Reincarnation: Debunking the Two Teaching of Reincarnation

[BMcGilly07]

I recently came across a post about the truth of the two teachings of reincarnation made by Wanderer (Kevin Solway, I think) on i-Sangha.

Wanderer pointed out the falsity of the mundane truth for those of lesser spiritual abilities which states that there is some sort of linear rebirth where some seed of self or consciousness transmigrates from one dying being to another being at birth. Wanderer thinks such a teaching deceitful and that the esoteric teaching of rebirth is the truth, namely that our future lives are the effects of our actions born our by those around us and those that follow after we die and our individual self is extinguished as a thing and our karma is reborn through our effect on the world.

I think what is being overlooked first and foremost is what the 'self' is and where it comes from.

Those afraid of being extinguished as a being at death are afraid to lose their sense of self which is comprised of their memories, personality and relationship to the anchors played by the things they cling to.

But what is the self? At birth the self is a blind, ignorant clean slate who only accrues experiences and a sense of self expressed in a personality, all of which are an illusion crafted by the environment and ingredients that go into supporting and validating this self. If the first linear, mundane teaching teaches that one is reborn in another body with no memory of the past self, then there is absolutely no difference in continuity between past, present and future lives, other than we only have the present life and future existences to look towards. So this teaching holds no real weight or import except people want to believe that there is some reward or punishment which they can acquire or evade in crafting and certifying their future refuge.

Since the self always starts with a tabula rasa, whatever befalls us in any future rewarding or punishing rebirth would still be the sum of the interactions of all that has ever passed before. The first, mundane teaching is wrong because it implies some sort of closed-system where our free will is assured and will be demonstrated in some future birth.

Since free will is a practical illusion, the real reason people hold to this truth is because they want to believe their sense of self is somehow superior and better than any other, and that there is some cosmic order which will acknowledge their deeds and that therefore God or Buddha holds some sort of record which validates beliefs and actions and so we personify the void.

Nature is uncaring and indifferent, it holds no record beyond the void of death that is to follow this life. But because my sense of self is important, I know that every other sense of self is just as important to the other. Even if it is an illusion, we work as the creations of magical creatures and need to bring everyone to the truth to ensure a better, wiser world.

It is wiser to see the effects of our actions are the resulting cause of prior effects. Reason alone will bring people to a wiser, more enlightened age.

[Animus]

I tend to agree with you and don't see Solway disagreeing too much, but I'll let him speak for himself, after-all.

Two points we might disagree on, I don't believe that an individual is entirely tabula rasa at birth, in a psychological sense. However, perhaps in the sense of a Self they are empty, this doesn't mean they don't have psychological inclinations towards attachment and clinging. It just means they have yet to form such attachments. I think you'll agree. In that way, "original sin" is also applicable, wherein it applies to the natural psychological inclination towards attachment and identification.

You had said "Nature is uncaring and indifferent". I would tend to disagree, for the mere fact that nature in and of itself is without a particular description. "Uncaring and indifferent" are illusions we created to be contrasted by "caring and concerning". I feel it is erroneous to project this emotional, human-type content onto nature. Uncaring can connote a kind of psychopathy, but we aren't really saying that nature is psychopathic, or that it is deliberately uncaring. Besides we have no real way of knowing if it is "uncaring" or just not "caring" in the typical sense.

I tend to think that any and all descriptions of reality are ultimately false. The descriptions are mere pointers to an understanding, which is itself ineffible.

[Unidian]

You are a figment of your own imagination.

[Shahrazad]

But is my imagination real?

[BMcGilly07]

I tend to agree with you and don't see Solway disagreeing too much, but I'll let him speak for himself, after-all.

Two points we might disagree on, I don't believe that an individual is entirely tabula rasa at birth, in a psychological sense. However, perhaps in the sense of a Self they are empty, this doesn't mean they don't have psychological inclinations towards attachment and clinging. It just means they have yet to form such attachments. I think you'll agree. In that way, "original sin" is also applicable, wherein it applies to the natural psychological inclination towards attachment and identification.

I meant the tabula rasa in terms of the self. As to psychological inclinations, genetic and environmental conditions will unavoidably dispose the developing ego towards certain attitudes, beliefs, and actions. The question is how does consciousness arise and how is it influenced / how does it influence the self.

To take a closer look at consciousness, I think we can agree that consciousness is the awareness of something. Awareness itself doesn't have a nucleus or center, but as the physical self evolves alongside the sense of self that is the ego, awareness becomes aware of itself as separate from its surroundings and as a distinct entity. The ego becomes so heavily invested-in that it grants more value and gravity to its anchors than in the truth. The fluid nature of reality and the fact that awareness is necessary for existence is overshadowed and ignored to the detriment of the human race. Hence the move towards materialism has imprisoned our true nature in a self-imposed rigid identity which fleeces us of our birthright and true freedom.

You had said "Nature is uncaring and indifferent". I would tend to disagree, for the mere fact that nature in and of itself is without a particular description. "Uncaring and indifferent" are illusions we created to be contrasted by "caring and concerning". I feel it is erroneous to project this emotional, human-type content onto nature. Uncaring can connote a kind of psychopathy, but we aren't really saying that nature is psychopathic, or that it is deliberately uncaring. Besides we have no real way of knowing if it is "uncaring" or just not "caring" in the typical sense.

I tend to think that any and all descriptions of reality are ultimately false. The descriptions are mere pointers to an understanding, which is itself ineffible.

Nature is uncaring and indifferent, using the via negativa, or apophatic description of the divine: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_theology. I agree with you about not personifying Nature, but if we attempt to describe it I think the apophatic is the way to go, it is sure not to err on the side of the unconscious flowie "everything is okay" new age approach.

[BMcGilly07]

From Nagarjuna's Bodhicittavivarana "Awakening of the Mind":

58.
When one declares sunyata (emptiness, vacancy) to be the nature of all phenomena,
one in no sense asserts that anything is destroyed or that something is eternal

59.
The activity of dependent co-origination with its twelve spokes (twelvefold chain of causation)
starting with ignorance and ending with decay we maintain to be like a dream and an illusion

60.
This wheel with twelve spokes rolls along the road of life.
Apart from this, no sentient being that partakes of the fruit of its deeds can be found.

61.
Depending on a mirror the outline of a face appears:
it has not moved into it but also does not exist without it.

62.
Just so, the wise must always be convinced that the skandhas appear in a new existence
due to recomposition, but do not migrate as identical or different,

63.
To sum up: Empty things are born from empty things.
The Jina (Buddha) has taught that agent and deed, result and enjoyer, are all only conventional.

64.
Just as the Totality create the sound of a drum or a sprout,
so we maintain that external dependent co-origination is like a dream and an illusion.