Buddhism and no-self

Is there a God? If so, what is She like?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

seeds
Posts: 2127
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2016 9:31 pm

Re: Buddhism and no-self

Post by seeds »

seeds wrote: Tue Sep 14, 2021 10:27 pm I have often experienced vivid (highly detailed) dreams in which I am wandering through slightly altered versions of the medical office buildings I used to work at.

Had I never been born, or, in other words, if my subjectively-based "self"...

(as in the self-aware "agent" or "I Am-ness" who sits at the throne of consciousness in the closed arena of my mind, which is represented by the centralized "EYE" [icon] that I use in my illustrations)...

Image
Image

...had never awakened into existence, then those particular dreams that I experienced...

(which were literally created from the mental fabric of my very own being)


...would, likewise, have never come into existence.

So, no, Belinda, thoughts and dreams would not (cannot) exist if the "selfs" to whom the thoughts and dreams belong, did not exist.

(Unfortunately, due to resolution issues, the dialogue in the illustrations is blurry and hard to read. So if anyone is actually interested in what the captions are saying, then here are the links to clearer versions of the two illustrations on my website:

http://theultimateseeds.com/Images/4%20 ... e%2063.jpg

...and...

http://theultimateseeds.com/Images/4%20 ... e%2064.jpg)

_______
Belinda wrote: Wed Sep 15, 2021 10:58 am What do those "selfs" consist of? They are not anatomical, as if they were anatomical you would not have allegorical diagrams to illustrate them , you would have anatomical photos or drawings.
I don't know what the "selfs" consist of, B.

You might as well be asking me what does "dark matter" and "dark energy" consist of?

Yet those two mysterious (unmeasurable by any direct means) phenomena...

(which are said to make up approximately 95 percent of the universe)

...do allegedly exist by reason of the observed affect they have on matter.

And the point is that the fact that we cannot literally see or measure some proposed existent aspect of reality (as in the inner "self" or "I Am-ness"), is not without scientific precedent.

And if you think that sounds silly, then realize that the simple act of raising your arm, or clinching your hand into a fist, is an example of your inner "self" having an observable affect on matter (never mind the "God-like" control it has over your infinitely malleable thought and dream substances).
Belinda wrote: Wed Sep 15, 2021 10:58 am These "selfs" then must be , for you as for me, subjective constructs .
Yes.
Belinda wrote: Wed Sep 15, 2021 10:58 am I therefore don't object too much to your vision of the central eye , as you say "as in the self-aware "agent" or "I Am-ness" who sits at the throne of consciousness in the closed arena of my mind" . For me, I prefer to not describe the nexus as an eye but as a nexus of experiences. A nexus of experiences like in Indra's Net.
I like the mythology of "Indra's Net."

According to Wiki...
Wiki wrote: "Indra's net" is an infinitely large net of cords owned by the Vedic deva Indra, which hangs over his palace on Mount Meru, the axis mundi of Buddhist and Hindu cosmology. In this metaphor, Indra's net has a multifaceted jewel at each vertex, and each jewel is reflected in all of the other jewels.

In the Huayan school of Chinese Buddhism, which follows the Avatamsaka Sutra, the image of "Indra's net" is used to describe the interconnectedness of the universe.
Indeed, "Indra's Net" has often been used as a novel (anecdotal) way of visualizing the possible interconnectedness of all of the universe's material phenomena by reason of the universe's informational underpinning possibly existing in a "superpositioned" state at the quantum level (in the form of the theorized "Universal Wavefunction").

It has also been used when trying to describe the interpenetrating patterns of information in the photographic plate of the laser hologram, as is demonstrated in yet another of my illustrations...

Image

However, getting back to your statement,...
Belinda wrote: Wed Sep 15, 2021 10:58 am For me, I prefer to not describe the nexus as an eye but as a nexus of experiences.
...I couldn't help but notice that your theory doesn't seem to offer any accounting for exactly "what" it is that experiences the experiences.

Describe for me an example of an experience that can be had without the existence of the "experiencer."
Belinda wrote: Wed Sep 15, 2021 10:58 am I think that the 'EYE' metaphor gives the self aware agent a solitary thingness that can exist without any environment to relate to. By contrast the nexuses in Indra's Net depend on relationships to other nexuses in order to exist. Our difference is about which is the truer metaphor.
Belinda, it is one thing to use words like "nexuses" in your theory. However, it is something else altogether to explain what you mean by "nexuses."

So give me an example of one of these "nexuses" of which you speak.
_______
Belinda
Posts: 8030
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: Buddhism and no-self

Post by Belinda »

Seeds, nexuses are always set in environments of other nexuses. For instances the interstices of a woven textile : cobwebs: intertextual allusions (E.G.in literature, theatre, or science) : concepts.
seeds
Posts: 2127
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2016 9:31 pm

Re: Buddhism and no-self

Post by seeds »

Belinda wrote: Sat Sep 18, 2021 1:38 pm Seeds, nexuses are always set in environments of other nexuses. For instances the interstices of a woven textile : cobwebs: intertextual allusions (E.G.in literature, theatre, or science) : concepts.
Yes, but in what way are you visualizing these so-called "nexuses" as possessing self-awareness and agency?

In other words, describe for me the ontological makeup of the particular aspect of the "nexus" that is literally conscious and capable of experiencing and analyzing the information it receives from its five sensory channels.

I'm talking about the self-aware "something" that not only experiences and analyzes information coming in from the five sensory "windows" of the body it inhabits as it peers outward into the universe through those windows,...

...but also the information it experiences and analyzes as it (the "something") turns its gaze inward and encounters the rich inner-dimension of its own thoughts and dreams.

Again, B., describe for me how the word "nexus" provides us with a good way of visualizing the self-aware "something" ("agent") that sits on the receiving end of our five senses.
_______
Belinda
Posts: 8030
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: Buddhism and no-self

Post by Belinda »

seeds wrote: Sat Sep 18, 2021 6:11 pm
Belinda wrote: Sat Sep 18, 2021 1:38 pm Seeds, nexuses are always set in environments of other nexuses. For instances the interstices of a woven textile : cobwebs: intertextual allusions (E.G.in literature, theatre, or science) : concepts.
Yes, but in what way are you visualizing these so-called "nexuses" as possessing self-awareness and agency?

In other words, describe for me the ontological makeup of the particular aspect of the "nexus" that is literally conscious and capable of experiencing and analyzing the information it receives from its five sensory channels.

I'm talking about the self-aware "something" that not only experiences and analyzes information coming in from the five sensory "windows" of the body it inhabits as it peers outward into the universe through those windows,...

...but also the information it experiences and analyzes as it (the "something") turns its gaze inward and encounters the rich inner-dimension of its own thoughts and dreams.

Again, B., describe for me how the word "nexus" provides us with a good way of visualizing the self-aware "something" ("agent") that sits on the receiving end of our five senses.
_______
Ontology is theories of existence. I am claiming that what exists is experience, and nothing but experience. A nexus of experiences is experiences intercepting and relating .

I don't think the "self aware something" is a very big deal. Zoologists deal with self awareness capability among species. Arguably species that are hardly at all self aware are full of beauty and goodness.

Self is constructed by mind.The feeling or intuition of self is constructed by mind. Self awareness is a mental construct. There is no phenomenon that "sits on the receiving end of our five senses". A human self is the experience of many relationships with other nexuses. Other nexuses constitute the environment without which an individual can't exist. The universe is relationships and nothing but relationships.

Agency is a mental construct. Agency is not all or nothing but is a continuum based on the quality and quantity of the nexus of experience. So a man is more of an agent than is an artefact such as a computer or the Mona Lisa painting, and a man is more of an agent than is a turnip.

I guess what would most concern you, Seeds, is my claim implies that man and to an extent all other centres of experience are the co-creators. Not to worry!
Mind (or consciousness) is not only limited to individuals but is also absolute, so that you can't have separate minds without absolute mind, and there are separate minds as we all know.
seeds
Posts: 2127
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2016 9:31 pm

Re: Buddhism and no-self

Post by seeds »

seeds wrote: Sat Sep 18, 2021 6:11 pm Again, B., describe for me how the word "nexus" provides us with a good way of visualizing the self-aware "something" ("agent") that sits on the receiving end of our five senses.
Belinda wrote: Sat Sep 18, 2021 6:53 pm I don't think the "self aware something" is a very big deal.
It is a big deal if we're talking about the crucial feature of our being that is capable of surviving physical death (you know, the "thing" that the perpetually reincarnating Buddhists insist does not exist).
Belinda wrote: Sat Sep 18, 2021 6:53 pm Zoologists deal with self awareness capability among species. Arguably species that are hardly at all self aware are full of beauty and goodness.
We're not talking about "beauty and goodness" in this thread, we're talking about what I suggest is the necessary level of consciousness and self-awareness required to survive physical death (something that the lower beings do not possess).
Belinda wrote: Sat Sep 18, 2021 6:53 pm Self is constructed by mind.
Not in my book.

No, the mind is the living spatial "arena" in which the self (the "EYE" of the mind) manipulates the substance of thought and dreams.

Indeed, I suggest that as you stand on the earth and look out into the closed bubble of this universe, you are peering (from a "fetal-like" perspective) into the inner dimension ("arena"/cosmic "womb") of the mind of the highest species of being in all of reality.
Belinda wrote: Sat Sep 18, 2021 6:53 pm Self awareness is a mental construct.
Literally everything is a mental construct.
Belinda wrote: Sat Sep 18, 2021 6:53 pm There is no phenomenon that "sits on the receiving end of our five senses".
So says the phenomenon that sits on the receiving end of her five senses.
Belinda wrote: Sat Sep 18, 2021 6:53 pm A human self is the experience of many relationships with other nexuses. Other nexuses constitute the environment without which an individual can't exist. The universe is relationships and nothing but relationships.
No. Again, the universe is the MIND of the highest species of being in all of reality (of which you, Belinda, are a member). The fact that the universe may indeed function by means of a nexus of "relationships" does not supersede that higher truth.
Belinda wrote: Sat Sep 18, 2021 6:53 pm I guess what would most concern you, Seeds, is my claim implies that man and to an extent all other centres of experience are the co-creators.
No, B., that doesn't concern me at all. And that's because we are not the "co-creators" of this universe. We are its literal ("seed-like") embryos who are imbued with the potential of creating our own universe out of the living mental fabric of our very own being,...

...just as the Creator of this universe has done.

As I have often stated in several other threads, the universe is a literal representation of the old Hermetic axiom "as above, so below," or, in this instance, its reverse: "as below, so above," where a particular species of being (God, in this case), replicates itself by conceiving its own offspring (us) within itself.

(Now it is needless to say that everything I proposed above could be wrong. However, I honestly don't know how the truth of reality could get any more "NATURAL" and "ORGANIC" than what I have suggested.)
_______
Belinda
Posts: 8030
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: Buddhism and no-self

Post by Belinda »

Seeds, we have each nailed our colours to our masts and it is good we have made our ideas clear. I understand your point of view as it once was mine too.

One point : life after death of individuals is not certain either way, and there is nothing in my philosophy that shows life after death of the individual bunch of experiences is impossible.

Another point: the disappearance of my idea of my reified self consoles me when I recollect my pains and my pleasures.Transience has its benefits as well as its losses.
Age
Posts: 20043
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Buddhism and no-self

Post by Age »

seeds wrote: Sun Sep 19, 2021 2:11 am
(Now it is needless to say that everything I proposed above could be wrong. However, I honestly don't know how the truth of reality could get any more "NATURAL" and "ORGANIC" than what I have suggested.)
_______
How the 'truth of reality' can and does get more NATURAL and ORGANIC than what you have suggest is very easily, and very simply.

Thee Being, Consciousness, Itself, has already reached True and Full Self-awareness, and thus already KNOWS FULLY how I am eternal, and infinite.

Which 'you', human beings, in the days when this is being written, are just on the cusp of becoming aware of, and also understanding, during the continual evolving process of Creation, Itself.
promethean75
Posts: 4881
Joined: Sun Nov 04, 2018 10:29 pm

Re: Buddhism and no-self

Post by promethean75 »

If the eternal recurrence is true, u know what a bodhisattva would be? He'd be an immortal squatter. Every time he lived, he'd think he'd be getting out of the cycle by denying his will to live... and he'd do this over and over again. As such, he'd be the most unenlightened kind of being.

Enlightened beings indulge in the visceral pleasures of life, they don't shirk from em, bro. The point is to increase your power through the annealing process of struggle and suffering. These bodhisattva dudes got it perfectly backwards.
User avatar
bahman
Posts: 8791
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: Buddhism and no-self

Post by bahman »

promethean75 wrote: Fri Jan 26, 2024 1:37 pm If the eternal recurrence is true, u know what a bodhisattva would be? He'd be an immortal squatter. Every time he lived, he'd think he'd be getting out of the cycle by denying his will to live... and he'd do this over and over again. As such, he'd be the most unenlightened kind of being.

Enlightened beings indulge in the visceral pleasures of life, they don't shirk from em, bro. The point is to increase your power through the annealing process of struggle and suffering. These bodhisattva dudes got it perfectly backwards.
Perfectly right!
meno_
Posts: 50
Joined: Sun Dec 24, 2023 8:11 pm
Location: Los Angeles

Re: Buddhism and no-self

Post by meno_ »

And that’s most probably why Nichiren would excuse those who can only read backward. Who could then believe it was it not from him? (Lotus Sutras)
Post Reply