Reincarnation-from Philosophy

[rossum]

Reincarnation asserts an impossibility in regard to the lack of knowledge of previous lives

You are incorrect with respect to Buddhist reincarnation. A Buddha can know all his previous lives as far back as he wishes. Others can remember many lives, but not all of them. Remember my point that memory and consciousness are part of our non-material component.

I know that awareness of one’s own actions and state is natural to the uninhibited soul because reason tells me so when I consider what the soul must be like.

At this point in your argument a Buddhist will stop you and point out that you are relying on Christian theology here. There is no soul in Buddhism. I have already quoted Dhammapada 20:7 - “All the elements of reality are soulless.”

We do not disagree on the immortality of the soul

We do I’m afraid. There is no such thing as a soul in Buddhism. It is one of the points on which it differs from almost all other religions.

The soul is not compound

Well spotted. There is a difference between compound things and elements [dharmas]. The soul is neither since it is non-existent. Buddhism analyses a human into five aggregates: form, feeling, perceptions, impulses and consciousness. Only the first, form, is material. The other four are immaterial. None of the five is permanent and none of the five is a soul. There is nothing in us apart from those five. Memories are carried in the impulses, sankhara, aggregate, along with our accumulated karma.

Buddhism is not Christianity. You cannot assume that arguments against reincarnation that are accepted by Christians will work with a Buddhist.

rossum

 

[rossum]

You apparently are not as well acquainted with Christian theology as you esteem yourself to be.

In this case I was not discussing Christian theology directly. I was arguing against dmar198’s assertion that “The Romans perfected the art of execution by crucifixion, and no one could survive.” I pointed out that Josephus demonstrates that a truncated crucifixion is not inevitably fatal.

rossum

 

[rossum]

Yes, we can. He was speared, remember? And blood AND water came out? A sure sign of death! And why was he so active if he just narrowly survived crucifixion? And why did he rise in the tomb but didn’t “wake up” when anything else happened before, like having the nails taken out, or being carried, or prepared, or wrapped?

A spear wound under the left armpit will pierce both blood vessels and a lymph duct. It does not have to pierce a major blood vessel, or the heart, to allow blood and water to flow out. Dangerous? Yes. Fatal? Not necessarily.

rossum

 

[rossum]

If special creation exists, other gods are superfluous fables. Either grant the power to create is present in Buddhism, or I will prove it to you by reason alone; but after that, Buddhism is completely unnecessary, and false, because Monotheism explains everything, and nothing is left unexplained for Buddhism to fill.

We are drifting away from the subject of the OP. I will answer briefly, here is a Buddhist God that you may well recognise:“I am the Brahma, the great Brahma, the conqueror, the unconquered, the all-seeing, the subjector of all to his wishes, the omnipotent, the maker, the creator, the supreme, the controller, the one confirmed in the practice of jhana, and father to all that have been and shall be. I have created these other beings.”

– Digha Nikaya 1, Brahmajala sutta, 42
Buddhism is aware of the Abrahamic God and He does not present anything like the problem for Buddhism that you think He does.

What have you meant by “soul” this entire time?

See my post above about the five aggregates, which are the standard Buddhist analysis of humans. Both Hinduism and Jainism have souls similar to the Christian version.

I do not admit all the distinctions you do about a variety of gods.

I would not expect you to. However, neither can you expect a Buddhist, a Hindu or a Jain to accept your form of monotheism in an argument. If your only argument against reincarnation is to asset the sole existence of the Abrahamic God then you will not convince many followers of non-Abrahamic religions with your arguments. You will need different and better arguments to convince them.

You are assuming the truth of Buddhism here.

You asked me how Buddhism explained a body not reanimating immediately after death. If you want a Buddhist explanation then I have to give an answer from within Buddhism.

And in fact what you are saying is not supported by reason, since the animation of a body by a soul is not a question of justice

In the Indian religions it is. Your destination after death is decided by karma.

rossum

 

[rossum]

I am not completely ignoring you but as I see it, I have responded to all of your questions as they were raised by other posters. If you would like further clarification on any of your points then please ask.

I will say that I don’t want to get into a general discussion on Buddhism, please try to keep the questions related to reincarnation and arguments for and against.

rossum

 

[dmar198]

You are incorrect with respect to Buddhist reincarnation. A Buddha can know all his previous lives as far back as he wishes. Others can remember many lives, but not all of them. Remember my point that memory and consciousness are part of our non-material component.

You quoted my denial of knowledge of previous lives without addressing my argument why: the reason is, because knowledge of certain previous lives would be impossible, in many circumstances, due to the nature of the creatures involved.

At this point in your argument a Buddhist will stop you and point out that you are relying on Christian theology here. There is no soul in Buddhism.

I did not assume Christian theology. Even if I wasn’t a Christian, I would still know the existence of the soul, because the contrary is impossible. There would be no movement without the soul. There would be no thought. No consciousness. No feeling. All of these things are the doings of the soul, and this can be proven by reason alone. For Buddhism to deny this, proves Buddhism false. And, secondly, there is even stronger proof for the existence of the soul in Christian theology: without the truth of Christianity, which includes the soul, not even Buddhism could exist, for lack of people to believe in it.

I have already quoted Dhammapada 20:7 - “All the elements of reality are soulless.”

Here Buddhism is proven false. That which animates bodily forms, by operating in union with the body, is the soul. It is not a mix of proper chemicals which animates the body, or we could, after death, simply add them in again, and the body would live again. Nor is it anything else that is material, or we could add it and see a resurrection. Therefore, there is a non-corporeal reality which animates the body, without which, there is death. This is called the soul. And its operations do not include animating alone; but taking nutrition and reproducing, first of all, which do not happen by exterior causes but by interior movement, and, sometimes, operations of the soul also include locomotion, growth, sensory ability, and thought; and all these can be proven to belong to the immaterial soul, because, provided any one of these operations is found in a plant or animal, even if that operation alone is found, we say that it is living; and therefore, these things are directly correlated to the presence of the soul.

Buddhism analyses a human into five aggregates: form, feeling, perceptions, impulses and consciousness. Only the first, form, is material. The other four are immaterial. None of the five is permanent and none of the five is a soul.

Those things are powers of the soul, as proven above; especially consciousness, which is as permanent as the soul is; but feeling, perception, and impulse are powers that operate only through the cooperation of the body, for without the body’s sensory organs and brain, we would not feel anything, perceive anything, or sense impulses, and so, although those things are powers of the human soul, they do not operate except when the soul is united to the body; whereas consciousness acts even when separated from the body, and so is permanent with the soul.

 

[dmar198]

We are drifting away from the subject of the OP. I will answer briefly, here is a Buddhist God that you may well recognise:“I am the Brahma, the great Brahma, the conqueror, the unconquered, the all-seeing, the subjector of all to his wishes, the omnipotent, the maker, the creator, the supreme, the controller, the one confirmed in the practice of jhana, and father to all that have been and shall be. I have created these other beings.”

– Digha Nikaya 1, Brahmajala sutta, 42

With a Creator God, the rest of Buddhism is completely superfluous. All data is to be explained by reference to the omnipotent Creator; these other “gods” cannot, in fact exist, because they contradict what the Creator revealed by nature, as well as by special revelation through His prophets and the Bible.

Buddhism is aware of the Abrahamic God and He does not present anything like the problem for Buddhism that you think He does.

Sure He does. His revelations are incompatible with Buddhism. That is a problem for Buddhism.

See my post above about the five aggregates, which are the standard Buddhist analysis of humans. Both Hinduism and Jainism have souls similar to the Christian version.

Everybody who acknowledges the demands of reason, acknowledges the existence of the soul as Christians believe it. Buddhism does not, but that is only proof against Buddhism.

I would not expect you to. However, neither can you expect a Buddhist, a Hindu or a Jain to accept your form of monotheism in an argument. If your only argument against reincarnation is to asset the sole existence of the Abrahamic God then you will not convince many followers of non-Abrahamic religions with your arguments. You will need different and better arguments to convince them.

The self-revelation of God through His prophets and the Bible is not the only proof against Buddhism; since Buddhism contradicts reason, also, (which, incidentally, is equally from God,) Buddhism can be proven false by all the arguments I have used already; but the argument from the truth of Christianity is the best argument, because it combats revealed falsehood with revealed truth.

You asked me how Buddhism explained a body not reanimating immediately after death. If you want a Buddhist explanation then I have to give an answer from within Buddhism.

You’re right; what I should have said is, the Buddhist explanation is impossible, and then proven that statement. The proof is this: consciousness, without being nested within a permanent soul, cannot transmigrate at all, because it would cease to exist without a principle of which it is the operation; and even though consciousness is in fact nested within a soul, and is a power thereof, it still cannot transmigrate, because the soul cannot transmigrate, as proven in my first post.

In the Indian religions it is. Your destination after death is decided by karma.

Then those religions are false. Karma doesn’t exist. Justice does, and the Judge is in heaven. A permanent heaven and hell exist, as proven in other posts. And Indians will go to one of them, depending on whether they follow what God has revealed to them, and do what is right.

 

[rossum]

You quoted my denial of knowledge of previous lives without addressing my argument why: the reason is, because knowledge of certain previous lives would be impossible, in many circumstances, due to the nature of the creatures involved.

Again you are failing to acknowledge the non-material component of those living things. The memory of previous lives is one of the non-material components that passes from life to life. Specifically the sankhāra aggregate carries memory and accumulated karma from one life to the next.

I did not assume Christian theology. Even if I wasn’t a Christian, I would still know the existence of the soul, because the contrary is impossible.

You cannot assume the existence of a soul when arguing with a Buddhist. All you can use are the five aggregates, (skandha).

Here Buddhism is proven false.

No. Here Buddhism is proven different from Christianity.

Those things are powers of the soul, as proven above; especially consciousness, which is as permanent as the soul is

Consciousness is not permanent. Have you ever heard the word “unconscious” used of someone asleep or in a coma? Does that person lose their soul temporarily?Consciousness is always changing, some Buddhists call it ‘monkey mind’ to indicate is flitting from one object to another. Anything which changes cannot be permanent. Consciousness is not permanent and it is not a soul. None of the five aggregates are permanent and none of them area soul.

With a Creator God, the rest of Buddhism is completely superfluous.

You didn’t read the whole sutta did you? It is online here: Brahmajala sutta. Look for “Wrong View 5”.

Then those religions are false. Karma doesn’t exist. Justice does, and the Judge is in heaven. A permanent heaven and hell exist, as proven in other posts.

You line of argument will not convince anyone except other Christians, and possibly Jews and Moslems as well.

rossum

 

[dmar198]

Again you are failing to acknowledge the non-material component of those living things. The memory of previous lives is one of the non-material components that passes from life to life. Specifically the sankhāra aggregate carries memory and accumulated karma from one life to the next.

I not only acknowledged this, but argued against it: Slugs and worms and jellyfish and starfish and sponges and bacteria do not express any consciousness. If they did have consciousness, therefore, they would all be immoral, because they all act as if they did not, which would be immoral; but the fact is that they do not have consciousness at all.

You cannot assume the existence of a soul when arguing with a Buddhist. All you can use are the five aggregates, (skandha).

I proved the existence of the soul, and at that point I can use it to prove the rest of my case. A Buddhist could not logically continue in the denial of the soul, after the proof.

No. Here Buddhism is proven different from Christianity.

And therefore wrong, since the Christian doctrine has been proven.

Consciousness is not permanent. Have you ever heard the word “unconscious” used of someone asleep or in a coma?

The word “permanent” is being used differently. Yes, a person loses the grasp on their consciousness, but it is still a power of their soul, and remains as permanent as the soul.

Anything which changes cannot be permanent.

First, that actually does not follow, since the changeable thing, whatever it was, could be preserved by something else that was unchanging. Second, the powers of the soul do not change, but whether they are expressed or not, does change, depending, for example, on the presence of the instrument of their action.

Consciousness is not permanent and it is not a soul. None of the five aggregates are permanent and none of them area soul.

No one said they were. They are not the soul, but powers of the soul, as I have already proven.

You didn’t read the whole sutta did you? It is online here: Brahmajala sutta. Look for “Wrong View 5”.

I didn’t read any of the Sutta, except what you just gave me. And that, Wrong View 5, sets up a straw man of Monotheism. Monotheism is not defended by means of the argument there asserted. It is proven by other means, such as those given by Thomas Aquinas in his book Summa Theologica, and in his other works.

You line of argument will not convince anyone except other Christians, and possibly Jews and Moslems as well.

Logical argument will convince anyone willing to accept the logical dictates of reason. Including Buddhists, if they will it.

 

[rossum]

Slugs and worms and jellyfish and starfish and sponges and bacteria do not express any consciousness.

Someone who is unconscious does not express any consciousness either.

I proved the existence of the soul,

No. You gave some arguments which convinced you, but did not convince me. That is not proof.

And therefore wrong, since the Christian doctrine has been proven.

Then Christian doctrine is wrong because Buddhist doctrine has also been proven.

The word “permanent” is being used differently. Yes, a person loses the grasp on their consciousness, but it is still a power of their soul, and remains as permanent as the soul.

Permanent means permanent. You cannot just assign it a different meaning for the convenience of your argument. There is no form of consciousness that is permanent.

First, that actually does not follow, since the changeable thing, whatever it was, could be preserved by something else that was unchanging.

Logically impossible. If it is “preserved” then it has not changed. You can only preserve an unchanging thing. Changing things cannot be permanent.

I didn’t read any of the Sutta, except what you just gave me.

Then we can return to this aspect of our discussion on a separate thread when you have read the whole of the Wrong View 5 section. An omnimax deity is not directly relevant to this discussion about reincarnation.

Logical argument will convince anyone willing to accept the logical dictates of reason. Including Buddhists, if they will it.

I am prepared to accept correct logic. You would do well to read some Nagarjuna to get a handle on the way Buddhists use logic.

rossum

 

[GEddie]

Consciousness is not permanent. Have you ever heard the word “unconscious” used of someone asleep or in a coma? Does that person lose their soul temporarily?

A sleeper is not unconscious. Shake their body, or shine a light into their eyelids, and they will react; there is a level of consciousness, although they will not talk to you or move very much.

Coma is true unconsciousness. But it is purely physically caused. By your argument, consciousness is only physical.

ICXC NIKA

 

[rossum]

A sleeper is not unconscious. Shake their body, or shine a light into their eyelids, and they will react; there is a level of consciousness, although they will not talk to you or move very much.

Coma is true unconsciousness. But it is purely physically caused. By your argument, consciousness is only physical.

ICXC NIKA

My argument is that consciousness changes. This should be obvious; what we are conscious of now we will not be conscious of when we are asleep tonight.

Whatever changes cannot be permanent.

Hence consciousness cannot be a permanent soul. Any permanent soul must be unchanging. Whatever is permanent cannot change.

All that is happening in unconsciousness is a change in the link between the consciousness aggregate and the form aggregate (the physical body).

rossum

 

[SedesDomi]

But what I am am looking for isn’t a Biblical defense against it but rather a philosophical one that can be presented to someone who doesn’t take the Bible as authority.
…
Again, I am not looking for a scriptural argument but one that is historical, scientific and philosophical.

Read any modern scientific textbook on neuroscience, or consciousness: they will all tell you that reincarnation (or any other sort of manifestation of consciousness beyond bodily death) is not scientifically supported.

The Church Fathers had some philosophical arguments against reincarnation.

 

[Trevor_Stamm]

Not all forms of Buddhism believe there is no soul, which branch of Buddhism do you study rossum?

And I’m probably missing something here but if there is no soul, then what is it that is being reincarnated? It was my understanding that Buddhism believed that what was being reincarnated, was the soul. Or is there another word for it?

 

[SedesDomi]

Not all forms of Buddhism believe there is no soul, which branch of Buddhism do you study rossum?

And I’m probably missing something here but if there is no soul, then what is it that is being reincarnated? It was my understanding that Buddhism believed that what was being reincarnated, was the soul. Or is there another word for it?

I believe that what rossum is denying is a “permanent soul/self”.

 

[FCCopleston]

In this case I was not discussing Christian theology directly. I was arguing against dmar198’s assertion that “The Romans perfected the art of execution by crucifixion, and no one could survive.” I pointed out that Josephus demonstrates that a truncated crucifixion is not inevitably fatal.

rossum

The idea that it is possible for someone to have survived Roman crucifixion is hardly worth discussing–of course it is possible.

What ought to be concerning you is whether or not the idea that Jesus Christ survived His crucifixion is* likely*. It is clear that neither Christ’s appearance to the disciples after surviving, nor a purely spiritual experience of the risen Jesus (knowing full well that His body still resided in the tomb) would have spurred the disciples on to become martyrs of a cause they knew was untrue. Abductive reasoning leads one to the conclusion that Jesus Christ really did die, and that He really was risen from the dead.

In Christ,
FCCopleston

 

[rossum]

Not all forms of Buddhism believe there is no soul, which branch of Buddhism do you study rossum?

My practice is mostly Theravada though my theory is Madhyamika. I am not aware of any current school of Buddhism that believes in a soul, do you have any reference for that?

And I’m probably missing something here but if there is no soul, then what is it that is being reincarnated? It was my understanding that Buddhism believed that what was being reincarnated, was the soul. Or is there another word for it?

Hindu reincarnation is like beads on a thread. The beads are lives and the single thread running through them all is the soul. Buddhist reincarnation is like beads on a chain. The chain is not continuous; each link connects to the next link. No single link runs through the entire length of the chain. What we were in the past links, through cause and effect, to what we are now. What we are now links to what we will be in future.

You can never step in the same river twice because it is not the same river and it is not the same you.

rossum

 

[rossum]

I believe that what rossum is denying is a “permanent soul/self”.

I am indeed, though I am also denying any substantial impermanent soul beyond the purely nominal. That is more in the range of Buddhist philosophy than of a discussion of reincarnation.

rossum