Another method would be Buddhist practice. Not scientifically sound but in principle it works on everyone.
Too literal The traditional view of reincarnation and its modern incarnations (heh, heh) is, to me, too literal. What River-Wind wrote resonates with me. I try to stop seeing myself and others as strictly individual. I cultivate the view that instead of individuals making waves in a tub, as River-Wind puts it, we are the water itself. The waves and the makers of the waves are one attribute of our existence but we forget at our peril that we are the water. What does this imply for the subject of reincarnation? If you understand that all humans are one and all species are one across space and time, then the question of the reincarnation of a grasping individual fades away. I don't worry about being reincarnated because I am one with all of us, human, plant, animal and rocks. On a more concrete level, I see a human as a collaborative collection of a trillion cells. They conspire to create "me". How did this conspiracy occur? It was a participative effort of the humans around me over the last 39 years within the environments I occupied from moment to moment. Likewise, I suspect that if a trillion cells can cooperate to make "me", then fifty billion humans over the course of a million years can be considered to have made "humanity", which to me has the attributes of a living, growing, conscious and evolving entity. By extension the same could be said for all life. Individuals bubble up out of this entity and have their time as self-perceived "people", acting as receivers and carriers of humanity and transmitting it on to the next generation. Then we subside back into the foam of humanity whence we arose. And that is OK. Could an individual be carried on, in part or whole, to a new human? Sure, but it seems unnecessary and not in keeping with the subtlety of nature.
A few more thoughts Thanks, Canute. If human consciousness is on some level participatory, it is interesting to surmise that the experiences described by those having done deep meditation may actually be a direct experience of participatory consciousness. Silence the self, hear the crowd. If consciousness has a participatory attribute, then it is probably nonlocal. That is, human minds form a network of consciousness shared most strongly with those we are closest to and diminishing outward to a background level with all of humanity. Given the six degrees of separation, we aren't all that far removed from anyone anyway. I imagine that after death we could experience existence as those we knew in life experienced us. At first this would be a fairly strong experience but would gradually fade into the background over decades. This has interesting implications. If we treat others with compassion and love, the death experience would be very pleasant. If we were real sons-of-bitches to everyone around us, then I can't imagine a better description of hell than the unadulterated experience of their emotions and perceptions of us. I guess the real question for discussion is whether interacting minds can form a sort of meta-mind, and whether it could be conscious in some fashion.
Hmm, I think it's easier just to say that we're all part of the same thing. We don't have to participate with each other, we are each other. Vishnu is everywhere as they used to say. The idea that nothing of us survives our death is daft imo. It's an ad hoc conjecture of an obscure sect of fanatical materialists who won't listen to reason. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
It is not so "black and white" canute. It is a problem of definitions. How you define the "self" determines the necessary answer to the queston of immortality. If you identify the self with the infinite, eternal unified "substance" (or "consciousness" or whatever you want to call it) from which everything is made then the self is necessarily eternal, but then it is also necessarily infinite and thus there can be only one self. Thus this view, taken up by beautifully Plotinus, necessitates the idea that the individual is an illusion, a "multiple personality disorder" caused by differentiation of this substance into its infinite patterns. Thus if the "soul" is identified with the substance then there can be only one infinite and etrnal soul because substance is undifferentiated and thus cannot be defined as any particular conditioned and thus finite amount of substance. Therefore this definition of the self necessitates that there can be only one self which is also the world and substance itself. It therefore actually dissolves the meaning of the self altogether. IMHO, though this view is logically correct and is true it defeats the purpose of the word "self" as a relative distinction between self and world. It is a beautiful and true concept nonetheless. If you define the self as a finite, condition, modification, differentiation or pattern of the infinite undifferentiated substance (or "is-ness") thus maintaining the relative distinction between self and world, but realizing that ultimately they are made out of the same continuity of substance and thus all distinctions are only temporary modifications, then you maintain the usefullness of the term "self" as used in everyday language. The problem is that all modes are finite and subject to duration. This definition thus renders the individual self as non-eternal though it doesn't preclude the self from participating in the eternal. So, yes certainly SOMETHING survives death because substance cannot be destroyed, but if we identify our "self" with this something then there can be only one self or one infinite and eternal soul in existence. Conversely one can see the self as a modification of substance and thus logically non-equivalent with the infinite and eternal substance though it is a conditioned part of that substance with no absolute distinctions whatsoever. It's all a matter of which set of definitions and cosequences you feel most comfortable with because both are true consequences of arbitrarily defined terms. A game of many different arbitrary sets of definitions all leading to the exact same truth which seems different only from the surface as viewed from within any one of the singular sets of definitions marking artificial boundaries in the semantic continuum. Spinoza took a different route to immortality when he said that to understand the true nature of reality is to partake in the eternality of substance--to understand nature outside of duration and beyond the temporary pattern which is the self. This is a more accurate form of immortality than trying to imagine the self as the finite and temporal modification of which we are all so intimately aware as somehow transcending its true nature and existing for an infinite amount of time. Eternity has nothing to do with time at all. It is outside the flow of time and thus it makes no difference how much time we have to experience it.
What does "us" mean as in "nothing of us survives our death"? Who is "we" and "each of us". Those are selves. Must every single term be the exact one in order for you to see the meaning beneath them? You are yet again stuck in particulars.
I agree that everything is "one." That is, everything is somehow connected to everything else. However, there still remains the persistent illusion of the "I" or (the ego) which makes it difficult to put things into perspective. This might be going off topic a little bit here, but I'd like to share my thoughts anyways. Most of us are self conscious organisms, and many of us believe we are in complete control of our "selves" and our individual lives; rather than a part of the whole. Undoubtedly whether the "self' exists or not, most people have a strong sense of it. There is still some uniqueness to every individual organism. . .perhaps fooling us into believing we are rather distinct from one another. So, in conclusion, I believe that while we all are intrinsically connected, evolution or creation (whichever you believe in) has designed us to think of ourselves as seperate entities. Any explanations?
It is a matter of perspective. From the relative perspective of the differentiations we are seperate "individuals", but from the absolute perspective we are all part of one infinite and eternal entity. Which one of these perspectives you attatch the concept of the "self" to will determine whether or not immortality applies to the self, but this decision has other logical consequences as well which were pointed out in my previous post.
Eastern philosophies consider the 'self' to be part of our shared illusion, dependent on other dependent things. This is one of the meanings of 'non-dual', in that self and not-self is two things and are thus not fundamental. 'Self' depends on brain, and brains certainly don't survive death. Any Buddhists around for a comment?
I suppose that you are suggesting that somehow this is fundamentally different from what I actually said...behind the words themselves? If you know how to get beyond the arbitrary choice of words to the core of my actual meaning and through it to its necessary logical conclusion you will find that I said basically the very same thing. Notice how I said that the self is an arbitrary humanly-defined distinction. Notice also how I said it was a matter of perspective. It is true that perspective itself is an illusion based on a localized point of view in an omnilocal medium. Notice also how I mentioned that there are two basic ways to arbitrarily define the self. These correspond to your "self and not-self" duality. Though "self" is quite obviously explained in my post, the perspective of "not-self" was also specified explicitly in the following quote, "Therefore this definition of the self [the identification of the "self" with the undifferentiated ylem (substance or consciousness) itself] necessitates that there can be only one self which is also the world and substance itself. It therefore actually dissolves the meaning of the self altogether." Thus the two perspectives of "self" are quite obviously an anthropocentric (societally "shared") illusion and the distinction between our two perspectives i.e. Buddhism vs. Spinozism is also an illusion of perspective -- if you can see both vantage points the nature of this illusion is quite apparent. They are two different ways of looking at the very same truth--two points from which the same horizon is visible, while many other perspectives get blocked from seeing the horizon by local distinctions of the mind. Here is a quote I just found last night that illustrates my point. It is from "The Book of God" by Spinoza. See http://www.yesselman.com/ShortTreatiseEbk.htm [[I will place comments in these double brackets to help you see beyond Spinoza's arbitrary choice of words to the resonant similarity in meaning with your own arbitrary word-preferences]] "[1-5] To this we reply: (1) that "part" [[self]] and "whole" [[aggregate of selves or objects or if you prefer "us" or "we"]] are not true or real entities, but only "things of perception,'' [[-illusions!!!-]] and consequently there are in Nature neither whole nor parts [[the duality demands its own negation. It is "non-dual"]]. (2) A thing composed of different parts must be such that the parts thereof, taken separately, can be conceived and understood one without another. " Yes, I just gave one. Regards, sub...
Yes. I see that. But you are talking about choice of definitions, (very well I think), and I was talking about what some people consider to actually be the case.
FYI, I just made an edit right after you replied. I added a quote from Spinoza that you may be interested in. Choice of definitions is the foundation of any system of thought. If you change those definitions then you change the necessary (true) logical consequences and thus the order of the words themselves. Thus you can have two systems of thought which on the surface (at the word level) seem quite different indeed, but once you grasp the differences at the root level with the definitions and can follow the consequences and get comfortable enough with the system to abandon the words altogether, then you are in a position to judge them for what they truely are and these seemingly different systems can appear almost identical in meaning and the differences can become quite superficial indeed and exist ultimately as subtle shifts of emphasis.
I wanted to jump in here for two reasons: 1) the religion forum has become a barroom brawl; and 2) you made an interesting observation on the interconnected "oneness." Please forgive me if I am repeating something. I didn't read the whole thread. This "oneness" you speak of is what I believe. The ego or "I" is only present before we shed our Earthsuit. Upon shedding of the Earthsuit, the "I" is dissolved. The "self" returns to the "one." The "self" is how we perceive ourselves while we incarnate the Earthsuit. There is only "one" soul, not a soul for every body. We are interconnected. We are separate entities only through our Earthsuits, but even then we are connected to our parents, ancestors, progeny and each other for the same reason. I like to look at the human race as "one" body and "one" spirit. This is my perception of God--the pure energy that glues us together as "one." I've brought this up on the religion forum, but maybe it's not what they want to hear on the religion forum. There's too much negativity going on in there. I don't think anyone understands the concept of "oneness." We are "one." We are "all."
Most people do not want to contemplate unity - 1. The concept of dualism is implicit in judeochristoislam (jci). You have to submit to / have a personal relationship with / be judged by a god. This is the key to controlling the faithful, since you really can't have that kind of I/thou relationship if you perceive a unity. 2. An internalized sense of unity means that you cannot use typical human coping mechanisms like demonizing the "other", praying for help, acquiring a sense of righteousness, etc. Adherents of jci have an easier path because justice belongs to god and as long as you toe the line you need not concern yourself with the actions or the fates of other people or things. Jehovah's Witnesses are an extreme example of this. It is interesting that people fear the idea of unity more than the idea of loneliness.
Sir Mojo More good stuff from Spinoza. Definitions are important. However it is inevitable that if you insist on pinning them down completely it's impossible to ever say anything. Buddhists find the self to be an illusion or 'epiphenomenon'. If you try very hard you might be able to find a definition of 'self' for which this isn't true, but I very much doubt it. Non-duality is not a philosophy that requires vast mental ability and readings of Spinoza to understand. This is why Buddhists tend to call it an 'affirmation', thus avoiding the confusing third-person academic/mental connotations of 'philosophy'. It is an experience of reality, not one of a list of theoretical possibilities. It certainly cannot be understood from a book by Spinoza, any more than it can be understood from a book by the Buddha. What do YOU believe to be true about reincarnation? If you're view is based on an acceptance of Spinoza's logic then it's his view, not yours. te jen Agree with what you said. But when you say "It is interesting that people fear the idea of unity more than the idea of loneliness" I'm not so sure. Wouldn't it also be true that in a sense 'oneness' is the very ultimate in loneliness?
Medicine Woman Not surprised you had trouble in Religion! Did you mean to say that everything is one, or just the human race?
Quite the inverse actually. It is the failure to pin them down that causes miscommunication and all the gordian knots of epistemology. I am not looking for such a definition. The self is an artificial distinction based on natural differentiation of a continuous medium. The differentiations are relative differences of modification not an absolute distinction of substance. It is a metaphysics among many other things. Not "more" just differently, but the more ways you can understand it the better IMPO. Ooooh, I could say the same about you and Buddhism, but I know better. Logic is not owned by anyone and I practice no exclusivity as should be entirely obvious. I use knowledge from very many sources and form my own opinion just like many other people do. I believe reincarnation is also a matter of arbitrary human distinctions. Yes some part of the self survives death to be reincarnated in another bieng or in bits and pieces in many other beings, but the same substance is in continual flux into and out of the being while it is living and it is this flux that enables the stability of the form to exist. Thus since there is no steady identifiable portion of substance that makes up any one being and since there is no distinction from one portion of substance in flux to another, then that which survives death also survives life and all its differentiations. Thus I believe in a simultaneous infinite incarnation of which we all partake as animate, differentiated beings. There is one being made of many beings whose "soul" is the infinite and continuous substance or consiousness. To me, the standard concept of reincarnation and karma is largely a moral tool similar to that of judeo-christian judgement only much closer to the truth. It still clings erroneously to the self which I think is ultimately a human fiction, but perhaps a necessary one even for the religious aspect of Buddhism.
Certainly so - in the wider sense. I was speaking from the point of view of the jci adherent - he is more afraid of others (hence a resistance to unity) than he is of the lonely relationship between him and his god.
