>Around 150 BC King Menander I cornered a Buddhist monk with a single question: if there is no soul, what is it that gets reborn?Is there any convincing resolution of this dilemma?
>>18509219The argument probably starts to get semantic about what a "soul" is. If you believe you have persistent, unbroken, unending, conscious awareness but reject the other person's premise about what a "soul" is/don't believe that a soul and persistent conscious awareness are the same thing then it would probably be possible to "reincarnate" (have your consciousness continue into a new body without ending at any point) without having a soul
>>18509219>HELLENISM MOGGS BUDDHISMIRL, the Hellenist kingdoms were influential sponsors of Buddhism, actually.Also the question is easily answered - karmatic entanglement is what remains between incarnations. What you'd call a soul is functionally a knot of karma that has formed in accordance with the principles described extensively in Indian religious texts. There is no soul as you'd understand it.
>>18509265If there's no self and no soul, then why would Karma entangle in the first place? and who cares about nirvana then
>>18509304This is based on the idea that non-existence is better than existence and the mistake was made when the two separated.
>>18509219>if there is no soul, what is it that gets reborn?Nothing gets reborn. Buddhism is pretty straightforward about this.
>>18510284What is reincarnation then?
debates about soul and god are the most retarded thing ever. Anyone engaging in them thinks theyre smart of course
>>18511079The way I understand it, the mindstream (the flow of causally/karmatically related moments, not a substantial entity) continues uninterrupted, so reincarnation isn't so much an event that happens to something as it is a discontinuity of identity/self-narrative. When "you die" there's a break in the mindstream's content and a semantic hard reset, but the old pattern of self-construction carries through via karma and starts to weave a new illusory self using new conditions.
>>18509219The mind.
>>Around 150 BC King Menander I cornered a Buddhist monk with a single question: if there is no soul, what is it that gets reborn?No, the Buddhist monk Nagasena was not cornered. It's literally explained in Book II: The Distinguishing Characteristics of Ethical Qualities, Chapter 2 and Book III: The Removal of Difficulties. Chapter 5Book II: The Distinguishing Characteristics of Ethical Qualities, Chapter 2https://sacred-texts.com/bud/sbe35/sbe3505.htmBook III: The Removal of Difficulties. Chapter 5https://sacred-texts.com/bud/sbe35/sbe3509.htm"Neither the Same nor Another" (Book II, Chapter 2 / Section 1): This is where King Milinda asks if the person reborn remains the same or becomes someone else. Nāgasena gives the Lamp (Flame Transfer) and Milk to Curd analogies here."What is Reborn?" (Book II, Chapter 2 / Section 6): King Milinda explicitly asks, "What is it, Nāgasena, that is reborn?" Nāgasena responds that it is Nāma-Rūpa (Name-and-Form). To explain responsibility without a soul, he delivers the Stolen Mangoes analogy here."Rebirth and Transmigration" (Book III, Chapter 5, Section 5): King Milinda asks, "Where there is no transmigration, Nāgasena, can there be rebirth?" This section reinforces the concept that karma continues forward without a physical soul moving through space.Read an actual book instead of reading some Hindu's tweet on X, Ravinder Reddy: https://x.com/MRavinderReddi/status/2057282016031145990
>>18509219Pre-islamic Afghanistan was kino
>>18511153>but the old pattern of self-construction carries throughthis sounds like the self or the soul>>18511218this is just buddhacope
>>18509219>if there is no soul, what is it that gets reborn?the energy that constituted the person's bodyeasy, what the fuck kind of question was that?
