I think the best way to see 'moral teachings' of religions is to try to see them as a way to cultivate our own nature. While a 'legalistic' way of seeing them has perhaps its purpose, the deepest way to see them is IMO to see them as aiming to our education and assist our (spiritual) growth.

Very much so. Presumably that is why we are here, to educate us in our spiritual growth?

I mean, any concept of 'moral responsibility' that I find coherent assumes that the agent of an action and the bearer of moral responsibility of that action is the same person.

This is where my thinking differs from Buddhist theology and I move back to the Hindu tradition. I find the dissolution of the individual upon death as incoherent in the way it is generally presented. I am aware of the explanation for it, but see it as part of an apology for the wholesale rejection of atman and a presence of the divine world in our world.
I am unsure about the identity of the Bodhisattvas and enlightened beings. Also there does seem to be some equivocation around this point. There is a universal consciousness, but each individual is one drop of water in an ocean of water drops. There is a denial of a permanent self, or identity, but a permanent self, a universal self is smuggled in and plays the same role.

Hinduism is saying the same thing, but in atman the individual retains some individuation ( not the Jungian definition) while similarly being a drop of atman in the sea of atman.

There seems to be equivocation around Karma too, that it shapes one’s next life, while denying that the individual remains after death. And how can the karmic debt be repaid, when the agent who took out the karmic debt does not any more exist. Again, I understand there is a explanation given, but it comes across as apologetics again.

In Hinduism, the divine world is here with us, walking alongside, interacting with us and the theology delineates it’s presence.

Very much so. Presumably that is why we are here, to educate us in our spiritual growth? — Punshhh

Yes, I hope and tend to think this is the case.

Interestingly, I believe that it is a somewhat classical teaching in Christianity that the 'spiritual life' is a process of growth and the state of the 'blessed' in Heaven is the ultimate realization of human nature. IIRC, Gregory of Nyssa in his book 'On the Making of Man' distinguishes three types of aspects of the 'soul': vegetative, animal (perceptive) and rational and saw the process of physical growth both in the womb and in the physical growth process as a gradual fulfillment of the first two aspects. The third is cultivated through virtue. However, this process is completed in the afterlife.

Also, in Christianity, in a similar way to Buddhism and Hinduism, you find reference that the fulfillment of spiritual life entails some kind of 'death' (even in the New Testament passages like: John 12:24, Galatians 2:20, Ephesians 4:22-24; also the metaphor of the 'sown seed' is used to describe the relation between the earthly body and the 'spiritual' body in 1 Corinthians 15:42-44). This to me makes sense even from a purely 'religious neutral' point of view: when we, say, grow from childhood to adolescense and then adulthood we might conceptualize the process of growth as a succession of metaphorical 'deaths' and 'rebirths' and resisting to these 'deaths' is actually detrimental to our spiritual health even if they can be quite scary. I'm not surprised therefore that 'dying to oneself' or similar expressions are used as a positive sign for spiritual development.

This is where my thinking differs from Buddhist theology and I move back to the Hindu tradition. I find the dissolution of the individual upon death as incoherent in the way it is generally presented. I am aware of the explanation for it, but see it as part of an apology for the wholesale rejection of atman and a presence of the divine world in our world. — Punshhh

Buddhists would argue that the termination of a particular lifetime is just a more evident instance of change that also happens during a lifetime. They would argue that if there is an atman, change would be impossible. I can see why they say that but IMO their rejection of atman assumes that their opponents think that selves like concepts are changeless. I don't know how one can 'remain the same' while also 'changing' but to be honest it's not that the rejecton of atman isn't free of conceptual difficulties like that of moral responsability.

I am unsure about the identity of the Bodhisattvas and enlightened beings. Also there does seem to be some equivocation around this point. There is a universal consciousness, but each individual is one drop of water in an ocean of water drops. There is a denial of a permanent self, or identity, but a permanent self, a universal self is smuggled in and plays the same role. — Punshhh

I believe that generally Buddhists would assert that all the enlightened minds share the same nature of mind but not the same mind. Just like, say, all fires are instance of 'fire' doesn't imply that all fires are manifestation of a cosmic fire.

Hinduism is saying the same thing, but in atman the individual retains some individuation ( not the Jungian definition) while similarly being a drop of atman in the sea of atman. — Punshhh

Or even something like a wave (a mode of existence) in the sea. I don't think the part-whole language should be taken too literally.

There seems to be equivocation around Karma too, that it shapes one’s next life, while denying that the individual remains after death. And how can the karmic debt be repaid, when the agent who took out the karmic debt does not any more exist. Again, I understand there is a explanation given, but it comes across as apologetics again. — Punshhh

Perhaps a traditional Buddhist answer would frame the problem in the distinction between the 'provisional/conventional' and the 'ultimate' truth. In the ultimate truth, there is no karmic continuity even in the same lifetime. In the provosional truth, individuals persist from life to life. However the provisional is ultimately illusory. So, again, the problem perhaps even worsens: not only there is a problem to explain how karma works from life to life. But there is a problem of how to explain it even within a lifetime once one questions the existence of the atman.
So, to be honest, I was never convinced of Buddhist defenses that I read.

Interestingly there was an ancient Buddhist school (the Pudgalavada) that affirmed the existence of 'indeterminate selves' perhaps to explain karma and compassion.

In Hinduism, the divine world is here with us, walking alongside, interacting with us and the theology delineates it’s presence. — Punshhh

distinguishes three types of aspects of the 'soul': vegetative, animal (perceptive) and rational and saw the process of physical growth both in the womb and in the physical growth process as a gradual fulfillment of the first two aspects. The third is cultivated through virtue. However, this process is completed in the afterlife.

Yes, this makes sense to me, that it is a living development, or growth. The plant cannot flower until the plant has grown, the bud formed and the right season has arrived. Then it flowers in tune with nature, the ecosystem which sustains it. The religious, of spiritual life is about tending to the plant that it grows healthy and straight, is not blighted. The culmination of this process is the transfiguration of the being, the flower representing the thousand petalled lotus of the crown chakra. This transfigured being would walk in another world, having sloughed off, discarded, the physical world.

This to me makes sense even from a purely 'religious neutral' point of view: when we, say, grow from childhood to adolescense and then adulthood we might conceptualize the process of growth as a succession of metaphorical 'deaths' and 'rebirths' and resisting to these 'deaths' is actually detrimental to our spiritual health even if they can be quite scary. I'm not surprised therefore that 'dying to oneself' or similar expressions are used as a positive sign for spiritual development.

Yes, growing pains, or initiations, represented by the stations of the cross, or the trials and tribulations, the four sights of the Buddha, before he found the middle way. These are also important of stages of development of the person, or being, towards a life of selfless service to fellow beings and the ecosystem, rather than dwelling on the animal passions. Likewise for the follower on the path, there are a series of initiations in which they see, or step forward into, the world (for them) to come. These crises shatter, or break the casing of the bud, that it can open, so to speak.

I believe that generally Buddhists would assert that all the enlightened minds share the same nature of mind but not the same mind. Just like, say, all fires are instance of 'fire' doesn't imply that all fires are manifestation of a cosmic fire.

Yes, I will not dwell on this, because if it works for Buddhists, then that’s fine and any differences between different traditions, are part of how the tradition developed and are not important.

Very interesting reply, thanks! I find these similarities between traditions fascinating, considering how doctrinally different they are.

To be clear, I wasn't saying that 'essential goodness' is an initial state and spiritual practice aims to 'go back to that' but rather to an intrinsic potential present and that the aim of spiritual practice is the fulfillment of one's nature. — boundless

If enlightenment is somehow a part of our nature, then this means that it's inevitable that we will somehow become enlightened and that no effort is required of us in this direction.

Which would be nice enough, but then one has to wonder why it hasn't happened already.

I think the best way to see 'moral teachings' of religions is to try to see them as a way to cultivate our own nature. While a 'legalistic' way of seeing them has perhaps its purpose, the deepest way to see them is IMO to see them as aiming to our education and assist our (spiritual) growth. — boundless

But what is "spiritual growth"? @Wayfarer likes to call me cynical, but I think I'm merely, at long last, being realistic, when I think "spiritual growth" looks an awful lot like Social Darwinism.

The Buddhist teaching on rebirth does not say that you — understood as a persisting personal subject, ego, or bearer of identity — will be reborn.
— Wayfarer

I have never been able to make sense of how one can build a coherent moral philosophy about this (Disclaimer: I'm not saying that one cannot live a virtuous life!).
I mean, any concept of 'moral responsibility' that I find coherent assumes that the agent of an action and the bearer of moral responsibility of that action is the same person. — boundless

And they are, for thousands of rebirths-- just not forever and not absolutely.

I personally agree with this. At the end of the day, even Buddhists would say, for instance, that Buddha and Ananda were, in some sense, different individuals and when the Buddha reached enlightenment it was an event that had an effect on him and not on others. Simply saying that their individuality is merely a product of different 'causes and conditions' seems too reductive to me.

If selves are ultimately illusory, why are all the 'fruits' of practice experienced 'individually'?

Because such is the nature of experience.

There's even a semi-formal modern school of Buddhism, called "Buddhist phenomenology", precisely to account for this.

The very fact that we can distinguish between individuals IMO implies that, as you say, each being is unique and this points to an underlying essence that is, ultimately, what distinguishes that being from other beings.

Even ordinary worldy psychology doesn't grant people such uniqueness.
We are unique for various legal and taxation purposes, but otherwise, systemization, categorization, depersonalization are the norm.

I already stated that I'm not a Buddhist and I don't believe in the Buddhist teaching of rebirth. I am very interested in Buddhism, however. — boundless

I'm not a Buddhist either.
I don't specifically take any issue with any of the teachings, but on the whole, from my dealings with Buddhists and with religious/spiritual people in general, I can't escape the impression that religious/spiritual teachings somehow aren't supposed to be taken all that seriously.


- - -

Fwiw to the thread, the reason I stopped is because asking simple questions of Buddhists generally results in incoherent platitudes — AmadeusD

Is there a place where it's not like that?
Even at a philosophy discussion forum, people will not simply answer one's questions, and when they do, it's often with platitudes.

Right, but it seems undeniable that each entity is unique and that there will never be another the same. In our thinking about the one, I think we should not dis-value or deny the reality of the many.

No matter how we might want to diminish its importance by intellectualizing it, it is undeniable that each biological entity's deepest instinct is to survive. I think that is the unconscious motivation for concerns with rebirth and afterlife. — Janus

Justice is another strong motivator. If someone wrongs you, and you're unable to revenge yourself or they die before you have the chance, then what?

In order to effectively maintain that a system of ethics is worthwhile, one has to believe that justice will prevail, if not in this life, then in the next.

It is really a motivation deriving from, a concern that finds its genesis in, the very sense of self these various religious teachings are advocating liberating ourselves from in one way, by means of faith, meditation or practice, or the other.

So, I don't see it as being a help, but rather as a hindrance, to effective practice leading to liberation from the fear of death.

A particular person's fear of death will be shaped in accordance with the beliefs they have internalized in their prerational phase, ie. as children too young to understand what it is they are internalizing. There are, for example, people who were born and raised Christian; such people have no fear of death per se, but they have the fear of displeasing God, fear of God's judgment, and other times, none of these, because (like some Protestants), they are confident that their eternity is with God, in eternal happiness.

Not "forever", but cyclically. In Buddhist cosmology, a universe comes into existence, exists, and then disappears. And then another one appears, exists, disappears, and so on.
— baker

I don't see how that helps the case unless universal liberation were achieved at the end of the life of each universe. — Janus

In traditional Buddhism, there is no notion of universal liberation.

By the way, do you have a citation from the scriptures to support that cosmological view?

Didn't think this would ever be necessary ...
See here, for example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhist_cosmology#Temporal_cosmology

By understanding paticcasamuppada, dependent co-arising.
— baker

That might be the theory, but where is the practice?

The Noble Eightfold Path.

I don't think so.
Enlightenment the Buddhist way is not something many people would or even could want. I find it odd that the idea has such prominence in culture at large, when it's such a highly specific niche interest.

In any case no one but the actual enlightened would know,

Indeed, the phrase colloquially used is "It takes an arahant to know an arahant". Other than that, there are in traditional teachings some pointers as to how even non-arahants might recognize one.

and is it even credible that any human being could not be mistaken in thinking they were enlightened?

It happens all the time in Buddhist venues. It's actually not a problem there.
— baker

But how do you, presumably a self-acknowledged unenlightened one, know all this? Or, on the basis of what do you believe it?

I don't believe it per se, but I know it's standard Theravada doctrine and I'm familiar with it.
I'm not posting here in order to convince anyone of the "truth of Buddhism"; I'm just trying to make sense of my experience with Buddhism and Buddhists and it seems to help me to talk about it in this setting (such discussion is pretty much impossible in a Buddhist setting).

Also, rebirth is quite consistent with anatman. If the male human John Smith can become in the future a female ant, then there is little in John Smith that can be considered an underlying essence.
— boundless

If there is little (nothing?) in John Smith that can be considered to be an underlying essence, then the idea of him becoming a future female ant seems unintelligible. I've heard the "candle flame" analogy, but it seems simplistically linear and naive in the context of a vastly interconnected world.

The pertinent question is, "What is a living being?"
And also, "What is the self?"
Most problems that people have with the notions of kamma and rebirth stem from a lack of clarity on these two questions.

This is where my thinking differs from Buddhist theology and I move back to the Hindu tradition. I find the dissolution of the individual upon death as incoherent in the way it is generally presented. — Punshhh

What dissolution of the individual upon death??
The body and what is related to it is said to dissolve upon death, yes, but that's it. The "immaterial" components persist.

For a plethora of scriptural references in various contexts, search https://www.accesstoinsight.org/index.html
by the keywords
reappears
and
dissolution

I am aware of the explanation for it, but see it as part of an apology for the wholesale rejection of atman and a presence of the divine world in our world.

Buddhism doesn't reject divinity; it just doesn't think much of it.

I am unsure about the identity of the Bodhisattvas and enlightened beings. Also there does seem to be some equivocation around this point. There is a universal consciousness, but each individual is one drop of water in an ocean of water drops. There is a denial of a permanent self, or identity, but a permanent self, a universal self is smuggled in and plays the same role.

In Buddhism? What you say sounds like Hinduism.
A permanent self in Buddhism? Where did you hear that?

There seems to be equivocation around Karma too, that it shapes one’s next life, while denying that the individual remains after death. And how can the karmic debt be repaid, when the agent who took out the karmic debt does not any more exist. Again, I understand there is a explanation given, but it comes across as apologetics again.

What is your source for Buddhist doctrine??

In Hinduism, the divine world is here with us, walking alongside, interacting with us and the theology delineates it’s presence.

Well, as long as one isn't an outcast!

This brings me to a thought I have often had regarding Buddhist conceptions of nirvana. If the self etc is annihilated in the realisation of nirvana. Whom is experiencing the exalted state? — Punshhh

The first thing to ask is, "What is the self?"
Also, "What is a living being?"

I presume that if you had a definitive answer to this question, you wouldn't be here. Secondly, the Buddha goes into great lengths to define what the self is not or what is not fit to be regarded as the self.

Yes, I was not implying this when I introduced the idea that brought up Buddha nature. I was simply pointing out that the nature is within us.

I would suggest though that the process of achieving enlightenment may well be an entirely natural process and that a participant would naturally go through the mental struggles, or adaptation in a form concomitant with their circumstances. For example a shaman in a community of forest dwellers. Or a Stone Age person. — Punshhh

Do you mean this in a sense that enlightenment is inevitable, a given, just a matter of time?

Yes, so my intuition is actually an acceptance (or realisation) of a deeper understanding underlying these religions. That they are playing a role in a process of purification of the self. That the self is not required, to go anywhere, to do anything, achieve anything in reconciling (becoming liberated from) their incarnation. But rather to relinquish, to lay down the trappings of our incarnate selves. — Punshhh

The Hare Krishnas call those trappings "the false ego".

This ventures into some concepts more native to some schools of Hinduism, with the veil being the "veil of Maya".
Yes, my position is more on the Hinduism side of the issue (via Theosophy)

The problem with assuming defaults, innate essences (such as "all beings have Buddha nature") is that they bog one down.
Assumed for the purpose of discursive discussion.

If you have Buddha nature, then why are you here, suffering, instead of being happy and enlightened?
One is going through a process, there may be many other things going on (behind the veil), or of which we are a small part. Which entail what is going on here. One of the first things that occur to us as individuals as a young child is the realisation of our individuality and therefore questions arise about our circumstances, what is going on here, where is this, why am I here? I remember this realisation in my life, I must have been about 3yrs old.

These questions have not been answered, even though I have searched long and hard for an answer. As such there cannot be an answer for your question, because the circumstances relating to it have not been established. — Punshhh

Then what's the use of assuming you have Buddha nature"?

If you suffer now, despite having/being Buddha nature, and later become enlightened, then where's the guarantee that you won't lose your enligtenment and suffer again?
Again this can’t be answered, as above. However, presumably, one would have sufficient agency to prevent the onset of suffering. Although I would suggest that there is likely an exalted state equivalent to suffering within that exalted realm. On the cosmic scale, there may be imperfect gods, or greater processes beyond our understanding going on.

Sure. But currently, we suffer, our molars rot, and dishes and laundry pile up.

If you are now covered by the veil of Maya, how can you possibly trust your choice of spiritual guidance?
Through humility and faith. This would necessarily require living a relatively simple and stress free life.

Really? How do humility and faith help you find the right spiritual teacher? And how do you know he's the right one, given that you're still under the veil of ignorance?

Thus assuming some kind of innate natrure, an essence, implies, among other things, that you are ultimately helpless against that veil of Maya, helpless against suffering.

I’m not quite sure where the implication lies here.

See my earlier points.

It's how the outlook of innate nature is demoralizing, unless, of course, one has a grand enough ego to compensate for it.

Or perhaps it is an acceptance in humility of a reality. Presumably, by this point one would have deflated and reconciled one’s ego.

See also Thanissaro Bhikkhu: Freedom from Buddha nature

I can't fathom how you arrive at that conclusion from the one sentence I wrote. — praxis

It's in line with what you have said so far.

It's like in a theatre play where in different performances of the play different actors can play the same role. The role is the same, the words are the same, the actions are the same, but the actors differ.
Nibbana is like when an actor decides not to play the role anymore.
— baker

Are you saying that you don't believe sentient beings are reborn and there's just reoccurring archetypes? Sort of a Joseph Campbell/Buddha fusion thang.

I'm saying the pertinent question is, "What is a living being?"
And also, "What is the self?"
Most problems that people have with the notions of kamma and rebirth stem from a lack of clarity on these two questions.


See also my other replies to other posters here.

I can't fathom how you arrive at that conclusion from the one sentence I wrote.
— praxis

It's in line with what you have said so far. — baker

I’ll rephrase that, I can't fathom how you arrive at that conclusion from what I’ve said so far.

The Buddhist teaching on rebirth does not say that you — understood as a persisting personal subject, ego, or bearer of identity — will be reborn. That is precisely what the doctrine of non-self (anattā) rules out from the start. If there were a “you” in that sense, rebirth would amount to reincarnation - a single self which is born again and again, and which Buddhism explicitly rejects. That is the ‘eternalist’ view. But the idea that actions in this life have no consequence beyond physical death is the opposite mistake, the ‘nihilist’ view. (An implication being that modern thought is basically nihilist in orientation.)

What continues is the causal process that underlies and gives rise to living beings. There is continuity without strict identity. And that stands to reason, because all of us are both the same as, and different to, the person we were in the past. Self is a dynamic stream of consciousness, called in Sanskrit ‘cittasantana’ — but without an unchanging kernel or eternally existent core.

The aggregates arise, function, and cease. If ignorance and craving persist, the causal conditions for further arising persist. — Wayfarer

This.

This is why the Buddha avoids answering questions like “Is it the same person who is reborn?” or “Is it a different one?” Or for that matter “who experiences Nirvāṇa?” Such questions are posed on the basis of a false conception of the nature of self, which is why they are left unanswered.

His silence on these matters strikes me as a case of, "*sigh* Didn't you listen to anything of what I've said so far?"

In my experience, Buddhists can be very harsh in the treatment of this topic. If you're a newcomer and start asking questions about the self, chances are you'll get shot down with a "You're only asking this because you want a permanent self! Now STFU!"

How do I ‘know this is true’? I don’t ’know that it’s true.’ But to me, it makes considerably more sense than the idea that all the righteous dead will be resurrected at the End Times and bodily ascend in the Rapture.

Oddly enough, both Buddhists as well as non-Buddhists are reluctant to discuss matters of selfhood.

I’ll rephrase that, I can't fathom how you arrive at that conclusion from what I’ve said so far. — praxis

Because I distinguish between rebirth and reincarnation.

Now tell me: What is the self? What is a living being?

Because I distinguish between rebirth and reincarnation. — baker

Just to clarify, you're claiming that, judging from what I've posted so far in this topic, I'm thinking in terms of reincarnation, not rebirth. I asked how you arrived at that conclusion from what I've written in this topic so far and your answer is that you "distinguish between rebirth and reincarnation."

If enlightenment is somehow a part of our nature, then this means that it's inevitable that we will somehow become enlightened and that no effort is required of us in this direction — baker

Just wanted to comment on this. I think this is wrong. Consider for instance the potency of an infant to grow up in an adult or the potency of a person to learn a skill or a subject. You can say that such a potency is intrinsic to the infant but can't be actualized without the agent efforts and also the aid of others. Likewise for the second example.

So I can totally see how even if the potency for 'enlightnment' is essential to a person's nature, the person still needs a lot of effort and arguably the aid of others is needed (hearing the Dharma, joining the Sangha and so on).
In mos Christian traditions too, to be 'saved' you still need personal effort not just the necessary help of Grace (except for those who think that salvation is due to purely God's actions).

However, if 'potency for enlightnment' isn't an essential property of a being, then arguably 'enlightnment' would be like transforming a rabbit to a volcano, i.e. doing a transformation that completely lacks any intelligible continuity. And to be honest I can't say how you can avoid the possibility that these transformations might happen without positing an essence, an atman... this is another reason why I can't accept the Buddhist denial of atman. If there are no essences how can regularities be present?

I would say that a similar thing IMO happens with moral responsibility. It doesn't seem possible to me to consistently believe that 'provisionally' you remain tbe same person and hence responsible for past actioms and also believe that ultimately this is illusory. Others might disagree but I just can't.

I hope to address the rest of your points in the weekend. I'll be busy in the coming days.

The "immaterial" components persist.

Well Buddhists do a very good job of not mentioning this. Is this one of the things they don’t give an answer to? Also is this how a person’s Karmic record is linked to their next incarnation?

In Buddhism? What you say sounds like Hinduism.
A permanent self in Buddhism? Where did you hear that?

I’m no Buddhist scholar, but it seems to me from what I’ve heard and read over the years that Buddhism does include pretty much all the cosmogony of Hinduism, but behaves as though it doesn’t exist. Is silent on the issue and assumes a spiritual, or divine ground, while sometimes denying there is one, or refusing to discuss it.

The first thing to ask is, "What is the self?"
Also, "What is a living being?"

I presume that if you had a definitive answer to this question, you wouldn't be here. Secondly, the Buddha goes into great lengths to define what the self is not or what is not fit to be regarded as the self.

In a nutshell the self is an embodied, individuated expression of divinity.
A living being in a biological entity, as a part of a biosphere, or ecosystem. Although, this is not the whole story as it embodies a self as just defined.

Do you mean this in a sense that enlightenment is inevitable, a given, just a matter of time?

Well I read, that some people upon enlightenment remain at the doorway, or portal to nirvana. Or return into the world, as enlightened beings, refusing to go through the door until the last person has reached that point and would go through behind them.
I go back to the analogy of the plant, the plant naturally grows with the aim of flowering. Some seed lands on poor ground and die, or fail to mature into a plant that can produce a flower. Most will produce a flower.

Then what's the use of assuming you have Buddha nature"?

I didn’t, I don’t assume anything (not entirely everything), these are just hypothesis.

Sure. But currently, we suffer, our molars rot, and dishes and laundry pile up.

Yes, we are in a world, embodied. It’s a bit like a contract, I suppose you pay a fee, some suffering and in return have the opportunity to experience being in a world, embodied. Personally I think, I’ve got a good deal. I am aware though, that some have a poor deal and how human behaviour has resulted in that, or exacerbated it. This awareness and helplessness is part of the suffering too.

Really? How do humility and faith help you find the right spiritual teacher? And how do you know he's the right one, given that you're still under the veil of ignorance?

Im not talking about an external spiritual teacher, but a development within one’s self. Remember Buddha nature, there is an inviolable bit of one’s self. That is the teacher, or intuition*.A school in the external world and a life in the world are necessary and for most a mentor is required. It is a dance, a journey, with many roots in the path to trip up on.

*I’m aware of the guidance around Buddha nature in the link you provided.

I man that they "fit" in the sense that Buddhism is similar to a kind of Hindu monotheism but without the theistic references (and all concepts adjusted accordingly). It very much fits the idea that God incarnated himself as the Buddha. Where Hindu theism is explicitly theistic, Buddhism is silent. It seems the two don't contradict eachother. (Practitioners of both like to claim otherwise, of course. But if you look at just the Pali Canon, there doesn't seem to be anything that contradicts Hindu ideas.) — baker

I just see it as an evolutionary continuum, that Buddhism is a refined version of Hinduism. They are certainly of the same school, compared to say, Buddhism and Christianity.

I have never been able to make sense of how one can build a coherent moral philosophy about this (Disclaimer: I'm not saying that one cannot live a virtuous life!).
I mean, any concept of 'moral responsibility' that I find coherent assumes that the agent of an action and the bearer of moral responsibility of that action is the same person. If, for instance, a man is caught because he stole something, if there is no 'real moral agent' that is the same as the agent that did the theft, it would simply be unjust to punish the thief. — boundless

There is no denial of moral agency in the Buddhist teaching. This is made completely clear in the Attakārī Sutta:

Then a certain brahman approached the Blessed One; having approached the Blessed One, he exchanged friendly greetings. After pleasant conversation had passed between them, he sat to one side. Having sat to one side, the brahman spoke to the Blessed One thus:

“Venerable Gotama, I am one of such a doctrine, of such a view: ‘There is no self-doer, there is no other-doer.’”

“I have not, brahman, seen or heard such a doctrine, such a view. How, indeed, could one — moving forward by himself, moving back by himself [2] — say: ‘There is no self-doer, there is no other-doer’? What do you think, brahmin, is there an element or principle of initiating or beginning an action?”[3]

“Just so, Venerable Sir.”

“When there is an element of initiating, are initiating beings clearly discerned?”

“Just so, Venerable Sir.”

Here “self-doer” and “other-doer” simply mean oneself (self-doer) or some other agent (other doer). The Buddha’s point is that if there is initiation of action, then agents are discernible, and once agents are discernible, responsibility follows.

What Buddhism denies is an underlying, separate identity that persists unchanged through all changes. Agency is not denied. Moral responsibility requires causal continuity but that doesn't imply an eternal unchanging self, some element that is above and beyond all change.

Animals are initiators of actions―it seems wrong to impute moral responsibility to them. If you are talking about mere responsibility, as in 'lightning was responsible for starting the fire', then the point is trivial.

But humans are moral agents in a way that animals are not, because they can consider various courses of actions and make decisions in respect of their possible consequences, in a way that animals cannot. This is far from 'trivial', it is fundamental to the human conditoion.

Buddha’s point is that if there is initiation of action, then agents are discernible, and once agents are discernible, responsibility follows. — Wayfarer

You clearly missed the point. I was responding to the underlined, not making a comparison between humans and animals, except insofar as it seems more normal to impute, whether rightly or wrongly, moral responsibility to the latter.

lightening is responsible in so far as it is a physical force occurring within an arena of interacting physical forces. Animals are the same, but with an additional (evolved) group activity of adaptation to the physical forces within an arena (including other living entities). Humans are like the animals, but with an additional intellectual component enabling them to act independent of the forces and adaptive forces in the arena. So it is only the humans in this picture who have true moral agency. The animals are just acting out evolved instinctive behaviours, although, they have some limited group moral agency, as seen for example in dolphins and killer whales, or ants.

I just assume that in religious discourse a moral agent is confined to contemplation of human individuals. Although if there is talk of people reincarnating as ants, or rabbits, I’ve never been quite sure how that is supposed to work.

Justice is another strong motivator. If someone wrongs you, and you're unable to revenge yourself or they die before you have the chance, then what? — baker

I don't equate justice with revenge, but I get that the idea that wrondgdoers can get away with their wrongdoing and escape justice by dying is not palatable.

In order to effectively maintain that a system of ethics is worthwhile, one has to believe that justice will prevail, if not in this life, then in the next. — baker

I don't believe that, because I think the idea of justice is rightly based on compassion. A psychopath may be incapable of genuinely ethical behavior, since for me it comes down to intention. We generally think that animals are incapable of ethical behavior, a view which indeed may be incorrect, but assuming that it is correct, why should we expect more of a psychopath than we do of animals?

Out of time now...

If there’s no beginning then there’s no end. — praxis

How so? Couldn't, in theory, an all-powerful being choose to end itself? That line of suggestion seems more like a quasi-profound, grade-school-level mental trick masquerading as something deep in order to stave off existential dread or fear of death. Arguably that's what all religions are. Up until the point of reminding one's self there's always more to know, and the current collective knowledge of man is far from all there is to know, even if it may be at present, all that can be. That's true religion.

Personally, I'm fascinated with the lesser or primitive religions. It shows how the earliest minds worked, their greatest fears, and how they overcame them. It's like a perfectly preserved and incredibly detailed history of human development. If you know how to read and unpack it, of course.

I agree that as far as we can tell humans compared to animals have the added ability to reflect in symbolic linguistic terms.

I agree that humans being reborn as animals, even insects, makes little sense even within the doctrine of karma. Buddhism altogether lacks any metaphysical force insofar as it lacks any capacity to explain the world we experience in common.

humans being reborn as animals, even insects, makes little sense even within the doctrine of karma. — Janus

Who said reality has to make sense? That is to say, conforms to every single standard and belief (or most pertinently: capacity of such) we hold? :chin:

Anything we can identify as being real has to make sense. Of course that doesn't rule out the possibility that there are aspects of nature that we cannot detect.

If there’s no beginning then there’s no end.
— praxis

How so? — Outlander

There’ll always be a previous cause or rebirth going back infinitely.

Anything we can identify as being real has to make sense. — Janus

All this means is anything one can understand has to be understandable per the limitations of one's current knowledge. Sure, a dozen centuries or so ago human beings flying and taking to the skies wasn't "real" and "didn't make sense." Yet people dreamed and drew pictures of it as if it were real and made sense. This means it was plausible. Imaginable. A then-fantasy. That soon became an actuality and a now-boring staple of what we call "reality." I don't see how that has anything to do with the point I was trying to make.

There’ll always be a previous cause or rebirth going back infinitely. — praxis

Logically, I can't think of any argument to the contrary. Hypothetically however. And pardon me for taking your time to peruse the library of what nearly all rational men would consider an experiment in insanity, an unwanted diagram of the ridiculous. But just per chance, say what if, reality is greater than any man knows. The things we think as possible are merely "what is" or what happens to be, and what we think we know as impossible, is simply a realm yet to discover. What then? What if, as some religions state, "all things happen for a reason" and that determinism is in fact real in a say mythological sense. Our future is known and perhaps even woven by "the Fates", per Greek mythos. What then? It's possible to change the past, this is even true in modern fiction movies such as oh I forget the name, the time travel movie with the Dolorean car. Take that as philosophical thought experiment. What then? Sure, this is a discussion about mainstream Buddhism. But surely there are those who deviate. And deviation from the norm is in fact the cause of all human progress and innovation. In fact, it's the cause of mainstream Buddhism itself dare I say. So again I ask. What if? :chin:

That movie is Back to the Future. And welcome to the world of the mystic, we know almost nothing, well except what we find in the world we find ourselves in.

I don't see how that has anything to do with the point I was trying to make. — Outlander

You said."who says reality has to make sense?". I was pointing out that anything that would count as a reality for us must make sense. The point was clear.

I was pointing out that anything that would count as a reality for us must make sense. The point was clear. — Janus

So, subjectivity over objectivity, then. Sure. That's certainly a valid frame of mind to hold in philosophy.

However, I feel it should be noted I don't happen to have a roadmap or atlas of your mind and philosophical convictions, nor does any other person outside of your head. And yes, I understand. It's "common sense" or to some "only a fool would think otherwise (something other than myself)", etc. But that's not why we're here, now is it? Certainly not why you are, I'd wager. :smile: