David N. Snyder wrote:If some sentient being passes away in say, France and is "reborn" in Singapore, there is something that makes the transfer possible. If it is just two dudes born coincidentally 9 months apart with no connection, then that's not rebirth, that's just yolo.
Lmao! Agreed.
David N. Snyder wrote:For me personally, I'm not a materialist or skeptic on rebirth, thus, this discussion.
We're on the same page here! (And I didn't assume you were
)
And that could be why so many modern day Theravada Buddhists are materialists and skeptical of rebirth.
I tend to think its more because they have a
belief that "science has proven materialism, x, y and z," or that they simply do what most people do: believe what they're told to believe, or what the "expert" (the new priest) believes. But no need to go down this rabbit trail, that's their problem, not ours.
No, I don't find that convincing, but from a Classical view it seems that if one holds to a view of an immaterial self if even an impermanent self, then the Classical position would be to call that atmavadin.
I believe the Classical position is correct in this regard!
The reason I brought up the apple in my first post in this thread, is I believe your question boils down to (although you didn't phrase it this way) "what makes an individual an individual, in the midst of all the change?" If we can answer what makes an individual an individual in
this life, then we might be able to answer what makes two separate lives belong to an individual without positing any kind of self, substance, essence etc?
I don't think anatta requires any denial of individuality. This continuum of "mine" is individual, and extends onwards into past and future "forever," but its not "mine, what I am, my self." There's continuity between last year and today much as there's continuity between this life and the next. In fact it would have to be in the same exact way for 'rebirth' to make any sense for me. Do we need a "what" to provide that continuity? Conceptually maybe.
Its the same apple from first look to last bite, even though when we search for what makes it so, we can't find it. (Pulga and SDC: if you're out there, I believe you can help here!)
But we are in the classical forum, and I believe the classical position would be that "apple" is mere concept, and the momentary pulses of citta and rupa that make up that experience are what's "ultimately real" (someone please fix this if I've botched the terminology)
(It was probably in response to this kind of question that bhavanga citta and alaya vijnana were elaborated, but best to ignore them for now because it seems you don't find these explanations particularly compelling)
Sam Vara wrote:
Retro's earlier point about rebirth as a concept being Western Buddhism's attempt to square anatta with the traditional belief in reincarnation has hit me quite forcefully.
Can you direct me to this prior discussion? (If its not to much trouble, of course)
"People often get too quick to say 'there's no self. There's no self...no self...no self.' There is self, there is focal point, its not yours. That's what not self is."
Ninoslav Ñāṇamoli
Senses and the Thought-1, 42:53
"Those who create constructs about the Buddha,
Who is beyond construction and without exhaustion,
Are thereby damaged by their constructs;
They fail to see the Thus-Gone.
That which is the nature of the Thus-Gone
Is also the nature of this world.
There is no nature of the Thus-Gone.
There is no nature of the world."
Nagarjuna
MMK XXII.15-16