Being a Buddhist without conviction.

[yrreg]

Someone told me about an interesting thread for me to look up, about the 'no self' of Buddhism, and that led me to the idea that I could be a Buddhist without conviction but for any good incentive that is morally neutral.

Hello, Yrreg.

Remember we used to discuss the Buddhist concept of no self? And I said that I believe most atheist believed the same? I even pointed to an old thread.

Anyway, there's a thread going on right now about the concept of selv vs no self. Maybe you should check it out and see what you think.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=60550

John Doe

I looked up 'self' in the Search the Thread (the one you referred me to) link and it returned the following line:

"Sorry - no matches. Please try some different terms."​

So, that thread has nothing to say about self or no self.

I have already reached some conclusion about the self for my own intelligible idea of life and the universe. There is a self in a living human, and there is a self in every single entity that can at least in discourse be attributed an identity.

In the living human entity, the self is the totality of life in the entity called man, and it is real as wind and stone are real.

About the Buddhist concept of the no self, I really want to ask Buddhists to tell me what is its purpose or role in the Buddhist idea of life and the universe, in respect of the end goal of Buddhism being nirvana, and most important what is its use or advantage to the Buddhist in his everyday life and work and all life's vicissitudes.

I am sure it is a good idea for maintaining an attitude of non-attachment to anything of goodness or badness like loss and deprivation, thereby to be freed in a way from sorrow, or to deaden sorrow.

But the concept is not necessary except to people who cannot be self-resourceful on the one hand and stoic on the other to face life with all its 'evils' and also very important all its 'goods.'

I am still regretfully amazed that a person who can think and write intelligently can be a Buddhist and is attached to his Buddhism -- but that is the vice of infatuation or obsession or self-beguilement, for whatever real objective though hidden or unknown to the person.

I can be a very good Buddhist also, but not for the intrinsic beliefs in Buddhism, but for any good incentives neutrally indifferent in moral perspectives, like being a spokesman of the Dalai Lama with a hefty salary and lots of fringe benefits.

Is that being sincere? It is a bargain, and the performance of the bargain is the sincerity. All life is a script.

What do you guys say?


Yrreg

 

[nescafe]

Someone told me about an interesting thread for me to look up, about the 'no self' of Buddhism, and that led me to the idea that I could be a Buddhist without conviction but for any good incentive that is morally neutral.



What do you guys say?


Yrreg

That you should read the thread. It has some interesting things to say. I recommend skipping about 75 posts or so in.

 

[yrreg]

The golden rule.

That you should read the thread. It has some interesting things to say. I recommend skipping about 75 posts or so in.

.

If and when I like so much someone to read something, I will point out what exactly the portions of a writing he should not miss.

Please tell me what posts in that thread are a must read for me.

Thanks for the concern just the same, but it could be much better practiced if you go into particulars; otherwise you would be like telling a guy to go fish for a living but not telling him further where he should fish so that he will save time and trouble -- unless you are that kind of a person, so parsimonious in your goodness (read that, miserly, in which case don't bother).


Yrreg

 

[l0rca]

Since when were Buddhists convictive? The main idea, afterall, is to train the mind in wont of the interpenetrationality and indifference of the real world.

I think a critique of Buddhism shouldn't be in whether they are right on their views of the real world, but if these views should direct their actions accordingly. They have faith that it is. Consequently, we have no evidence or proof that it is not, including logical proofs, so long as those proofs aren't placed on rediculous foundations.

 

[nescafe]

If and when I like so much someone to read something, I will point out what exactly the portions of a writing he should not miss.

I done so. You already have the link to the thread -- the interesting stuff is towards the end.

Please tell me what posts in that thread are a must read for me.

Why? It is not my job to read it for you and decide which parts your must read.

Thanks for the concern just the same, but it could be much better practiced if you go into particulars; otherwise you would be like telling a guy to go fish for a living but not telling him further where he should fish so that he will save time and trouble -- unless you are that kind of a person, so parsimonious in your goodness (read that, miserly, in which case don't bother).

But I have told you where to fish -- you have been pointed to the correct stream, and I have pointed out where the fish are most likely to bite. I will not catch, cook, and digest your fish for you.

 

[Kopji]

I think the idea is that by following certain practices, each person's Buddha nature emerges. You rightly sense that pursuit of being a good Buddhist is a form of attachment, but I am almost positive that a Buddhist would be the first to agree.

Likewise, one does not go about 'making' a great garden. A gardener follows certain practices and disciplines, and so the garden emerges.

 

[Ryokan]

It's highly unethical to publish private messages, Yrreg. At least now I know never to send you private messages any more.

But there are more interesting threads out there on the web than the p-zombie one. On another forum I found a thread which offers evidence that Christianity is the most intelligent religion.

Guess who pachomius2000 is.

 

[Mojo]

I looked up 'self' in the Search the Thread (the one you referred me to) link and it returned the following line:

"Sorry - no matches. Please try some different terms."
So, that thread has nothing to say about self or no self.

What do you guys say?

You are ignoring two other possibilities.

One is that posters in the thread are using some other term meaning "self", such as "consciousness".

The other is that the "Search this Thread" function is not working properly. Try going to each page of the thread and using your browser's find in this page function.

Or just try reading the thread.

 

[Dancing David]

Someone told me about an interesting thread for me to look up, about the 'no self' of Buddhism, and that led me to the idea that I could be a Buddhist without conviction but for any good incentive that is morally neutral.



What do you guys say?


Yrreg

Bhuddism is a name, practise is the core teaching, faith and conviction are un-needed.

 

[yrreg]

More from John Doe, with compassion.

Transmitted by John Doe:

Read the thread. Just because it doesn't use the specific word 'self', doesn't mean it can't be about the self.

Or don't read it, I don't care.

"I don't care." And you preach compassion as a Buddhist? Hahaha!

Go one step further, tell me about what for you is so good about the self or no self in that thread, that you want to share it with a fellow human whom you don't care for; or whether he reads or not, you don't care about.

In 50 words or less.

When I understand something, I can deliver it in any number of words you restrict my exposition to. Try that tack; and that is why Buddhism is so useless and unprofitable, because it takes Buddhists so much words to say nothing useful and profitable to mankind.

Just being humorous, though, Okay?

Yrreg

Transmitted by John Doe:

No private conversations with you, Yrreg, you just publish them in public.

If people can't or won't do their compassion deeds in public, for this is a public forum, then don't do it at all.

Or, if you can't or won't tell me something in public, then don't bother with it in private.


No offense intended, just that I believe in total transparency and commonality.

But the powers that be here, those people in charge of running this forum, please exempt yourselves from this taboo; still I would prefer that you issue your warnings or whatever to me also in public.


Yrreg

 

[bob_kark]

If people can't or won't do their compassion deeds in public, for this is a public forum, then don't do it at all.

Or, if you can't or won't tell me something in public, then don't bother with it in private.


No offense intended, just that I believe in total transparency and commonality.

But the powers that be here, those people in charge of running this forum, please exempt yourselves from this taboo; still I would prefer that you issue your warnings or whatever to me also in public.


Yrreg

Does this mean that you do not perceive privacy to have value?

 

[yrreg]

Seeking refuge in the no-self, no-consciousness.

A Buddhist pronounces three vows consisting in taking refuge, call that a safehouse.

I take refuge in the Buddha (read that, Gautama).

I take refuge in the Dharma (read that, Dogma).

I take refuge in the Sangha (read that, prison).​

Best in few words, they take refuge in the no-self and consequently in the no-consciousness.


Try this experiement: next time you have a hard time understanding anything, bring it down to concrete real life entities. So, instead of no-self, think of no-Randi or no-Nescafe; and instead of no-consciousness, think of total anesthesia or lying in state, i.e., death.

In this way, you will see why Buddhism is all about taking refuge or flight and keeping oneself in a safehouse or prison, because it is all negative.

And if you want to keep in touch with the real world of flesh and blood, then you will know what life is all about and how to live it fully, insisting on seeing everything in its concrete real dimensions, instead of abstractions whose existence is debated even to the present.


Here is an example of seeing everything in the concrete.

Say, you are bothered with the problem of suffering, make a list of your pains, aches, and discomforts, and sorrows, employing the journalist's five w's and one h: who what when where why and how. See, you can now tackle your suffering, or learn to be stoic about it, or take the easy way out, do a self-departure act, but leave no mess for others to clean up after you.


Yrreg

 

[Piscivore]

I take refuge in the Buddha (read that, Gautama).

I take refuge in the Dharma (read that, Dogma).

I take refuge in the Sangha (read that, prison).​

Read that Equivocation.

 

[yrreg]

This is a public forum for public issues.

Does this mean that you do not perceive privacy to have value?

Privacy has its place for private issues and matters, just like in a home and in the neighborhood.

This here is a public place for public issues and public matters.

Now, if you really want to have some private matter with me like about some business idea or some personal situation for which, flattering myself, you seek my opinion for your personal purpose of self-direction, and you really don't want others to know about and to participate in, then send me an email, mdejess@gmail.com.


Yrreg

 

[nescafe]

I know I shouldn't, but...

A Buddhist pronounces three vows consisting in taking refuge, call that a safehouse.

I take refuge in the Buddha (read that, Gautama).

I take refuge in the Dharma (read that, Dogma).

I take refuge in the Sangha (read that, prison).​

That is really an impressive amount of distortion there. The bits I find funniest are:

• Your dogmatic insistence that the Dharma is some thing that all Buddhists must believe in and have an identical understanding of to the last word.
• The total nonsensicality of equating Sangha with prison. The Sangha is simply a community.

Best in few words, they take refuge in the no-self and consequently in the no-consciousness.

No-self is not the same as no-consciousness. It is quite possible to have consciousness without a self.

Try this experiement: next time you have a hard time understanding anything, bring it down to concrete real life entities. So, instead of no-self, think of no-Randi or no-Nescafe; and instead of no-consciousness, think of total anesthesia or lying in state, i.e., death.

Easy. That which I refer to as my self is not the same thing as it was even a minute ago -- it changes as my thought patterns shift and flow in response to environmental stimuli, emotional context, memory association, etc, and goes away when I go to sleep. In a very real sense, there is no Nescafe -- it is a shifting pattern of thoughts, emotions, memories, etc. In the same sense, Randi does not exist, and neither does yrreg.

In this way, you will see why Buddhism is all about taking refuge or flight and keeping oneself in a safehouse or prison, because it is all negative.

You need to learn some new criticisms -- the old ones are getting a bit worn.

And if you want to keep in touch with the real world of flesh and blood, then you will know what life is all about and how to live it fully, insisting on seeing everything in its concrete real dimensions, instead of abstractions whose existence is debated even to the present.

I trust this is unintentional humor, because getting rid of useless abstractions and dealing with things as they really are is one of the things that buddhist practice can equip you to do.

Say, you are bothered with the problem of suffering, make a list of your pains, aches, and discomforts, and sorrows, employing the journalist's five w's and one h: who what when where why and how. See, you can now tackle your suffering, or learn to be stoic about it, or take the easy way out, do a self-departure act, but leave no mess for others to clean up after you.

The 5 Ws and one H are good tools to use to get to the root cause of suffering, I agree there. In many instances they will even give you the information needed to resolve that particular cause of suffering.

In the future, though, I would refrain from advocating suicide.
(ed. punctuation)

 

[Mojo]

Transmitted by John Doe:

Read the thread. Just because it doesn't use the specific word 'self', doesn't mean it can't be about the self.

Or don't read it, I don't care.

Hey, yrreg, did you try searching the thread for the word "self" using the "find" function of your browser?

Or reading it, to see if other terms for "self" may have been used?

 

[lolurigeller]

Guess who pachomius2000 is.

Yrreg?

If buddhism is full of holes, christianity is a gaping abyss full of emptiness.

 

[nosho]

Here is an example of seeing everything in the concrete.

Say, you are bothered with the problem of suffering, make a list of your pains, aches, and discomforts, and sorrows, employing the journalist's five w's and one h: who what when where why and how. See, you can now tackle your suffering, or learn to be stoic about it, or take the easy way out, do a self-departure act, but leave no mess for others to clean up after you.

And while you are making this list, are you closer to your in-the-moment suffering, or farther away from it?

In the process of dwelling on the past, organizing it, labeling it, assigning blame, writing it all down, and then planning future action, is there any time left to be present with your suffering? Or is all this busywork a way of distancing yourself from your present experience of suffering, right now, in this moment?

For many people, list-making becomes a form of escapism, a method of turning away from the reality of the present moment.

Clearly, you agree with some of the foundational notions of Buddhism. You acknowledge suffering (the first noble truth). You acknowledge that suffering has a beginning (the second noble truth). In fact, you suggest listing how it began. You imply that suffering has an end (the third noble truth), and you suggest a path for the cessation of suffering (the fourth noble truth).

But where Buddhism teaches the eightfold path (anchored in the now), you teach the path of list-making (anchored in the past and future).

Just as a Buddhist goes for refuge in the triple gem, you go for refuge in your lists and plans.

Nobody can tell you which path will work for you, yrreg. You will see for yourself. May you find real peace in this very moment.

 

[yrreg]

Simple but convincing experiment on self and consciousness.

No-self is not the same as no-consciousness. It is quite possible to have consciousness without a self.

...my self is not the same thing as it was even a minute ago -- it changes as my thought patterns shift and flow in response to environmental stimuli, emotional context, memory association, etc, and goes away when I go to sleep. In a very real sense, there is no Nescafe -- it is a shifting pattern of thoughts, emotions, memories, etc. In the same sense, Randi does not exist, and neither does yrreg

Try this experiment on yourself,* hit yourself in the head with a hammer at 100 feet per second; if and when you come out from the unconsciousness, then you will know you have a self though your consciousness had been suspended. If you don’t come out of the unconsciousness; then you are no longer relevant, not for discourse with others who are conscious, and neither with yourself: for you have become as a memory, without any relevancy to others and much less to yourself.

Here, there must be a common hammer in your home, it looks like this:


For failproof efficacy, try a sledgehammer, you can get one in the hardware store; it looks like this:



Tell me, Nescafe, what role does the pseudo concept of non-self play in the system of Buddhism. If your gurus don't ever bring up the pseudo concept of the non-self, will Buddhism also be as complete for the purpose of getting to Nirvana in this life and then to Parinirvana post death?

And what role does it play in your everyday life of work, play, interactions with your family and circles of friends, neighbors, workmates in the office?


You see, Western philosophy subscribes to the principle of parsimony also known as Occam's Razor. You can't grasp that the pseudo concept of the non-self is absolutely superfluous even in your religion of Buddhism?

Tell me lastly, as you are presumably possessed of fundamental scientific outlook and critical thinking skill, which two features mark the scientific skeptics from credulous folks given to insane metaphysics, is the self a scientific phenomenon or what? Think hard, and see if you know what a scientific phenomenon is.


Yrreg

*Don't do this experiment at home; go to the emergency ward of the hospital -- bring a companion with you; also draw up your last will and testament, including the disposition of your non-self and non-consciousness remains, in case death should supervene.

 

[UserGoogol]

Try this experiment on yourself,* hit yourself in the head with a hammer at 100 feet per second; if and when you come out from the unconsciousness, then you will know you have a self though your consciousness had been suspended. If you don’t come out of the unconsciousness; then you are no longer relevant, not for discourse with others who are conscious, and neither with yourself: for you have become as a memory, without any relevancy to others and much less to yourself.

What the hell?

At any rate, after doing such a thing, a person would not know that they was some sort of quasimystical "self" which had somehow been preserved. All they would know would be that they would have the memories of being a strange person who decided to smash their head with a hammer.

Tell me, Nescafe, what role does the pseudo concept of non-self play in the system of Buddhism. If your gurus don't ever bring up the pseudo concept of the non-self, will Buddhism also be as complete for the purpose of getting to Nirvana in this life and then to Parinirvana post death?

I'm neither Nescafe nor a Buddhist, but as far as I am aware, the idea is that the idea of the self causes suffering because if you believe in it, it leads you to strive after things which you really can't attain. That said, looking at the Wikipedia article on the Buddhist stance towards the idea of self, there are some Buddhists who actually do believe in the self, although in a modified form.

Tell me lastly, as you are presumably possessed of fundamental scientific outlook and critical thinking skill, which two features mark the scientific skeptics from credulous folks given to insane metaphysics, is the self a scientific phenomenon or what? Think hard, and see if you know what a scientific phenomenon is.

I don't think the self can really be said to be a scientific concept. There is no testable way of verifying that an object at one period in time is the "same thing" as an object, therefore it is not within the realm of the scientific method. That said, there are various concepts related to the self which are scientific, (and which confusingly are often called the self) such as the "sense of self," consciousness, and so on.