PadmaVonSamba wrote:This is basic Buddhist understanding of no-self.
"lifetimes" is only a convenience based on our immediate perceptions of things.
Actually the concept of a lifetime may be based on very in-depth study and not just immediate perceptions.
Relatively speaking, you can say, yes, it is born, it lives, it dies.
But in discussing materialist /non-materialist view at this level
the discussion has to move beyond relative appearances.
Actually if this discussion moved beyond the relative it would be over with.
Nagarjuna (Seventy Stanzas) points out that thoughts do not spontaneously arise out of nothing
but are always part of a continuation
Still rather relative...
and that if you take any point identified as the beginning or end of any sort of awareness
that point can be subdivided infinitely
so no point of start or finish of awareness can actually be found.
I hope Nagarjuna was never challenged to a footrace with a tortoise. That could have been embarrassing.
From this, it can be deduced that therefore
one has to stop regarding a lifetime as a specific thing that belongs to a specific being.
A lifetime is a collection of events, not totally separate, but
interconnected, none of which has a finite beginning or end.
So how does this relate to the apparent co-dependence of mind/matter?