Buddhism and no-self

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

Moderators: AMod, iMod

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

Re: Buddhism and no-self

Post by bahman »

Age wrote: Sun Sep 12, 2021 10:40 am
bahman wrote: Sat Sep 11, 2021 2:40 pm
Age wrote: Sat Sep 11, 2021 11:16 am

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 SOMEthing.
Yes, if a brick fall on your foot the foot only sends a signal to the brain. It is there that the experience of pain is created. Therefore, your body does not experience anything.
Age wrote: Sun Sep 12, 2021 10:40 am Also, how exactly do you separate the human brain from the human body?
You know what the brain is? The rest of you I define as body.
Age wrote: Sun Sep 12, 2021 10:40 am When I say, 'human body', what do you think or envisage I am talking about, exactly?
I don't know what you are thinking. I know what I am thinking.
Age wrote: Sun Sep 12, 2021 10:40 am You do seem to be ASSUMING things that I am NOT at all saying.
What you are saying?
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: Sun Sep 12, 2021 2:44 pm
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?

Yes. “Illusion” may not be the best term.
A limiting misinterpretation of what is, due to limited (human) perception, perhaps is better.

Humbly
Hermit
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 3:20 pm
bahman wrote: Sun Sep 12, 2021 2:44 pm
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.

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?

Yes. “Illusion” may not be the best term.
A limiting misinterpretation of what is, due to limited (human) perception, perhaps is better.

Humbly
Hermit
I perceived my mind. I have an argument for the mind too.
seeds
Posts: 2127
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2016 9:31 pm

Re: Buddhism and no-self

Post by seeds »

seeds wrote: Sat Sep 11, 2021 5:25 pm 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.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun Sep 12, 2021 8:52 am 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].
This isn't the first time that you, yourself, relied on Wiki as a reference for something and then chided me for doing the same. Amazingly, you then proceeded to rely on Wiki two more times in the same post in which the chiding took place.

Please, Veritas, either stop being so hypocritical in your responses, or stop referencing Wiki.

Speaking of which...
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun Sep 12, 2021 8:52 am 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
The Wiki quote on Nagarjuna also goes on to say (again, note the bolded part)...
Wiki wrote: Nagarjuna denied there is anything called a self-nature as well as other-nature, emphasizing true knowledge to be comprehending emptiness. Anyone who has not dissociated from his belief in personality in himself or others, through the concept of self, is in a state of Avidya (ignorance) and caught in the cycle of rebirths and redeaths.
How in the world can something that does not exist, get caught in the cycle of rebirths and redeaths? :?

Pardon the pun, but even these examples of "arguments" that attempt to refute the existence of the self, are themselves "self-refuting" because they include the unexplained existence of "something" that is capable of experiencing "rebirths and redeaths."

Also, I couldn't help but notice that you completely ignored this...
seeds wrote: Sat Sep 11, 2021 5:25 pm 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,...

...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.
And the point is that Buddhism is an utterly useless philosophy to the vast majority of humans on earth who carry the hope of being reunited with their departed loved ones.

Sure, by reason of its "no permanent self" nihilistic take on reality, it can attempt to disabuse them of that hope. However, that is simply not what most humans want to hear, and will only appeal to the hardcore materialists and atheists of the world.

And lastly (but not leastly), Buddhism offers absolutely no explanation as to how the unfathomable order of the universe came about.

I could go on, but the fact of the matter is that just like Christianity, and Islam, and Judaism, and Hinduism, and all of the other religions of the world,...

...Buddhism is nothing more than a rickety (but useful) "raft" that humans have devised to help carry us across the waters of earthly life. It is a raft that will be abandoned upon reaching the shore of death where the ultimate truth of reality (be it eternal life [or] eternal oblivion) will finally be revealed to us.
_______
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 2:09 pm
Age wrote: Sun Sep 12, 2021 12:40 pm
Hermit Philosopher wrote: Sun Sep 12, 2021 12:16 pm


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
You wrote;
"What we mean is ...", and, "We consider ...".

But I could write;
'What we mean is (the exact opposite of what you wrote)', and, 'We consider (the exact opposite of what you wrote)', and this also could be true.

My point is, besides you attempting to speak for "others" which is not something that you can actually always do successfully what you are claiming is not necessarily true anyway.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12242
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Buddhism and no-self

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

seeds wrote: Sun Sep 12, 2021 5:30 pm
seeds wrote: Sat Sep 11, 2021 5:25 pm 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.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun Sep 12, 2021 8:52 am 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].
This isn't the first time that you, yourself, relied on Wiki as a reference for something and then chided me for doing the same. Amazingly, you then proceeded to rely on Wiki two more times in the same post in which the chiding took place.

Please, Veritas, either stop being so hypocritical in your responses, or stop referencing Wiki.

Speaking of which...
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun Sep 12, 2021 8:52 am 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
You missed my point.

I had stated WIKI is a very useful starting point for the exploration and a general view of any subject, i.e. in this case Buddhism.
Thus I am not relying on WIKI as the more credible reference but rather as I mentioned above, one has to read 'the whole range of Buddhism'.
I have researched on Buddhism extensively and is very well versed with Nagarjuna's views [will reference to primary sources if need to], thus [as a convenience] I pointed to the Wiki point only as a clue.

You on the other hand relied on that Wiki point as the only reference in this case, without mentioning you have done detailed research into Buddhism.


Whenever I refer to WIKI [as a convenience] it is backed with the supported research I have done, if not, then I will qualify it is not the case.
The Wiki quote on Nagarjuna also goes on to say (again, note the bolded part)...
Wiki wrote: Nagarjuna denied there is anything called a self-nature as well as other-nature, emphasizing true knowledge to be comprehending emptiness. Anyone who has not dissociated from his belief in personality in himself or others, through the concept of self, is in a state of Avidya (ignorance) and caught in the cycle of rebirths and redeaths.
How in the world can something that does not exist, get caught in the cycle of rebirths and redeaths? :?

Pardon the pun, but even these examples of "arguments" that attempt to refute the existence of the self, are themselves "self-refuting" because they include the unexplained existence of "something" that is capable of experiencing "rebirths and redeaths."
If you take that literally then the whole paragraph is contradictory, i.e. claiming no permanent self and yet talk of rebirths and redeaths.

However, the above cannot be taken literally in relating to physical death of a person but rather to the cycle of sufferings, i.e. the birth, death, rebirth and 'redeath' of sufferings.

Note:
The other primary use of nidana in the Buddhist tradition is in the context of the 'Twelve Nidanas', also called the 'Twelve Links of Dependent Origination'.[6][7] These links present the mechanistic basis of repeated birth, Samsara, and resultant Dukkha (suffering, pain, unsatisfactoriness) starting from avidyā (ignorance, misconceptions).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nidana#Buddhism
Also, I couldn't help but notice that you completely ignored this...
seeds wrote: Sat Sep 11, 2021 5:25 pm 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,...

...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.
And the point is that Buddhism is an utterly useless philosophy to the vast majority of humans on earth who carry the hope of being reunited with their departed loved ones.

Sure, by reason of its "no permanent self" nihilistic take on reality, it can attempt to disabuse them of that hope. However, that is simply not what most humans want to hear, and will only appeal to the hardcore materialists and atheists of the world.

And lastly (but not leastly), Buddhism offers absolutely no explanation as to how the unfathomable order of the universe came about.

I could go on, but the fact of the matter is that just like Christianity, and Islam, and Judaism, and Hinduism, and all of the other religions of the world,...

...Buddhism is nothing more than a rickety (but useful) "raft" that humans have devised to help carry us across the waters of earthly life. It is a raft that will be abandoned upon reaching the shore of death where the ultimate truth of reality (be it eternal life [or] eternal oblivion) will finally be revealed to us.
_______
I missed that.

Buddhism-proper do not deny empirical reality [the real world we live in], thus there is no question of nihilism. The Buddha officially denounced ascetism, those Buddhists [rare %] who are inclined to ascetism are not complying with Buddhism-proper.

Buddhism-proper in its quest for 'enlightenment' is not seeking something like heaven but rather it is cultivating a state of mind that is not clinging-to or pining-for the existence of a permanent self in the present or a soul that will go to heaven with eternal life.

In the case of 'enlightenment' in Buddhism proper, there is no change within the empirical world and one continue to live it like anyone but the only difference is one is in the state of not-clinging to it and thus will not be facing life, death and rebirths of the sufferings therein.

Note this final 10th stage [after 9 stages of search and meditation] of the supposedly Buddhist enlightenment;

Image
  • 10. in the world
    Barefooted and naked of breast, I mingle with the people of the world. My clothes are ragged and dust-laden, and I am ever blissful. I use no magic to extend my life; Now, before me, the dead trees become alive.

    Comment: Inside my gate, a thousand sages do not know me. The beauty of my garden is invisible. Why should one search for the footprints of the patriarchs? I go to the market place with my wine bottle and return home with my staff. I visit the wineshop and the market, and everyone I look upon becomes enlightened.
    https://www.deeshan.com/zen.htm
The above the enlightened Buddhist is connected to the real empirical world, mingle with the people of the world, go the market place, drink wine, ... thus imply no nihilism.
User avatar
Dontaskme
Posts: 16940
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm
Location: Nowhere

Re: Buddhism and no-self

Post by Dontaskme »

bahman wrote: Sun Sep 12, 2021 2:36 pm There must be an "I" otherwise what we experience do not necessary have any correlation with what we cause based on our wants.
Yes, there is the sense of 'I' who experiences sensation upon reflection, insofar as sensation is prior to the actual awareness of it which can only be sensed as an automatic involuntary reflex by the body before there is a ''thought'' that comes on board making the claim ....( 'I' am in pain)

But this 'I' has no idea as to the 'who' 'how' 'why' or 'where' of itself.

This 'I' knows it did not make itself, in the sense of there is no 'I' who is responsible for making sensation happen in the first place. Nor is there an 'I' present in the process that is the union of sperm and egg during the conception of a new life.

It seems that all bodily thoughts and sensations are random and spontaneous...so in regard to the 'I' who experiences personal experience, there is no dinfinitive answer as to 'I's origin...which leaves the infinite regress problem, which can only point to the illusory nature of the 'I'

That's the only answer this one here can come up with. All we can do is say we do not know. And that anything we do claim to know can only come from the only knowable source itself, and that is the one who is claiming to know what it does not know.

So the real pressing question is....How can there be a claim to know what cannot be known?

This is the human predicament and is why the philosopher of philosophy is a never ending story.



.
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: Mon Sep 13, 2021 4:38 am
Hermit Philosopher wrote: Sun Sep 12, 2021 2:09 pm
Age wrote: Sun Sep 12, 2021 12:40 pm

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
You wrote;
"What we mean is ...", and, "We consider ...".

But I could write;
'What we mean is (the exact opposite of what you wrote)', and, 'We consider (the exact opposite of what you wrote)', and this also could be true.

My point is, besides you attempting to speak for "others" which is not something that you can actually always do successfully what you are claiming is not necessarily true anyway.

Dear Age

As I understood it, the OP that I replied to was not asking for “truths”. Had I thought that it was asking for “truths”, I likely would not have commented (I’m not interested in getting into why I probably wouldn’t have done so with you, because I can tell that you consider there to be such a thing as truth in this context).

My reply was to the question of how one explains having “personal” experiences in life, whiles believing that one does not have a self. And I gave one of many ways - yes, I don’t have a problem with there being many ways and I don’t have a problem with you having a problem with it - by which one can do this.

I am sorry that my use of the term “we” is upsetting to you, but whiles I am not alone in reasoning in the manner I described and there is thereby a “we” to speak of, perhaps it is not quite worth the time you choose to dedicate it…?


Humbly
Hermit
Belinda
Posts: 8030
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: Buddhism and no-self

Post by Belinda »

Hermit Philosopher wrote:
I am sorry that my use of the term “we” is upsetting to you,
All pronouns take their meaning from social context. When philosophers use language they should all be explicit as to what a given pronoun refers to.

This whole discussion of No-Self is about explaining "I" .
For an existentialist such as Sartre common usage of "We" is suspected of pertaining to the attitude towards inauthentic herding together .The authentic individual thinks and acts independently of the herd which is composed of members who are not free of herd mentality.

"I" is generally used by a centre of experience who takes responsibility for actions of which that centre of experience was the agent.
It's therefore fair enough to require identities of the "We" that the transmitter of the info refers to.
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: Sun Sep 12, 2021 4:24 pm
Hermit Philosopher wrote: Sun Sep 12, 2021 3:20 pm
bahman wrote: Sun Sep 12, 2021 2:44 pm
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?

Yes. “Illusion” may not be the best term.
A limiting misinterpretation of what is, due to limited (human) perception, perhaps is better.

Humbly
Hermit
I perceived my mind. I have an argument for the mind too.
👍🏻
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 »

Belinda wrote: Mon Sep 13, 2021 11:39 am Hermit Philosopher wrote:
I am sorry that my use of the term “we” is upsetting to you,
All pronouns take their meaning from social context. When philosophers use language they should all be explicit as to what a given pronoun refers to.

This whole discussion of No-Self is about explaining "I" .
For an existentialist such as Sartre common usage of "We" is suspected of pertaining to the attitude towards inauthentic herding together .The authentic individual thinks and acts independently of the herd which is composed of members who are not free of herd mentality.

"I" is generally used by a centre of experience who takes responsibility for actions of which that centre of experience was the agent.
It's therefore fair enough to require identities of the "We" that the transmitter of the info refers to.

Dear Belinda

I am not certain how that emphasis contributes to the question in the OP, as the OP already assumed that X has the experience of being an individual but does not believe in a self.

Do you see how nothing that increases one’s understanding of that paradox is gained by focusing on my particular use of “we” in that context? In fact, it rather takes you away from the issue in question and blurs it with a discussion of subjectives that, however interesting it is, will not help make sense of our paradox.


Humbly
Hermit
Belinda
Posts: 8030
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: Buddhism and no-self

Post by Belinda »

Indeed Hermit I can see my reply about identifying who a pronoun is meant to refer to is tangential to the main most interesting discussion.

As to the main point of discussion, no-self means to me and for me that what feels and thinks is experience itself. I.e. experience is not a thing called "mind" or dependent on a thing called "mind" . It so happens experience pertains to each separate unique person. A person is a centre for those experiences that happen in an environment which is unique to that centre. Do you know Indra's Net?

It is one of the disadvantages of language that most people reify whatever is named. Thus mind is reified, i.e. thingified. It follows from the thingifying of mind that mind can come to resemble a wee man sitting inside the head, or others may deny there is any such thing as mind and talk of mind is talk of a mere epiphenomenon of brain activity.
User avatar
RCSaunders
Posts: 4704
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
Contact:

Re: Buddhism and no-self

Post by RCSaunders »

bahman wrote: Sun Sep 12, 2021 4:24 pm I perceived my mind. I have an argument for the mind too.
If you mean you know you are conscious, that is right, but perception is not how you know it. Perception refers to the direct consciousness of what is seen, heard, felt, smelled and tasted, but you cannot see, hear, feel, smell, or taste your concsiousness. You know you consciously see, not by seeing or hearing it or perceiving it in any other way; you know you see because you do. You know you are conscious because you are, not by perceiving it.
Belinda
Posts: 8030
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: Buddhism and no-self

Post by Belinda »

RCSaunders wrote: Mon Sep 13, 2021 4:24 pm
bahman wrote: Sun Sep 12, 2021 4:24 pm I perceived my mind. I have an argument for the mind too.
If you mean you know you are conscious, that is right, but perception is not how you know it. Perception refers to the direct consciousness of what is seen, heard, felt, smelled and tasted, but you cannot see, hear, feel, smell, or taste your concsiousness. You know you consciously see, not by seeing or hearing it or perceiving it in any other way; you know you see because you do. You know you are conscious because you are, not by perceiving it.
A man does not know he is conscious. Consciousness is what creates the concept of 'a man' and also the concept of 'consciousness'.

A bat does not know he is conscious, neither does a bat create concepts. It so happens that a man reasons as he does and a bat is sentient and does not reason. There is an ethical implication that anthropocentrism is not true , and will be the end of civilised life on Earth besides the end of many species.
User avatar
RCSaunders
Posts: 4704
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
Contact:

Re: Buddhism and no-self

Post by RCSaunders »

Belinda wrote: Mon Sep 13, 2021 8:18 pm
RCSaunders wrote: Mon Sep 13, 2021 4:24 pm
bahman wrote: Sun Sep 12, 2021 4:24 pm I perceived my mind. I have an argument for the mind too.
If you mean you know you are conscious, that is right, but perception is not how you know it. Perception refers to the direct consciousness of what is seen, heard, felt, smelled and tasted, but you cannot see, hear, feel, smell, or taste your concsiousness. You know you consciously see, not by seeing or hearing it or perceiving it in any other way; you know you see because you do. You know you are conscious because you are, not by perceiving it.
A man does not know he is conscious.
If you want to deny you know you are conscious one just has to take your word for it, but just because you do not know you are conscious does not mean no one else does. Are you sure that's what you mean?
Belinda wrote: Mon Sep 13, 2021 8:18 pm Consciousness is what creates the concept of 'a man' and also the concept of 'consciousness'.
Aren't concepts our means to knowledge? Of course a man consciously forms the concept of consciousness, but unlike the concepts of "man," "cats," "bats," "books," and "automobiles," which are things he sees and directly perceives, he cannot form his concept of consciousness based on seeing it or perceiving it. It is his actual experience of consciousness itself his concept identifies, not something he sees, hear, feels, tastes, or smells. That's my only point.
Belinda wrote: Mon Sep 13, 2021 8:18 pm A bat does not know he is conscious, neither does a bat create concepts. It so happens that a man reasons as he does and a bat is sentient and does not reason. There is an ethical implication that anthropocentrism is not true , and will be the end of civilised life on Earth besides the end of many species.
I really have no idea what your point is, or what you think my comment has to do with what bats do not know or "civilized life," or, "many species." Sorry!
Post Reply