Buddhism and no-self

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

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
RCSaunders
Posts: 4704
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
Contact:

Re: Buddhism and no-self

Post by RCSaunders »

Dontaskme wrote: Sat Sep 11, 2021 3:04 pm What is the personal experience exactly?
When asked to explain why motorcycle riding is so wonderful, the answer is the same as to your question:
If you have to ask it cannot be explained to you.
seeds
Posts: 2127
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2016 9:31 pm

Re: Buddhism and no-self

Post by seeds »

seeds wrote: Fri Sep 10, 2021 5:38 pm The amazing irony of the story is that as long as one fails to reach Buddhahood (enlightenment), one will continue to exist for a very long time and experience a vast number of lives on this planet.

Whereas, on the other hand, once Buddhahood (enlightenment/nirvana/moksha) is achieved, then, apparently, you're a goner, and will never experience the wonder and beauty of life ever again.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sat Sep 11, 2021 7:14 am Note, one of the core principles of Buddhism-proper is 'anatta';
  • In Buddhism, the term anattā (Pali) or anātman (Sanskrit) refers to the doctrine of "non-self" – that no unchanging, permanent self or essence can be found in any phenomenon.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anatt%C4%81
It is true, the Buddha spoke about past lives as mentioned in some of the Theravada Sutra, but only in a certain context relevant to some specific conditions, but the core principle is NEVER overridden at all.
Let's have a look at a little more of the introductory paragraph that your little Wiki quote is taken from and take special note of the parts that I bolded and underlined:
Wiki wrote: In Buddhism, the term anattā (Pali) or anātman (Sanskrit) refers to the doctrine of "non-self" – that no unchanging, permanent self or essence can be found in any phenomenon. While often interpreted as a doctrine denying the existence of a self, anatman is more accurately described as a strategy to attain non-attachment by recognizing anything as impermanent, while staying silent on the ultimate existence of an unchanging essence.
Apparently, you don't understand what it means to stay silent on something of which there can be no certainty of.

Now, of course, you will no doubt reply that because of my lack of understanding of Buddhism, I am, in turn, ignorant of the fact that it is a certainty that (according to Buddhism "proper") the term "anattā" definitely means that there is "no [permanent] self" that is capable of surviving the event of physical death.

To which I will then reply, that just because some group of ancient humans came up with that particular notion, it doesn't mean that it's irrefutably true (hence the admonition to remain silent on any ultimate conclusion on the subject).

The bottom line is that if you, Veritas Aequitas, are going to defend the notion that Buddhism proclaims that there is literally "no self" that can survive physical death (therefore rendering the belief in reincarnation as being null and void),...

...then you must also defend the fact that Buddhism is a nihilistic philosophy whose coveted goal of attaining "Enlightenment" is, in truth, the pursuit of eternal oblivion in which one will never again experience the wonder and beauty of life.*

*(Somehow I doubt we would find any of that dark and depressing information being stressed in quite that way in the fine print of Buddhism's recruiting brochure.)
_______
User avatar
Dontaskme
Posts: 16940
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm
Location: Nowhere

Re: Buddhism and no-self

Post by Dontaskme »

There are many beliefs.

What about the belief there is a self?
bahman wrote: Sat Sep 11, 2021 3:24 pm The problem is resolved if there is a self that experiences.
Ok
Dontaskme wrote: Sat Sep 11, 2021 3:04 pm Where does the belief in personal experience come from?
bahman wrote: Sat Sep 11, 2021 3:24 pm I have no idea when and where the belief comes from.
Then the question cannot be answered. Can an idea know anything? I have no idea.


The 'I' that is believed to be self aware, does not know how it is aware. It can only know that it is aware. This feeling of being self aware, calls itself an 'I' ... but this personal sense of being doesn't know how it created itself. It can only know it did not create itself....is that fair to say?
Dontaskme wrote: Sat Sep 11, 2021 3:04 pm Is it a byproduct of the brain?…is it a programme running in the brain as being a byproduct of the environment?
bahman wrote: Sat Sep 11, 2021 3:24 pm I think the brain create Qualia which then Qualia can be experienced by the mind.
I agree with the Qualia idea.

The personal experience is programmed to act out a certain way according to the particular circumstances that are conditioned by environmental conditions, and will be different for each unique brain according to the external data that is being imputed into the brain.
Dontaskme wrote: Sat Sep 11, 2021 3:04 pm What is the personal experience exactly?
bahman wrote: Sat Sep 11, 2021 3:24 pmThe state of being aware.
Yes, I have the sense of being aware, there is the sensation of being alive. But that is all I can know about that state...

I know I did not make myself, I know nothing of this Self that is aware. And I certainly know nothing of others who are experiencing their self awareness.

So the question in regard to 'explaining' the Self aware 'I' entity will almost certainly go unanswered...don't you think?


.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12240
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Buddhism and no-self

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

seeds wrote: Sat Sep 11, 2021 5:25 pm
seeds wrote: Fri Sep 10, 2021 5:38 pm The amazing irony of the story is that as long as one fails to reach Buddhahood (enlightenment), one will continue to exist for a very long time and experience a vast number of lives on this planet.

Whereas, on the other hand, once Buddhahood (enlightenment/nirvana/moksha) is achieved, then, apparently, you're a goner, and will never experience the wonder and beauty of life ever again.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sat Sep 11, 2021 7:14 am Note, one of the core principles of Buddhism-proper is 'anatta';
  • In Buddhism, the term anattā (Pali) or anātman (Sanskrit) refers to the doctrine of "non-self" – that no unchanging, permanent self or essence can be found in any phenomenon.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anatt%C4%81
It is true, the Buddha spoke about past lives as mentioned in some of the Theravada Sutra, but only in a certain context relevant to some specific conditions, but the core principle is NEVER overridden at all.
Let's have a look at a little more of the introductory paragraph that your little Wiki quote is taken from and take special note of the parts that I bolded and underlined:
Wiki wrote: In Buddhism, the term anattā (Pali) or anātman (Sanskrit) refers to the doctrine of "non-self" – that no unchanging, permanent self or essence can be found in any phenomenon. While often interpreted as a doctrine denying the existence of a self, anatman is more accurately described as a strategy to attain non-attachment by recognizing anything as impermanent, while staying silent on the ultimate existence of an unchanging essence.
Apparently, you don't understand what it means to stay silent on something of which there can be no certainty of.

Now, of course, you will no doubt reply that because of my lack of understanding of Buddhism, I am, in turn, ignorant of the fact that it is a certainty that (according to Buddhism "proper") the term "anattā" definitely means that there is "no [permanent] self" that is capable of surviving the event of physical death.

To which I will then reply, that just because some group of ancient humans came up with that particular notion, it doesn't mean that it's irrefutably true (hence the admonition to remain silent on any ultimate conclusion on the subject).

The bottom line is that if you, Veritas Aequitas, are going to defend the notion that Buddhism proclaims that there is literally "no self" that can survive physical death (therefore rendering the belief in reincarnation as being null and void),...

...then you must also defend the fact that Buddhism is a nihilistic philosophy whose coveted goal of attaining "Enlightenment" is, in truth, the pursuit of eternal oblivion in which one will never again experience the wonder and beauty of life.*

*(Somehow I doubt we would find any of that dark and depressing information being stressed in quite that way in the fine print of Buddhism's recruiting brochure.)
_______
Noted your highlighted point.
Note the next statement in the same intro,
  • In contrast, Hinduism asserts the existence of Atman as pure consciousness or witness-consciousness,[4][5][6][note 2] "reify[ing] consciousness as an eternal self."
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anatt%C4%81
I used the term 'deny' as zoomed-in from the widest contexts hermeneutically, while you are relying on merely WIKI which everyone acknowledge is crude [albeit useful as an initial exploration into most subjects].

Buddhism emerged as a 180 degree counter [in a critical opposition] to the then active Hinduism during Guatama's time.
If Hinduism is clinging to a strongly reified permanent soul that survived physical death, then, Buddhism [as the direct opposite] is the denial of the such a permanent soul.
This is supported by the various core doctrines of Buddhism.

If you read even in WIKI [of course, preferable the whole range of Buddhism] note this from the very reputable philosopher of Buddhism, Nagarjuna;
The Buddhist philosopher Nagarjuna (~200 CE), extensively wrote about rejecting the metaphysical entity called attā or ātman (self, soul), asserting in chapter 18 of his Mūlamadhyamakakārikā that there is no such substantial entity and that "Buddha taught the doctrine of no-self".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anatt%C4%81#Nagarjuna
Where is it mentioned the Buddha remained silent [as in the Theravada texts] was due to the context he was facing a follower who was not highly developed intellectually, thus no point for the Buddha to go into a detailed discussion of no-self which would be more confusing to the person.

Btw, the story of the Buddha is a myth. What is critical is the consistent main core principles and teachings that are embedded in the various sutra from the various schools of Buddhism.

As with Hinduism, Buddhism [which understood human nature] catered for believers ranging from kindergarten to PhD levels or with different types of inclinations.

A Bhakti follower focus on loving devotion and merely practices,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhakti_yoga
would have no inclination for intellectual discourse favored by the Jnana follower;
  • Jñāna yoga, also known as jñāna mārga, is one of the three classical paths (margas) for moksha (salvation, liberation)[1][2] in Hinduism, which emphasizes the "path of knowledge",[3] also known as the "path of self-realization".
Philosophers [Nagarjuna, et. al.] who adopted the intellectual-with-practical path engaged in very deep philosophies which are much more complex than those of the existing Western Philosophers. Note how Indian Philosophy had influenced Greek Philosophy.

Thomas McEvilley on Ancient Greek and Indian philosophy
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OXBygl-ox5Q&t=1s

In the West, Hume, Kant, Parfit and others had demonstrated why a permanent soul [as substantial and permanent] is an impossibility.
User avatar
Hermit Philosopher
Posts: 104
Joined: Wed Feb 03, 2010 10:50 pm
Location: By the seaside
Contact:

Re: Buddhism and no-self

Post by Hermit Philosopher »

bahman wrote: Thu Sep 09, 2021 4:22 pm How the personal experience is explained when there is no self?

Dear bahman

When we say that there is no self, we are usually doing so from the view that there is reality and then, there is the (human) perception of reality.

What we mean is that in reality, there is no self; consciousness is singular. But in the (human) perception of reality, consciousness seems multiple, because of the illusion of selves.

If you are wondering how we explain that we have a “personal” experience of life in general, when we believe that we do not in reality have a self; the answer is that we believe ourselves to be a part of (singular) consciousness, manifested into human form.

As humans, our experience is limited to that through a body, which gives us the illusion that we are multiple and separate. On a daily basis, this is where our consciousness is. But even while alive, we all have the ability to temporarily transcend this illusion and when we do, we experience singularity with no self (and no others). We consider that state of being to be true reality and try to live by what understand there.


Humbly
Hermit
Age
Posts: 20043
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Buddhism and no-self

Post by Age »

bahman wrote: Sat Sep 11, 2021 2:40 pm
Age wrote: Sat Sep 11, 2021 11:16 am
bahman wrote: Sat Sep 11, 2021 10:52 am
So the brain causes experience? How?
What?

The brain does NOT 'cause' experiences.

The body experiences the environment around it with the five senses of sight, smell, taste, touch, and hearing.
The body only sends the signals to the brain. Therefore, the body itself does not experience anything.
So, to you, if a brick is dropped on the foot or the head of a human body the body does not experience ANY thing. Or, if a human body falls out of an airplane and lands on earth, then, to you, the body will not experience ANY thing also.

I would suggest that through examination of the bodies in these examples there would be some evidence or proof that the bodies did actually experience SOME thing.

Also, how exactly do you separate the human brain from the human body?

When I say, 'human body', what do you think or envisage I am talking about, exactly?

You do seem to be ASSUMING things that I am NOT at all saying.
Age
Posts: 20043
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Buddhism and no-self

Post by Age »

Hermit Philosopher wrote: Sun Sep 12, 2021 10:20 am
bahman wrote: Thu Sep 09, 2021 4:22 pm How the personal experience is explained when there is no self?

Dear bahman

When we say that there is no self, we are usually doing so from the view that there is reality and then, there is the (human) perception of reality.

What we mean is that in reality, there is no self; consciousness is singular. But in the (human) perception of reality, consciousness seems multiple, because of the illusion of selves.
This is your view of (human) perception of reality, but just so you are aware not ALL perceive 'consciousness' seems multiple. So, in the (human) perception of reality, to some, Consciousness is singular, or One, ONLY.
Hermit Philosopher wrote: Sun Sep 12, 2021 10:20 am If you are wondering how we explain that we have a “personal” experience of life in general, when we believe that we do not in reality have a self; the answer is that we believe ourselves to be a part of (singular) consciousness, manifested into human form.

As humans, our experience is limited to that through a body, which gives us the illusion that we are multiple and separate. On a daily basis, this is where our consciousness is. But even while alive, we all have the ability to temporarily transcend this illusion and when we do, we experience singularity with no self (and no others). We consider that state of being to be true reality and try to live by what understand there.


Humbly
Hermit
When you use the 'we' word here, are you 'trying to' speak for EVERY one, or for just some only?
Belinda
Posts: 8030
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: Buddhism and no-self

Post by Belinda »

Bahman wrote:
I think the brain create Qualia which then Qualia can be experienced by the mind.
Yes, I agree.

Pain is the quale that is hardest to explain if you are an idealist, and Buddhism is monist-idealist. However all qualia are created by centres of experience such as we and other varieties of consciousness such as plants and animals.

Simply because we create the quale of pain or of suffering does not imply we have to like pain or suffering. On the contrary we (i.e. centres of experience) create detestation of pain and suffering. We also create love of joy and peace.
User avatar
Hermit Philosopher
Posts: 104
Joined: Wed Feb 03, 2010 10:50 pm
Location: By the seaside
Contact:

Re: Buddhism and no-self

Post by Hermit Philosopher »

Age wrote: Sun Sep 12, 2021 10:56 am
Hermit Philosopher wrote: Sun Sep 12, 2021 10:20 am
bahman wrote: Thu Sep 09, 2021 4:22 pm How the personal experience is explained when there is no self?

Dear bahman

When we say that there is no self, we are usually doing so from the view that there is reality and then, there is the (human) perception of reality.

What we mean is that in reality, there is no self; consciousness is singular. But in the (human) perception of reality, consciousness seems multiple, because of the illusion of selves.
This is your view of (human) perception of reality, but just so you are aware not ALL perceive 'consciousness' seems multiple. So, in the (human) perception of reality, to some, Consciousness is singular, or One, ONLY.
Hermit Philosopher wrote: Sun Sep 12, 2021 10:20 am If you are wondering how we explain that we have a “personal” experience of life in general, when we believe that we do not in reality have a self; the answer is that we believe ourselves to be a part of (singular) consciousness, manifested into human form.

As humans, our experience is limited to that through a body, which gives us the illusion that we are multiple and separate. On a daily basis, this is where our consciousness is. But even while alive, we all have the ability to temporarily transcend this illusion and when we do, we experience singularity with no self (and no others). We consider that state of being to be true reality and try to live by what understand there.


Humbly
Hermit
When you use the 'we' word here, are you 'trying to' speak for EVERY one, or for just some only?

Dear bahman

Yes, when I say “we”, I mean some of those who speak of there being no self.

My understanding was that you, in your OP, asked how one could explain having a “personal” experience of life in general, when not believing in the existence of a self.

If I misread the question, I apologise.


Humbly
Hermit
Age
Posts: 20043
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Buddhism and no-self

Post by Age »

Hermit Philosopher wrote: Sun Sep 12, 2021 11:39 am
Age wrote: Sun Sep 12, 2021 10:56 am
Hermit Philosopher wrote: Sun Sep 12, 2021 10:20 am


Dear bahman

When we say that there is no self, we are usually doing so from the view that there is reality and then, there is the (human) perception of reality.

What we mean is that in reality, there is no self; consciousness is singular. But in the (human) perception of reality, consciousness seems multiple, because of the illusion of selves.
This is your view of (human) perception of reality, but just so you are aware not ALL perceive 'consciousness' seems multiple. So, in the (human) perception of reality, to some, Consciousness is singular, or One, ONLY.
Hermit Philosopher wrote: Sun Sep 12, 2021 10:20 am If you are wondering how we explain that we have a “personal” experience of life in general, when we believe that we do not in reality have a self; the answer is that we believe ourselves to be a part of (singular) consciousness, manifested into human form.

As humans, our experience is limited to that through a body, which gives us the illusion that we are multiple and separate. On a daily basis, this is where our consciousness is. But even while alive, we all have the ability to temporarily transcend this illusion and when we do, we experience singularity with no self (and no others). We consider that state of being to be true reality and try to live by what understand there.


Humbly
Hermit
When you use the 'we' word here, are you 'trying to' speak for EVERY one, or for just some only?

Dear bahman

Yes, when I say “we”, I mean some of those who speak of there being no self.

My understanding was that you, in your OP, asked how one could explain having a “personal” experience of life in general, when not believing in the existence of a self.

If I misread the question, I apologise.


Humbly
Hermit
I asked you the question that you are replying to here, not "bahman".
User avatar
Hermit Philosopher
Posts: 104
Joined: Wed Feb 03, 2010 10:50 pm
Location: By the seaside
Contact:

Re: Buddhism and no-self

Post by Hermit Philosopher »

Age wrote: Sun Sep 12, 2021 11:48 am
Hermit Philosopher wrote: Sun Sep 12, 2021 11:39 am
Age wrote: Sun Sep 12, 2021 10:56 am

This is your view of (human) perception of reality, but just so you are aware not ALL perceive 'consciousness' seems multiple. So, in the (human) perception of reality, to some, Consciousness is singular, or One, ONLY.


When you use the 'we' word here, are you 'trying to' speak for EVERY one, or for just some only?

Dear bahman

Yes, when I say “we”, I mean some of those who speak of there being no self.

My understanding was that you, in your OP, asked how one could explain having a “personal” experience of life in general, when not believing in the existence of a self.

If I misread the question, I apologise.


Humbly
Hermit
I asked you the question that you are replying to here, not "bahman".

Oh dear, so sorry Age! - and @bahman!

Yes Age, when I say “we”, I mean some of those who speak of there being no self.

Humbly
Hermit
Age
Posts: 20043
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Buddhism and no-self

Post by Age »

Hermit Philosopher wrote: Sun Sep 12, 2021 12:16 pm
Age wrote: Sun Sep 12, 2021 11:48 am
Hermit Philosopher wrote: Sun Sep 12, 2021 11:39 am


Dear bahman

Yes, when I say “we”, I mean some of those who speak of there being no self.

My understanding was that you, in your OP, asked how one could explain having a “personal” experience of life in general, when not believing in the existence of a self.

If I misread the question, I apologise.


Humbly
Hermit
I asked you the question that you are replying to here, not "bahman".

Oh dear, so sorry Age! - and @bahman!

Yes Age, when I say “we”, I mean some of those who speak of there being no self.

Humbly
Hermit
So, the EXACT OPPOSITE of what you say above could also be TRUE, correct?
User avatar
Hermit Philosopher
Posts: 104
Joined: Wed Feb 03, 2010 10:50 pm
Location: By the seaside
Contact:

Re: Buddhism and no-self

Post by Hermit Philosopher »

Age wrote: Sun Sep 12, 2021 12:40 pm
Hermit Philosopher wrote: Sun Sep 12, 2021 12:16 pm
Age wrote: Sun Sep 12, 2021 11:48 am

I asked you the question that you are replying to here, not "bahman".

Oh dear, so sorry Age! - and @bahman!

Yes Age, when I say “we”, I mean some of those who speak of there being no self.

Humbly
Hermit
So, the EXACT OPPOSITE of what you say above could also be TRUE, correct?


“True”…? Nope, you lost me.
The OP was not an epistemological one and my comment was in relation to the OP, nothing else.

Humbly
Hermit
User avatar
bahman
Posts: 8791
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: Buddhism and no-self

Post by bahman »

Dontaskme wrote: Sun Sep 12, 2021 7:28 am
There are many beliefs.

What about the belief there is a self?
bahman wrote: Sat Sep 11, 2021 3:24 pm The problem is resolved if there is a self that experiences.
Ok
Cool.
Dontaskme wrote: Sat Sep 11, 2021 3:04 pm
Dontaskme wrote: Sat Sep 11, 2021 3:04 pm Where does the belief in personal experience come from?
bahman wrote: Sat Sep 11, 2021 3:24 pm I have no idea when and where the belief comes from.
Then the question cannot be answered. Can an idea know anything? I have no idea.


The 'I' that is believed to be self aware, does not know how it is aware. It can only know that it is aware. This feeling of being self aware, calls itself an 'I' ... but this personal sense of being doesn't know how it created itself. It can only know it did not create itself....is that fair to say?
I agree that we cannot know why we are self aware.
Dontaskme wrote: Sat Sep 11, 2021 3:04 pm
Dontaskme wrote: Sat Sep 11, 2021 3:04 pm Is it a byproduct of the brain?…is it a programme running in the brain as being a byproduct of the environment?
bahman wrote: Sat Sep 11, 2021 3:24 pm I think the brain create Qualia which then Qualia can be experienced by the mind.
I agree with the Qualia idea.

The personal experience is programmed to act out a certain way according to the particular circumstances that are conditioned by environmental conditions, and will be different for each unique brain according to the external data that is being imputed into the brain.
Cool.
Dontaskme wrote: Sat Sep 11, 2021 3:04 pm
Dontaskme wrote: Sat Sep 11, 2021 3:04 pm What is the personal experience exactly?
bahman wrote: Sat Sep 11, 2021 3:24 pmThe state of being aware.
Yes, I have the sense of being aware, there is the sensation of being alive. But that is all I can know about that state...

I know I did not make myself, I know nothing of this Self that is aware. And I certainly know nothing of others who are experiencing their self awareness.

So the question in regard to 'explaining' the Self aware 'I' entity will almost certainly go unanswered...don't you think?


.
There must be an "I" otherwise what we experience do not necessary have any correlation with what we cause based on our wants.
User avatar
bahman
Posts: 8791
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: Buddhism and no-self

Post by bahman »

Hermit Philosopher wrote: Sun Sep 12, 2021 10:20 am
bahman wrote: Thu Sep 09, 2021 4:22 pm How the personal experience is explained when there is no self?

Dear bahman

When we say that there is no self, we are usually doing so from the view that there is reality and then, there is the (human) perception of reality.

What we mean is that in reality, there is no self; consciousness is singular. But in the (human) perception of reality, consciousness seems multiple, because of the illusion of selves.

If you are wondering how we explain that we have a “personal” experience of life in general, when we believe that we do not in reality have a self; the answer is that we believe ourselves to be a part of (singular) consciousness, manifested into human form.

As humans, our experience is limited to that through a body, which gives us the illusion that we are multiple and separate. On a daily basis, this is where our consciousness is. But even while alive, we all have the ability to temporarily transcend this illusion and when we do, we experience singularity with no self (and no others). We consider that state of being to be true reality and try to live by what understand there.


Humbly
Hermit
Something that is an illusion, such as self, cannot possibly experience, decide and cause such that we have a coherent reality. Illusion is either non-existence or it is caused by something else. If the illusion is caused by something then what is that thing?
Post Reply