Humanities desk
< November 19	<< Oct \| November \| Dec >>	November 21 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

November 20

Do people tend to stay together in the various schools of Buddhism and Hinduism?

If reincarnation is as random as karma and logic allow then it's exceedingly unlikely any of your loved ones will be a loved one in the next life. And you'd be more likely to marry your ex-kid or ex-parent than your spouse (is there an incest lockout?). Even the reunitings into the same type of relationship would have a 50% chance of swapping genders, do they say it's random like that or is the chance higher?

Obviously there's limits. Nuclear families that die at the same time can't come back as that right away if rebirth is immediate. And some reincarnations are chronologically possible but statistically insatiable (i.e. some precociously fertile boys probably make son when they're 11.25-12.25 and don't run from the girl but there's probably too many dads that die 12-13 years before their sons for them to all immediately reunite as the first group) Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 03:25, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

First off, those religions don't view souls or spirits in the same way the western Abrahamic religions do. "You" are not You. In Hinduism, your current life is a momentary glimpse (from a bad angle) at a facet of a higher self (Atman), which (at least in Advaita) is in turn a drop of water in the ocean that is God. In Buddhism, your "soul" is just an overlapping collection of a few different spiritual forces that will eventually untangle (and if "you" are following the dharma of a Buddha, the sooner it should happen).

I've only ever seen the act of incest regarded as fundamentally biological, even if there are spiritual consequences (be it abomination, sin, bad karma, or whatever). I've never heard of anyone being accused of incest on the grounds that their wife was really their father in a past life -- and I do know that Tibetan monks would exploit their claimed ability to divine who one was in a past life to favor patrons and punish those who did not adequately support them (e.g. by identifying a patron as the reincarnation of a rival's great-grandfather, prompting the rival's family's inheritance to be "returned" to the patron). Ian.thomson (talk) 03:55, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I should also add that (outside of the Gelug-pa, which the Dalai Lama belongs to), Tibetan monks (especially Nyingma-pa) would go up to peasants and say "hey, you have bad karma, but luckily your daughter is the incarnation of some Dakini so you can get rid of that bad karma by letting me practice Tantra with her." (No, tantra is largely not focused on sex, but yes that's exactly what the monks wanted). "Oh, your daughter's pregnant? Wasn't me but you're gonna need to take care of the kid anyway because he's a Tulku or whatever. No, I'm not helping raise the brat, I've got to find a new 'dakini.'" So if they could have used "in a past life, you and your fiancee were really mother and daughter" to disrupt marriages they didn't want, they certainly would have. Ian.thomson (talk) 04:13, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Citation needed for that. But anyway, Buddhism does not teach reincarnation, but Rebirth (Buddhism). I suggest you read that article.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 09:35, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It would seem to be a narrow distinction. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:28, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps, but it's an important one to understand why SMW's question is meaningless to the people in that faith. Matt Deres (talk) 13:57, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

One thing many religions have as a common theme is some kind of life-after-death. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:15, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

supporting the arts in the UK

Is there any possible way I can donate to a place that supports the arts in the UK?2604:2000:7104:2F00:E489:B375:36EB:1AC5 (talk) 07:21, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds very vague. What kind of arts are you interested in? Generally speaking the big arts venues get a lot of funding from Arts Council England and, in my opinion, don't need your donations. On the other hand there are countless small theatres, venues and galleries that would, I am sure, welcome donations. You really need to say what kind of arts you are interested in and would most like to support. --Viennese Waltz 07:31, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Venues always need funding, even if they receive Arts Council grants. One way to support the arts is to become a friend of an organisation that you like. I'm a friend of the BMAG and BRB. Buying tickets to shows and exhibitions is another great way to support the arts. As a friend of the BMAG, I can get into most exhibitions for free, but I still buy a ticket. Many organisations offer the chance to leave a legacy in your will. I think most welcome sponsorship. Corporate sponsorship is very important, but the individual can do their bit in a small way with several schemes. The BRB, for example, welcome donations to their pointe shoe appeal. You can also just send an organisation a donation. --TrogWoolley (talk) 11:33, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the UK government encourages charitable donations via its tax policies, known as Gift Aid. If you pay UK taxes, you may wish to read up here. --Carbon Caryatid (talk) 21:34, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Are the Articles of Confederation still in effect?

Are the Articles of Confederation of the United States still in effect, and then augmented by the Constitution? Or did the Constitution totally supersede the Articles? I ask because nowhere in the Constitution is the federation of the United States ever formally established. The Articles do establish the union, whereas the Constitution reads as though it is being created for an existing union. Therefore, to me it seems as though parts of the Articles, specifically those establishing the United States, must still be in effect. Is my analysis correct? Has there ever been any legal findings on this? If I am in error, what is the current legal status of the Articles? Thank you. → Michael J Ⓣ Ⓒ Ⓜ 17:23, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fairly certain this has come up before. Have you checked the ref desk archives? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:45, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sources like This show up rapidly in google searches phrased similar to the OP's question. I think my most productive phrasing was "were the articles of confederation ever repealed", but playing with Google and scanning the first few pages of results often gets quick answers. That paper is fairly dense; some discussion forums (like this one) on this topic note that the Articles of Confederation ceased to be a legally binding document when the government which it authorized, the Congress of the Confederation, officially dissolved. Since there are no organs of the Confederation-governed U.S. in existence, there is nothing in the Articles of Confederation which has the power of law. That is, since the role of a constitution is to define the scope and role of a government; insofar as there is no government in existence whose role and scope is so defined, the constitution itself carries no legal weight. As an aside, the story of the Confederation Congress's last day of official meeting is something rather fascinating little footnote of itself. I'm sure there are some weird sovereign citizen nutjobs that maintain the Articles of Confederation are still legally in force, but I don't know that any court in the U.S. would take such silliness seriously. --Jayron 32 18:04, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

One interesting bit of the Constitution is this: "Article VI - 1: All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation." The reason I bring this up is because it appears to be talking about the Confederation in the past tense. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:45, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also note that the Articles permitted modification if all thirteen states agreed to it. One could argue, I suppose, that the first twelve states were operating illegally, but once Rhode Island ratified the new constitution and began operating under it, all thirteen had agreed to do something other than the Articles. Nyttend (talk) 23:48, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Constitution took effect once enough states ratified it. It didn't require 13, though. Something like 9 or 10. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:02, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, 9 out of 13. But as Nyttend says, that was illegal under the Articles of Confederation. The ratifying states decided to ignore the Articles and press for the others to join them. --76.69.46.228 (talk) 08:07, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Supreme Court in 1868 ruled that the reason no state was allowed to unilaterally secede was that the Articles of Confederation said the union was a perpetual one. Thus anything not addressed by the Constitution but covered by the Articles remains in force. Or maybe the Articles were not in effect in 1868, the Supreme Court was making things up and grasping at straws, and some other basis has to be found for making the US behave more like a street gang and less like a civilized union of equals like the EU. Edison (talk) 01:56, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Edison, the point of SCOTUS was (1) the Articles prohibited secession, (2) the Constitution was supposed to be a more perfect union with greater centralized power, and thus (3) the Constitution must not be interpreted as weakening the union by permitting secession. Unrelated things from the Articles, e.g. permitting the Province of Quebec to join the union without a vote of Congress, weren't covered by the SCOTUS ruling. See Texas v. White#Decision for a quote. Nyttend (talk) 13:00, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Once the UK leaves the EU, which category will they fall into? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:02, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Whichever category you think applied either before 1 November 1993, when the EU came into being in accordance with the Maastricht Treaty, or 1 January 1973 when the UK was admitted into the existing European (Economic) Community. As someone who can remember back that far (indeed, I voted in the UK's 1975 referendum on whether to remain in or leave the EEC/EC, and lived in Germany for part of the late 1970s), I don't recall UK–European relationships being in the least bit street-gang like. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.200.131.235 (talk) 06:59, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Except maybe during soccer matches. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:18, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is no UK soccer team – that is to say, no soccer team that represents the UK as a whole. There is such a Rugby Union team, the British and Irish Lions (which originated when Ireland was part of the UK and has ignored their subsequent political differences, as does the Irish team proper, which includes players from Northern Ireland), but violence is vanishingly rare amongst Rugby Union spectators.

Of course violence has occasionally happened at some soccer matches, including some international matches between teams, club or representative, from within the UK and the EU respectively, but similar violence occurs worldwide, and to the best of my knowledge has in Europe never stemmed from UK–EU rivalry. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.200.131.235 (talk) 00:36, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think the first claim needs clarification. The Great Britain Olympic football team did complete at the 2012 Olympics in both the men's and women's competitions. Yes there was great controversy over selection, and this team did have to follow the standard Olympics rules on age limits and that and the relative prestige, conflicts etc meant it was far from the best UK team. But it was clearly a team intended to represent the UK as a whole hence why the union flag etc would have been used for a gold medal etc, whatever the non English FAs thought of that. It's true that there's no sign this is ever going to be repeated anytime soon for the men's team both due to opposition from the FAs and may also due to qualification questions, but it was so recent that I don't think you can just dismiss it as too historic to count unlike you perhaps can with the older teams by this time. It's true there's been no other significant United Kingdom national football team anytime recent discounting things like Universiade teams etc. Nil Einne (talk) 19:31, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A fair clarification. There was, as you say a "one-off" UK (though called GB) soccer team, but there isn't now and likely won't be one post-Brexit, which is the period Bugs evoked. My response was of course in part a deliberately serious reply to the less important aspect of his frivolous comment: my main intention was to counter his implication that the UK will behave like "a street gang" towards the EU and/or vice-versa. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.200.131.235 (talk) 20:02, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The term "Great Britain" at the Olympics is shorthand for "Great Britain and Northern Ireland Olympic Team", but not without controversy. See Who, What, Why: Why is it Team GB, not Team UK?. Alansplodge (talk) 18:06, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]