What the Buddha Didn't Teach About Reincarnation
It says:
"This is not to say that “we” do not exist–but that there is no permanent, unchanging “me,” but rather that we are redefined in every moment by shifting impermanent conditions".This appears to me to be just the same as what materialists are obliged to believe.
"Suffering and dissatisfaction occur when we cling to desire for an unchanging and permanent self that is impossible and illusory".How do they know this? I agree it is liberating to believe this. For example, our fear of death is misplaced since we are effectively "dying" every infinitesimal fraction of a second anyway. And our everyday concerns are also misplaced. Such a philosophy, if wholeheartedly subscribed to, will lead to tranquillity, acceptance, loss of fear about all things.
However, this philosophy denies an *I* or you, or self. No reason to fear anything, but also it robs one's life and the existence of all things of any purpose. There is no point in planning ahead. It makes everything we ever do, pointless. It is, in a sense, a life denying philosophy.
8 comments:
You mis-understand Buddhism completely (although as this was written some years ago you may by now have changed your position?). The actual attainment of 'enlightenment' means that one's life is lived completely, spontaneously and joyfully - as one has cast off all the delusions which lead to unhappiness, such as greed, fear, envy, desire, social striving etc. As for an after-life, it is implied that one is no longer required to seek (self*) improvement through reincarnation. So the whole process is an extremely positive one. Why else would anyone follow such a program?
* One of the delusions is that of an individual, bounded 'self', as posed to an unrestricted, free 'consciousness'.
I know very little about Buddhism. But if it denies the self (as everyone claims), then I do not think it is consistent with our experience.
What 'everyone claims' is seldom accurate. Buddhism does not 'deny the self'. It denies any 'real', 'persistent' or 'fundamental' self, as what makes up a 'self' is in a continuous and unending process of change. I hope this clarifies the matter for you. As someone with an interest in consciousness and what it consists of, I recommend that you read some Buddhist texts written by Buddhists, rather than relying on second hand accounts. Budhhists have been making a very intense study of consciousness for 2500 years now - it follows that they must have gained at least some interesting insights over that time. You don't make any commitment by just reading.
I do believe in a self that persists (at least throughout our lives). A fundamental self by definition means it is not composed of any parts. So nothing makes up such a self. It might be possible that the brain or whole body, somehow produces such a self, but there are difficulties supposing this.
I think that in addition to experiences, there is an experiencer. In addition to thoughts, there is a thinker. It seems to me that the idea of experiences free-floating (so to speak), or thoughts without a thinker, have grave difficulties, and I do not see any reason to subscribe to such beliefs anyway.
So it seems my beliefs are opposed to Buddhist beliefs.
You seem to be taking an un-necessarily antagonistic stance with this issue. Rather than pre-judging the issue by taking my very imperfect word for what Buddhism is about, why not read some books by experts (I am not one). Buddhism is much more subtle and sophisticated than I could convey in a few short posts, even if I was able to. It is of course up to you whether you do more research or not, but why would you want to limit your breadth of insight by excluding some interesting possibilities? A principle tenet of Buddhism is that you do not need to subscribe to any beliefs - you subscribe only to what your actual experience is.
I'm not pre-judging Buddhism as such. But I do believe the concept of a substantial self is most probably indispensable. And if Buddhists reject such a self, then clearly my beliefs do not align with Buddhism. I have much more sympathy for certain schools of Hinduism from what I've read. To quote a facebook post of mine:
/I suppose Hinduism most closely resembles my thoughts on this issue, although this is as much due to the implausibility of the other major religions than a ringing endorsement of Hinduism.
In particular, in Hinduism I have some sympathy for the Vishishtadvaita Vedanta school that holds that "liberation occurs when the soul enters into the oneness of God, rather as a drop of water merges into the ocean, while paradoxically maintaining its individual identity" and I also have sympathy for the Advaita Vedanta school that holds that "liberation is attained when the soul realises its essential identity with Brahman — the impersonal Godhead beyond the gods".
But I don't think so much that we enter into the oneness of God (although this depends what is meant by "God"), but rather *eventually* (certainly not just after death) we become one with all that is, all other sentient beings. We are still individuals, but we are also -- in a sense -- everyone else too. Our beingness is suffused with the beingness of all others, an infinite understanding and identification with all others. I don't think there is any paradox here, but I understand why others think so. I think this is really difficult to comprehend. And I think I need a drink here to lubricate my thoughts/emotions.
I don't agree with Hinduism and Buddhism that reincarnation is the ultimate horror. Clearly, it depends on the situation we find ourselves in. But, for most of us, are our lives horrific? I don't think so./
From https://www.facebook.com/iwardell/posts/pfbid0bGBeAU8UUCynGcwaUCGKHt6KpEQLGhyqvjrBiQTuuXUSpRwUtWGLX26VsncAriZrl (if you can access it).
BTW, I use an extension called Facebook purity and I don't get any adverts on facebook. They may be using my info of course, but they won't be influencing me to buy anything. If you ever do decide to either go on Facebook or X/Twitter, send me a friend invite?
Oh yes, just today on X I note that some people seem to be saying that Buddhists deny the very existence of consciousness! https://twitter.com/freganmitts/status/1769420851344986240
That seems reasonable. I think we've taken this as far as it can go just now. Thanks. (I'll look at purity and get in touch if I use it).
OK, fair enough. BTW, for some reason, I don't get email notifications when someone comments in this blog. Hence, me taking weeks or months before I noticed your comments! I need to check more frequently.
Post a Comment