1 – 4 of 4
Blogger Joop said...

Not really a proof of the existing of a soul but still very puzzling.
A question that probably is more than linguistic:
OBE is about "out of body", but isn't it better to speak about OSE for out-of-soul/self-experience?
Is it the soul/self that leaves the body or the body that leaves the soul/self ?

Joop

Friday, November 11, 2011

Blogger Jayarava said...

Hi Joop

Metzinger's observations seem to me to constitute a powerful argument against the idea of a soul, by showing that there is a simpler explanation of the phenomena. This is tacitly arguing from the principle of parsimony aka Occam's Razor.

There is no such thing as a soul, or a self (as an independently existing entity), but what we are looking at today is why we think there might be.

What happens in an out-of-body experience is that the ego experiences itself as outside one's own body. The consistent feature of such experiences is that the body remains where it is, and the thinking ego centre separates itself from the body. The experience is conceived in terms of "I am out of my body". Hence it is well named.

I suggest you read the article again more carefully as you seem to have missed the main points.

Best Wishes
Jayarava

Friday, November 11, 2011

Blogger Swanditch said...

Do you think that, if nāmarūpa is understood as including one's physical body, the statement about the "two sheaves" in SN 12.67 could be taken as meaning that at least one stream of early Buddhist thought saw the mind and the body as not capable of existing separately?

Saturday, November 12, 2011

Blogger Jayarava said...

Hi Swanditch,

It's an interesting question. This form of the nidānas is also found in the Mahānidāna Sutta (DN 15).

It does all depend on what we understand nāmarūpa and viññāṇa to be. As I've written I don't really understand what was intended by nāmarūpa in this context - perhaps there is more than one answer to this question. I'm not entirely sure what viññāṇa means either - what I understand by "mind" is very much a product of my modern conditioning. Is that applicable to the Pāli texts? I begin to suspect it is not.

But yes, if we accept that nāmarūpa includes the living physical body, then it does suggest that the mind and body cannot exist independently. This is certainly consistent with what I understand to be the case.

It's notable that this form of the nidāna sequence did not become the standard, so we lose this suggestion in the received tradition which makes viññāṇa a condition for nāmarūpa but leaves out the conditionality in the other direction. I think this may be related to the application of paṭicca-samuppāda to rebirth. The circuit between nāmarūpa and viññāṇa makes rebirth a bit more difficult to explain. Because in death the physical body clearly ceases - the body slowly decays, or might be burned (in India). Therefore the condition for viññāṇa has ceased. How then does viññāṇa arise again?

Best Wishes
Jayarava

Saturday, November 12, 2011

You can use some HTML tags, such as <b>, <i>, <a>

Comment moderation has been enabled. All comments must be approved by the blog author.

You will be asked to sign in after submitting your comment.
OpenID LiveJournal WordPress TypePad AOL
Please prove you're not a robot