1
   

reincarnation is a bit silly...

 
 
BennySquire
 
  1  
Reply Thu 13 May, 2010 10:23 am
@glasstrees,
Our minds and bodies (if the distinction is to be made) are surely all we are. How can we have existed before we were born or be reborn?
GoshisDead
 
  1  
Reply Thu 13 May, 2010 01:00 pm
@BennySquire,
BennySquire;163892 wrote:
Our minds and bodies (if the distinction is to be made) are surely all we are. How can we have existed before we were born or be reborn?


The crux of this conversation 'we are' or (I Am), which is reliant on the incarnation of the present. At any given time I am what I am which may not be what I was at any other given time. I am neither the same physical mass as I was a moment before nor am I the same mind as I was before. I am a different person both physically and mentally now than when i started writing this post. Experiences have happened, others forgoten, cells have died, other have been created. Reincarnation/rebirth is reliant not upon the static (empiricism) to work must rely on the static. Physics has shown that we can never really measure that which is constantly changing/moving. Empiricism (nad I know this is going to upset people) relies on the analytic extention of the static, the imposition of synchronic event onto diachronic duration. The idea of the non-affected being does not rely on the synchronic it relies of the everchanging. Even most western religious doctrine of spirit/soul requires a static nature, or synchronic snapshot to be imposed on the being, whereas a great deal of the cycle of rebirths is based from the ideal that there is never a point in existence where there is no change and reincarnation or re-meat-ing is simply a necessary stage in the fluidity of being.
BennySquire
 
  1  
Reply Thu 13 May, 2010 02:26 pm
@GoshisDead,
GoshisDead;163923 wrote:
The crux of this conversation 'we are' or (I Am), which is reliant on the incarnation of the present. At any given time I am what I am which may not be what I was at any other given time. I am neither the same physical mass as I was a moment before nor am I the same mind as I was before. I am a different person both physically and mentally now than when i started writing this post. Experiences have happened, others forgoten, cells have died, other have been created. Reincarnation/rebirth is reliant not upon the static (empiricism) to work must rely on the static. Physics has shown that we can never really measure that which is constantly changing/moving. Empiricism (nad I know this is going to upset people) relies on the analytic extention of the static, the imposition of synchronic event onto diachronic duration. The idea of the non-affected being does not rely on the synchronic it relies of the everchanging. Even most western religious doctrine of spirit/soul requires a static nature, or synchronic snapshot to be imposed on the being, whereas a great deal of the cycle of rebirths is based from the ideal that there is never a point in existence where there is no change and reincarnation or re-meat-ing is simply a necessary stage in the fluidity of being.


I understand, but still think reincarnation is very unlikely. Put it in the context of evolution - we change as you say to increase the chance of reproduction; why you think reincarnation is linked in here I'm not sure, nor how on earth the mechanism it happens by works.
GoshisDead
 
  1  
Reply Thu 13 May, 2010 02:49 pm
@BennySquire,
As I posited, Benny, if we impose the static onto the transitional we cannot understand the transitional. However, we can only register the experience of the static, although we may experience the tranisitonal. Therefore we can only process that which we register, that is what is 'real', we can only postulate about the transitional.
0 Replies
 
Reconstructo
 
  1  
Reply Thu 13 May, 2010 03:03 pm
@glasstrees,
Reincarnation is a great myth, I think. The same human types reappear, again and again. It's easier to forgive mortality when one realizes that one, despite one's precious fingerprints, has essentially been here before, and shall be again, assuming the species survives.
It seems me that the best aspects of life are the universal aspects. A successful love affair or friendship, the joys of parenting, the thrill of philosophy, science, art. All these strike me as being universal, even if the particular element is also necessary.
0 Replies
 
jeeprs
 
  1  
Reply Thu 13 May, 2010 03:42 pm
@glasstrees,
I won't make any attempt to persuade anyone of whether rebirth occurs or not. But there is plenty of evidence of children who recall their previous lives. Typically at around the time they start to speak, they will say things like 'you are not my family! My name is not Mohamed! I want to go back to my village!' and so on.

Mostly they are ignored, and they usually forget all of this before they grow up. However a particular researcher, the late Dr Ian Stevenson of the University of Virginia, spend many years researching these cases and collected more that 100 which are strongly suggestive of reincarnation. He did this by cross checking all of the claims the children made with known facts about their alleged previous existence. In so doing, he built up a lot of empirical evidence of the fact that some children do have vivid and accurate past-life memories.

This is not regarded as surprising in cultures where there is a belief in re-incarnation, and not taken seriously in cultures where there isn't. But the evidence remains.
sometime sun
 
  1  
Reply Thu 13 May, 2010 03:47 pm
@jeeprs,
I don't see how energy matter transfer is silly.
jeeprs
 
  1  
Reply Fri 14 May, 2010 12:33 am
@glasstrees,
The question is, through what medium does the energy-matter transfer? I mean, radio waves are transferred through electronic fields. Now - are there biological or mental fields? After all, before Maxwell, nobody knew that electrical fields existed. Rupert Sheldrake says there are morphic fields. hmmm.....
BennySquire
 
  1  
Reply Sun 16 May, 2010 10:43 am
@jeeprs,
Alright, how about reincarnation but you are a totally different person with no attachment to your current ego, and no memories of past lives - a 'second' - given we don't know if we might have had one before - life. Think about consciousness, when we get it (though we don't know when) - why is that 'us'? Why can't we be born again as a person totally different from the one we are now? Absolutely no proof but absolutely possible? :bigsmile:
JLNobody
 
  1  
Reply Tue 5 Jul, 2011 03:48 pm
@BennySquire,
Even though I consider myself a Buddhist and meditate every day, I do not accept the notion of reincarnation because I cannot imagine a "soul" or individual spiritual entity that is transferred from one body to another. I can render the metaphor as more acceptable by positing that "the unity of all" means that when I die all that remains alive, has ever lived or will live IS ME, not in the sense of separate ego-self but in the sense of true-self, that which is one with Brahma.
igm
 
  1  
Reply Fri 8 Jul, 2011 12:58 pm
@BennySquire,
BennySquire wrote:

Our minds and bodies (if the distinction is to be made) are surely all we are. How can we have existed before we were born or be reborn?

Have you ever witnessed the start of something that didn’t arise from a previous cause? Have you ever witnessed something that didn’t just change but ceased to exist completely? Do you really understand what reincarnation really means when it is not talking about the transmigration of the soul? If your answer is no to these questions then you can’t know that reincarnation is silly because you wouldn’t have enough understanding of what is meant by the term ‘reincarnation’ when it isn’t used to explain soul migration.

As you’ve never witnessed the start or the end to anything the evidence you’ve witnessed during this life points to the continuation of things not their cessation. To believe that things cease to exist would be to ignore your own evidence that you are unable to find things that cease to exist when you’ve witnessed everything during your life just continuously changing. Do you agree?
0 Replies
 
igm
 
  1  
Reply Fri 8 Jul, 2011 01:12 pm
@JLNobody,
JLNobody wrote:

Even though I consider myself a Buddhist and meditate every day, I do not accept the notion of reincarnation because I cannot imagine a "soul" or individual spiritual entity that is transferred from one body to another. I can render the metaphor as more acceptable by positing that "the unity of all" means that when I die all that remains alive, has ever lived or will live IS ME, not in the sense of separate ego-self but in the sense of true-self, that which is one with Brahma.


igm wrote to BS and now asks JLN. igm wrote:

BennySquire wrote:

Our minds and bodies (if the distinction is to be made) are surely all we are. How can we have existed before we were born or be reborn?

Have you ever witnessed the start of something that didn’t arise from a previous cause? Have you ever witnessed something that didn’t just change but ceased to exist completely? Do you really understand what reincarnation really means when it is not talking about the transmigration of the soul? If your answer is no to these questions then you can’t know that reincarnation is silly because you wouldn’t have enough understanding of what is meant by the term ‘reincarnation’ when it isn’t used to explain soul migration.

As you’ve never witnessed the start or the end to anything the evidence you’ve witnessed during this life points to the continuation of things not their cessation. To believe that things cease to exist would be to ignore your own evidence that you are unable to find things that cease to exist when you’ve witnessed everything during your life just continuously changing. Do you agree?

JLNobody
 
  1  
Reply Sun 10 Jul, 2011 09:58 pm
@igm,
On second thought, since I can't make sense of the notion of an individual soul (I see that as an extension of the delusion of ego-self) , I can't make sense of its transmigration (in the context of Buddhist or Hindu reincarnation) or its supernatural afterlife (in the context of the Christian heaven and hell).
igm
 
  1  
Reply Mon 11 Jul, 2011 05:34 am
@JLNobody,
JLNobody wrote:

On second thought, since I can't make sense of the notion of an individual soul (I see that as an extension of the delusion of ego-self) , I can't make sense of its transmigration (in the context of Buddhist or Hindu reincarnation) or its supernatural afterlife (in the context of the Christian heaven and hell).

These are your statements in accord with what the Buddha taught:
JLNobody wrote:
since I can't make sense of the notion of an individual soul (I see that as an extension of the delusion of ego-self) , I can't make sense of its transmigration…(in the context of Hindu reincarnation) or its supernatural afterlife (in the context of the Christian heaven and hell).

Buddhists are not Hindu or Christian precisely because there is no evidence for a soul or a truly existent ego or self. The Buddha taught that ignorance of this is a cause of suffering. So in this respect Buddha’s teachings are the opposite of the teachings of Hindus and Christians and theists in general. This is one of the reasons that Buddhism is non-theistic.

It (soul transmigration) may be used to introduce the idea of reincarnation to those who come to Buddhism having brought with them the concept of Hindu reincarnation or Christian souls but the teachings on ‘Buddhist Ultimate Truth’ show this view of reincarnation to be philosophically untenable.

The ‘Ultimate Truth’ teachings are more to do with not being able to find any characteristics that can describe reality such as it starting and having duration and given this reality, it cannot cease.

Buddhists shouldn’t become Buddhists because they want to survive death but because given that reality cannot cease they must find a way to put an end to the cycle of suffering which becomes necessary due to the realization that reality cannot end.

So given that you are a Buddhist (and in addition to this, the apparent meaning of your statement above) are you saying that you believe the Buddha taught that the soul or an ego-self transmigrates (to me it seems to be saying that and that’s why I’m puzzled)?
JLNobody
 
  1  
Reply Mon 11 Jul, 2011 09:38 pm
@igm,
If the Buddha did believe in the soul or reincarnation I havn't seen evidence of it. The same with the concept of God: he just had nothing to say on the subject. What I do think, however, is that his teachings, especially the transcendental, non-dualism expounded in the Heart Sutra, and the way they have evolved in the zen traditions, are what I need to know.
0 Replies
 
gotchaglobal
 
  1  
Reply Sat 4 Jan, 2014 06:05 am
@sometime sun,
We're not talking about mere transfer of energy - let's be candid, reincarnation is fanciful at best and mires us as a species in the hocus pocus of the past. Time to evolve intellectually, physically, mentally, and spiritually.
JLNobody
 
  1  
Reply Sat 4 Jan, 2014 09:29 pm
@gotchaglobal,
I generally agree, but we might keep in mind that however we evolve intellectually and spiritually most of its content will eventually be seen also as "hocus pocus of the past." I prefer the "enlightenment"of embracing experience now as it presents itself--not how it will someday be codified by others.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 12/01/2021 at 09:24:49