I recently saw a film, “Xchange” (Trimark Pictures, 2001), which explores this whole area in more detail. It depicts the breakdown of conventional mind-body unity and a kind of polymorphic shuffle, or what the film calls “floating” of consciousness from one body to the next, over periods of time. To occupy another person’s body itself becomes very sensuous. Indeed, in the film, a person who enjoys “floating” could become an avid hedonist, and uses a borrowed body (itself a big turn on) as a plaything. So, one parties in clubs and tries to experience as much “sex, drugs and rock n’ roll” as their borrowed body could tolerate. In general, the whole experience of mind-body transfer could involve great sensuousness, an important philosophical point which Ankur Agarwal also makes in his comment in this Sisyphus Forum.

At the present time, it is easier to lose oneself in television land or don VR goggles if one wants to experience the world through the senses of an animal or a human-nature sensibility. However, let’s not forget that literature, art and film and stage also take us, to the “realm the imagination” which assumes a kind of virtual existence in our conscious or unconscious minds. And didn’t Rod Serling use that phrase, years ago, in the opening lines of each Twilight Zone episode on television? The realm of the imagination is indeed, very powerful, yet much safer than virtual and robotic experience. But not as flashy, not as sexy or alluring, perhaps? Maybe the virtual and robotic experience will become a big new source of revenue for enterprising entrepreneurs…especially if the folks back on the planet can’t afford trips to a space station or space hotel?

Maybe humans will survive long enough to seed other planets, as has already happened here, whether through stardust alone or conscious intervention of non-terrestrial beings. Human beings seek to penetrate nature’s deepest secrets . We stand tall, erect bipeds, gazing at the sky, creating whole new realms for transforming ourselves and the physical world, even as we’ve despoiled the earth. Yet, we cannot but wonder, with Yeats’ words in mind, as this epoch unfolds, at what slow beast slouches toward Bethlehem to be born.

A Day Lilly opens and blooms,
Within the span of one full day,
Then fades into seeming emptiness,
As the next beautiful blossom appears.

One’s ego is like a slippery cocoon,
Which can be transcended by letting go,
Like a silk moth leaving its tomb,
To take flight towards a radiant light.

So you see, just to be oneself, fully, is enough…

Brad

Any intimations of a greater whole would already be the pouring the whole into a vessel which is less than the whole. But this is also the Mystery of Christianity, the Awakening in the Eastern traditions, and the realm of Non-dualism or the One. Brad in effect, describes the “I am” that encompasses dualism, as beyond predication, beyond knowledge, and beyond discussion.

Paradoxically, describing what is beyond predication, is both the grasping of the moment in its fullness and the reaching of the outer shore, as described in Buddhist sutras. Other traditions and philosophies have tried to describe this too, and my favorites on such a list would include Hegel, Plotinus, Heidegger. In physics, the theory of quantum entanglement seems to show that events could happen instantaneously, in places separated by space. In his comment, Brad gives us a taste of how he uses paradox to transcend paradox, as in his description of the “I am ” as that which is non-dual. In his book, Taking Tea With the Buddha: The Gift of Practice, presents many other descriptions along that line, many combined with his own verse.

So, what do we have here, on which we would agree? Compassion for ourselves and other beings. This is classic Buddhism, if you want to attach a description to this thought. But it’s also the Golden Rule of personal balance, and the treating others the way that one would wish to be treated. Presumably, if this extends to human activities it would have to include commerce and health care, which brings us right back to our original discussion. I appreciate Brad’s use of verse in his comment, which I hope will help all of us bring our full resources and creativity into this discussion, and indeed to most any discussion among people. It’s nice to see that Sisyphus shares space with Canary - the poetry zine - here on hippocketpress.com, and indeed, contains poems within its own pages.

Nirvana and Samsara,
Atman and Anatman,
That which reincarnates,
That which does not reincarnate.

All things are transient and therefore do not exist,
One thing exists and manifests as transience,
Life Activity and Death Activity,
The “I Am” is both empty and luminous.

Buddhism “officially,” in terms of the Buddha’s sermons, is agnostic on the question of Gods existence. Its doctrine of anatman (no abiding self or soul) stands in contrast to the HIndu doctrine of Atman (Soul), as is well known. Yet, Buddhism does espouse reincarnation. So, the problem then becomes, what is it that incarnates, if there is no abiding self or soul, after the person has died?. I think that Buddhism turns this question around. It doesn’t focus on a non-material soul, but on a collection of energy which may or may persist after a person has died. These are the skandhas, or components of consciousness, as form, feeling and volition. So, if one has achieved a state of desirelessness, then, the impulse to seek a new form in a new incarnation will not be there. As Robert writes above, this is like the flaming going out, and having no more fuel. This is a popular Buddhist image, comparing losing attachments to extinguishing of the flame of desire, if there is no longer fuel, for it.

The highest expression of this cessation of desire is achieved in Nirvana, when desirelessness becomes part of one’s very being (monism) and that collection of energy would no longer seek a new incarnation. But there are gradations of desirelessness and attachment, and so the skandhas might migrate or gravitate and seek a new material form that corresponds to its level of development; it would mechanistically be attracted toward certain births, in the way that gravity on earth is a mechanistic force. To use an analogy, if there are radio waves, they will go off into space. If there are no radio waves, then there are no radio waves going off into space. Similarly, if there is desire, the imprint of desire in some very subtle form will persist, and eventually assume a body, like a new coat of paint (an image I used in one of my poems!).

The collection of skandhas would be centripetal, spinning on its own axis, as it were, like a planet. However, the skandhas would also exist in relationship to compassion which is expansive, and centrifugal energy, not unlike the energy of sun radiating outward. To help others achieve Enlightenment, one might require another incarnation or new birth, as in Mahayana Buddhism. This is generally regarded as the difference between Mahayana and Hinayana (or Theravada) Buddhism. The question, here, is whether to seek another birth, even to help other suffering beings, is a form of attachment, or not. My understanding is that compassion is expansive by its nature, so, to be motivated to seek another birth to help other beings, would not be a form of attachment.

So, I would say that Buddhism attempts to justify reincarnation on the basis of energy and energetics rather than entities, as the soul. Nonetheless, this account transcends one’s possible experience, and so many people regard it as an article of faith. I myself, would like to accept the account above, but I’m not happy to define myself as a person of faith because altogether too much suffering in the world has been caused by people who justify their acts on the basis of faith. I myself would rather accept the above account based on possible experience. This is no small thing, for David Hume, the famous 17th century empiricist, rejects objects as having an abiding substance, and defines objects only as the “permanent possibility of sensation.” Indeed, in the age of relativity theory. we don’t speak of objects but objects as they exist relative to our perception. However minute and “fundamental” the particle they discover at Cerne (if they ever get the supercollider working long enough to obtain the high speed particle collisions they are seeking), that particle become the subject of discourse as an object of perception.

In the final analysis, what if we don’t reincarnate as new beings, and and we come back as the grass beneath our feet, as Whitman writes. Is that so bad, really, particularly if we live and die, knowing we’ve done our best to preserve the Earth and make this planet a better place for all its inhabitants?