If Buddhists believe that your mind, body, memories, soul and self die when you die (annata doctrine etc)

If Buddhists believe that your mind, body, memories, soul and self die when you die (annata doctrine etc).

what part of you get's reincarnated

Other urls found in this thread:

accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/mendis/wheel268.html
youtube.com/watch?v=P7WgTHNc0OI
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

buddhism is a manichaean egregore

A continuity of identification, selfhood.
Even though they say there is no self but they're full of shit on this account

Nothing dies, because everything is just a soup of constant cause-and-effect. There is no self to die in the first place. The collection of phenomena we call 'the self' moves on to a new body but the unity of that self is ultimately illusory

Doesn't belong here.

>there is no self
>but there is a self

>It's a metaphor

No it isn't you retard, otherwise there would be no point to Buddhism since there is no Birth-Death cycle to escape

That seems like an oversimplification somehow. Buddhism is very nearly its own form of nihilism, or at least flirts with it, in the sense that anatman means there's no such thing as an essential self. But this just means the same thing that Schopenhauer meant when he pointed out that an individual man can't rise to the level of an eternal form or idea. Metaphorically, the part of self that reincarnates is sort of a backwards way of phrasing it. It's more like you're an instance of a greater pattern of recurring human forms, which no individual component of yourself really matters to.

“If he had smiled why would he have smiled? To reflect that each one who enters imagines himself to be the first to enter whereas he is always the last term of a preceding series even if the first term of a succeeding one, each imagining himself to be first, last, only and alone whereas he is neither first nor last nor only nor alone in a series originating in and repeated to infinity.”

that doesn't sound very cohesive ....the self that doesn't exist moves onto a new body.

The constant cause and effect aspect makes more sense.

I read some stephen batchelor books where he essentially says that reincarnation and karma aren't important in buddhism, it was a just a habitual belief during the time of the buddha much like we view the earth as round.
batchelor tends to think that westerners blow reincarnation and karma out of proportion as questions of the afterlife and morality are so prominent in our religions (Christianity etc)

>the lack of a self or soul does not mean lack of continuity; and the rebirth across different realms of birth – such as heavenly, human, animal, hellish and others – occurs in the same way that a flame is transferred from one candle to another
What is transferred is supposed to be some psychic substratum so that karma is carried on, I agree with the above post and that rebirth contradicts anicca too.

Of course in Mahayana you may find people who don't believe in rebirth, karma, etc. or that do believe in souls.

The question becomes however if there is no reincarnation how is suicide not the logical way to end suffering?

The religion would die if everyone offed themselves.

Good, job done

This is correct, however without rebirth you still have a this-wordly religion of ritual and self-control, the market of mindfulness and inner peace, etc.

So then address the problem, why not just kill yourself?

Are there personalist variants of Buddhism?

The self doesn't 'exist' in the sense that it's a grasping and therefore not eternal. When you die, the 'grasping' doesn't stop and finds a new way to exist.

>there are buddhist scholars on Veeky Forums

and so the cycle of suffering continues

is Buddhism anti-natalist?

i'd like to know this as well

How about reading some Buddhist literature instead of asking to be spoonefed?

inb4 >lol, reading

I did. this lead me to the question that I asked.

>"A continuity of identification, selfhood"
Care to point to where it says so in Buddhist doctrine? Because that sounds diametrically opposed to what they actually believe.

You take mind, body, memories etc. as something substantial that gets wholly annihilated. What "survives" after death are the effects of karma, which determine that a being with specific qualities will be born in one of the realms. This being is a future "you" in the sense that it resulted from the actions of another "you" from the past, not in the sense that you have some sort of persisting essence that gets transferred.

meant for obv

So I guess another way to think about it is: "self" is not an inherent part of existence. "Self" exists because our biology drives us to believe it exists. I'm not well-versed in the spiritual/woo-woo side of Buddhism, but I think the idea is that 1) when you die, yes, self and all other biological fetters are removed and yet 2) because there is a spiritual side of things (karma, et al.), you will behave as you did in your living life. Because you believed there was "self" while living, you will believe there is "self" when dead; this will make you seek life and the cycle of rebirth and unsatisfactoriness will continue.

>is Buddhism anti-natalist?

Buddhism is definitely against blind (pro)natalism; that much is undeniable.

However, even though the Buddha does say "birth leads to suffering; cessation of birth is the goal", like many things in the canon, it has to be taken with a grain of salt (because it was originally more conversational and contextual). In the full picture of Buddhism, it's more accurate to say "birth tends to lead to self and suffering, so why seek it out instead of Nirvana?" And so, it's not intrinsically a bad thing, but it usually is. If a person can possibly remove their fetters by being born (like the Buddha himself and arahants), then there's indeed nothing wrong with birth (besides it being a short detour from Nirvana).

which brand of buddhism is best? and why?

why do some sections of buddhism have so many "gods"? I thought they weren't deists

The traditional ones.
But you won't like it. It's not as new-agey peace-loving as many modern buddhists make you think it is.

I'm just logically deducing it from the question itself
Buddhists are retards who follow some Pajeet street shitting mystic man so I don't care what they say

I dislike new agey.....
what are the old ones.

I look at tibetan buddhist worshiping pagan gods and don't get it.

>there is nothing wrong with birth if it can lead to not being born

>what part of you get's reincarnated

Why do you want to know?

What is it like after you die? The same as before you were born.

If it is exactly the same as before you were born then surely you could be born again. But it is unlikely 'you' would be created again.

Something would be though, and what would you have in common with this something? Consciousness.

The shared consciousness of the universe will live on. Only your body and thinking mind will die. Your true self is neither of these things.

>The same as before you were born.

How the fuck do you know?

The end game of Buddhism is genocidal death worship. Buddhism taken to its logical ends is Cambodia at its purest.
I despise Buddhists and see them as a more insidious and dangerous group than fundamentalist Muslims and need to be out down

It can be. Buddha specifies that suicide is perfectly alright for people who are already enlightened and can be standard for monastic orders who don't intend to have students or spread the dharma to laypeople. In the same sutra though, he condemns novice monks who all hang themselves by that train of reasoning.

Basically you can kill yourself when you have enough GBP for it not to cause suffering to people around you.

Why, what's the point in waiting for that, why shouldn't the Buddha have just killed himself as soon as he learned the four noble truths?

Person to person reincarnation is a folk religion peasant meme and a device for social structure for those who have not realised non-duality.

It's very simple. Buddhism is Buddha's revision of popular schools of Hinduism during the time he was alive, debating and challenging common aspects of the religion, most of which is already near-identical. The Buddha's teachings were variously condensed into the Pali Canon and maintained by Indochinese Buddhists. Tibetan Buddhists assimilated local Tibetan, Mongolian animism and recycled Hindu belief that predated Buddhism, specifically the esoteric and ascetic Saivite school.

Mahayana are chinks who make every Bodhisattva the equivalent of a Catholic Saint and nobody cares about them.

Gautama Buddha was Nepalese nobility you dingleberry.

He could have, but that's a rude thing to do. Wouldn't it be unkind if you killed yourself after making a great scientific discovery, or totally planning out the plot of your novel?

This is why Islam is dead set to become the world religion. Religions are selected for by potential of spreading. Buddhism isn't aggresively natalist and imperialist enough and Christianity always implodes into secularism by virtue of being apolitical. Hinduism is the folk religion of the Indian subcontinent and not suitable for export.

Islam is the only possible winner with no runner ups.

>Islam
>The religion that loses as many people as it converts
>It's only growth is by population increase
>Hated by most of the world
>Set to become the world religion

>Christianity always implodes into secularism by virtue of being apolitical
>Incredibly important political superstructure of Europe for 1500 years

Population growth is the best growth, converting is a meme for the most part. Hatred breeds stronger ingroup identity.

Because 'muh babbys first ontology'. He's identifying, and even presuming, preexistence and equating it to postexistence.

This question is the subject of Buddha's second discourse after enlightenment. Read it instead of listening to these blowhards.


Link: accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/mendis/wheel268.html

>Population growth is the best growth
And population growth has nothing to do with the religion itself but the socioeconomic of the places where Islam thrives. Islam will not become a world religion because the population growth will change when they enter new environments which will make conversion essential.

>Hatred breeds stronger ingroup identity.
It also stops people from converting and it stops an environment in which Islam can flourish. There is a reason why Islam is only big in the places where it is big (I know it sounds like a tautology). Almost the entire Muslim population of India for example comes from one place making it pretty much impossible for India to ever become a Muslim majority country.

>converting is a meme for the most part
>whole Roman empire getting converted was a 'meme'
>All of the middle east, North Africa and most of Spain converting is a 'meme'

Are you a different person than you were 10 years ago? Different tastes, personality, relationships? Then it can be said that the person you were 10 years ago is dead, even if the effects of the decisions you made during that time are still being felt (your karma).

Try harder, user.

And yet Islam has existed in southeast Asia for hundreds of years without replacing Buddhism.

>Islam is the least popular religions of all time
It's the fastest growing religion in the world and it's only getting more and more popular as people convert and have 4 kids each. Europeans allowing them access to socialized health care and "tolerance" has only increased their numbers.

You Know, London has a Muslim mayor now.

>Mahayana are chinks who make every Bodhisattva the equivalent of a Catholic Saint and nobody cares about them.
Thank you for this

t. raised by Mahayana chinks before taking the theravada pill

Nice reading comprehension

shankaras do not die, they pile up

dying is a normie concept anyway

>I love clinging to retarded spooks

thanks normie for this input

>If Buddhists believe that your mind, body, memories, soul and self die when you die (annata doctrine etc).

This isn't true or else the buddha wouldn't have recollected his past lives. Some sects have their own explanation but the most canonical one is that the heap that constitutes your being (form, feeling, perception, volitional formations and consciousness) gets re-aggregated as you die since you continue clinging to them as 'self'. Basically you are reborn from your own ashes (karma).

youtube.com/watch?v=P7WgTHNc0OI

dalai llama says there is a subtle part of the mind and body, continuing I-making, that gets reincarnated.

The times when a monk commits suicide was when they were old and severely-ill, only 3-5 of them we're recorded to have killed themselves in such cases. There is a story in a sutta about advising practitioners from avoiding suicide shortly after they've been enlightened, about a prince who debates a monk and says 'why don't they just kill themselves if they know they will get a better life next time?' The monk then tells a story of 2 wives from rich brahmin, one was pregnant and one who has 10 sons. The pregnant woman gets a portion of the wealth after the brahmin dies if she bore a son or two. The brahmin then dies and the woman couldn't wait for her child any longer and slits her own stomach so that the child is born prematurely but it ends up killing herself and the child. Thus suicide is not seen as a shortcut to nirvana but is allowed in extreme cases.

Hardly anyone converts to Islam, its severely weak on the idealogical battle-field. Only ~5k people convert to Islam every year in the UK, and that isn't accounting for the people departing it since its usually taken up by edgy feminists who are going through a phase against white patriarchal britons. The only growth is from inward population due to immigrating pakis and arabs.

Islam only survives in as much as it upholds its apostasy rule (death in sharia states, ostracised by your family in non-sharia states) Without it, its pretty much a dead religion.

>Islam is the least popular religions of all time
Nowhere was this said or implied.

>It's the fastest growing religion in the world
Missing the whole point of my post. Look at India. Muslims making up a bigger percentage now than they did 60 years ago but that number is misleading since in 1951 there were 36 million Muslims and today there are 172 million where the non-Muslim population increased by around 900 million. Percentage numbers alone are very misleading. Combine this with the fact that Muslims are only prevalent in a single region within India and will not spread outside of this region because Islam is in today's world terrible at converting people.
India will never be a Muslim majority country because Islam cannot grow outside of where it is already popular and where it is popular will not allow the population to grow more than the rest of India combined. For similar reasons Islam will not become big in other countries with massive populations like China and Japan for similar reasons. Islam will never be the religion of the world.

>it's only getting more and more popular as people convert
This outright ignores the part of my post where I said that Islam loses as many people as it converts. Conversion plays absolutely zero role in the increase in the total percentage of the Muslim population against the rest of the world and as I pointed out just before increases to percentages can be very misleading.

>and have 4 kids each
The reason why Islam has such high growth rates is because most Muslim majority countries have a sociology-economic climate which encourages a high birth rate. It's no different from the Christian African countries with high birth rates. Also extrapolating increases in representation to the total population as a stable thing that can be graphed from nothing more than a couple of census results is ridiculous as it ignores all the reasons why that data is being achieved.

>Europeans allowing them access to socialized health care and "tolerance" has only increased their numbers
If by increased there numbers you mean in European countries then yes but it has done nothing to increase the world's Muslim population.

>You Know, London has a Muslim mayor now
>12% of London are Muslim
>Accounting for half of Britain's total Muslim population
And?

That user is actually right, forces that seek to destroy you around you make the group more cohesive (like in Israel). And population growth is more sustainable and fundamental than conversion, especially for religions like Islam which are spread through the sword rather than discourse

t. egoist

Nah man, being an egoist is all about saying fuck drumpf and watching Rick and Morty

Trump is quite authoritarian so it unironically is about saying fuck drumpf to an extent

Rick and Morty isn't egoist at all IIRC, but I have watched it in a while

*haven't

*without replacing buddhism completely yet

the largest country in SEA is majority muslim

>The reason why Islam has such high growth rates is because most Muslim majority countries have a sociology-economic climate which encourages a high birth rate. It's no different from the Christian African countries with high birth rates.
Muslims always have higher fertility rates than their economic and educational peers, even in the West. There is something specific about Islam that encourages natalism all other factors being equal.

Let the simulation run long enough with those numbers and you end up with a Muslim majority.