And I might add, every being's self-perception gives rise to the sense of 'me'. I guess that this sense is fundamentally the same in every being - what is different in each, is the unique memories and experiences that are associated with it. — Wayfarer

Starting with that, if my memories are not being reimplanted into a reborn body, then (in my estimation) it's not me. For that matter, if my identity were implanted in a female, and my thought processes were then influenced by estrogen instead of testosterone, that also would not be me.

This seems to mean that could only be a pure haeccity (a bare identity devoid of any the above worldly properties) that is reborn. And if that were the case, it seems completely irrelevant because it omits all the things that I feel make me ME.

I agree that it's challenging from the perspective of individualist philosophy. But I think Buddhism challenges the sense of self identity by saying that all of the things that we identify with and are attached to, are transient and subject to decay. I think that is the meaning of the 'no-self' principle - that 'everything' (i.e. the manifest of sensory experience) with which we identify, is actually 'not self'. So it's saying that we mis-identify, or take those things as 'myself and mine', which are not actually 'myself and mine'. (This is what makes it a religion rather than a philosophy.)

The principle is extended in other ways - that there are no atoms (enduring and division-less particles) and no deity (enduring and changeless being). As has been noted by scholars, this has similarities with Heraclitus' dictum of being 'never being able to step in the same river twice'.

Of course, reconciling that with rebirth seems at first glance highly paradoxical. But the Buddha insists that there is no unitary 'self' that 'goes' from birth to birth. Actually the Buddha says little or almost nothing about rebirth as such; it is simply that causes always give rise to consequences, and that unless that process is seen through and put an end to, then those will continue to occur endlessly (which is the meaning of 'samsara' i.e. 'endlessly wandering').

I sometimes find a certain kind double-speak in the Buddhist view. After all in cultures like Tibet, there are established protocols for determining the re-birth of eminent religious leaders (including the Dalai Lama) involving oracles, divination and tests of the child's memory. But even so, on dogmatic grounds, Buddhists will never admit that there is 'a soul that has been reborn'. Again, they will depict in terms of a 'mind-stream', but in practice, it seems very much like 'a soul' to me.

even so, on dogmatic grounds, Buddhists will never admit that there is 'a soul that has been reborn'. Again, they will depict in terms of a 'mind-stream', but in practice, it seems very much like 'a soul' to me — Wayfarer

Under this paradigm, the parts that are actually me (which is transient), are just hitching a ride on something that is eternal - so even if this were true, it seems to lack all significance to anyone's life.

For me, one of the most paradoxical aspects of the Buddhist notion of rebirth (which can only be coherently understood at all as individual rebirth) is that it would seem to be the most primal impediment to achieving the Buddhist ideal of non-attachment. After all, what are all of us most primally, most viscerally, attached to, if not our very lives themselves? So, it seems that the idea should rather be discouraged than promoted if the aim is to realize emptiness (Sunyata) and become non-attached.

If "little to nothing" is actually said about rebirth by Gautama then it would seem that it is not really a part of truly Buddhist doctrine at all, but a later add-on designed to appease the sense of attachment to life itself.

Under this paradigm, the parts that are actually me (which is transient), are just hitching a ride on something that is eternal - so even if this were true, it seems to lack all significance to anyone's life. — Relativist

Well, the ultimate aim of Buddhism - being a religion - is to realise 'the deathless'. That is one of the meanings or implications of Nirvana, and what puts an end to the cycle of samsara.

After all, what are all of most attached to, if not our very lives themselves? — Janus

Indeed! But it's not that different in Christian philosophy - you could argue that this is the meaning of such Biblical verses as 'he who saves his own life will loose it, he who looses his life for My sake will be saved'. (Matt: 16:25)

In any case, as you've noted, belief in 'many lives' is generally anathema in Christianity, but not so in Eastern religions. So I suppose it could be argued that the implications of Stevenson's research would tend to support the latter - although, as he noted, reports of such cases are far more frequent in those cultures which do accept it than in Western cultures.

Well, the ultimate aim of Buddhism - being a religion - is to realise 'the deathless'. That is one of the meanings or implications of Nirvana, and what puts an end to the cycle of samsara. — Wayfarer

Perhaps the cycle of samsara is best understood as being encapsulated within a single life, and putting an end to it as assenting, surrendering, fully and unconditionally to the reality of our own deaths. Something like this was the ideal of the Stoics, Epicurus, Spinoza and Nietzsche just to name a few examples from the history of philosophy.

Sure - a lot of secular Buddhist teaching is like that. And it makes perfect sense. My only observation is, if it can happen once.......

My only observation is, if it can happen once....... — Wayfarer

Exactly. One does not just spontaneously burst into existence out of absolute nothingness. There are prior causes and conditions within an already existing "something" that bring about and sustain ones being. And if we know it has happened once, why is so absurd to think it has already happened prior? Or wont happen again? Or that perhaps there is just an ongoing presence of 'being' in some form?

An analogy for rebirth in this sense would be like a flame passing from one candle to the next. Although there is no internal essence to the flame that continues from moment to moment, or candle to candle, from the perspective of the flame there is an ongoing presence of continuous burning.

Sure - a lot of secular Buddhist teaching is like that. And it makes perfect sense. My only observation is, if it can happen once....... — Wayfarer

If what can happen once?

as per the post above!

saying that such a thing cannot be known to be impossible, but it cannot be known to be possible either; it could only be known to be possible if it were known to be actual. — Janus

Thats like trying to say whether light is a particle or a wave. As Wittgenstein, and the Vedas say in fact, is all which really exists is language. The language provides a model of the ultimately unknowable, and it can never be any more than that, a model. The usefulness of a model is its actionable power. Many people have found the transmigration of souls a useful model, so the model has good actionable power. Its absolute truth is just as indeterminate as everything else.

It's just that the design for their collation and verification will never allow you to establish the effect they're supposed to establish. — fdrake

But isn't that why, or at least part of the reason why, he's been discredited? Because he deviates from the high standards of the scientific method? Isn't that why his research isn't considered authoritative, but is only peddled as such by those with the agenda of giving an appearance of credibility to claims of past lives?

But it doesn't just happen once, it happens to countless beings. What makes you think it should happen to you or any individual being more than once, particularly if you believe the very idea of separation is an illusion?

It’s always made intuitive sense to me. Clearly others feel differently.

But all is not language and Wittgenstein never said it was. Our language allows us to form models, but what makes you think those models have any purchase on what lies beyond language, such that you could say that if something is not proven to us as impossible it must be, not merely in our model, but in actuality, possible?

Have you conisdered that what might seem like intuition might be wishful thinking. In any case since it is unknowable what could it matter to us here now? Surely what matters is only how we live this life we know; why worry about what might happen after death? Gautama reputedly said something similar in the parable about the man who had been shot with a poison arrow, and refused to have it removed until he knew everything about where the arrow came from.

Janus
7.1k

Note that I am not saying that we know that such a planet is actually impossible; the point is that we don't know that such a planet is actually possible either. So, it is only so far as we know that such a thing might be possible. — Janus

It is not as far as we know, but regardless if we know.
Our knowledge as to the aforementioned example, neither gives or takes away from its possibility. — Shamshir


You're ignoring the fact that something might be, just on account of the way things are, impossible even though we could never know that with absolute certainty. Rebirth, to use the example of this thread, might be impossible due to the nature of the Cosmos. But take careful note, I am not saying that rebirth is logically impossible, it obviously is not since it involves no contradiction; I am saying that what is logically possible may have absolutely no bearing on what is actually possible. I am also not saying that rebirth is impossible just that it might be.

That something might be impossible does not imply that it must be possible, but rather that, just as it might be impossible, it also might be possible. The "might be" refers only epistemologically, not ontologically. Ontologically speaking something is either possible or it is not, just as is the case with logical possibility and impossibility. but the domains of logical possibility and impossibility and ontological possibility and impossibility do not necessarily coincide; they may or they may not, we simply cannot know. — Janus

The problem is that a thing that might be impossible...IS POSSIBLE.

That is the meaning of the word.

Until it is actually established as impossible...IT IS POSSIBLE.

You are intelligent enough to see this. Why are you refusing to see it?

That something might be impossible does not imply that it must be possible, — Janus

And yet it does. It denotes that something is partly possible and partly impossible.
Which would mean that it must be in some form impossible and in some form possible.
But both the 'impossibility' and 'possibility' pertain to the 'whole of possibility'.

Which is like a coinflip - until the coin lands, the result is equally heads and tails.
And until it lands on heads, you cannot deny tails - tails is fully possible.
But either one, relies on either one being possible. So possibility is a prerequisite.
The truly impossible lies outside of that realm; as I noted, it is inconceivable and not an option.

Just to be clear, I'm saying that 'possible as far as we know' is not distinct from 'possible', but a part of.
Which is to say, that something must be to might be - and this applies to all things; i.e an apple must be in some way blue, to might be blue.

Have you considered that what might seem like intuition might be wishful thinking — Janus

Of course.

Surely what matters is only how we live this life we know; why worry about what might happen after death? Gautama reputedly said something similar in the parable about the man who had been shot with a poison arrow, and refused to have it removed until he knew everything about where the arrow came from. — Janus

Conflating two principles there. The questions that the 'poison arrow' parable were concerned with were speculations about whether the world had a beginning or not, whether the self is identical with the body, whether the Tathagata exists after death, and so on. But the question of whether or not there was a life beyond was not one of those questions. Those who believed that there was not, were classified as nihilists. Karma was said to be inescapable, so the implication is that one cannot escape it simply by dying.

You keep using the word "challenging". This is part of your rhetoric. But let me make it clear that there's nothing challenging about a position so weakly supported.

Have you conisdered that what might seem like intuition might be wishful thinking. — Janus

It always is on a topic like this. No one acquires these sort of beliefs disinterestedly.

But isn't that why, or at least part of the reason why, he's been discredited? Because he deviates from the high standards of the scientific method? Isn't that why his research isn't considered authoritative, but is only peddled as such by those with the agenda of giving an appearance of credibility to claims of past lives? — S

Aye.

Could be!

Anything is possible...except stuff that has been established as impossible. — Frank Apisa

:up: That about covers it. :smile:

Tautologies are funny that way--they tend to be inherently truthful.

Everything is possible except the impossible.
Or, only the possible is possible.
Or, the impossible is impossible.

Well, whatcha gonna do? It is what it is.

Yes, it is. But there are many who will tell you things are impossible because they estimate them to be highly unlikely. This is usually done without evidence (that the thing in question is actually unlikely/improbable). In such cases, it seems necessary (although it shouldn't be) to state that things that are not impossible are ... possible. :smile:

Could be!

Anything is possible...except stuff that has been established as impossible. — Frank Apisa

Herpaderp! :smile: :up:

And then there are those who think merely establishing the possibility of X is sufficient to believe in X, when in reality there is a vast gulf between those things that could theoretically be true and those things that are true/we can know to be true.

And then there are those who think merely establishing the possibility of X is sufficient to believe in X — NKBJ

Well, you know what they say: there's nowt so queer as folk! :smile:

You are intelligent enough to see this. Why are you refusing to see it? — Frank Apisa

I've tried to show you the differences between what is logically possible and impossible, what is possible and impossible as far as we know and what may or may not be possible, ontologically speaking.

In the case of the first we can say that we know something is impossible if it defies laws of the excluded middle or non-contradiction. These kinds of things are impossible by definition, and anything else is logically possible.

In the case of the second, is included pretty much everything else. We know that what we observe to be actual is possible, obviously. And on the other side, we may have very good reasons to believe that something is impossible, but we can never prove that so it remains open as to whether it really is impossible.

Speaking purely logically this openness means that it is possible, as you have been asserting and I have agreed with that. Something may indeed be known to be logically possible and hence it is possible that it is also ontologically possible, but we don't know that, and can't know that for sure until it is observed to be actual.

Now, if you think there is something wrong with my reasoning regarding all this, then address that and explain what you think is wrong. But don't just keep coming back with repetitions of capitalized insistence about the MEANING OF THE WORDS. I have already acknowledged that meaning of the words has determinative logical and epistemological provenance. But the meaning of the words has no determinative ontological provenance; in the ontological domain what is is what is, and what is impossible is impossible, regardless of whether or not we know, or even could know, it.

The questions that the 'poison arrow' parable were concerned with were speculations about whether the world had a beginning or not, whether the self is identical with the body, whether the Tathagata exists after death, and so on. But the question of whether or not there was a life beyond was not one of those questions. — Wayfarer

All those questions are inherently connected, in one way or another, to the question of rebirth, though.