If examining presuppositions and implications of a so-called "answer" for, at minimum, intelligibility is "looking for an opportunity to press my metaphysics", then I'm guilty as charged. To prefer sense over nonsense is a proven adaptive preference, y'know.
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?
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. — 180 Proof

Fuck you for this.
You don't read posts. I'm not going to defend claims you merely imagine I made.

Your extensive reply is appreciated. Prolix bullshit nonetheless. You're still rationalizing 'immunity from critical examination' for religious discourses. In other words, baker, you've nothing of philosophical interest or intellectual consequence to say on this topic :point: TLP Prop. 7.

*sigh*
Suit yourself. I'm leaving you to heavens and to the thorns that in your bosom lodge to prick and sting you.

Paṭiccasamuppāda explains these things. Unless you think that paṭiccasamuppāda requires an additional explanation/context/foundation? — baker

What I meant was that the Buddhist explanation may be OK to Buddhists, but it seems less satisfactory to Platonists and Hindus, for example. And it looks like some Buddhist traditions do accept something that comes close to the soul of Platonists and Hindus.

Plus, as your Wikipedia article says, there seem to be issues of interpretation, etc. and several scholars have identified inconsistencies in this theory of “dependent origination”.

It may be true that the soul or individual mind/consciousness is not eternal and changeless in its normal everyday aspect, but it may still be eternal and changeless in essence. Otherwise, what is nirvana?

What I meant was that the Buddhist explanation may be OK to Buddhists, but it seems less satisfactory to Platonists and Hindus, for example. — Apollodorus

Why is German "unsatisfactory" to people who want to speak Italian?

It's bizarre that one religion should employ concepts that another religion finds acceptable.

And it looks like some Buddhist traditions do accept something that comes close to the soul of Platonists and Hindus.

Yes, they do. What's your point?

Plus, as your Wikipedia article says, there seem to be issues of interpretation, etc. and several scholars have identified inconsistencies in this theory of “dependent origination”.

Yes, "Buddhism" can mean a lot of things ... There's an air of Humpty-Dumpty about it.

It may be true that the soul or individual mind/consciousness is not eternal and changeless in its normal everyday aspect, but it may still be eternal and changeless in essence. Otherwise, what is nirvana?

I'm curious about what you say above, and earlier. You seem like a semantic atomist.

Pointing out that different religions mean different things, even though they might be using the same terms, is not an act of rationalizing immunity from critical examination for religious discourses.
It would be such a rationalizing if we started off with the premise that all religions are, aspire to, or should talk about the same thing. It's not clear how such a premise can be defended, much less that it is self-evident. Without such a premise, we're left with numerous potentially incompatible religious discourses, even though they sometimes use the same or similar terms and concepts.

Otherwise, what is nirvana? — Apollodorus

How can one hope to understand a term without immersing oneself in the field of expertise from which this term originates?

How can one hope to understand a term without immersing oneself in the field of expertise from which this term originates? — baker

That was what I was saying. Buddhist theories are more difficult to process and assimilate if they require "immersing oneself in that field of expertise". Platonic or Hindu theories such as reincarnation are easier to understand as they are using everyday terminology like "soul" with which most people are already familiar. By the way, it wasn't a criticism of Buddhism, just an observation or statement of fact.

↪baker Your extensive reply is appreciated. Prolix bullshit nonetheless. You're still rationalizing 'immunity from critical examination' for religious discourses. In other words, baker, you've nothing of philosophical interest or intellectual consequence to say on this topic :point: TLP Prop. 7. — 180 Proof

Yep.

There's no philosophical content here.

So, essentially, man consists of (1) a pure spiritual core (nous or pneuma), (2) the soul proper (psyche) which is the psycho-mental apparatus attached to embodied spirit and (3) physical body. — Apollodorus

The problem is, it is something that does not exist. Try as you might, with all manner of instrumentation or argument, you will never locate such a 'pneuma' or soul. It is a poetic expression, a metaphor, a way of visualising reality, but there is no such thing. Likewise the 'physical body' is not merely physical, or rather, what 'physical' means is unknown. So these neat schemes are devised, 'physica' and 'mental' and 'soul', which purportedly describe different things, but they're simply reifications and abstractions in which you then get enmeshed.

Is it that Buddhism with reincarnation is a Hindu-Buddhist mixture?

There were once Buddhist-Christian churches in Central Asia.

So these neat schemes are devised, 'physica' and 'mental' and 'soul', which purportedly describe different things, but they're simply reifications and abstractions in which you then get enmeshed. — Wayfarer

Yes, but that's how the human mind works, by classifying and organizing experience and trying to make sense of it all. But one can equally get enmeshed in denying everything. And, as we don't know until we're dead, we just can't tell. It might make people feel better to think that everything is an "illusion" or "emptiness" but in the final analysis there is no objective proof, nor can there be if neither objective nor subjective reality exists.

Yes, but that's how the human mind works, by classifying and organizing experience and trying to make sense of it all. But one can equally get enmeshed in denying everything. — Apollodorus

Buddhists pay very close attention to the nature of experience, or experienced reality, which amounts to the same. But they don't posit unknown entities to account for it. Following is an excerpt from my thesis work:

The Blessed One said, "What is the All? Simply the eye and forms, ear and sounds, nose and aromas, tongue and flavors, body and tactile sensations, intellect and ideas. This, monks, is called the All. Anyone who would say, 'Repudiating this All, I will describe another,' if questioned on what exactly might be the grounds for his statement, would be unable to explain, and furthermore, would be put to grief. Why? Because it lies beyond range." — Sabba Sutta SN 35.23

This can be read as a direct repudiation of anyone who claims to speak of something ‘beyond the sense-gates’ as being ‘beyond range’. It might be tempting to say that this represents a kind of proto-naturalism, or even positivism - a repudiation of anything beyond empirical observation. However, that would be mistaken, for the Buddha, having established the identity of ‘the All’, then advises the monks to abandon it:

"The intellect is to be abandoned. Ideas are to be abandoned. Consciousness at the intellect is to be abandoned. Contact at the intellect is to be abandoned. And whatever there is that arises in dependence on contact at the intellect — experienced as pleasure, pain or neither-pleasure-nor-pain — that too is to be abandoned. — Pahanaya Sutta, SN 35.24

Does this say, then, that beyond the ‘six sense gates’ and the activities of thought-formations and discriminative consciousness, there is nothing, the absence of any kind of life, mind, or intelligence?

Then Ven. Maha Kotthita went to Ven. Sariputta and, on arrival, exchanged courteous greetings with him. After an exchange of friendly greetings & courtesies, he sat to one side. As he was sitting there, he said to Ven. Sariputta, "With the remainderless stopping & fading of the six contact-media [vision, hearing, smell, taste, touch, & intellection] is it the case that there is anything else?"

[Sariputta:] "Don't say that, my friend."

[Maha Kotthita:] "With the remainderless stopping & fading of the six contact-media, is it the case that there is not anything else?"

[Sariputta:] "Don't say that, my friend."
….
[Sariputta:] "The statement, 'With the remainderless stopping & fading of the six contact-media [vision, hearing, smell, taste, touch, & intellection] is it the case that there is anything else?'objectifies non-objectification.The statement, '... is it the case that there is not anything else ... is it the case that there both is & is not anything else ... is it the case that there neither is nor is not anything else?' objectifies non-objectification. However far the six contact-media go, that is how far objectification goes. However far objectification goes, that is how far the six contact media go. With the remainderless fading & stopping of the six contact-media, there comes to be the stopping, the allaying of objectification. — Kotthita Sutta, AN 4.174

(Emphasis added.)

The phrase ‘objectifies non-objectification’ (vadaṃ appapañcaṃ papañceti) is key here. As Thanissaro Bhikkhu notes in his commentary, ‘the root of the classifications and perceptions of objectification is the thought, "I am the thinker."

-----------

So this is key to understanding Buddhist philosophy. There is no self that goes, no thing that thinks, no God that creates. But it is also not the denial of those, because they had no reality in the first place, they are all mental constructs. The aspirant needs to be able to break out of the endless constructive process of assertion and denial. Humans get caught up in castles in the sky, in magnificent thought-constructions that take on a life of their own. But that is not reality. It's not positivism or materialism, however, because it doesn't start by positing something and then declaring it non-existent, which is where modern materialism originated; it sees through the whole process of believing and denying. That is the 'mahdyamika dialectic' (philosophy of the middle way) in a nutshell.

However, that would be mistaken, for the Buddha, having established the identity of ‘the All’, then advises the monks to abandon it: — Wayfarer

Well, I'm not disputing that. And perhaps Platonic, Christian and other mystics (or Hindu yogis for that matter) aren't totally different. However, it does seem to me that this applies to Buddhist monks specifically, not to Buddhists in general. The vast majority of the Buddhist population seems to be going about their daily life just like the rest of us without concerning themselves too much with Buddhist doctrine.

. The vast majority of the Buddhist population seems to be going about their daily life just like the rest of us without concerning themselves too much with Buddhist doctrine. — Apollodorus

That's because we're uneducated worldlings, what Plato would designate the hoi polloi. 'The many live each in their own private world, while those who are awake have but one world in common' ~ Heraclitus.

'The many live each in their own private world, while those who are awake have but one world in common' ~ Heraclitus — Wayfarer

I think that might be key to solving the puzzle.

That's because we're uneducated worldlings, what Plato would designate the hoi polloi. — Wayfarer

And using the definitive article before "hoi polloi" makes one a real uneducated worldling. :razz:

Yep.

There's no philosophical content here. — Banno

*sigh*

What I've been saying is that "philosophy" and "religion" are two categories. This isn't intended to rationalize immunity from critical examination for religious discourses. It's intended to show that attempting such a critical examination is a waste of time for an outsider to said religious discourse.
One would think people value their time more highly.

You're still rationalizing 'immunity from critical examination' for religious discourses. — 180 Proof

Good luck to you and Witti with explaining advanced math or engineering to preschoolers!
The issue at hand is jargon, not private language.

in the final analysis there is no objective proof, nor can there be if neither objective nor subjective reality exists. — Apollodorus

But teeth do rot, hair does grey, skin does wrinkle.

It's intended to show that attempting such a critical examination is a waste of time for an outsider to said religious discourse. — baker

Yep. Faith as belief despite any conceptual problems will do that. All you are doing is putting your hands over your ears and humming loudly.

Incoherent analogy. "Preschoolers" are not who's asking questions of your religious discourse. If someone can ask a question that has an intelligible answer, then that question can be answered; whether or not the recipient can translate it (with or without your assistance) into a meaningful expression (content) remains to be seen.

Btw, I have somewhat recently explained advance math (axiomatic set theory) to my math-phobic english major nephew (why he took elementary logic as an elective is still a mystery to us both) and decades before engineering to a nonengineer (when I was a mechanical engineering undergrad and my mother the trauma nurse wanted me to explain what she had been (partially) paying for and why after such expense I was changing my major).

The point is, if you can't explain X in translatable terms Y then you do not sufficiently understand X yourself. If this is not so, baker, then account for libraries of scholarly studies and texts on comparative religions, the philosophy of religion, scriptural hermeneutics & classical philology. Your cognitive defects, sir, are not to be confused with cognitive limitation as such.

Even if, we could prove one does reincarnate, if one does not remember his / her past life, how could one ever know that one has reincarnated?

Is then reincarnation without past life memory, a reincarnation? Because, even if we suppose that we all have reincarnated from our past lives, no one seems to remember, or knows who they were in their past lives.

Even if, we could prove one does reincarnate, if one does not remember his / her past life, how could one ever know that one has reincarnated?

Is then reincarnation without past life memory, a reincarnation? — Corvus

Well, people don't remember what they did or who they were in early infancy. This doesn't mean they didn't exist at the time. Absence of memory is no proof of nonexistence.

Well, people don't remember what they did or who they were in early infancy. This doesn't mean they didn't exist at the time. Absence of memory is no proof of nonexistence. — Apollodorus

Physical existence is not the issue here. The souls (mental entities, most significance being memories) are??

Physical existence is not the issue here. The souls (mental entities, most significance being memories) are?? — Corvus

That's what I'm saying. The soul's memories. Absence of memories isn't evidence of absence of existence. Temporary or partial amnesia is not unheard-of.

That's what I'm saying. The soul's memories. Absence of memories isn't evidence of absence of existence. Temporary or partial amnesia is not unheard-of. — Apollodorus

It proves that reincarnation can never be proven. Therefore the OP is a meaningless question.

It proves that reincarnation can never be proven. Therefore a meaningless question.[/quote]

It doesn't prove that. There is still a theoretical possibility that people can remember. And some apparently do remember.

It doesn't prove that. There is still a theoretical possibility that people can remember. And some apparently do remember. — Apollodorus

Theoretical possibility of existence of immaterial existence sounds illusional imagination without strong concrete evidence.

OK, you talk about someone remembering their previous lives, but how many are they, out of the whole human population? It is also possible that, they could have been having day dreams or some fantasy? Sometimes, I seem to remember my time in the garden of Eden, but don't believe it ever existed in real world.

OK, you talk about someone remembering their previous lives, but how many of the whole human population are they? And they could have been having day dreams or some fantasy? Sometimes, I seem to remember my time in the garden of Eden, but don't believe it ever existed in real world. — Corvus

You don't seem to have followed the discussion or read the OP.

You don't seem to have followed the discussion or read the OP. — Apollodorus

I gave my own opinion on the proof of reincarnation issues on the OP. Even if, I seem remember on something, that cannot qualify as proof of existence on the object. But if even the memory is not present, then what chance of proof or verification have we?