paper are completely different.

There are obviously many knotty problems of identity involved.

↪Banno

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

Perhaps for the average person who did not know what questions to ask and simply believed whatever it was they were told to believe.

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

...simple... — Banno

@Banno

How dare you bring facts into a discussion of the soul!

That is the 'ship of Theseus' problem. — Wayfarer

It's not. Changing one physical part with another has nothing to do with the nebulous notion of a soul.

:smirk:

Did I use that word? I'm saying that it's 'the ship of theseus' problem i.e. the parts of an entity can be changed but that entity retain its identity.

Did I use that word? I'm saying that it's 'the ship of theseus' problem i.e. the parts of an entity can be changed but that entity retain its identity. — Wayfarer

You responded to a question about the soul. I assumed your response had something to do with what was asked.

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.

What I'm pointing out is that in the Buddhist view, there is no entity that incarnates, but that a set of causal factors originates from the living being's actions, which then assume the form of another being in 'the next life'. There's no literal soul, entity or person who 'goes' from life to life, or who is 'reborn' in that sense. That's why I said that Buddhism is often compared to process philosophies, like Heraclitus and Whitehead.

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.

I have not ruled it out, — Fooloso4

This is what I was looking for. It's not incoherent. It's entirely conceivable. Asserting otherwise is going too far. :up:

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.

It's not incoherent. It's entirely conceivable. — frank

It's ill-defined, the definitions being inadequate or incoherent...

I haven't ruled it out either, because it is so unclear what "it" is.

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

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

How??

s ill-defined, the definitions being inadequate or incoherent...

I haven't ruled it out either, because it is so unclear what "it" is. — Banno

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.

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.)

The Hare Krishnas come to mind — baker

You mentioned that before. It seems, as you say, just too obvious.

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.

And yet it doesn't shift me in the direction of believing any of it. — baker

Conceivability was the issue.

Conceivability was the issue. — frank

I can conceive of a flying spaghetti monster!!!

Ok

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.

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. — baker

In this case your metaphysics comes first. Everything else revolves around that.

That's just an aspect of the times you were born into. A set of ideas just seems right to you. You resist questioning it.

The Hare Krishnas come to mind. — baker

George is my favourite Beatle, and as a starving student I was not at all reticent in Chanting the Names of the Lord in return for what was always a welcome vegetable curry.

But this is philosophy; if you are going to carry a point, you are going to have to first make that point.

What is it that is reincarnated?

Telling us that there is no problem will not do.