If there is no self or soul, what is that which is being reborn?

If there is no self or soul, what is that which is being reborn?

Attached: https___vignette.wikia.nocookie.net_althistory_images_4_4a_Gautam_buddha_in_meditation.gif_revision_ (466x625, 205K)

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=pbOgXfMcLoQ
youtube.com/watch?v=W6mgjmouZ7I
dharmatreasure.org/wp-content/uploads/Meditation-and-Insight-III.pdf
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

He was right. We are all bound together and comprise one whole of temporal matter. Kind of depressing till we learn to not give a shit.

karmic conditions, some type of metaphysical tendency that flows through infinite time and universes which can be accumulated or diminished depending on skillful or unskillful existence. pretty cool if you apply it to world history and try to figure out chains of tendencies that correspond with people

>If there is no self or soul, what is that which is being reborn?
something that isn't self or soul

/thread, not literature, kindly fuck off

this is the /phil/ board you angry faggot. bumping the thread just to spite you apes and your outrageous slander against Sophia

why do christfags get so mad about non-christian topics? what is it that makes them seeth?

Do you know what literature is, you ginormous faggot?

Like a phoenix arising from its own ashes, so too does a person arise from his own [five] aggregates with desire as its fuel/condition. Realizing that the heap is nothing but a heap and dependently originates as a heap, one sees it for what it is and does not identify any constituent of the heap as self, for how can self be impermanent and unsatisfactory.

Only then, when all karma has been dispensed and clinging ceased, does one not arise further as fire does not further arise once its fuel/condition is dispensed. This, friend user, is Nibbana.

Metta _{||}_

namaste

There is an over abundance of mindfulness in this thread.

>something that isn't self or soul
unironically this

also the buddha didn't say there wasn't a self, he just didn't tell us what it was only what it wasn't.

there are fruits of intentions of actions and once there is no intention, there is no fruit

According to theravada buddhists it's the aggregates which transmigrate.

read Nagarjuna, he did give something more implicitly than just refusal to answer

>read Nagarjuna
I read mulamadhyamakakarika but my brainlet mind couldn't understand what the fuck he was saying .

There is no birth or death; we only experience such things because our karmic afflictions keep us in dualistic thinking.

What there is a continuous sucking of nutriments, like a a digestive system, a vaccum cleaner or an earth worm.
There is good food and bad food. And the eating with good food stops the eating.

an aspect of God

atheists B T F O

But there is birth and death. It has nothing to do with perception/thinking, it is a material reality.

Only if you assume this physical body is "you."

>talk to Buddhist
>they are always evil and full of misplaced and bitter elitism....
strange.........................

Attached: 1516614264343.jpg (991x999, 347K)

.. huh?

western buddhist*

The components of your existence break down after death, and then according to your karma they change, some are replaced, and finally they reconstruct a new being.

Keep in mind "existence" doesnt just mean "body" according to Buddhist thought. "Existence" also includes memories, habits, desires, fears, preferences, etc.

I find buddist philosophy pretty depressing and obssesed with "escaping the world". Even buddist art and architecture is much worse compared with christian art, and hasn't evolved or changed in hundreds of years.
Also, I believe a society it's a reflection of its philosophy, and buddist societys don't look precisely prosperous or specially beautiful places.

>Even buddist art and architecture is much worse compared with christian art, and hasn't evolved or changed in hundreds of years.
Could you elaborate?

That's why i said existence and not body.

Yes, I was clarifying for people who might not have been aware of that.

Well, I believe western art (and literature) history has evolved, changed and experimented almost constanly after the birth of christianity, while I find in buddist societys there's that feeling of staganation, of poverty. Also, every modern inventions comes from christian societies: cinema, radio, cars, internet, electric light, planes, etc.
I don't hate buddism (and I'm not a christian) but I can't avoid having that feeling that buddism art celebrates death and western art celebrates life.

Well thats because those cultures are completely different. Western civilisation, particularly christian ones have always been fixated on wanting more, doing new things and experimenting to fuel their desires, which like you inadvertently listed, are material. Eastern societies, especially buddhists, believe the true path is eliminating desire and consumption. This means that these societies "stagnate" while the west grows and keeps consuming. Neither is "better" than the other, because they're two different things. Someone can only think one is better than the other if they themselves were raised in one society and never went beyond a superficial understanding of both (no offence intended). This also ties into your statement about life and death, to some people life isn't ever marching progress and aesthetic peaks but the simple joy of being fulfilled inside themselves, not driven by anything except the rightness they feel through years of reflection and patience. So it's not death worship but more a different interpretation and veneration of life.

I don't think it's only a matter of the west wanting to just fullfill desires that makes its societies different. Western art and architecture shows a strong accent on beauty, hope, joy and using materials to elevate the spirit and to gain appreciation of the mystery of life (without forgetting death and pain).
Other things like universal health care, caring about the poor everywhere or advanced scientific research are again strong features of western / christian societies.

I just believe the energy of the west and east it's completely different. Both can learn a lot of each other (Better not be arrogant, because we can learn a lot from eastern philosphy). In fact, I believe Tagore told the indians not to be arrogant and travel to the west to open the mind, as we do here, but travelling to India.

This is a very strong assumption only made to further justify your beliefs

Buddhism made my depression and misanthropy even worse.

It makes everything seem pointless. It makes me feel guilty for enjoying anything in life. I couldn't even buy clothes or something I wanted without feeling guilty or vain. It also made everyone else seem disgusting and hollow. I lost interest in everything, nothing identifies me anymore.

Somehow I think I fucked up.

what beliefs?

Rebirth is not reincarnation. The beings that come after are not considered entirely the same or entirely different from those before. To grasp it, you must view it through the lens of conditioned arising and the self as dynamic aggregrates. Buddha did not deny the self, only the eternal or lasting self.

>clinging to delusions of authenticity and ethnicity
Any Buddhist hung up about whiteness, whether in a revisionist Nazi or white guilt sense, is a moron.

>Japan is not prosperous

In this case, the belief that it's a christian getting offended.

Disgust is part of aversion, one of the three poisons. You misread the tripitaka, if at all.

>Somehow I think I fucked up.
Yes, you fucked up in how you approached buddhism. A common trend for people, especially from a western/christian background, is that they expected buddhism to be some sort of therapeutic wonder drug of a philosophy that they can simply practice privately after reading a basic introductory text. They then fail to grasp its concepts (emptiness is a huge pleb filter) and come to the conclusion that it leads to apathy. I've seen it multiple times on Veeky Forums whenever buddhism is discussed, hell there's already 2 of them in this exact thread.

might as well be, every religion thread in Veeky Forums always has that one angsty christian trying to shit stir.

But It became much more prosperous and modern thanks to the western influence. Also, it seems sintoism has also a very strong influence there apart from buddism.
A los of people who passed through a buddism phase has said the same things about depression and lack of joy. I believe that's a problem with eastern philosophy and it's very difficult to detach completely your feelings when you have a set of beliefs that's pretty depressing and joyless in its core.

>meanwhile in christian Africa

Attached: congo suburb.jpg (526x351, 80K)

The illusion.

reddit.com/r/gatekeeping

That's a pretty obscure example. South America also has some christians countries which are not precisely prosperous too, but, you can't deny, the majority of the western world has the best quality of life countries in the world, even if after postmodernism, there's a lot of spiritual decay growing in those societies.

Yes they have been modernised by the west but you're conflating 'western' with 'christian'. The fact that japan has not adopted the christian faith and still advanced in the manner of a western nations instead of going backward disproves your claim. Also im pretty sure shintoism is responsible for Japan's historic resistance to modernisation and opening of the country (although it waned before the meiji restoration).

To wrap my head around this concept I like to look at physics for an analogy, something along the lines of being able to spontaneously create matter from colliding photons, or the theory that all matter exists due to wave properties. It happens, has been reproduced in lab conditions, we just don't *really* know what's going on to allow this to be. Maybe to do with the fabric of spacetime itself? Anyways, if you think of the divine as that which is universal "emptiness" or maybe even "dark matter or energy" that can be arranged by specific wave properties to cause the manifestation of physical matter with observable properties, one can see how it might be possible to have both universal and individual phases/states of the divine / soul by the aggregation of specific conditions that will transmute depending on the arrangement of such configurations. This also leads to interesting thought experiments about the existence of consciousness within multiverses or dimensions, or even singularities, which again could be dependent on wave properties and energy states. Maybe my "self" is as it is because the conditions were right at the time of the arising of that "self" and will exist as an individual focal point of the greater non-self until such conditions break down, at which point the energy or substance of this "self" returns to being simply a contiguous part of its original overall state.
It's really all just completely speculative thought experiments, but it does give the brain something it can conceptualize (which is analogous to observable phenomena) to reconcile the apparent contradiction between "no soul" and the nature of samsara.

it's almost like it has to do more with race/ethnicity than religion (although it plays some part).

why are you posting your favorite subreddit?

I believe you're quite right about the race / ethnity claim, though I'm not trying to say that western people are "superior" or anything like that. In fact, nations like India are starting to be very advanced and prosperous too. Nevertless, I believe philosophy and faith maybe are a much stronger factor in those advancements. Like you say with Japan, sintoism philosphy avoided new things, an Japan was like that for a long time, so a shared philosophy plays a big part in a way a society behaves.

In the case of art and literature, christianity probably plays a strong role in the constant changes because after its expansion, a constant experimentation and change started to happen in art, architecture and music in the western world. Before the XX century, a lot of asian countries were almost the same as centuries ago in architecture, art, music, city planning, etc, but after western influences, they started to mutate and adapt to new ways. Even the caste system is starting to being criticized, I believe.

I'm not exactly some prosperity gospel preacher, but I think any attempt to say mainstream African population preaches any form of authentic Islam or christianity would be down right fallacious

thoughts on siddhartha?

it's understandable, this is a catholic board, but they should learn to be more merciful

what went wrong with nibbana that we got samsara? was it a defective nibbana?

I actually wonder if buddhist resent catholics for what they did in 60s Nam, I know they're not the type who'd be hung up on emotions but I feel like it's a history they (viet buddhists) can't forget

western art gave us period blood painting though, maybe if we stopped before we wouldn't have gotten there

that's atheist art user

youtube.com/watch?v=pbOgXfMcLoQ

>tfw the only things I'm good at are fasting, thinking and waiting

Attached: images (1).png (244x207, 13K)

atheism is just late-stage protestantism

not him but the buddha said samsara is 'without discoverable beginning'. It preceded nirvana. Some buddhists say it will go on forever yet some say all life will eventually enter nirvana. Mahayanists claim nirvana and samsara are really the same thing, just a fabrication of duality.

tl;dr No one really knows.

>talk to christian
>tell him im actually agnostic
>he hates me even more than if i were a full blown fedora
>MAKE UP YOUR FUCKING MIND AND CHOOSE A SIDE


>talk to atheist
>literally does the same thing only he is being a condescending prick and not yelling at me like the christian dude

why do both sides hate agnostics anons ? is it because you cant really lump them in together with either crowd, meaning the "us and them" mentality doesn't really work here ?

because not having an opinion means you are a coward, at least the other side has some character even if they are wrong

birth implies creation, death implies destruction. But there can never be a creation from nothing, and a destruction into nothing, Parmenides affirms this. What births is, is simply union of elements/aggregates and death is conversely a separation of elements/aggregates. Just as water becomes cloud due to evaporation, then ice due to precipitation, then back to water as it falls down, so does one unite, and separate, and unite, and separate, ad infinitum.

This is the final red pill

>because not having an opinion means you are a coward
but i do have an opinion, and that is that i won't subscribe to either side
why is that such a bad thing to do?

>This is the final red pill
if you haven't put that there i would actually respect your opinion. Nice job shitting up your point with an egostistical "IM SO FUCKING RIGHT DUDE" statement

you have an opinion, you either believe in eternal principles or you don't and that shows in how you live your life, not having an opinion just means you are too afraid to state what you already believe

>not having an opinion just means you are too afraid to state what you already believe
im pretty sure you have no idea what agnostic means then user. you are the same as the people i described above. you just can't stand the fact that you can't categorize someone into either this or that.

It's possible that the question appears entirely meaningless to the person, and they can't formulate any thought about it whatsoever.

It's possible that the words 'eternal principles' correspond to literally nothing real, and people who think they do are deluded.

For Christians there's a passage in Revelations where God condemns a Church for being lukewarm. I imagine that's where the distaste for agnostics comes from.

For atheists I imagine they believe their position is the obvious one, so an agnostic is seen as someone kowtowing to a Christian society at large when there is no reason to do so.

this is true

Im sorry to hear that, i will immediately edit that post ASAP

I've always maintained that agnosticism is a statement of epistemology regarding God, not an actual position of belief in God. You can say 'i don't know if he exists but i dont believe so' (agnostic atheist) but it doesn't make sense to say 'i dont know if he exists and i dont know if i believe in him' (agnostic Xtheist). The latter is completely illogical.

This is of course the only reasonable way to use the term "agnostic" but good luck getting brainlets to understand it

Buddhism didn't do that. You already felt that way. Buddhism just gave you an outlet to experience it

>I believe that's a problem with eastern philosophy and it's very difficult to detach completely your feelings when you have a set of beliefs that's pretty depressing and joyless in its core.

Your feelings are not supposed to be cold and detached. If they were, compassion would not be a virtue. But we must have self control in the face of indulgence and accept impermanence stoically in the face of pain. To love without clinging, you must accept that all things pass. That path is the only one which can produce true happiness.

All religions have insight into suffering, but Buddhism calling it a central part of life is not pessimism, it is fact. Aversion to pain and death are part of the feedback loops that keep life alive and reproducing - and suffering. Buddhism recognizes this reality. Abrahamic religions refuse to confront it and make bullshit promises about an eternal life in heaven with God instead. Also, unlike these religions, Buddhism stresses self reliance and the fact that most suffering is not noble or necessary. It does not elevate a roman torture method to a symbol of worship or consider humans something born in sin to rightfully burn in hell forever. If Calvinism isn't the most depressing religion ever, I don't know what is.

You also seem to think Buddha stressed the nonself and that Nirvana is annihilation. Neither of these are true, and Buddha associated them with his contemporary concept of nihilism. He said that regardless of whether karma or rebirth exist, we must continue to be good people - and that many of his conceptions may be arbitrary, but endorse a praxis that is alleviating of suffering when properly understood.

Read Santideva, he explains things a lot more clearly. I wrote a paper on Nagarjuna and still have trouble following a lot of the Mulamadhyamakakarika. But most of it I think can be summed up as nothing existing independent of causes, independent of conception, and independent of physical components. Thus nothing has a permanent "self." What makes him more extreme than other Buddhists is that he thinks this is true of the "aggregates" themselves, not just the conceptual "self" that we attach to it.

Alternatively, Jay Garfield is really good at explaining it. If you can deal with the shitty audio quality of this one, he approaches it very methodically and thoroughly.
youtube.com/watch?v=W6mgjmouZ7I

Good post

Oops meant to quote this user

Go back.

Is there a biggest mistake than individuality?

Attached: bouddha.jpg (245x206, 15K)

Your grammar

anime

Sorry, what is wrong with my last sentence?

The word you're looking for instead of "biggest" is "bigger." "Bigger" is used when comparing two things (i.e. individuality and another mistake), but "biggest" with a group of more than two things (i.e. "individuality is the biggest mistake of all time").

You can't love the monster of a hundred heads called humanity with the same intensity that your very few relatives and selected people of your life.

The first thing it's like having a harem, the other it's like having a wife.

Nothing, and belief in reincarnation hinders insight practices too
>As all of these Insights deepen, anything that causes Insight into No-self to lag behind the others is going to make the process much more painful. Entertaining notions of reincarnation and past and future lives is particularly insidious in this regard. Your mind will still be clinging to the notion of being a Self, while realizing ever more deeply the impermanence and emptiness of everything else. This in turn will lead to an intense inner struggle, resistance to continued practice, and feelings of despair, misery, frustration, and hopelessness. What could be worse than to be a Self stuck in the midst of such a reality?
dharmatreasure.org/wp-content/uploads/Meditation-and-Insight-III.pdf

>No true Scotsman
Africa reads the Bible more than any other continent

Nailed it

Self/I is not the same as soul or spirit

If you read the Nirvana sutra it pretty much is.

> Na ca so na ca añño, 'Neither he nor another'. This often-quoted dictum occurs in the Milindapañha somewhere, as the answer to the question 'When a man dies, who is reborn—he or another?'. This question is quite illegitimate, and any attempt to answer it cannot be less so. The question, in asking who is reborn, falls into sakkāyaditthi. It takes for granted the validity of the person as 'self'; for it is only about 'self' that this question—'Eternal (so) or perishable (añño)?'—can be asked (cf. PATICCASAMUPPĀDA, ANICCA [a], & SAKKĀYA). The answer also takes this 'self' for granted, since it allows that the question can be asked. It merely denies that this 'self' (which must be either eternal or perishable) is either eternal or perishable, thus making confusion worse confounded. The proper way is to reject the question in the first place. Compare Anguttara VI,ix,10 , where it is said that the ditthisampanna not only can not hold that the author of pleasure and pain was somebody (either himself or another) but also can not hold that the author was not somebody (neither himself nor another). The ditthisampanna sees the present person (sakkāya) as arisen dependent upon present conditions and as ceasing with the cessation of these present conditions. And, seeing this, he does not regard the present person as present 'self'. Consequently, he does not ask the question Who? about the present. By inference—atītānāgate nayam netvā having induced the principle to past and future (cf. Gāmini Samy. 11 )[a]—he does not regard the past or future person as past or future 'self', and does not ask the question Who? about the past or the future. (Cf. Māra's question in line 2 of PARAMATTHA SACCA §1.) (The Milindapañha is a particularly misleading book. See also ANICCA [a], PATICCASAMUPPĀDA [c], RŪPA [e], & PARAMATTHA SACCA §§8-10.)

You are stupid. There's no way to tell if there is a god or not. So why care?

There's nothing "courageous" about blindly dedicating your life to a myth on the off-chance that it might be true.

If anything you're only upset that you can't argue and flout your superiority over the agnostic because there is no argument to be had.

Yeah, ok. Reddit spacing whatever.

Actually nothing is being reborn, what remains is the essence of continuity that the ego holds, when you seek continuity, when you are afraid of death, all these habits, the memories, the security that you seek, all that continues, but all that is the illusion. That's the stream of thought which continues in the cycle of cause and effect, when there is no death of the self of the memories and the new cause is the result of an old effect, the cycle continues. That's why they say you must die every moment.

Buddhism doesn't say this. It just says the self and soul aren't immanent, they do not exist necessarily.

Reddit spacing is after a quote, not putting your own post into paragraphs.

>"aggregates" themselves, not just the conceptual "self" that we attach to it
there it is, this would include matter of course