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?What is it that is reincarnated?
Telling us that there is no problem will not do. — Banno
As far as Hindu-style reincarnation goes, it's the soul that gets reincarnated, and the body is that gets born and dies.What is it that is born and dies? If we can clear that up, then probably there's nothing further to discuss. — Wayfarer
Vicarious guilt (or redemption). In other words, fate – and whether one affirms or denies it, those "causal factors" afflict some yet-born life. Ok. So why should I care about some "next life" which my actions (karma) in this life will have fated if that "next life" isn't mine?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. — Wayfarer
which is...the soul — baker
and...the part that several soul doctrines have in common — baker
...but when one tries to track it down,...there are soul doctrines that have all this figured out. — baker
...and this is supposed to be adequate to our purposes.one has to choose which soul doctrine to go with — baker
I am very disappointed in you. — baker
↪baker It was your answer, so I'm asking you to share the definition you chose - the one that answers the question "what is it that is reincarnated?" — Banno
When you die, your memories, experiences, desires, intentions - all that stuff - dissolves into nothing. However your energy and substance persist. The stuff of you body might become over time the bodies of microbes, of the invisible hoards; then progressively it might enter into the bodies of the boneless or those with shells. The energy that was you becomes the energy of mud and muck, but then by chance might progress to that of a rodent or other vertebrate. If you are worthy, what was once you may become part of a beggar or a vagabond, or that of a fair maid or emperor.
Drop the persistence of the self, and reincarnation becomes a fact. — Banno
So why should I care about some "next life" which my actions (karma) in this life will have fated if that "next life" isn't mine? — 180 Proof
Drop the persistence of the self, and reincarnation becomes a fact — Banno
People who believe in the self or soul aren't mad — Apollodorus
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'. — Wayfarer
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. — Wayfarer
Put differently, why should I care about another being in the next life? In what way have I been liberated from the cycle? — Fooloso4
you are also vacillating, "self or soul" as if they are the same — Banno
you are also vacillating, "self or soul" as if they are the same — Banno
I'm not "vacillating" at all. They're often treated as the same — Apollodorus
Correct. BTW, do you actually believe in reincarnation? — frank
I do at least for the purposes of this discussion. Nobody denies that terms like "soul" are hard to define but it doesn't help when people ignore the sources and try to relegate reincarnation to clinical psychology. — Apollodorus
IMO it's a legitimate topic on a "philosophy forum".
As already stated, I believe that Bartricks' argument(s) come very close to what I had in mind. — Apollodorus
Put differently, why should I care about another being in the next life? In what way have I been liberated from the cycle? — Fooloso4
In the Mahātaṇhāsankhaya Sutta of the Majjhima Nikāya, the Buddha explains to the bhikkhus that an embryo develops when three conditions are met: the woman must be in the correct point of her menstrual cycle, the woman and man must have sexual intercourse, and a gandhabba must be present. According to the commentary of this sutta, the use of the word gandhabba doesn't refer to a celestial Deva, but a being enabled to be born by its karma. It is the state of a sentient being between rebirths. — Wiki
Classical Buddhism sees human existence as embedded in the condition called samsāra, understood literally as the beginningless chain of rebirths. From this standpoint, humans are just one class of living beings in a vast multidimensional cosmos. Through time without beginning all beings have been roaming from life to life in the five realms of existence, rising and falling in accordance with their karma, their volitional deeds. Life in all these realms, being impermanent and fraught with pain, is inherently unsatisfactory—dukkha. Thus the final goal, the end of dukkha, is release from the round of rebirths, the attainment of an unconditioned dimension of spiritual freedom called nibbāna. The practice of the path is intended to eradicate the bonds tying us to the round of rebirths and thereby bring liberation from repeated birth, aging and death.
Secular Buddhism, in contrast, starts from our immediate existential situation, understood without bringing in non-naturalistic assumptions. Secular Buddhism therefore does not endorse the idea of literal rebirth. Some Secular Buddhists regard rebirth as a symbol for changing states of mind, some as an analogy for biological evolution, some simply as part of the dispensable baggage that Buddhism drags along from Asia. But Secular Buddhists generally do not regard rebirth as the problem the Dharma is intended to resolve. Accordingly, they interpret the idea of samsāra as a metaphor depicting our ordinary condition of bewilderment and addictive pursuits. The secular program thus reenvisions the goal of Buddhist practice, rejecting the ideal of irreversible liberation from the cycle of rebirths in favor of a tentative, ever-fragile freedom from distress in this present life itself.
I believe that Bartricks' argument(s) come very close to what I had in mind. — Apollodorus
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.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
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 ...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
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.