Rebirth

So materialists agree with Buddhists when it comes to the Soul, they refer to it that way, it's easier to understand, but that's not quite how it works in Buddhism, saying that there is no soul leads to an understanding of what it means to be reborn, which has nothing to do with resurrection or reincarnation.
I was watching a video of an atheist and he used the following argument: "Someone didn't exist, then someone came into existence and then that someone will cease to exist", but this argument "generates" an Atman, but the Atman is hidden by not using the first person pronoun I. This is not the position advocated by Buddhists.
Materialism is inherently nihilistic; this is not the position advocated by Buddhism, which, in my view, affirms that we exist on mutable bases.

Impermanence leads to an understanding of the non-self, which leads to an understanding of rebirth, which leads to an understanding of Karma.

Mike Stoklasa's Worst Fan Shirt $21.68

It's All Fucked Shirt $22.14

Mike Stoklasa's Worst Fan Shirt $21.68

  1. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    How does non-self imply rebirth? Please elaborate.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      As I understand it, there is no birth and death in Buddhism, what there is is an eternal coming to be - rebirth.
      Atman points to something unchanging, in Buddhism this object doesn't exist, what exists are bases - an example would be the body and mind base that supports the object name (e.g. a person's nationality), which can undergo change (decay, transformation, exchange), but the body and mind undergo different processes of decay.
      However, the materialists claim that rebirth doesn't exist, and to support this idea they use the argument that they "came from nothing and will go to nothing"/are born and die.
      But something that was never born cannot die, you were never "born", you come from an eternal process of transformation, this doesn't mean that there is no being that experiences reality, but that this being is in eternal transformation.
      By comparing themselves to external objects (which are not outside the Buddhist definition), they avoid having to justify what happens to subjective experience.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Just to be clear, I'm not saying that you weren't born or won't die, but that birth and death are the fruit of an eternal narrative cycle of transformations that can be applied to the present, past and future.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >But something that was never born cannot die, you were never "born", you come from an eternal process of transformation, this doesn't mean that there is no being that experiences reality, but that this being is in eternal transformation
        Is that the whole "truth" of enlightenment/nirvana or is there more to it?

        The concept of death/rebirth makes sense to me scientifically if one doesn't identify themselves as a conscious being but a collection of particles in constant change that get reused when their body dies (body decays, becomes earth/food etc.) But im not sure thats the point cuz ive read several times that according to the buddhist mythos you're still conscious after death/rebirth and even in nirvana.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          I'll make this as scientific as possible, what Buddhism says (just an opinion) is that when the means and conditions necessary to experience arise, then you will arise/rebirth.
          When you go to sleep and wake up, the world doesn't remember who "you" are, which indicates to me that what exists is a karmic signature.
          >Is that the whole "truth" of enlightenment/nirvana or is there more to it?
          Are you disappointed?
          We need to consider how this vision can transform our lives.
          Remember that this is just one Anon's thesis.
          >But im not sure thats the point cuz ive read several times that according to the buddhist mythos you're still conscious after death/rebirth and even in nirvana.
          I remember that the Buddha got quite angry when one of his disciples said that consciousness lasts after death, that consciousness was like an Atman.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >doesn't remember who "you" are
            But "you" is still the same conscious being?

            >Are you disappointed?
            Quite the opposite. If that's all that it is then it seems very achievable to internalize in this lifetime. My biggest gripe with "enlightenment" was always that people couldn't properly explain what you learn or have learned in this state

  2. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Ego isn't Atman, what you're referring to is Ahamkara.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Anon qua vô you think "why is my life like this and not like that" and you don't believe in Karma, the Atman appears, fruit of ignorance.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >qua vô
        When*

  3. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >I was watching a video of an atheist and he used the following argument: "Someone didn't exist, then someone came into existence and then that someone will cease to exist", but this argument "generates" an Atman, but the Atman is hidden by not using the first person pronoun I. This is not the position advocated by Buddhists.
    yeah atheists are the nihilists exposed in the suttas.
    the difference between an atheist and a buddhist is that the atheist deeply believes there's a self which gets somehow annihilated at death, and they can't even explain why there's a self to begin with and why the self lives for a few decades and disappears forever afterwards.
    so where does the self come from ? atheists can't answer that
    since nobody has seen this true self, how to show the true self to other people ? atheists can't answer that
    why is the self killed at death? atheists can't answer that
    what's the point of having a self? atheists can't answer that
    what can influence the self? what does the self influence? atheists can't answer that because they can't even find their self in the first place

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Your self is a combination of your body and mind. Your personality is based on your body/genetics and past experiences, which still live on in a way through memory (both conscious and unconsciously)
      Is that an abstract concept? Yes it is but it doesnt exist because its a very relevant thing in our life. That's like saying money isnt real because its all just a bunch of paper or code in a computer, even though its the whole foundation of our society.
      Now, wether this interpretation of self is healthy for the mind is a different question. But saying the self doesn't exist seems like a bit of a stretch to me. Maybe im not enlightened enough tho

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >Yes it is but it doesnt exist because
        Yes it is but it doesn't mean it doesn't exist because*
        Major spell mistake

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        You will gain sight as you evolve depending on the type of meditation practice, studies and philosophy.
        The idea of no-self is confusing, but it's possible to understand.
        I use the analysis of the four extremes, when the Atman "appears", then refute it!

        Eternalism: Belief in the permanent and unchanging existence of all phenomena.
        Nihilism: Belief in the non-existence of any permanent or unchanging reality.
        Existence and non-existence: Belief in the simultaneous existence and non-existence of phenomena.
        Neither existence nor non-existence: Belief in the absence of any definition of the existence or non-existence of phenomena.

        Also, dualism is actually not important for understanding, as the Buddha himself says, since it doesn't matter if there are one, two, four, five (skandhas), what matters is that all phenomena are not-self and changeable

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          no one is talking about beliefs dipshit.
          truth has nothing to do with belief.
          you buddhists are the same as christians.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Not that anon, but you are missing the whole thing. Are you moronic and simply throw words like ‘truth’ out there? Even physics are only true in the context of agreeing on subjective observances within a scientific framework. You don’t even understand how many nuances the word ‘belief’ implies and how deep it goes. The point is that you inherently believe in something unless you constantly make the effort to investigate your experiences. Even if I ask you whether you will wake up tomorrow, you can only make an educated guess. The point is that you shouldn’t jump to any conclusion based on belief. Your whole existence is based on your body, which mostly controls you—not the other way around. You believe that it does what it should do, but that’s only a guess, and you inherently have no control over your organs upon which your whole point of view is based.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            What do you mean by beliefs?

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *