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 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.
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:Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Sep 11, 2021 7:14 am Note, one of the core principles of Buddhism-proper is 'anatta';
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.
- 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
Apparently, you don't understand what it means to stay silent on something of which there can be no certainty of.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.
There are many beliefs.
What about the belief there is a self?
Ok
Then the question cannot be answered. Can an idea know anything? I have no idea.
I agree with the Qualia idea.
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...
Noted your highlighted point.seeds wrote: ↑Sat Sep 11, 2021 5:25 pmseeds 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.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:Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Sep 11, 2021 7:14 am Note, one of the core principles of Buddhism-proper is 'anatta';
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.
- 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%81Apparently, you don't understand what it means to stay silent on something of which there can be no certainty of.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.
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.)
_______
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.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
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.
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
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.
When you use the 'we' word here, are you 'trying to' speak for EVERY one, or for just some 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
Yes, I agree.I think the brain create Qualia which then Qualia can be experienced by the mind.
Age wrote: ↑Sun Sep 12, 2021 10:56 amThis 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
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.When you use the 'we' word here, are you 'trying to' speak for EVERY one, or for just some 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
I asked you the question that you are replying to here, not "bahman".Hermit Philosopher wrote: ↑Sun Sep 12, 2021 11:39 amAge wrote: ↑Sun Sep 12, 2021 10:56 amThis 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
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.When you use the 'we' word here, are you 'trying to' speak for EVERY one, or for just some 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
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 wrote: ↑Sun Sep 12, 2021 11:48 amI asked you the question that you are replying to here, not "bahman".Hermit Philosopher wrote: ↑Sun Sep 12, 2021 11:39 amAge 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
So, the EXACT OPPOSITE of what you say above could also be TRUE, correct?Hermit Philosopher wrote: ↑Sun Sep 12, 2021 12:16 pmAge wrote: ↑Sun Sep 12, 2021 11:48 amI asked you the question that you are replying to here, not "bahman".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
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 wrote: ↑Sun Sep 12, 2021 12:40 pmSo, the EXACT OPPOSITE of what you say above could also be TRUE, correct?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
Cool.
I agree that we cannot know why we are self aware.Dontaskme wrote: ↑Sat Sep 11, 2021 3:04 pmThen 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?
Cool.Dontaskme wrote: ↑Sat Sep 11, 2021 3:04 pmI 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.
There must be an "I" otherwise what we experience do not necessary have any correlation with what we cause based on our wants.Dontaskme wrote: ↑Sat Sep 11, 2021 3:04 pmYes, 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?
.
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?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