polarbuddha101 wrote:What are the things that cannot possibly exist that you are speaking of.
For one thing, a mental continuum (or continuum of consciousness), separate and permanently identifiable from other continuums.
This includes a unique isolated effect of actions - an individual "future life".
Mind you, the things that cannot possibly exist in order to entail the LOGICAL impossibility of rebirth must themselves be logically impossible, such as round squares
Yes, indeed. (noting that I only say that literal rebirth is logically impossible, and not rebirth)
The logical impossibility of literal rebirth is the same as the logical impossibility of self existent things.
This logical impossibility applies to "mental continuums" or "continuums of consciousness" or "karmic streams" or "karmic seeds", or an "atma" or "self" which transmigrates from one life to the next, etc.
Such things are logically impossible.
I'm not going to go into detail here about why self-existent things are impossible. I will assume you know the logical reasons.
You have used the candle analogy plenty of times in this thread as well as in your video from men of the infinite.
The teaching about the candle is my own teaching. It's not anyone elses teaching.
Second, you've consistently used it as a straw man and then criticized it.
I don't know what you're talking about here. I've never used my own teaching as a straw man and then criticized it.
Third, the candle is explicitly an analogy used by Nagasena to explain how rebirth works to King Milinda
Nagasena has his own teaching and I have mine.
I'm only responsible for my own teaching, which I believe is subtly different to that of Nagasena.
I can't answer for Nagasena.
All actions, all events, have countless, simultaneous effects.
The first sentence seems to be a bit of an epistemological stretch given that the assertion is literally impossible to verify, not to mention that distinguishing between cause and effect when dealing with simultaneously arisen events is arbitrary
My point is that effects cannot be isolated.
For example, let's say that the government can't afford to pay public servants, and so prints a trillion dollars. We can't say that the only effect is that there will be more money in circulation.
In the same way literal rebirth fails because it is overly simplistic - too unrealisitic - too fanciful.
Since you have admitted that an event, such as an event of consciousness, could cause a billion new events of consciousness or one or none is possible it defeats your earlier assertion that literal rebirth is logically impossible
Not so, because the literal rebirth doctrine claims a lot more than that an event of consciousness might possibly cause a postmortem event of consciousness.
If the literal rebirth doctrine only claimed that, then it wouldn't be straying from the truth, and it wouldn't be unrealistic and fanciful.
And to concede your point further, although one event of consciousness can conceivably cause one event of consciousness to arise, even post mortem, we've agreed on that according to your above writing, does not mean that that event of consciousness which led to a new post mortem event of consciousness directly after the first event subsided does not mean that it did not also cause a multitude of other effects not relating to consciousness at all.
That's a long, complicated sentence. The thing is that we can't possibly know how many effects there are relating to consciousness. We can't possibly know whether there is one postmortem event of consciousness, or ten, ten trillion, or none at all. Such things are untraceable because of the complexity of cause and effect.
So when the literal rebirth doctrine says that there is only one and exactly one (future life) then it is being fanciful and unrealistic.
It is certainly a reasonable interpretation to assume that when suttas appear to be explicitly talking about literal rebirth that they are
The problem is that different people exist in different realms. Some people exist in the human realm, some in the animal realms, some in the heavenly realms, and some may be Buddhas.
All these people see things in a different light and will naturally interpret things differently.
The way that a Buddha interprets something will be different to how someone from the animal realms interprets something.
That which is obvious and explicit to one is not obvious and explicit to the other.
It is reasonable to assume that the bible is explicitly asserting the existence of god and not some metaphorical statement about the nature of the human mind.
When I read the bible I interpret the word "God" to mean "the All" - all that exists ("The alpha and the omega, the beginning and the end"). So my interpretation is very different to that of a fundamentalist Christian. It is not at all obvious that the fundamentalist's interpretation is the correct one.
. . . over interpretation that would be required
It's not "over interpretation", but simply a different interpretation. It's not like you have to do any more thinking. It's just different thinking.