This is one of the reasons why outsiders' attempts at discussing religious claims are bound to be abortive. — baker
you get self-appointed "scholars" and "experts" who come up with the peculiar notion that because Platonists view Ultimate Reality as indescribable, ineffable, etc., they are really "atheist” — Apollodorus
This is exacerbated by the fact that much modern scholarship deliberately downplays the transcendental dimension of Plato so as to present his works as more compatible with their assumed scientific materialism. — Wayfarer
. In their worldview, there is nothing higher than themselves — Apollodorus
Current article, just published on Aeon Magazine: Why Modern Buddhists should Take Reincarnation Seriously, Avram Alpert. — Wayfarer
Just questions, Mr. Insider, not evaluations or reductions to exogenous terms or anything misguided or sinister.wtf gets reincarnated in "reincarnation" that belongs to, or travels with, a self from incarnation to incarnation? and, if some quality / property belongs to a self, how does that square with the doctrine of "anatta"? or, if "no self", then why should any non-self be concerned with her "karma" reincarnated to afflict some other non-self incarnation somewhere else, somewhen else?
But at least he’s discussing the idea in terms which are understandable to current readers. — Wayfarer
]wtf gets reincarnated in "reincarnation" that belongs to, or travels with, a self from incarnation to incarnation? and, if some quality / property belongs to a self, how does that square with the doctrine of "anatta"? or, if "no self", then why should any non-self be concerned with her "karma" reincarnated to afflict some other non-self incarnation somewhere else and somewhen else? — 180 proof
What reincarnates or is re-born is an aggregate of karmic imprints whose “transmigration” from one birth to another is difficult to explain in everyday language. In contrast, the Platonic and Hindu explanation is much easier to understand even for non-specialists. — Apollodorus
Freed from the classification of consciousness, Vaccha, the Tathagata is deep, boundless, hard to fathom, like the sea. 'Reappears' doesn't apply. 'Does not reappear' doesn't apply. 'Both does & does not reappear' doesn't apply. 'Neither reappears nor does not reappear' doesn't apply."
This is where Buddhism is very different from the 'substance and attribute' metaphysic of Aristotle. — Wayfarer
I wouldn't go quite so far as to call Buddhism "nihilist" in all respects. It still has some interesting contributions it could make. — Apollodorus
In my view, the Buddhist theory sounds like an artificial device intended to spare the Buddhist an admission of soul, necessitated by the no-soul theory (anattā/anātman). — Apollodorus
We're not here to be proselytized at; and when fideistic sermonizing transforms a dialogue into a monologue, a friendly fuck off is warranted which either spurs the dialogue galloping onward or spooks a jackass to bolt away to bray (pray) imponderable monologues elsewhere.Why should we yield to special pleading for religious discourse to be granted special snowflake immunity to philosophical inquiry or critique? Why shouldn't we push back on dogmatists like baker who "press their otherworldly metaphysics?" Why do any of you bother discussing your "religions" on public fora only to balk at actually discussing it with those of us who don't believe what you all believe in?
Well, in my view, you'd be mistaken. You'd be reifying the dynamic process which is 'the self' into an objectively existing entity, which it isn't. In Buddhist terms, it gives rise to clinging - the idea of 'me and mine', transposed into some supposedly ethereal domain of existence. — Wayfarer
The Problem with Reincarnation - Psychology Today — Apollodorus
Once you postulate the non-existence of soul, you need to negate other things normally associated with a soul and you may end up appearing to be "nihilist" without necessarily intending to. — Apollodorus
He makes some interesting points, but I note his byline says 'Alex Lickerman, M.D., is a general internist and former Director of Primary Care at the University of Chicago and has been a practicing Buddhist since 1989.' — Wayfarer
Paṭiccasamuppāda explains these things. Unless you think that paṭiccasamuppāda requires an additional explanation/context/foundation?However, some Buddhist traditions claim that imprints of past experience are stored in a “store-consciousness” (ālayavijñāna) from where they arise in the form of memories like plants germinating from seeds. But that doesn’t explain where the store-consciousness itself is stored. Even if we grant that the store-consciousness is nothing but the totality of imprints or seeds, we still need to explain how the seeds are held together and where. The same applies to the chain-of-consciousness or chain-of-causation theory. — Apollodorus
Oh?If an insider can't explain or at least clarify for an outsider, it's more likely than not that discursively the insider doesn't understand it or the discourse itself is unintelligible. — 180 Proof
Like you say -- you're an insider in those fields. So no surprise that you had "many productive, informative, discussions with scholarly & thoughtful insiders of quite a few religious traditions".I've been an "insider" of Biblical discourse and Zen Buddhist teachings. Over decades I've had many productive, informative, discussions with scholarly & thoughtful insiders of quite a few religious traditions.
And you think that your attitude that you display here is conducive to a productive exchange?I have no idea what you mean when you're glossolaling (or whinging) about "the epistemic and normative nature".
You didn't read the sources that we referred to.Yeah, religious discourses are language games grounded in forms of life which when interpreted in terms of non-religious language games tend to generate – degenerate into – (polemical) misunderstandings & nonsense. I won't put words in Banno's mouth, but I've not reduced any religious language game to, say, a philosophical language game; I've been quite charitable and repeatedly asked you insiders wtf gets reincarnated in "reincarnation" that belongs to, or travels with, a self from incarnation to incarnation? and, if some quality / property belongs to a self, how does that square with the doctrine of "anatta"? or, if "no self", then why should any non-self be concerned with her "karma" reincarnated to afflict some other non-self incarnation somewhere else, somewhen else?
But not questions asked in good faith, as you yourself noted earlier that you engage in these discussions because you're bored.Just questions, Mr. Insider, not evaluations or reductions to exogenous terms or anything misguided or sinister.
In the same way that there is a special linguistic understanding among the native/fluent speakers of a language, an understanding that outsiders characteristically lack.how does an insider know he discursively understands something if he can explain, or convey it intelligibly, only to other insiders?
*sigh*That's groupthink, right? Preaching to tf choir? Blowing sunshine (or smoke) up each others' arseholes, no?
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.