Some funny things about agency and identity

[TheDarkness]

All religions that preach of soul and afterlife, preach of agency to make certain the soul get's there/deny yourself access. Shared souls and inhereted souls would violate that rule.

I don't think agency actually prevents what he's getting at. Certainly not in Buddhism, since it rejects distinctions, of which, the distinction between two souls would be seen as just a momentary glimpse of universal unity being misinterpreted. Taoism as well, for similar reasons.

 

Buddhism categorically rejects the idea of agency that comes out of Christian debates in the West. Ignorance, not sin, is the sole cause of not becoming a buddha. No right action, right thought, none of it is possible without concurrently ceasing to be ignorant. You do not suffer because of what you do, you suffer because of ignorance.

 

You literally cannot do good without ceasing that ignorance.

 

You do not choose to not be ignorant, you cease to be ignorant because a path lifted that veil.

 

You absolutely need the lesson of samsara, the world of cause and effect, to do so, and the lesson of samsara is that there are results of your actions AND there are results of endless other causes and effects, and without even the most remote in that chain, you might not reach enlightenment. You do not choose to be enlightened, your enlightenment merely becomes the effect of infinite causes and effects around you, a handful from you, and their multitude means that you would be a fool to claim that your efforts determined the outcome.

 

As such, agency, passivity, even lacking a choice, are contributing factors, and so agency is just a tiny blip in a field of tiny blips.

 

But then, in Buddhism, afterlife, heavens and hells, are all part of samsara, and something one must grow out of the need for. Pure Land Buddhism, as a famous example, has a heaven, the Pure Land, but the only reason you are supposed to want to go there is to study unimpeded with its buddha and get over all those things.

[Christopher]

Buddhism categorically rejects the idea of agency that comes out of Christian debates in the West. Ignorance, not sin, is the sole cause of not becoming a buddha. No right action, right thought, none of it is possible without concurrently ceasing to be ignorant. You do not suffer because of what you do, you suffer because of ignorance.

If you have good Karma, you get into Nirvana.

If you do not have good karma, you get reborn - the worse the Karma, the worse the new form. Sounds like "the hell of Rebirth" too me.

You have agency to earn Karma.

 

(Sorry if I do not use the terms right).

 

Giving us agency is the whole selling point of Religion. And agency about the afterlife is just one of those things.

Religion is us humans imagining/hoping for agency in a uncertain world. The classical "primitives throw a virgin into a volcano to appeas the gods" thing is them hoping they have agency over whatever it is they want to accomplish by throwing that virgin into that volcano at that time.

[indy523]

One, in many cultures, the soul is never, ever, defined as one's consciousness, and in most, it could, at best, be defined as just a piece of it.

 

That's talking about cultures that have some definition of what a soul is.

 

Further, in many, memories are not tied to the soul at all.

 

Given that, the clone who receives the soul will have the memories, and, in the now, experience the world as a creature with a soul(assuming the original is dead), but it's memories, being copies and not having that soul, IF ONE ACCEPTS THE SOUL MAKES ANY DIFFERENCE TO THIS WHOLE TOPIC, are not the same as the original, who did have a soul when experiencing those memories, and so, they are by definition still different, even if the same soul now inhabits the body as the last one.

 

 

 

Point of Order:  In Buddhism, feeling is the ability of the soul to interact with he world through the mind and Perception is the total of memories.  Consciousness, being awake, is akin o the spirit based on what I read and I don't claim to understand it so your concept of consciousness I think is different from theirs.

 

Again though we have to end a philosophical argument with a belief that has to be accepted but can't be proven which limits our ability to make definitive statements.

 

Your premise is based on the belief that memories in a different body make a different person.  Buddhism would not argue against that.  In fact Buddhism states that the other four skandhas dissolve.  The consciousness that goes on carries the karmic burden of the life's existence which is its purpose, yet Buddhists claim this is the same entity with a new combination of the five skandhas.  Are they right?  If you believe them yes, if not No.  We will never disprove or prove it.

 

Your argument is if I understand that even if it is the same soul and same person's memories but a different body the person is still not the same one. Maybe?  However that assumes the body is necessary.  The concept of the Akashic record would store those memories into the fabric of the universe.  Thus one could argue accepting this that death was not an end but a literal transition to the Akashic record so why not a transition back.

 

Furthermore we can hypothesize that quantum entanglement could link the memories on the backup disk with the person.  This is the odd observation of reality that once you entwine two particles, changing the state of one changes the other immediately even if they are moved  so far apart light takes time to travel between them.  If the memory 42 minutes ago is linked to the living character at death who is to say that the lost 42 minutes are not somehow linked to the copy and when downloaded is their not a continuity.

 

Einstein was a pre determinist who believed God preordained what was going to happen from creation.  He hated Quantum Theory even though he agreed the model was the best we have for the physics of particles.  He still believed that one day it would be disproven and replaced. 

This is the basis for his famous quote to Oppenheimer "I refuse to believe God plays Dice with the universe.

 

This is the problem with rigid philosophical arguments.  They take premise one and prove it with proof A which is based on premise 2 proved by proof b and down the line to the postulate upon which it is all based which is simply a belief we can't prove or disprove.

 

The universe seems designed to throw Monkey wrenches in those beliefs when we get cocky and accept them as rote.

[Lucius]

If you have good Karma, you get into Nirvana.

If you do not have good karma, you get reborn - the worse the Karma, the worse the new form. Sounds like "the hell of Rebirth" too me.

You have agency to earn Karma.

 

(Sorry if I do not use the terms right).

Don't worry about the fact you're not using the terms right. Worry about the fact you're not getting the concepts right.

 

Lucius Alexander

 

The palindromedary explains that no, "good karma" won't get you into Nirvana, it just gets you reincarnated

[Zeropoint]

 

 

Christianity is terribly vague about what the soul is in that view

Most religions that survive very long become very careful about avoiding any testable claims about anything.

[Christopher]

Don't worry about the fact you're not using the terms right. Worry about the fact you're not getting the concepts right.

How is reincarnation not a "life after death"? How is the rest of your life not a "life after the deed"?

 

I said that Religions give you "agency" by behaving a certain way:

Agency about your afterlife. Agency about the rest of your life. Agency about how your reincarnation works out.

 

Note: It is really odd how watching Extra Credits about game design gave me the term I needed to discuss religion better.

[Lucius]

How is reincarnation not a "life after death"? How is the rest of your life not a "life after the deed"?

Never said they weren't.

 

I said that Religions give you "agency" by behaving a certain way:

Agency about your afterlife. Agency about the rest of your life. Agency about how your reincarnation works out.

 

Note: It is really odd how watching Extra Credits about game design gave me the term I needed to discuss religion better.

I'd like to hear you explain how a belief in predestination gives anyone a sense of agency.

 

Now, as for this:

 

If you have good Karma, you get into Nirvana.

If you do not have good karma, you get reborn - .

Just so you know, no, good karma doesn't get you Nirvana. "Bad" karma gets you reincarnated. "Good" karma gets you reincarnated.

 

Lucius Alexander

 

Good karma might get you a palindromedary but it won't get you into Nirvana.

[TheDarkness]

If you have good Karma, you get into Nirvana.

If you do not have good karma, you get reborn - the worse the Karma, the worse the new form. Sounds like "the hell of Rebirth" too me.

You have agency to earn Karma.

 

(Sorry if I do not use the terms right).

 

Giving us agency is the whole selling point of Religion. And agency about the afterlife is just one of those things.

Religion is us humans imagining/hoping for agency in a uncertain world. The classical "primitives throw a virgin into a volcano to appeas the gods" thing is them hoping they have agency over whatever it is they want to accomplish by throwing that virgin into that volcano at that time.

Nirvana is not a place, it is a mental state. The entire mechanism for attaining good karma is entirely based on mental state and actions coming from it.

 

The East does not obsess over agency the way the West has, because in both philosophy and religion in the West, Christianity played a huge role, and so free choice became a concept heavily focused on. Proving it, disproving it, its centrality to all things in Christianity is huge.

 

In the East, choice is always limited by other's choices, and not looked on as nearly the same way. The selling point of Buddhism is not giving agency, it is assumed that people make choices, it's explicitly part of the problem. It is in proposing a solution to suffering.

 

Further, throwing the sacrificial virgin into the volcano is not, by default, about agency, but, like most religious practices, social in nature. To hold this position in my society, I am expected to do these things. Some may have actually believed, but, as can be seen in modern China, where many Taoist rituals are followed, if you actually talk to people doing them, they have no confidence it actually gets that result, it's just the 'proper thing to de' as a demonstration of things like filial piety, etc.

[TheDarkness]

Point of Order:  In Buddhism, feeling is the ability of the soul to interact with he world through the mind and Perception is the total of memories.  Consciousness, being awake, is akin o the spirit based on what I read and I don't claim to understand it so your concept of consciousness I think is different from theirs.

 

To clarify, in Eastern tradition, thought is broken into two categories. One type of thought is considered just another sense. It is cold, and therefore my thoughts respond to this by being annoyed, for example, because I don't like winter. The other is considered the thoughts undertaken by one's Buddha nature, which is a much more complex issue, influenced by samsara(cause and effect) as the other is, but not based on ignorance, in a way twice removed from the cold, not because it isn't cold, but because the cold's relation to me isn't special and directed.

 

Perception is just perception. Consciousness and awakeness(in short, enlightenment) are not synonymous. Thus, consciousness and the buddha consciousness are not one and the same.

 

The buddha retains his memories because he is not reborn. He escaped the cycle.

 

Everyone who is reincarnated does not carry their memories with them, and so, in Buddhism, that is often not the same as a soul or spirit.

 

Now, there are groups that hold that certain affinities carry over, like judging a child to be the reborn form of their old master based on them choosing some old favorite thing of the old master's from a group of choices, but this is affinity in the nature of the being, not the memory of the being. If enlightened, one does not choose one item because they liked it in the past, that would be false, as liking it in the past has no bearing on liking it now, they choose it because in the now, it is in their nature to find an affinity to the thing.

 

That said, we can easily get into the endless whirlpool of what buddhist scholars hold versus what rank and file buddhist practitioners hold.

[TheDarkness]

Most religions that survive very long become very careful about avoiding any testable claims about anything.

I tend to agree, though I would love to see studies of the meditation-contemplation-action triad that is the norm of traditions in the East conducted. Most studies even close just study meditation as a means for relaxation, which are a bit of a waste of time, as Confucianism, Daoism, and Buddhism all had practitioners who rather well defined the pointlessness of that practice many centuries ago, so where the studies seek to discount meditation, they are actually proposing a strawman, and where they seek to support it, they often aren't stringent enough.

 

But I digress.