7 Comments
User's avatar
IXO's avatar

Original Buddhism did not teach that there was no soul. It denoted what wasn't the soul. What it described is the transmigration of the soul. Or the one and only transmigrant.

MURALI KRISHNAN's avatar

Took time to read.

Reincarnation is recorded allover the world.

The flame remembering the flame that lit it is plausible.

A flame recalling sporadic flames from the past, sometimes sequentially, is problematic to soulless Karma.

Fire Hill's avatar

Lord Shiva, living through different perspectives

Neuman N. Nazir's avatar

The Pugdala verses an eternal Atman is the true self

Giacomo Benedetti's avatar

Well written, thanks for citing the Pratītyasamutpādahṛdaya, that I did not know, with those fascinating similes. About the objection to Nagarjuna, can you explain better? I do not see any problem, because the continuity of karma is part of the dependent origination. From the absolute point of view (paramārtha) of emptiness, there is no real stream, from the conventional point of view of phenomenal reality, there is the stream, what is called by Prasangika Madhyamaka school "mere I" imputed on the continuity of the aggregates. If, instead, the stream were a real entity existing by itself, it could not change nor be conditioned by anything. The point, with Nagarjuna, is always to understand what is denied, to avoid both nihilism and eternalism.

Sneha Mondal's avatar

This was such a meditative piece :) thank you!

BALWINDER SINGH's avatar

Great essay.