[xpllmr]

@ stuka: By "old-school", I meant Hindu. You think Nagasena was teaching the Hindu perspective by denying spiritual substance (atman)? Do you think there is a spiritual substance along with the 5 khandas? And, yes, some "new schools" also try to re-insert a spiritual substance that literally transmigrates. I believe them to be in error.

@ srivijaya: I think HHDL was being ambiguous, but not intentionally or deceitfully. I translate a lot and I know how difficult it is to be exact about subtle nuances. I don't know that much about TB, tbh. I don't know if HHDL believes in a literal transmigration of a spiritual substance or not. If he does, I'd like to see how he reconciles it with the Pali suttas. What I described in the above post is a partial summary of my own work on the question. Some of it comes from similar approaches taken by Gombrich and Siderits. But it wasn't intended to represent anyone else's view but my own. And I know I could be wrong. I've been wrong before, and I'm sure I'll be wrong again.

[carletoxtrs]

Thanks FBM. Your guess is as good as any.

[Elaltergephah]

@FBM: I think what we are looking at is an attempt to sidestep the Buddha's teaching and keep Buddhism Hindu.

[sarasaraseda]

@FBM: I think what we are looking at is an attempt to sidestep the Buddha's teaching and keep Buddhism Hindu.

An attempt by who? Nagasena? HHDL? Me?

[Sipewrio]

An attempt by who? Nagasena? HHDL? Me?

Nagasena. And HHDL.

[TineSeign]

And HHDL.

Sure, the propaganda includes he as a reincarnated person.

[k5wTvu9f]

Nagasena. And HHDL.

Oh. I guess I'm reading the Milinda Panha differently. It looks to me that Nagasena was explicitly denying a transmigrating spiritual substance/atman. If you don't mind, have time and are interested, would you mind pointing me to which passage(s) strike you as trying to slip it in? In the meantime, I'd probably better give it a re-read. It's been a while since I read it through.

[blogforloversxx]

Oh. I guess I'm reading the Milinda Panha differently. It looks to me that Nagasena was explicitly denying a transmigrating spiritual substance/atman. If you don't mind, have time and are interested, would you mind pointing me to which passage(s) strike you as trying to slip it in? In the meantime, I'd probably better give it a re-read. It's been a while since I read it through.

The fundamental idea is to keep "re-birth" in a fashion that has the appearance of complying with the Buddha's rejection of the Atman.

It is rather like creationists' shift of tactic from "Creationism" to "Intelligent Design".

The process itself is disingenuous. What is produced cannot help but be hopelessly equivocal and disingenuous as well.

[Gofthooxdix]

The fundamental idea is to keep "re-birth" in a fashion that has the appearance of complying with the Buddha's rejection of the Atman.

It is rather like creationists' shift of tactic from "Creationism" to "Intelligent Design".

The process itself is disingenuous. What is produced cannot help but be hopelessly equivocal and disingenuous as well.

That's pretty much my perception in many cases, too. Clinging to being, clinging to becoming...many are willing to forego all reason to keep hope for afterlife alive. I don't think that's what Nagasena was doing there, but I could be wrong.

The Buddha took key terms from the brahmins and redefined them in such a way that they usually meant or implied either the opposite of the original or something radically distinct. Gombrich has pointed out quite a few examples of puns and satire being used that escape all but Pali scholars who happen to focus on them. The most obvious example is kamma. With punabbhava (lit:re-becoming), the question is often asked, 'What is there to be reborn?' First, it's necessary to answer, 'What came into being when this thing was born?' A new soul? Not even the Hindus believed that. The phenomena associated with the new combination of aggregates? That's closer, but phenomena don't exist independently in isolation, so individuality and phenomenal being don't quite work out. Phenomenal being does work with impermanence and dependend co-arising, though.

With Nagasena's fire example, nothing crosses over from the first fire to the second. The arising of the second can be attributed to the first, plus an infinite series of other contributing factors. What would defy all reason would be to claim that fire a) contributed to the arising of fire b) even if fire a) had been extinguished long before fire b) ever arose. This requires the total abandonment of commom sense. It is at that point that rebirth becomes absurd and faith-based religious dogma. And that's where I'm not willing to go.

[Sanremogirl]

Nagasena's fire analogy attempts to justify a multiple-life scenario of some sort. The approach dooms any results it might produce.

I am not sure what you are getting at with claim a about fire.

If you stand nrear enough to something that is burning hot enough, you will catch fire. The first fire contributes to the arising of the second.

But it is an overly simplistic analogy to begin with. And equivocal. The famous "Atman that is not an Atman".

[ZanazaKar]

That's interesting, stuka. When I read the same thing, I get a refutation of a multiple-life scenario as suggested in conventional scenarios. I get, instead of "Atman that is not Atman", simply not-atman. dunno.gif

[forotis]

What if we drop the notion of Time and Space? Maybe this is just beyond human imagination. Or the case of a person suffering from ‘full blown’ Alzheimer’s disease where the ‘mind’ is considered as ‘gone’ though the remaining five senses are still intact? Can we than considered the mind consciousness to have left the physical body and taken on another form body? Of course this would not explain the case of the High Lamas who could identify the reincarnated boys assuming that they are still in full control of all their senses.

[everlastinge]

Of course this would not explain the case of the High Lamas who could identify the reincarnated boys ...[ ]

which is a very dubious process to say the least, and it could be easily manipulated to favour a particular infant.

[JakilSong]

which is a very dubious process to say the least, and it could be easily manipulated to favour a particular infant.

I heard about the case of a boy called Össel. Finally he refused to accept to be a reincarnated person. But maybe I am wrong in this. I really don't now, accurately, the complete history.

[AAAESLLESO]

What if we drop the notion of Time and Space?

And what? Make up as we go along without such constraints?

Maybe this is just beyond human imagination. Uh, yeah...


Or the case of a person suffering from ‘full blown’ Alzheimer’s disease where the ‘mind’ is considered as ‘gone’ though the remaining five senses are still intact? Sounds like a "making-up-as-one-goes-along" sort of windup. And here's the pitch:

Can we than considered the mind consciousness to have left the physical body and taken on another form body? The Buddha had this to say about that sort of speculation:

"Foolish man, to whom do you know me having taught the Dhamma like this. Haven’t I taught, in various ways that consciousness is dependently arisen. Without a cause, there is no arising of consciousness. Yet you, foolish man, on account of your wrong view, you misrepresent me, as well as destroy yourself and accumulate much demerit, for which you will suffer for a long time." ]

"Mind consciousness" for the Buddha was awareness of mental functions or activities.

Of course this would not explain the case of the High Lamas who could identify the reincarnated boys assuming that they are still in full control of all their senses.
What distinction, if any, do you make between "explaining" and "making up as one goes along", please?

[Clilmence]

No just a particular infant, the reincarnation tradition becomes an important issue to HHDL because of the way the Chinese government is also manipulating it to its own advantage. On hindsight, if the position of the Dalai Lama was passed down from father to son as in the case of the Sakya pas tradition, such problem would not have happen. I believe Ossel is now back home in Spain living the life as an ordinary Spanish.

[reiruviartugs]

@stuka

//"making-up-as-one-goes-along”//

Your conclusion or mind? And I have to provide distinction at your bidding? For all the Suttas that you are able to quote from, it looks like you would have being better off if you did not get involved in Buddhism at all in the first place.

[GogaMegaPiska]

No just a particular infant, the reincarnation tradition becomes an important issue to HHDL because of the way the Chinese government is also manipulating it to its own advantage.

And tibetans do not?

On hindsight, if the position of the Dalai Lama was passed down from father to son as in the case of the Sakya pas tradition, such problem would not have happen. I believe Ossel is now back home in Spain living the life as an ordinary Spanish. The Chinese government countered the tibetan make-up-as-you-go-along rules with made-up rules of their own. They called the bluff, used Reductio Ad Absurdum, and won.


If the tibetans had chosen to follow the teachings of the Buddha, the chinese would have had no superstitions to use against the DL.

[Stovegeothnon]

@stuka

//"making-up-as-one-goes-along”//

Your conclusion or mind? And I have to provide distinction at your bidding?

You don't have to do anything at my bidding. But I don't have to take any "explanations" seriously, either, especially those that are obviously made-up and without any basis in fact or evidence.

For all the Suttas that you are able to quote from, it looks like you would have being better off if you did not get involved in Buddhism at all in the first place. You wouldn't know.


Fact is, I am not that interested in "Buddhism" per se. There is much superstition and nonsense in "Buddhism". I am very interested in the teachings of the Buddha, however. Not a lot of people are.

[medprof]

@stuka…..

//But I don't have to take any "explanations" seriously, either, especially those that are obviously made-up and without any basis in fact or evidence.//

Who is asking you to take anything seriously, by the way? Made up or not is your own conclusion which is also your own conjecture.


//You wouldn't know.//

I would not care to know either.



//I am not that interested in "Buddhism". There is much superstition and nonsense in "Buddhism". I am very interested in the teachings of the Buddha, however.//

And that is how they become so egoistic and bigoted in their views in the first place.


//And tibetans do not?//

Who is commenting on the Tibetans in general?


//If the tibetans had chosen to follow the teachings of the Buddha, the chinese would have had no superstitions to use against the DL.//

‘If’ – An idiot can tell you that after everything have happened.