So, you're going against the neurologists. Good luck with that one...:)

I get all the not neurology and laughs I need from the TV show Superhuman. The neurologist on the show is a hoot.

I get all the not neurology and laughs I need from the TV show Superhuman

Yeah, I bet you do.

The Geek Squad TV repair man offered to map out where all the celebrities are stored in the TV's computer chips and he also explained how all those who we think are the real celebrities were just illusions. It's all in the chips. I found it to be a remarkable theory. We are working on how all of those people were actually put in the chips.

Goodbye, Rich. I'll let your rant on while I head to another thread.

Bye, bye. Miss you already.

I beg to offer a counterexample:

A person who never made a mistake never tried anything new.
— Albert Einstein

I believe this is written in the third person. Am I wrong? — Banno

It sure is written in the third person, but I suspect it is Einstein's view. Scientists have this really silly habit of talking in a third person voice. "The test tube was dropped on the floor" rather than "I dropped the test tube." It don't fool me. Not like you to take a grammatical construction for reality. There is a third person voice, but there is no third person. Self, other, invisible friend?

But, though I don't believe that we're all the same "I", I still don't want to harm other living things, and so the only change, if I were convinced of what you're saying would be that I'd have a stronger argument for vegetarianism...an argument easier to justify to everyone.

...assuming that I could convince others to it as well. It wouldn't help if I couldn't.

And of course that would apply to human-affairs too, all the depredations that are in the news.

But, in those human-affairs matters, and in every matter other than our household's lack of all-the-time vegetarianism, it wouldn't change me one bit, because I already don' t want anyone or anything harmed. — Michael Ossipoff

I think you are underestimating the effect of identification. According to 'common sense' notions of identity, I take precautions and plan for a future self, that is necessarily absent from experience. I buy food for the imagined unenlightened's breakfast tomorrow, because I identify with him - 'I will be him'. I don't take the same precautions for the homeless guy on the street, because I will not be him.

Or, if I 'know' that I am eating my own corpse, there is no need for any argument about vegetarianism.

Social morality dissolves into common prudence, one doesn't want to shoot oneself, let oneself starve, belittle oneself on philosophy forums and so on. If one come across oneself in the sad condition of not knowing that I am the other, which is the case almost everywhere at the moment, then one will see how I am hurting myself in that condition and try to help myself see more clearly. What appears to the one in that condition of limited identity as great kindness and nobility, is actually common prudence to the other, who loves his neighbour as himself.

Your Unenlightened Majesty,

I've read your posts through this thread, and while I find your position interesting, I think it's suffering of at least one deficiency that I myself perceive. You create a division between "the fact of consciousness" and the "contents of consciousness", but I think no such distinction can be drawn in the first place. How can consciousness be conceived to exist without the attendant intentionality - or better said directionality - towards particular contents? If so, then it would seem that consciousness cannot be conceived without reference to the constituents of consciousness. One is always conscious of something, one cannot simply be conscious. It seems to me that quite the contrary, consciousness is individual, and not collective and shared. Consciousness is also impermanent. It disappears while you sleep for example.

One can then ask, what is the difference between your consciousness and mine or a mouse's? And the answer would always be in the contents, not the container. — unenlightened

What if the contents and the container are one consciousness together?

What if the contents and the container are one consciousness together? — Agustino

There's a sense in which they are the same, and a sense in which they are not. It is a question of identification. So I read your post, and I am conscious of your post, but I am not your post. One could say that my consciousness is 'of your post', but that 'of' is doing more work than it can really cope with.
My consciousness is filled with any number of fleeting things from moment to moment, but I do not think of myself, or behave as if, I am a fleeting thing. Rather, I identify as some sort of thread (to use another image from container for a moment), on which these fleeting impressions and pearls of speculative wisdom are strung. And, as I mentioned, I see this thread projecting into the future, and make an identification with tomorrow's unenlightened wanting his breakfast that is strong enough to propel me to the shop for eggs and coffee. Somehow, that seems entirely natural, but the identification with another's morning hunger is not. Yet they are equally inaccessible to me in fact, though not in
imagination.

So to answer your question directly, if the contents and the container are one consciousness, then I am not the same person who started writing this reply, and the person who reads it will not be the Agustino of yore. And that is just as unbelievable as that we are one.

So to answer your question directly, if the contents and the container are one consciousness, then I am not the same person who started writing this reply, and the person who reads it will not be the Agustino of yore. And that is just as unbelievable as that we are one. — unenlightened

But what if we are not our consciousness to begin with? That is really my entire point, that consciousness too is impermanent, and thus, as Buddhists would say, anicca - impermanent, and anatta - empty of self. That's why in Buddhism consciousness is taken to be one of the Five Skandhas - which cease to exist in Nirvana.

So yes, effectively my consciousness of today, is not my consciousness of yesterday. So consciousness is not "me". Rather consciousness is something that I have - or I don't have (when I sleep for example). That's why your consciousness reincarnates in other people, but your real self doesn't. (Buddhists would say the Five Skandhas reincarnate).

My consciousness is filled with any number of fleeting things from moment to moment — unenlightened

But would you not say that your consciousness is as fleeting as those things with which it is filled?

Rather, I identify as some sort of thread (to use another image from container for a moment), on which these fleeting impressions and pearls of speculative wisdom are strung. And, as I mentioned, I see this thread projecting into the future, and make an identification with tomorrow's unenlightened wanting his breakfast that is strong enough to propel me to the shop for eggs and coffee. — unenlightened

I can agree with this. To me it seems that you are that which is conscious of X or Y (or perhaps better said, that which HAS consciousness of X). But consciousness isn't the self.

Buddhists would say the Five Skandhas reincarnate — Agustino

There are two ways in which someone can take rebirth after death: rebirth under the sway of karma and destructive emotions and rebirth through the power of compassion and prayer. Regarding the first, due to ignorance negative and positive karma are created and their imprints remain on the consciousness. These are reactivated through craving and grasping, propelling us into the next life. We then take rebirth involuntarily in higher or lower realms. This is the way ordinary beings circle incessantly through existence like the turning of a wheel. Even under such circumstances ordinary beings can engage diligently with a positive aspiration in virtuous practices in their day-to-day lives. They familiarise themselves with virtue that at the time of death can be reactivated providing the means for them to take rebirth in a higher realm of existence.

On the other hand, superior Bodhisattvas, who have attained the path of seeing, are not reborn through the force of their karma and destructive emotions, but due to the power of their compassion for sentient beings and based on their prayers to benefit others. They are able to choose their place and time of birth as well as their future parents. Such a rebirth, which is solely for the benefit of others, is rebirth through the force of compassion and prayer. — H H The Dalai Lama, 'Reincarnation'

That is interesting, but not sure that I agree, for Nirvana is the cessation of reincarnation and rebirth. The Bodhisattvas that the DL is talking about take the Mahayana path, and refuse to "cross the river" into Nirvana until all beings are saved, however if this was really so, there should be more and more Bodhisattvas around as time goes on, and this isn't what we see. I think all rebirth, in Buddhist terms, is ultimately illusory, for the real self never reincarnates - only the Five Skandhas do - meaning your atoms take a new form, your thoughts/desires are taken on by other people, and so forth. But there cannot be a rebirth of the real self, given that the real self is not part of this world.

There is however a rebirth of the "self" people typically mis-associate with (thoughts, desires, tendencies, consciousness etc.). But these things are actually anatta - empty of self.

But consciousness isn't the self. — Agustino

the real self never reincarnates — Agustino

I'm not sure what you are pointing to here. Not body, not consciousness, not memory, but...?

I'm not sure what you are pointing to here. Not body, not consciousness, not memory, but...? — unenlightened

Well if you could point to it, it would no longer be the self, but rather an object or property in the world, wouldn't you think so? In Kantian terms, the self would be a condition for the very possibility of the world. One reason why it leads into antinomy - the self can never be captured, for who would be there to capture the self? Whatsoever you can "see" cannot be the self, for then who is the one seeing it?

Take consciousness. If consciousness is the self, then who is the one who is conscious?

I said the self cannot be reborn, because the self is never born, for whatsoever is born must die. And we've already established that when we're looking for the self, we're looking for something permanent. That is why Buddha stopped at anatta - no-self. The meaning, in my eyes, is that this world, with everything in it, is impermanent, and hence cannot be self.

In Christian terms, the self is the soul, which is God's breath. Genesis 2:7 :

Then the LORD God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being.

So that's as far as Buddhism goes. This real self, which is light compared to the world, but darkness compared to God - for it is solely an image of God, His Breath - but not the essence of God.


Or you can have a look at this book.

So to answer your question directly, if the contents and the container are one consciousness, then I am not the same person who started writing this reply, and the person who reads it will not be the Agustino of yore. And that is just as unbelievable as that we are one. — unenlightened

I think it gets confusing when consciousness is thought of as some object that can be made mobile.

Consciousness is better thought of as ongoing, never-ending, continuous processes existing in duration. There are hierarchies of consciousness (which Sheldrake calls morphic resonance fields) that define who we are moving from the individual (a field of memory) through family, race, species, life fields etc., all of which are in a continuous process of learning and changing that flow into each other.

These intelligent processes just continue through duration. There appears to be a wave-like, cyclical nature moving of processes that move from rest-from-learning-and-creating (sleep/death) and creating/learning (awake/alive) of this process.

And we've already established that when we're looking for the self, we're looking for something permanent. — Agustino

Have we? I don't remember establishing that. If reincarnation, then something survives death. But you don't mean that, because:

the self cannot be reborn, because the self is never born, for whatsoever is born must die. — Agustino

Then It seems to have no connection to me, because I was born, Mummy told me.

To be honest, talk of the LORD God seems out of place here. It's philosophy, not revealed religion. It's a question of identity, a matter of examining one's life, and the answers from books are just theories about someone else's notion of their identity.

I think it gets confusing when consciousness is thought of as some object that can be made mobile. — Rich

I agree. Let's not do it, then. Though I consciously went to Manchester the other day, on the train.

There appears to be a wave-like, cyclical nature moving of processes that move from rest-from-learning-and-creating (sleep/death) and creating/learning (awake/alive) of this process. — Rich

That's fine; if that's who you imagine yourself to be, I won't argue. How does this identity manifest itself in your life?

That's fine; if that's who you imagine yourself to be, I won't argue. How does this identity manifest itself in your life? — unenlightened

I would say it manifests as a continuous sense of creative exploration and experimentation that is always learning and evolving in an unpredictable manner. At times it rests (sleep without dreams) and at times it is active making choices of direction of exploration. There seems to be a continuum without boundaries between the observer/memories and that which is exploring and being observed. It is all happening in duration.

Yes, you already said that's how you see yourself, but I am asking how it is manifested, shown to others in your relationships to them. You see to us shrinks, a lack of boundaries to the psyche can lead to grave problems.

Everything is an interaction, a process, which would be a challenge for anyone looking for specific objects or boundaries. This is where problems and paradoxes arise.

Have we? I don't remember establishing that. If reincarnation, then something survives death. — unenlightened

Yes, your atoms, thoughts, desires, etc. re-incarnate - they "survive" your death. But not you (you are beyond the need to "survive").

Then It seems to have no connection to me, because I was born, Mummy told me. — unenlightened

Yes, in a common sense of speaking, since that's what people mis-identify the self to be.

It's philosophy, not revealed religion. It's a question of identity, a matter of examining one's life, and the answers from books are just theories about someone else's notion of their identity. — unenlightened

So philosophy cannot involve revealed religion? What if philosophy itself points towards, or rather necessitates, revelation? Plato certainly thought so for society cannot be governed without the philosopher king, nor can there be a philosopher king who did not have the mystical vision of Agathon - to whom Agathon hasn't revealed itself.

So absolutely, by all means by looking at my life, I can see that I am not my consciousness, not my body, not my mind, not my thoughts, not my desires. I am not my consciousness because my consciousness can be taken away from me, and yet, I would not cease to be who I am. I am still myself while I'm asleep for example.

Then It seems to have no connection to me, because I was born, Mummy told me.
— unenlightened
Yes, in a common sense of speaking, since that's what people mis-identify the self to be. — Agustino

I'll stop here, as I have no idea what you are on about, but it is nothing to do with what I have been saying, and nothing that I can see to do with the topic of reincarnation.

Alright,it's true that the consequences of people believing that everyone is the same "Me" would be a tremendously better societal world. ...quite unrecognizably better.

But, as a practical matter, people have a better chance of behaving well because they start having a standard for their conduct..

Of course it will never happen.

And yes, if it were obvious to everyone that non-vegetarianism were self-cannibalism, instead of just cannibalism, there wouldn't be any need to argue for vegetarianism.
.
But, for me, the similarity and close relatedness is enough to make me not want to harm. .

Anyway, even if it were true, the people who behave the worst would be the least likely people to believe it

But, no matter how much better unitary-ness, and its recognition, could make the societal world, I just don't feel that our experiences give indication of it. Everything in our experience in a life can readily be fully explained as the experiences and perceptions of one body.

But as I said (setting off a big collective hissy-fit from some posters) I it seems to me that, in its conclusions and consequences, Skepticism doesn't differ from Advaita.

And I emphasize that I try to not avoidably harm other living-things.

(...though I admit that my household would probably be fully vegetarian if we were unitary and knew it.)

Michael Ossipoff

I think all rebirth, in Buddhist terms, is ultimately illusory, for the real self never reincarnates - only the Five Skandhas do — Agustino

The skandhas don't reincarnate, as their nature is temporary.

It's worth recalling the original statement as to what constitutes escape from the 'wheel of life and death'. As this was presented in the EBT's, beings were doomed to continuously suffer and die until such time as they escaped from the wheel of suffering, which was an exceedingly difficult thing to do, and the chances for which exceedingly rare.

Here is a canonical statement of the 'end of suffering' in the EBT's.

"There is, monks, an unborn — unbecome — unmade — unfabricated. If there were not that unborn — unbecome — unmade — unfabricated, there would not be the case that emancipation from the born — become — made — fabricated would be discerned. But precisely because there is an unborn — unbecome — unmade — unfabricated, emancipation from the born — become — made — fabricated is discerned."

— Ud 8.3

Religious studies scholars will note that the idea of 'the uncreated' or 'unborn' is also found in Patristic theology, whereby in the final stages of theosis, the disciple is said to reach union with 'the uncreated light of God'.

Gregory of Nyssa's anthropology is founded on the ontological distinction between the created and uncreated. Man is a material creation, and thus limited, but infinite in that his immortal soul has an indefinite capacity to grow closer to the divine. Gregory believed that the soul is created simultaneous to the creation of the body (in opposition to Origen, who believed in preexistence).

Interestingly, later Buddhist texts introduced the idea of the 'buddha-nature', the Tathāgatagarbha, which represents the potential or capacity for attaining Nirvāṇa. Though Buddhists will usually deny it, it is a very similar concept to the 'soul'.

you can have a look at this book. — Agustino

Fr. Seraphim Rose may have gotten his monastic name from a famously gentle Russian saint, but he had a warrior's spirit. His goal in life was to prove, by his own example, that a contemporary Orthodox Christian can still live exactly like a 3rd-century Desert Father, if only the will and the zeal were there. While doing this, he still found the time to write a number of passionate polemics (of which this book is the best-known) attacking what he saw as various forms of indulgence and temptation masquerading as "spirituality." — Amazon Reader Review

You will find similar polemics in diverse religions, denouncing 'new age' religions and promising to represent the 'original and pure faith', straying from which will inevitably result in hell. Doubtlessly a Buddhist equivalent could also be cited.

But there is no having without the had. They create one another. — Mongrel

Yes, exactly!

This is what we do; we identify ourselves with the limits of our sensations. Whatever I can feel the hurt of or the pleasure of is me, and if there are hurts and pleasures that I don't feel, that is another. It's strongly intuitive, and it's the way we go on. So I'm not surprised that there is resistance to my questioning this intuition. But I am trying to show, with a closer look, that it is a bit arbitrary. — unenlightened

I don't think it is arbitrary; it is the basis of being able to talk about "you" and 'me" in the first place.

Well I hope I am doing something more than just playing with words. Suppose, imagine, that I have convinced you, that quite literally, another's pain is your pain even though you don't feel it; that another's harm is your harm. Do you not think it would change your prioities, change your life, if your identity was actually 'everyman'? — unenlightened

I think this cannot be anything beyond "playing with words". Advaita plays with words in order to point to what lies beyond playing with words. So, according to advaita another's pain would both be your pain, and not be your pain, and would neither be your pain, nor not be your pain.

Non-dualism indicates that there is no difference in differance; not two, but not one, either. This relates to the context of thinking about reincarnation, where the reincarnated entity is both you and not you, and neither you nor not you. The same can be said about your self in the past or the future of this very life.

That's why I suggested to Banno earlier about the need to address the issue of what it means to be Banno before trying to address what it could mean for Banno to have been Napoleon.

OK, so being a bit more obvious: there is a difference between "I see the cup on the table" and "The cup is on the table".

How do you characterise that difference?

Nothing about John remained the same for the duration of his life.

Funny thing is, for all that he was the same person. — Banno

So, why not you and Napoleon, then?

So to answer your question directly, if the contents and the container are one consciousness, then I am not the same person who started writing this reply, and the person who reads it will not be the Agustino of yore. And that is just as unbelievable as that we are one. — unenlightened

Did you notice my post about John?

Isn't identity something we inflict, rather than something we discover?

That's exactly it!