Questions by King Milinda: What is being reborn?

I find the below notes on the exchange between King Milinda and Nagasena very instructive as far as the concept of REBIRTH and NON-SELF (or, "emptiness" if you wish to use this term) is concerned. My understanding of how rebirth happens is consistent with this conversation and the twelve links. 

Note: "MIL" = King Milinda and "Nag" = Nagasena

- start extract

Mil: What is your name?

Nag: It is only a convention, and no [permanent] individual exists behind it.

Mil: Who then does all your acts? Who is responsible for Karma?

Nag: Are any of the parts of my body my self? No. Are any of the skandhas my self? No. Is my self the sum total of the skandhas? No.

Is Nagasena nothing but a sound?! Extreme Nominalism from Latin nomen (name). Not the famous medieval nominalist William of Ockham, but his obscure predecessors such as Roscelin (ca. 1050-1120 CE). Roscelin’s position on the Trinity was that since we use three different names for each person of the Trinity, there then must be three gods. Roscelin was forced to repudiate these teachings at the Council of Soissons in 1093.

Nagasena then uses the metaphor of the chariot. It is not any one of its parts, neither the sum of its parts, or anything other than the sum. "Chariot" is nothing but a sound, too.

Nag: How did you arrive here, dear King?

Mil: Because of the parts being connected in a certain way, the name "chariot" came into use.

Nag: Because of the arrangement of the parts of my being, the name "Nagasena" came into use.

In neither case is there a permanent individual "essence" chariot or Nagasena.

A nun's poem (p. 93)--a very significant fact.

For just as for an assemblage of parts

The term "chariot" is employed,

So, when the Aggregates [skandhas] are present,

The expression "living being" (jiva) is employed

(Samyutta Nikaya 5.10.6)

We might say that the argument here has shifted to a bundle theory of the self rather than nominalism, but one might object that Nagasena is still speaking linguistically not metaphysically. The nun says "expression" of jiva not a real individual.

Gilbert Ryle and the "Category Mistake" in his book The Concept of Mind (1953).

Greek either/or dialectic meets Buddhist neither/nor (p. 94). Read dialectic essay on web.

Section Title: There is No Continuous Personal Identity

Isn’t this misleading on the part of our editor? Shouldn’t it read: No continuous substantial identity?

Mil: Is the person who is reborn the same person or different (i.e. either/or)?

Nag: She is neither the same nor different (i.e., neither/nor dialectic). Example of Embryo and Child and Mother--we are all changing in every moment.

p.. 95 (top): But there is a continuous thread "solely because of dependence on this body, all these are embraced in one."

Example of Lamp and Flame--Flame is different, but the lamp remains the same? Lamp is like the five skandhas? "Uninterrupted succession of mental and physical states (nama-rupa)." The changing "person"--the "flame" of the nama-rupa--is neither the same nor different. The best description of personal identity?

The Example of Milk and Butter--Fresh milk->sour milk->fresh butter->clarified butter (ghee).

One would be mistaken to say it is the same, but also mistaken to say that it is different. Therefore, neither the same, nor different is the best way to describe the continuing person. Neither/nor dialectic again.

Chain of causation is the basis for moral responsibility--"They who know causation know the Dharma." Or: They who know causation (as interdependent coorigination) know their Dharma-karma. That is, they know not only what to do, but also what their karma is.

FIRE IN THE FIELD

"The fire I failed to put out is one thing, and the fire that set fire to this man's field is another; I am not guilty."

Different nama-rupa but karma is carried over with full moral effect.

99: "Although one nama-rupa comes to an end at death, and another nama-rupa comes into existence at rebirth, nevertheless the second comes straight from the first. Therefore, the man is not released from his evil deeds."

 WHAT IS REBORN? (p. 96)

Nama-rupa is reborn, but not the same nama-rupa. One person does the karma, another person is reborn because of it.

Hindus--same unchanging, eternal soul, different persons. But how can a pure soul carry impure karma? If karma is always changing, then it must be carried on the changing soul--the phenomenal self or jiva.

Mil: Does that mean that the first person is released from his evil karma?

Nag.: No. (But in a sense, Yes? The previous person really doesn't exist any more.)

METAPHOR OF THE MANGOES

The mango thief who, as a defense, claims that the mangoes the man planted are not the ones that he took. But that's absurd because the "last mango came from the first." Direct chain of causation by which karma is carried on nama-rupa.

- end extract

Source: https://www.webpages.uidaho.edu/ngier/307/milina.htm

#nagasena #kingmilinda #rebirth #karma

If you like this post, try this one - https://buddha-and-me.blogspot.com/2014/04/elephant-dream.html

Do read up the immediate previous days' posts in case you miss any. Check it up.