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: Sat Sep 11, 2021 5:25 pm 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? :?
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon Sep 13, 2021 6:12 am 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.
I'm not sure I can put into words how much your reply trivializes Buddhism, but I'll give it a shot.

You will no doubt find a way of weaseling out of this, but what your reply suggests is that the entire reason for why one should take-on Buddhism's rigorous methods for attaining "enlightenment" is so that one can avoid the general range of sufferings that one might incur during a single human lifetime.

Your reply implies that Buddhism's concept of "nirvana" is nothing more than the achieving of a state of mind that not only helps one to be less clinging (less attached) to what you insist is a false hope that there is more to life (more to one's own being) than meets the eye,...

...but also allows one to "dodge the dukkha" in such a way where one is no longer overwhelmed or incapacitated by the negative feelings and emotions that come from such things as...
  • 1. Breaking up with one's girlfriend/boyfriend/husband/wife.

    2. Getting fired from a job.

    3. Being bullied at school or work.

    4. Having no friends.

    5. Being concerned or embarrassed because of one's looks.

    6. Being concerned or embarrassed because one accidently farts in public.

    7. Etc.

    8. Etc.

    9. Etc.
In other words, before enlightenment: chop wood, carry water (but suffer from the embarrassment caused by that thundering fart that you accidently let loose in a crowded elevator where stood the cute girl you were hoping to ask out on a date) (what?...just me? :D)

However, after enlightenment: chop wood, carry water (but suffer no embarrassment from the abovementioned incident because you have achieved "moksha" from the "dukkha" that comes from such occurrences).

So congratulations, you have managed to reduce all of the mysterious-sounding metaphysics of Buddhism...

(samsara, dukkha, moksha, and nirvana, etc.)

...to being nothing more than an ancient form of secular psychology designed to relieve the stress and tensions of everyday life.

Image

Good grief, man, if a human lifetime is limited to, at most, perhaps a hundred years,...

(and way less in most cases)

...then any form of dukkha (suffering) that one might incur during that time, will be over with (finished/kaput) in the blink of an eye compared to the eternal oblivion that follows your exit from this world.

Indeed, if there is no such cosmic system in play that forces someone to be caught-up in endless cycles of literal births, deaths, and rebirths (samsara) due to unresolved karmic issues, and that a person experiences only one lifetime on earth,...

...then the need for going through the complicated (time-consuming) rigors of attaining enlightenment via Buddhism is not only an overkill approach to the problem, but is, itself, a form of (self-imposed) dukkha.

So why even bother if, indeed, the length of a human lifetime...

(which could be as short as one day)

...puts an implicit (guaranteed) limit on the problem of suffering?

Again, you have trivialized Buddhism to the point of rendering Buddha's own alleged claim of having lived approximately 554 past lives as being nothing more than him remembering 554 random events in the one (and only) lifetime that he did experience.

I mean, how much of an idiot do you have to be to refer to your recollection of the exciting lunch you had two weeks ago as being a remembrance of one of your past lifetimes?

Yet, that is what you are basically saying about the Buddha.

(Disclaimer: I have no stake in the defense of Buddha's honor or reincarnational claims, for I personally think that reincarnation is a false doctrine, and that Buddhism is founded upon a mix of mythological nonsense with that of some possible truths [just like all of the other world religions].

I am simply holding a mirror up to what V.A.'s assertions imply [especially the implication of Buddhism's inherent nihilism], while coming to the conclusion that whenever V.A. adds the word "proper" after something [such as "Buddhism-proper" or "Science-proper"], the "proper" part simply means whatever it is that V.A. personally believes to be true [though it is oftentimes glaringly false].)

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

Re: Buddhism and no-self

Post by Age »

Hermit Philosopher wrote: Mon Sep 13, 2021 11:15 am
Age wrote: Mon Sep 13, 2021 4:38 am
Hermit Philosopher wrote: Sun Sep 12, 2021 2:09 pm



“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).
Could you be wrong here?

Or, do you believe that "what you can tell" is absolutely right?
Hermit Philosopher wrote: Mon Sep 13, 2021 11:15 am 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.
But I do not have a problem with it. Why did you make the wrong assumption that I did?
Hermit Philosopher wrote: Mon Sep 13, 2021 11:15 am 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
Your use of the term 'we' was never upsetting to me.

You can use the 'we' word anytime you like. I was just clarifying with you who the 'we' word, which you were using at that time, was referring to.

I was then just pointing out and showing how anyone else could use the 'we' word, say the exact opposite of what you did, and still be just as correct as you were.

You appear to have an issue with this and be upset by this. Is this correct?
Age
Posts: 20043
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Buddhism and no-self

Post by Age »

Hermit Philosopher wrote: Mon Sep 13, 2021 12:18 pm
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.
But 'who', exactly, is the X?

Saying, "we", could refer to just about ANY thing.
Hermit Philosopher wrote: Mon Sep 13, 2021 12:18 pm 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?
If 'you' do NOT YET KNOW who the 'we' is, when you use that term, then so be it. BUT, if 'you' are AWARE and do KNOW, then why not just say who it is?

See, there is a GREAT DEAL of words, phrases, and terms, 'you', human beings, use, in the days when this is being written, but when questioned and/or challenged over those words, phrases, and terms, what can be CLEARLY SEEN and PROVEN, as I have SHOWN and REVEALED already throughout these writings, is that 'you', people, REALLY do NOT YET fully understand and know what 'you' are talking about.

For example, if I was to question you about; What does the phrase, "that paradox", refer to, EXACTLY, in the words "nothing that increases one's understanding of that paradox"?

What I SEE is if you explain who and/or what the 'we' means or refers to, when 'you' use the 'we' word, then this will help in understanding what 'it' is that you are 'trying to' explain here.

For starters, if there is NO 'self', which 'you' seem to BELIEVE there is none, then HOW can there even be a 'we'?

And, if 'I' wanted to take this further how is there even a 'you', if there is NO 'self'?
Hermit Philosopher wrote: Mon Sep 13, 2021 12:18 pm 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
LOL 'what' "paradox"?

Also, what does the word, term, or phrase, 'paradox' even mean, to 'you', (the none 'self')?

By the way, was what I just wrote, 'a paradox'?
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12242
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Buddhism and no-self

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

seeds wrote: Mon Sep 13, 2021 9:58 pm
seeds wrote: Sat Sep 11, 2021 5:25 pm 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? :?
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon Sep 13, 2021 6:12 am 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.
I'm not sure I can put into words how much your reply trivializes Buddhism, but I'll give it a shot.

You will no doubt find a way of weaseling out of this, but what your reply suggests is that the entire reason for why one should take-on Buddhism's rigorous methods for attaining "enlightenment" is so that one can avoid the general range of sufferings that one might incur during a single human lifetime.

Your reply implies that Buddhism's concept of "nirvana" is nothing more than the achieving of a state of mind that not only helps one to be less clinging (less attached) to what you insist is a false hope that there is more to life (more to one's own being) than meets the eye,...

...but also allows one to "dodge the dukkha" in such a way where one is no longer overwhelmed or incapacitated by the negative feelings and emotions that come from such things as...
  • 1. Breaking up with one's girlfriend/boyfriend/husband/wife.

    2. Getting fired from a job.

    3. Being bullied at school or work.

    4. Having no friends.

    5. Being concerned or embarrassed because of one's looks.

    6. Being concerned or embarrassed because one accidently farts in public.

    7. Etc.

    8. Etc.

    9. Etc.
In other words, before enlightenment: chop wood, carry water (but suffer from the embarrassment caused by that thundering fart that you accidently let loose in a crowded elevator where stood the cute girl you were hoping to ask out on a date) (what?...just me? :D)

However, after enlightenment: chop wood, carry water (but suffer no embarrassment from the abovementioned incident because you have achieved "moksha" from the "dukkha" that comes from such occurrences).

So congratulations, you have managed to reduce all of the mysterious-sounding metaphysics of Buddhism...

(samsara, dukkha, moksha, and nirvana, etc.)

...to being nothing more than an ancient form of secular psychology designed to relieve the stress and tensions of everyday life.

Image

Good grief, man, if a human lifetime is limited to, at most, perhaps a hundred years,...

(and way less in most cases)

...then any form of dukkha (suffering) that one might incur during that time, will be over with (finished/kaput) in the blink of an eye compared to the eternal oblivion that follows your exit from this world.

Indeed, if there is no such cosmic system in play that forces someone to be caught-up in endless cycles of literal births, deaths, and rebirths (samsara) due to unresolved karmic issues, and that a person experiences only one lifetime on earth,...

...then the need for going through the complicated (time-consuming) rigors of attaining enlightenment via Buddhism is not only an overkill approach to the problem, but is, itself, a form of (self-imposed) dukkha.

So why even bother if, indeed, the length of a human lifetime...

(which could be as short as one day)

...puts an implicit (guaranteed) limit on the problem of suffering?

Again, you have trivialized Buddhism to the point of rendering Buddha's own alleged claim of having lived approximately 554 past lives as being nothing more than him remembering 554 random events in the one (and only) lifetime that he did experience.

I mean, how much of an idiot do you have to be to refer to your recollection of the exciting lunch you had two weeks ago as being a remembrance of one of your past lifetimes?

Yet, that is what you are basically saying about the Buddha.

(Disclaimer: I have no stake in the defense of Buddha's honor or reincarnational claims, for I personally think that reincarnation is a false doctrine, and that Buddhism is founded upon a mix of mythological nonsense with that of some possible truths [just like all of the other world religions].

I am simply holding a mirror up to what V.A.'s assertions imply [especially the implication of Buddhism's inherent nihilism], while coming to the conclusion that whenever V.A. adds the word "proper" after something [such as "Buddhism-proper" or "Science-proper"], the "proper" part simply means whatever it is that V.A. personally believes to be true [though it is oftentimes glaringly false].)

_______
Trivialized Buddhism??

Note I mentioned 'the full range of Buddhism-proper' which would cover whatever is relevant for life in reality.

The topic in discussion to the point, was about the self and the point of whether there is 'no self' or 'there is a self' [permanent and/or survive after physical death].
You are one who directed the point to birth, death, rebirth and 'redeath'.
So my postings and response were thus focused on this point to topic.

Buddhism proper is targeted at optimizing the well being of the whole life of the individual[s], that of humanity and other living entities.
Sufferings is one of the most critical aspects and a hindrance to life, i.e. when one is able to manage 'sufferings' then one can focus one's energy in optimizing the whole aspects of one life and contributing to that of others.

The list of sufferings you listed above are equivalent and relative to the pain a small pin p_r_ick when compared the the mother of all sufferings, i.e. the fear of death, the existential crisis and the pining for eternal life, thus the invention of a self that can survive physical death. This is the basis of Genocides especially those from Islam and other ideologies.
Belinda
Posts: 8030
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: Buddhism and no-self

Post by Belinda »

Veritas Aequitas wrote:
How in the world can something that does not exist, get caught in the cycle of rebirths and redeaths? :?
To recapitulate, the something that does not exist is the self.

Self concept and self belief must be regarded as a prison house from which which the enlightenment of no-self frees you.

And also when you are free from believing your nexus of experience is experienced by a self then you don't fear death because experience, unlike selves, exists eternally. I.e. it's impossible for experience to not exist.
seeds
Posts: 2127
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2016 9:31 pm

Re: Buddhism and no-self

Post by seeds »

Belinda wrote: Tue Sep 14, 2021 12:06 pm Veritas Aequitas wrote:
How in the world can something that does not exist, get caught in the cycle of rebirths and redeaths? :?
To recapitulate, the something that does not exist is the self.

Self concept and self belief must be regarded as a prison house from which which the enlightenment of no-self frees you.

And also when you are free from believing your nexus of experience is experienced by a self then you don't fear death because experience, unlike selves, exists eternally. I.e. it's impossible for experience to not exist.
Belinda, I'm the one who wrote the line you quoted, not Veritas Aequitas.

And as to your suggestion that experience can exist without the self,...

...do you also believe that thoughts can exist without the thinker? Do you believe that dreams can exist without the dreamer? Because, to me, that is what you are proposing.
_______
Belinda
Posts: 8030
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: Buddhism and no-self

Post by Belinda »

seeds wrote: Tue Sep 14, 2021 3:24 pm
Belinda wrote: Tue Sep 14, 2021 12:06 pm Veritas Aequitas wrote:
How in the world can something that does not exist, get caught in the cycle of rebirths and redeaths? :?
To recapitulate, the something that does not exist is the self.

Self concept and self belief must be regarded as a prison house from which which the enlightenment of no-self frees you.

And also when you are free from believing your nexus of experience is experienced by a self then you don't fear death because experience, unlike selves, exists eternally. I.e. it's impossible for experience to not exist.
Belinda, I'm the one who wrote the line you quoted, not Veritas Aequitas.

And as to your suggestion that experience can exist without the self,...

...do you also believe that thoughts can exist without the thinker? Do you believe that dreams can exist without the dreamer? Because, to me, that is what you are proposing.
_______
Sorry, Seeds and Veritas Aequitas.

To answer your question, Seeds. If the thoughts or the dreams are actual experiences, then I do believe they exist without a self, but can't exist without a nexus of other experiences. Nexuses of experiences are unique to each nexus.

There is a problem with the word 'self' which is that many if not most habitually picture it as an entity.
seeds
Posts: 2127
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2016 9:31 pm

Re: Buddhism and no-self

Post by seeds »

seeds wrote: Mon Sep 13, 2021 9:58 pm I'm not sure I can put into words how much your reply trivializes Buddhism, but I'll give it a shot.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Tue Sep 14, 2021 8:43 am Trivialized Buddhism??
Yes, you trivialized Buddhism.

Or, perhaps I should say that you have shined a proper light on it and stripped it of its more glorious and "mystical" (other-worldly) seeming air, in that you have correctly revealed it as being nothing more than, again, an ancient form of secular psychology designed to help relieve the worries and suffering (dukkha) inherent in everyday life.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Tue Sep 14, 2021 8:43 am Note I mentioned 'the full range of Buddhism-proper' which would cover whatever is relevant for life in reality.

The topic in discussion to the point, was about the self and the point of whether there is 'no self' or 'there is a self' [permanent and/or survive after physical death].
You are one who directed the point to birth, death, rebirth and 'redeath'.
So my postings and response were thus focused on this point to topic.
Look into your self-proclaimed extensive knowledge of the "...full range of Buddhism-proper..." and find for me some postable quotes from reputable sources that insist that the notion of someone being "caught in the cycle of rebirths and redeaths"...

(as was stated in the self-contradictory quote from Nagarjuna)

...is not referring to literal rebirths and redeaths of a person into different lifetimes in different bodies due to unresolved karmic issues,...

...but is, in truth, referring to the rebirths and redeaths (the comings and goings) of the general range of (trivial-to-severe) sufferings that one might encounter in the limited context of just "one" human lifetime.

-------

(Note: Based on our prior encounters, I fully expect you to respond by saying that there is no specific quote in "Buddhism-proper" that directly states such a thing.

You will then no doubt go on to suggest that if I had taken the time to study the full range of "Buddhism-proper" to the degree to which you have, I would then be able to truly understand [like you do] what Buddhism's interpretation of being "caught in the cycle of rebirths and redeaths" really means.

However, go ahead and prove me wrong by showing us some valid quotes from, again, reputable sources concerning the true meaning of "samsara" from the perspective of Buddhism.)

_______
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 3:24 pm Belinda, I'm the one who wrote the line you quoted, not Veritas Aequitas.

And as to your suggestion that experience can exist without the self,...

...do you also believe that thoughts can exist without the thinker? Do you believe that dreams can exist without the dreamer? Because, to me, that is what you are proposing.
Belinda wrote: Tue Sep 14, 2021 5:31 pm Sorry, Seeds and Veritas Aequitas.

To answer your question, Seeds. If the thoughts or the dreams are actual experiences, then I do believe they exist without a self,...
Of course they are actual experiences, B.

Indeed, 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)

_______
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12242
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Buddhism and no-self

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

seeds wrote: Tue Sep 14, 2021 10:26 pm
seeds wrote: Mon Sep 13, 2021 9:58 pm I'm not sure I can put into words how much your reply trivializes Buddhism, but I'll give it a shot.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Tue Sep 14, 2021 8:43 am Trivialized Buddhism??
Yes, you trivialized Buddhism.

Or, perhaps I should say that you have shined a proper light on it and stripped it of its more glorious and "mystical" (other-worldly) seeming air, in that you have correctly revealed it as being nothing more than, again, an ancient form of secular psychology designed to help relieve the worries and suffering (dukkha) inherent in everyday life.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Tue Sep 14, 2021 8:43 am Note I mentioned 'the full range of Buddhism-proper' which would cover whatever is relevant for life in reality.

The topic in discussion to the point, was about the self and the point of whether there is 'no self' or 'there is a self' [permanent and/or survive after physical death].
You are one who directed the point to birth, death, rebirth and 'redeath'.
So my postings and response were thus focused on this point to topic.
Look into your self-proclaimed extensive knowledge of the "...full range of Buddhism-proper..." and find for me some postable quotes from reputable sources that insist that the notion of someone being "caught in the cycle of rebirths and redeaths"...

(as was stated in the self-contradictory quote from Nagarjuna)

...is not referring to literal rebirths and redeaths of a person into different lifetimes in different bodies due to unresolved karmic issues,...

...but is, in truth, referring to the rebirths and redeaths (the comings and goings) of the general range of (trivial-to-severe) sufferings that one might encounter in the limited context of just "one" human lifetime.

-------

(Note: Based on our prior encounters, I fully expect you to respond by saying that there is no specific quote in "Buddhism-proper" that directly states such a thing.

You will then no doubt go on to suggest that if I had taken the time to study the full range of "Buddhism-proper" to the degree to which you have, I would then be able to truly understand [like you do] what Buddhism's interpretation of being "caught in the cycle of rebirths and redeaths" really means.

However, go ahead and prove me wrong by showing us some valid quotes from, again, reputable sources concerning the true meaning of "samsara" from the perspective of Buddhism.)

_______
There are three [+1] main areas I claim to be a reasonable expert in, i.e.
1. Buddhism
2. Islam
3. Kant's Critique of Pure Reason.
4. What is Philosophy ..

My grasp of the rest [re Philosophy] are of average+ to low level of knowledge.

As such, your guess is right, re Buddhism-proper, re your;
"if I had taken the time to study the full range of "Buddhism-proper" to the degree to which you have, I would then be able to truly understand [like you do] what Buddhism's interpretation of being "caught in the cycle of rebirths and redeaths" really means."

If you [or anyone] have not covered Buddhism in its full range [exhaustively] then it is obvious you [one] have a handicap expressing what Buddhism-proper represent in this case.

I have already given you a clue to Nagarjuna's take of "no permanent self" and note,
Nāgārjuna was an Indian Mahāyāna Buddhist thinker, scholar-saint and philosopher. He is widely considered one of the most important Buddhist philosophers.[2]
Furthermore, according to Jan Westerhoff, he is also "one of the greatest thinkers in the history of Asian philosophy."[3]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nagarjuna
There are many other famous Buddhist philosophers who take the "no permanent self" stance, but if you can prove [or show a clue as a start] Nagarjuna [the standard bearer] is wrong, then you have a point which we can dig into more details.

Note:
If one were to cover Buddhism exhaustively, one will note there are loads of nonsense in theories and practices by certain sects at the fringes to the highest rigorous levels of philosophy and practices of Buddhism.
The point is Buddhism-in-General do not condemn but tolerate these nonsense [except those promoting actual evil and violence] but accept them due to the range of state and inclinations of humans within human-nature [humanity].
This is why I have to qualify 'Buddhism-proper' to its core principles and practices.
seeds
Posts: 2127
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2016 9:31 pm

Re: Buddhism and no-self

Post by seeds »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Sep 15, 2021 4:29 am There are three [+1] main areas I claim to be a reasonable expert in, i.e.
1. Buddhism
2. Islam
3. Kant's Critique of Pure Reason.
4. What is Philosophy ..

My grasp of the rest [re Philosophy] are of average+ to low level of knowledge.

As such, your guess is right, re Buddhism-proper, re your;
"if I had taken the time to study the full range of "Buddhism-proper" to the degree to which you have, I would then be able to truly understand [like you do] what Buddhism's interpretation of being "caught in the cycle of rebirths and redeaths" really means."
Great, you're taking my facetious remarks about your M.O. and wearing them as a badge of honor. Okay.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Sep 15, 2021 4:29 am I have already given you a clue to Nagarjuna's take of "no permanent self" and note,
Nāgārjuna was an Indian Mahāyāna Buddhist thinker, scholar-saint and philosopher. He is widely considered one of the most important Buddhist philosophers.[2]
Furthermore, according to Jan Westerhoff, he is also "one of the greatest thinkers in the history of Asian philosophy."[3]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nagarjuna
A brazen appeal to authority. Nice. Not to mention a shameless attempt to dodge the issue I brought up in my prior post regarding the true meaning of "samsara" from the Buddhist perspective.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Sep 15, 2021 4:29 am There are many other famous Buddhist philosophers who take the "no permanent self" stance, but if you can prove [or show a clue as a start] Nagarjuna is wrong, then you have a point which we can dig into more details.
I have already pointed out the contradiction that resides in the following Nagarjuna quote that I posted as a follow-up to the one that you posted...
seeds wrote: Sun Sep 12, 2021 5:30 pm 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? :?
To which you then went on to agree that, yes, it would be a contradiction if it weren't for the fact that according to your "expert" understanding of "Buddhism-proper," the notion of one being "caught in the cycle of rebirths and redeaths" doesn't mean what it sounds like it means,...

...and is only referring to, again, the rebirths and redeaths (the comings and goings) of the general range of (trivial-to-severe) sufferings that one might encounter in the limited context of just "one" human lifetime.

To which I then say, where are the reputable quotes I asked for in my prior post that clearly show that what you have asserted is indeed what Buddhism's interpretation of "samsara" really means?

I'm still waiting for those quotes.

(And no, Veritas, I'm not talking about Buddhism's stance on the "no permanent self" issue. So don't try that diversion again.)
_______
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12242
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Buddhism and no-self

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

seeds wrote: Wed Sep 15, 2021 7:06 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Sep 15, 2021 4:29 am There are three [+1] main areas I claim to be a reasonable expert in, i.e.
1. Buddhism
2. Islam
3. Kant's Critique of Pure Reason.
4. What is Philosophy ..

My grasp of the rest [re Philosophy] are of average+ to low level of knowledge.

As such, your guess is right, re Buddhism-proper, re your;
"if I had taken the time to study the full range of "Buddhism-proper" to the degree to which you have, I would then be able to truly understand [like you do] what Buddhism's interpretation of being "caught in the cycle of rebirths and redeaths" really means."
Great, you're taking my facetious remarks about your M.O. and wearing them as a badge of honor. Okay.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Sep 15, 2021 4:29 am I have already given you a clue to Nagarjuna's take of "no permanent self" and note,
Nāgārjuna was an Indian Mahāyāna Buddhist thinker, scholar-saint and philosopher. He is widely considered one of the most important Buddhist philosophers.[2]
Furthermore, according to Jan Westerhoff, he is also "one of the greatest thinkers in the history of Asian philosophy."[3]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nagarjuna
A brazen appeal to authority. Nice. Not to mention a shameless attempt to dodge the issue I brought up in my prior post regarding the true meaning of "samsara" from the Buddhist perspective.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Sep 15, 2021 4:29 am There are many other famous Buddhist philosophers who take the "no permanent self" stance, but if you can prove [or show a clue as a start] Nagarjuna is wrong, then you have a point which we can dig into more details.
I have already pointed out the contradiction that resides in the following Nagarjuna quote that I posted as a follow-up to the one that you posted...
seeds wrote: Sun Sep 12, 2021 5:30 pm 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? :?
To which you then went on to agree that, yes, it would be a contradiction if it weren't for the fact that according to your "expert" understanding of "Buddhism-proper," the notion of one being "caught in the cycle of rebirths and redeaths" doesn't mean what it sounds like it means,...

...and is only referring to, again, the rebirths and redeaths (the comings and goings) of the general range of (trivial-to-severe) sufferings that one might encounter in the limited context of just "one" human lifetime.

To which I then say, where are the reputable quotes I asked for in my prior post that clearly show that what you have asserted is indeed what Buddhism's interpretation of "samsara" really means?

I'm still waiting for those quotes.

(And no, Veritas, I'm not talking about Buddhism's stance on the "no permanent self" issue. So don't try that diversion again.)
_______
I have already given you the clues.
I have other projects on hand, thus do not want to waste searching tru the texts.

Here is another clue,
Samsara is considered to be dukkha, suffering, and in general unsatisfactory and painful,[2] perpetuated by desire and avidya (ignorance), and the resulting karma.[3][4][5]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sa%E1%B9% ... (Buddhism)
User avatar
bahman
Posts: 8791
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: Buddhism and no-self

Post by bahman »

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.
I had a direct experience of my mind. It is hard to explain it as it is hard to explain love to someone who has never experience love.
Belinda
Posts: 8030
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: Buddhism and no-self

Post by Belinda »

seeds wrote: Tue Sep 14, 2021 10:27 pm
seeds wrote: Tue Sep 14, 2021 3:24 pm Belinda, I'm the one who wrote the line you quoted, not Veritas Aequitas.

And as to your suggestion that experience can exist without the self,...

...do you also believe that thoughts can exist without the thinker? Do you believe that dreams can exist without the dreamer? Because, to me, that is what you are proposing.
Belinda wrote: Tue Sep 14, 2021 5:31 pm Sorry, Seeds and Veritas Aequitas.

To answer your question, Seeds. If the thoughts or the dreams are actual experiences, then I do believe they exist without a self,...
Of course they are actual experiences, B.

Indeed, 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)

_______
The "s
Seeds, when I wrote "If the thoughts or the dreams are actual experiences," I can't remember what i meant by "actual" and I should have deleted "actual ". As you say "of course they are actual" and I agree thoughts and dreams are experiences.
So, no, Belinda, thoughts and dreams would not (cannot) exist if the "selfs" to whom the thoughts and dreams belong, did not exist.
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.These "selfs" then must be , for you as for me, subjective constructs . 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 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.
User avatar
RCSaunders
Posts: 4704
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
Contact:

Re: Buddhism and no-self

Post by RCSaunders »

bahman wrote: Wed Sep 15, 2021 10:10 am I had a direct experience of my mind. It is hard to explain ...
Apparently it is.
Post Reply