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.

Conceivability was the issue. — frank

I can conceive of a flying spaghetti monster!!!

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.

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.)

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

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

How??

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.

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.

You do have to let the world become however it naturally does and can't impose your will upon the world — thewonder

Why not??

Suit yourself.

The problem is using a term that has various meanings does not tell us what it is that endures beyond life. Neither Aristotle's psyche or the Hebrew ruach does. Calling it "soul" means no more than calling it "something". "Something" is not an account of that something. — Fooloso4

Indeed. This is why doctrines about the soul tend to contain the desription of the mechanism by which the soul gets reincarnated. The "downside" is that one actually has to find and read those texts ...

I'm going to quote myself:
Interesting, isn't it, that folk suppose that because "I am convinced", it follows that "Hence, you ought be convinced". Going both ways. "I am not convinced, hence, you ought not be convinced".
— Banno
There's apparently an imperative in being convinced of something. One expects others to be similar convinced. — Banno

This is true for some people.

But beyond that, a discussion about reincarnation/rebirth needn't be more than just about learning the terms of the discourse at hand and engaging in the discourse accordingly. There's no need to believe any of it.

Democracy is, eventually, about voting, and voting is about having the majority. Because of this, other principles of democracy, such as inclusiveness and equality, become increasingly irrelevant.

And I think the business man's story is a sad one also. — Tom Storm

Why sad?

Thus, a metaism? It's still an ism.

What does this have to do with good communication and communicating intelligibly?
— baker

Who cares? — frank

Now that's a productive approach to discussion!

In an atmosphere of goading and cynicism, how can any decent person hope to have a meaningful conversation?

Probably nothing, considering that you've made up your mind that souls don't exist. — baker

*sad*
Why do you say that? What makes you think that I've "made up your mind that souls don't exist"?
Do answer that.


There are many doctrines about what the "soul" is. How is one supposed to know which one is the right one??

You're joking, right? — Apollodorus

Not at all. The Bible is quite inconsistent in its use: sometimes, the soul is something to have, and other times, it's something one is.
Search it for how the term "soul" is used.

I have to go now.

In other words, people who are extremely unlikely to be telling you lies. It isn't "proof" but it makes it credible. — Apollodorus

Sure, but what on earth can I do with that??

Plus Plato clearly uses reincarnation (the Story of Er) as a parable illustrating his belief that souls are rewarded in the afterlife according to their deeds on earth. So, it is very relevant in terms of ethics, actually. — Apollodorus

From the Visuddhimagga, linked to earlier:

15. There are six kinds of people who recollect these past lives. They are: other
sectarians, ordinary disciples, great disciples, chief disciples, Paccekabuddhas,
and Buddhas.
/.../
17. Again, other sectarians only recollect the succession of aggregates; they
are unable to recollect according [only] to death and rebirth-linking, letting go
of the succession of aggregates. They are like the blind in that they are unable to
descend upon any place they choose; they go as the blind do without letting go
of their sticks. So they recollect without letting go of the succession of aggregates.
Ordinary disciples both recollect by means of the succession of aggregates and
trace by means of death and rebirth-linking. Likewise, the eighty great disciples.
But the chief disciples have nothing to do with the succession of aggregates.
When they see the death of one person, they see the rebirth-linking, and again
when they see the death of another, they see the rebirth-linking. So they go by
tracing through death and rebirth-thinking. Likewise, Paccekabuddhas.
18. Buddhas, however, have nothing to do either with succession of aggregates
or with tracing through death and rebirth-linking; for whatever instance they
choose in many millions of eons, or more or less, is evident to them.
/.../
19. Among these beings with recollection of past lives, the sectarians’ vision
of past lives seems like the light of a glow-worm, that of ordinary disciples like
the light of a candle, that of the great disciples like the light of a torch, that of the
chief disciples like the light of the morning star, that of Paccekabuddhas like the
light of the moon, and that of Buddhas like the glorious autumn sun’s disk with
its thousand rays.
20. Other sectarians see past lives as blind men go [tapping] with the point of
a stick. Ordinary disciples do so as men who go on a log bridge. The great
disciples do so as men who go on a foot bridge. The chief disciples do so as men
who go on a cart bridge. Paccekabuddhas do so as men who go on a main footpath.
And Buddhas do so as men who go on a high road for carts.

So according to this doctrine, there are differences between the ways different categories of people recollect past lives and what sense they can make of them.

These differences also potentially explain how come people at large are not convinced by accounts of recollections of past lives when these accounts come from what the text above calls "other
sectarians". Because those recollections are low in quality, low in relevance, in comparison to what other quality is potentially available.

I wonder how Stevenson and other researches who study the recollection of past lives account for that.



And this:

21. In this connection it is the disciples’ recollection of past lives that is intended.

My intuition was on the right track when I questioned about the spontaneous recollection of past lives.

You seem to forget that true Christians believe that we have a soul. — Apollodorus

"Have a soul"? Not are a soul?

So if you have a soul, so that you and your soul are two separate things, who burns in hell for all eternity? You or your soul?

So, it is very relevant in terms of ethics, actually. — Apollodorus

Of course, I'm not disputing that. (This is why, in terms of theory of morality, I linked to Thanissaro Bhikkhu's The Truth of Rebirth: And Why It Matters for Buddhist Practice).

But it is quite a stretch to conclude that because some kid in Australia remembered something from a past life, this means that I have/am a soul that gets reincarnated or that religion X is the right one.

But I can understand if Marxists don't understand. — Apollodorus

*sigh*

I have the impression that if you edit a post of yours, and add a mention, that mention does not show up in the other poster's account and they're not notified.

I noticed that notifications of mentions include a short bit of the post -- but as it was when it was first posted, disregarding later edits. (So that in the notification, you can read things that aren't in the post anymore, nor the new ones.)

Does anyone have definitive knowledge of this?

Most living languages are constantly evolving. It's creativity. — frank

What does this have to do with good communication and communicating intelligibly?

I don't see how you get more compelling testimonial evidence, it's overwhelming. Do I need to know the mechanism for OBEs in order to know if NDEs are veridical? Do I need to know the mechanism of any experience to know if the experience is real or genuine? Of course not. We have firsthand experiences all the time without knowing the mechanisms involved.
— Sam26

Correct. What seems to be happening here is that some people have decided in advance that reincarnation is impossible, irrational and evil, and that any consideration of the possibility should be suppressed by all available means. — Apollodorus

I sympathize with the skeptics, though. The available accounts of the recollections of past lives are, at best, confusing, opening up more questions, and at worst, trifles. So someone recalls, say, that in a past life, they drowned in a river where there are trees in groups of three on the banks. This is an actual event that can potentially be corroborated with empirical evidence. But so what? Does that prove there is a soul, an unchanging substance that gets reincarnated? Does it prove that religion X is the right one? Yes, people sometimes drown, and sometimes, they drown in rivers where there are trees in groups of three on the banks. How is any of this metaphysically relevant or has metaphysically relevant implications? How is it ethically relevant?

Talk about ivory towers ...
People, Trump and co. really could win.Then the fun will be over.

If people are going to make up their own meanings of terms, how can they then hope to communicate?

That's because you're trying too hard.

Sometimes people get a bit too cocky about their "experience" to the point where they assume that everyone else is below them (an inferior "other"). — TLCD1996

I'm not sure we're on the same page here.

I'm talking about the need to "grow a pair", to "show elbows" when it comes to interacting with others in religion/spirituality. In many ways, religion/spirituality is very much like highschool or a work environment where there is mobbing and bullying, power cliques, the old boys' club, and so on . It's necessary to claim and protect one's space, or one will get squished, socially, but more importantly, in one's own mind and efforts. Squished -- not necessarily by evil, malicious devotees, but often by well-meaning but not highly attained practitioners who happen to posses a lot of self-confidence, or at least more than oneself.

Mkay, but then who's to blame if such a creative person doesn't have intelligible communications with others?

See, power in numbers.

This is why trying to shame creative people won't work. They really don't care what you think. — frank

Being creative, or just being Humpty-Dumpty-when-I-use-a-word-it-means-exactly-what-I-choose-it-to-mean?

It's the democratic order itself that is the greatest danger to the democratic order. Because the democratic order is ultimately about power in numbers.

In phil of mind, the argument is sometimes about who has the burden if proof. Lacking facts, they resort to trying to discover the elephant like blind men.

It gets intricate, but at stake is the right to call your opponent a bonehead, so it gets intense. — frank

What I don't get is this:

Why is it that scientifically inclined people wouldn't even dream of talking about terms like "gravity", "force", "mass" without reference to some established theory in the field of physics, nor would they talk about "molecules" or "atomic bonds" without reference to some established theory in the field of chemistry, etc., but they want to forgo this notion of the embeddednes of terms into some theoretical framework when it comes to "reincarnation" and "rebirth" (and many other religious/spiritual terms)? Why is that?

Is it that they feel that terms that denote something "close to home", terms that are ostensibly about "what a person really is" and "the meaning of life" should be treated differently than terms like "gravity" or "molecule"?

This is a review of a book by a Buddhist scholastic monastic, Bhikkhu Analayo. (Contains a further link to another article on current research.) For a serious discussion of the theory and philosophical issues this is probably the most reliable current source. There are no Western scientific or philosophical equivalents as the topic is a cultural taboo in the West; Stevenson' attempts to corroborate evidence of children's memories of past experience have all been dismissed as we've seen here. — Wayfarer

The Buddhist monk Thanissaro Bhikkhu also makes a case for rebirth here: The Truth of Rebirth: And Why It Matters for Buddhist Practice.

Life isn't just suffering. Apologies, my bad. If so, why all the fuss about nirvana? — TheMadFool

Because there is suffering. The usual course of a person's life is that it swings from grief to joy, and again to grief, and again joy, and so often, it ends in grief. It's this swinging and the uncertainty of joy that is so exhausting.

And don't apologize to me. It's unproductive, to say the least, to read with insufficient precision.
Also, I'm guessing that you don't know where to start to read up Buddhist doctrine.

At stroke of midnight, Trump shall win.
I am certain that it is just a matter of time before Trump or his children win the presidential elections.

But who is the Christian's neighbor?

Stevenson' attempts to corroborate evidence of children's memories of past experience have all been dismissed as we've seen here. — Wayfarer

True, I dismiss them too, but for other reasons than most. I dismiss them because they are not relevant in terms of insight into how to make an end to suffering. The past lives acounts of those children don't contain any insight into the workings of dependent co-arising, nor the causal linkage between one birth and the next.

I was watching my cat ignore its shadow today and got to thinking: they must be aware of their own shadows on some level, otherwise they would be freaking out about this black thing on the ground right next to them that's always moving around. This would apply to insects too, I guess. So, what's going on? Do their minds categorize shadows as "uninteresting"? — RogueAI

They are clearly aware of some shadows, sometimes, and not of others, at other times. If a shadow suddenly appears, the cat becomes interested or even scared. Although it's hard to say whether the cat noticed only the shadow, or also heard the being that cast the shadow. Cats aren't very visual types, but they focus more on hearing and smelling.

Having observed our cats, I think it's similar as with the image in the mirror: the cat first takes an interest in it, and after a while, when it proves harmless or uninteresting, ignores it.

Is not putting people into this forced circumstance itself suspect or immoral? — schopenhauer1

This bloody victim mentality again.