What do you expect me to do? — TheMadFool

Read with more precision.

Clearly, Thanissaro is way off mark, at least in a Buddhist sense, in saying "life is not suffering", the title of his short, interesting but completely wrong exposition of the place of suffering in Buddhist philosophy. — TheMadFool

Now, did Thanissaro Bhikkhu actually say "life is not suffering", or did you perhaps miss out on a word?

And clearly, you don't know who Thanissaro Bhikkhu is or what other texts he's written and about which topics. To accuse him of what you just did is ... *sigh*

Man, if my practice in pursuit of liberation of Nirvana is a self-fulfilling prophecy, I'm a lucky duck! — TLCD1996

Or a sitting one.

Yeah, being individualists, they sure have an awful lot to say and need an audience. Hm.

(I'm not a Christian philosopher.)

People should fear the Lord -- the fear of God is the beginning of wisdom. God shouldn't be treated as one's buddy.

I fully second that motion. — TheMadFool

What do you intend to do about it in the next 24 hours?

That, acceptable though it is, is, right or wrong, the easy way out. Let's engage in some role play. Suppose I'm your teacher. Your assignment is to solve the paradox as outlined above, keeping in mind "life is suffering" is to be understood as it is with no provisos/caveats/conditions as those that appear in your ingenious solution. Can you?

Unlike some, I have not fallen asleep at the wheel.

Referred to for the n-th time:

Life Isn't Just Suffering

So bad physics is a result of contempt for science. — Banno

Perpetrated by scientists who want to rule over other people.

Or, to be more charitable: Bad physics is the result of the proletarization/plebeification of education.
The students are not to blame, but those making the curricula and the education policies. It's the idea that everyone could or even should become a Renaissance man/woman that is so horribly amiss. If you set for yourself the goal that even some poor semi-literate kids who don't even get a proper meal every day should be taught science and art, then of course you have to dumb things down so that even they can get the impression that they understand it.

"There are six kinds of people who recollect these past lives. They are: other sectarians, ordinary disciples ..." - Visuddhimagga XIII 15 — Apollodorus

Thanks for the find!

The discussion of recollection of past lives starts on page 404 here. It includes the differences between the ways different categories of people recollect past lives and what sense they can make of them.

The evidence is insufficient. — Banno

You're a semantic atomist.

Here's the question again: what is it that is reincarnated? — Banno

I answered your question. Why did you ignore it?

I'm interested in the philosophical implications, and that means sorting out the conceptual stuff. — Banno

But you're like someone who claims to want to learn and talk about "gravity", and then insists on categorically ignoring all physics books about gravity.


What makes all this into woo-woo is that so many people insist on being Humpy Dumpty -- "When I use a word" -- they say in a scornful tone -- "it means exactly what I choose it to mean!!"

The soul is a form of intelligent energy. An immaterial substance that has the power of knowledge and action, of being aware of itself and of other things and of acting upon or interacting with itself and other things.
— Apollodorus

I think you’d have a fair amount of difficulty supporting that with reference to original sources. I personally believe the notion of an ‘immaterial substance’ is incoherent, as no such ‘substance’ can be detected by means of the senses or instruments. — Wayfarer

It makes for standard Hare Krishna doctrine:

/.../ The “soul” is defined as a non-material, eternal spiritual entity present within any living being. The symptom of the presence of the soul within a body is consciousness. The soul continues to exist after the destruction of the body and it existed prior to the creation of the body. The material body develops, changes and produces by-products [offspring] because of the presence of the soul within. The material body deteriorates in due cause of time and when it is no longer a suitable residence for the soul it is forced to leave the body. This we call death.
/.../
https://krishna.org/the-scientific-theory-of-the-soul/

And they claim (at the link) that they can prove all of this with the scientific method.

That's a good point. Although hopefully one is getting closer to the best possible version of reality (whatever that might be), or why bother? — Tom Storm

Some people drink with buddies in pubs, and some discuss stuff on internetz forumz.

I would have thought that for every idea proposed there is always going to be an opposite statement made by someone at some time. I don't read anything into this.

Oh, there are things to read into this, things that drive the OP!

(But I must leave for today.)

For one, the State owns your body, literally.

I asked about doctrinal evidence of the spontaneous recollection of past lives. As in, whether Buddhist doctrine makes allowances for the possibility of someone recalling past lives, even though this person engages in no actual Buddhist practice.

I learned the very hard way what can be rightfully expected of people and what can't.

People don't want to be asked, much less forced to be charitable or compassionate.

If you end up in some kind of trouble (whether it's getting cancer or losing your job, or being the victim of a racist attack), people will generally start to see you as weak, as a liability, as not worth investing in, and they will likely consider you responsible for whatever hardship befell you. So they won't want to have anything to do with you.

Man is born unindebted, under possession or moral authority of no state, society or individual. — Tzeentch

I just don't see that freedom. Where is it?

It's something like the Buddhist desire conundrum which defies a solution. Buddhists à la Siddhartha Gautama, believe that desire is the root of all suffering. Thus buddhists are of the view that to end suffering one must put out the fire of desire. Unfortunately or...not, to not want to desire is, salva veritate, to want to not want to desire. In other words, we can't end desire without the desire to do so. — TheMadFool

Stop confusing yourself and go study some actual Buddhist doctrine instead of relying on popular pseudobuddhist soundbites.

In Early Buddhism, there are two types of desire: the bad one (tanha) and the good one (chanda). A person is actually suposed to cultivate the desire to make an end to suffering!
There is no catch-22 like some pop-Buddhists would have us believe.

People generally don't want trouble and they tend to shun those that are in any kind of trouble (such as being targeted by a racist; it can be anything from losing your job, to getting cancer or being robbed).
— baker

I don't think you're in trouble in this example though. Yeah, I understand that people can distance themselves from you if you lose your job or fall into financial hardship, but if someone simply says a comment to you I wouldn't classify that as a major life downfall. — BitconnectCarlos

??
How do you get to that from what I said??

Does science want to be the arbiter of the truth?

And yet he is free. In fact, children are more free than most adults. — Tzeentch

Oh? So what are children free to do? Piss and shit their diapers? And scream?
And what are they free from? Certainly not from aging, illness, and death.

I heard somewhere that Kant said that children cry so much because they are angry because they can't do anything much, as not even their bodies obey them.

I don't recal ever hearing in Theravada Buddhist doctrine about the spontaneous recollection of past lives. I searched ATI for it, no finds
— baker

https://www.amazon.com.au/Rebirth-Early-Buddhism-Current-Research/dp/1614294461 — Wayfarer

Does Analayo's book provide doctrinal evidence of the spontaneous recollection of past lives?

I've read a bit about his research. I won't reject it outright.

What I have said stands; the philosophical issue that remains is: what is reincarnated? — Banno

It's futile to talk about a topic like reincarnation/rebirth or recollection of past lives without first defining the terms, or by categorically ignoring the contexts in which those terms originate from.


As to your question, an Early Buddhist would probably answer like this: Because there is kamma, there is rebirth. It's not that "you make kamma"; it's that kamma makes you. What is (!)born is kamma. (In this sense, Early Buddhist concepts are somewhat comparable to scientific materialism, because there is no notion of a "soul" that would be reborn.)

This is in contrast with a mainstream Hindu version of reincarnation, where it is said that a person is actually a soul that gets embodied over and over again in many bodies; the same soul can be one time around born in a human body, another time in an animal body. The way the same hand can put on different gloves.

There is copious evidence of children who remember previous lives. /.../ — Wayfarer

Children.

I don't recal ever hearing in Theravada Buddhist doctrine about the spontaneous recollection of past lives. I searched ATI for it, no finds. Recollection of past lives is one of the supernormal faculties and it is an attainment, not something that would randomly happen. The Buddha had a recollection of past lives on the night of his awakening.
I also don't recal ever hearing in Hinduism that the recollection of past lives could be spontaneous.


My point is that there exist doctrines about the recollection of past lives, and that if someone presumably collects evidence of the recollection of past lives, but this evidence is not aligned with the doctrines of the recollection of past lives, then something is amiss.

So those children who are reported to be able to remember their past lives:
1. didn't actually recall their past lives,
or
2. they were highly spiritually attained (for which there should be further evidence),
or
3. the doctrines about the recollection of past lives are wrong.

If 3, then the whole project of looking for evidence of recollection of past lives is moot to begin with.
Without a theoretical framework based on the doctrines, what are you going to look for, in terms of evidence?

I wonder if pop science has something to do with this... so in presenting science without the equations, writers make it look like science does not need the equations. So folk think they are doing science when all they are doing is making shit up. — Banno

Scientism. Science wants to rule the world, have the say on "how the world really works". So of course there has to be an ideologically loaded, simplied "version" of science aimed at the masses who don't have the necessary education to understand science for what it is.

Such is the price for wanting to be the arbiter of the truth.

In other words, "individualists" bullshit themselves with delusions like "libertinism", "social darwinism", "metaphysical libertarianism" & "Objectivism". — 180 Proof

I wonder though whether Rand's individualism is actually a case of defensive individualism. Rand's individualist is coming from a position of lack, from a position of being a prospective victim due to his exploitability (due to poverty, lack of resources). It's not the spoiled upper class individualist who was born with a silver spoon, believing that the world is his oyster.

So what, then, is the problem with individualism? — NOS4A2

I see two major kinds of individualism which are not to be confused:
1. Entitled/expansive individualism
and
2. Defensive individualism.

Entitled/expansive individualism is the kind where the person thinks they are entitled to take over the world and that the world owes them. Such individualists don't care about others, other than how they can use them. Such people feel good about themselves, consider themselves good and innocent.

Defensive individualism can emerge in response to other people's entitled/expansive individualism. It's the position one can take when one realizes one is left to themselves and that other people are eager to exploit one. Such individualists are anxious, always on guard.

Externally, the two types of individualism can sometimes look the same, but in bears emphasizing that they are motivated differently.

From what I understood, philosophy is supposed to be about the way one thinks and talks about things, not about coming up with definitive narratives about "how things really are".

The concept of reincarnation/rebirth has primarily an ethical importance, in several ways. One is that it helps to make sense of the world and it puts injustices into perspective. Related to that is the motivational-ethical aspect, because with reincarnation/rebirth, life still seems worth living, even though this time around, one has fallen on hard times.

With a one lifetime conception, those who have hard lives now are doomed to hopelessness and resignation.

However, supposing we accept reincarnation either as fact or as theoretical possibility, how would we convincingly justify it in philosophical terms? — Apollodorus

First answer why it would be necessary to "convincingly justify it in philosophical terms".

It's up there with astrology, ghosts and UFO research, all generally categorised under the heading woo-woo. — Wayfarer

In Western cultures where the metaphysical norms are derived from Abrahamic religions.
In contrast, go far East, and it would be woo not to believe in reincarnation/rebirth.

As expected ...

but if word were to spread you would be confident that the majority would sympathize with you. — BitconnectCarlos

This is highly questionable. Even good friends and family can turn on you if you find yourself in trouble, what to speak of semi-stangers/acquaintances like people in the same town.

People generally don't want trouble and they tend to shun those that are in any kind of trouble (such as being targeted by a racist; it can be anything from losing your job, to getting cancer or being robbed).

Siding with the person in trouble will possibly mean trouble for you.

Well, if you have too much time on your hands ...

The first precept against killing, since all life is sacred. And all living things partake of Buddha nature. — Pantagruel

This is a Mahayana/Vajrayrana view. Other Buddhist schools would point out that by killing, one accrues "bad karma" for oneself. A Buddhist might also argue that killing is wrong because it doesn't solve the problem of suffering, even though one engages in kiling for the purpose of solving the problem of suffering.

You have to kinda be able to be a evil person too do good. Or else, you can't do anyone anything — Caleb Mercado

You seem to be starting from the position that a person has a "true self", a "core" and that this "core" is permanent, unchangeable, and knowable.

While such a position is convenient when it comes to judging and condemning people, it's also impossible to prove it.

Lets say one of your neighbors - an acquaintance - comes to you with incontrovertible proof that another one of your neighbors said what the bigot said. You don't have strong pre-existing ties to either of these two people. Has your attitude changed towards the offender? Do you smile and wave next time you see the bigot? If the bigot tries to talk to you and befriend you, how do you react? — BitconnectCarlos

Actually, I know a similar situation first-hand. What I do is I make an effort to be professional and that's it. Don't smile, don't chit chat, don't get involved. This always seems to be the best policy: not becoming too cordial too soon, but giving things time and waiting for facts to become known.

Another example I remember back from college: A classmate whose father was a Serb told me about this. Another classmate told her to her face that Serbs should go "back where they came from". Meaning, one girl said to another girl that people like that other girl's father should go away (and presumably, her included, since she was also half-Serbian). Yet the girl who said that carried on as if all was well between the two. The girl whose father was a Serb told me that and asked me for advice on how to treat the other girl, given that up to that point, they were on very good terms.

If anything, partaking by degrees of the same consciousness as us should afford rights, not subject to ignomies. — Pantagruel

Should. Doesn't mean that it does. Look at arguments for antisemitism, racism, meat-eating: many of them are based on the idea that some beings are lesser beings and that it is therefore okay to treat them in ways that would be unacceptable to our peers.

Buddhists don't step on insects.

What do you think is the maxim behind that?

I'm not referencing some real event here - my situation is entirely hypothetical and in the situation that I envisioned the community is not racist or sympathetic to racism, the community is mostly just composed of relatively isolated individuals who are not racist. — BitconnectCarlos

Sure. I'm saying that people generally don't want trouble. And in an effort to avoid trouble, they will do things that can look racist, homophobic etc. even though they aren't motivated by such intentions.
"You're X, the new neighbor is against X. I don't want any trouble, so I'm going to shun you. It's probably best if you move out."

The neighbor is polite, do you return their courtesies? Do you show up at a neighborhood brunch or dinner where the neighbor is present? How do you react to others in the neighborhood getting acquainted with this neighbor? — BitconnectCarlos

Indeed, there now exists a (potential) conflict of interests. Your status in the community, since you're now the target of someone's ism, is in question. Your relationship with other neighbors is now put to the test. Will they still accept you, will they demote you, or will they shun you because you've become the target of someone's ism?

It's similar to the situation you find yourself in if your kid gets beaten up by the neighbor's kid or vice versa, or if a drunk neighbor runs you over with the car.

A neighbor isn't automatically a friend, nor an ally.

I'd counter that the universal experience of being a child versus being an adult is exemplary of a difference of degree of consciousness. — Pantagruel

I remember when I was little, and still in elementary school and even into my teens, there were adults, including some teachers, who held that view -- that I am less conscious than they are. I still remember how one teacher said about me to someone else, in my presence, "It doesn't feel anything".
I was there, I felt, yet they referred to me as "it" and that I don't feel anything.


If anything, the idea of there being different degrees of consciousness is first and foremost an ideological one. Assuming different beings have different degrees of consciousness serves a particular ideology -- such as that it's okay to treat children like cattle, or that animals don't feel pain or much of anything (and it's therefore okay to farm them for meat and other products, in ways that are "economical" for humans).

I think that the actual problem is that you're externalizing things that are, by their nature, private, personal. Indeed, you can point out that professional philosophers, politicians etc. are doing so as well, and there is a whole culture of doing this. But the difference is that they're getting payed for their speculations, and you aren't. Amateur philosophy is fine, as long as it doesn't become dilettantism. And it becomes dilettantism when the person is in fact facing an issue in their personal life, but tries to present it to others as an objective, general social issue and insists on lenghty public discussion of it. By its nature, one's issue might very well be such, but unless one actually holds some position of power in society where one actually has some say in the matter, then one is assuming oneself to have more competence and more power than one actually has -- and therefore one will burn out in one's efforts, achieving nothing.

In other words, your own justification for not having children is your own thing. But if you care so much about the suffering of prospective as yet nonexisting humans, it would be wiser to start a political movement, or obtain some position of power in the government where you can actually influence people and make policy changes.

"Who are you to tell me what to think?!" is the reply you'll probably get from most people to your AN suggestions.

If you, as an AN, care so much about future, potential people that you want for them not to suffer even one iota of harm, then how come you don't extend the same care to people who are already alive?

Your AN arguments are presumably based on empathy and compassion for people who don't even exist yet, but you don't muster the same empathy and compassion for existing people*. That's strange.


*Which you'd need in order to get through to them.