• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Being a Buddhist without conviction.

The proof of the pudding is in the eating.

UserGoogol said:
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.
Click to expand...

...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. ​

Just as I have thought so, a kind of sour grapes approach or what in psychology we call the compensation or more properly the coping mechanism.

Read what I say in my first post here:

I am sure it [the non-self] 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.'
Click to expand...

UserGoogol said:
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.
Click to expand...

Here is also what I say in my first post about the reality of the 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.
Click to expand...

The arguments from change (nothing is permanent) and from composition (everything is composed of parts) are usually resorted to as proofs for the non-existence of the self.

However, the person making these arguments will not face the truisms:

1. The fact of change is the proof itself of the existence of the thing that undergoes change, which is numerically the identical thing from one point of change, the point from where, to the other point of change, the point to; and that is the self.

2. The fact of composition is the proof itself that there are composite things, composite selves, which can be broken down into parts which parts then are also thereby selves or entities distinct numerically if nothing else among themselves.

3. In man there is the composite self, made up of that constituent we call life and all the other functional components of organ systems.​

I will think about the self in science, and among scientists, read about what they have to say, and report back here on the scientific phenomenon I call the self in man.


Yrreg
 
Reading the book that is my self, my mind and heart and body.

Addressing UserGoogol, I said in my preceding post:

I will think about the self in science, and among scientists, read about what they have to say, and report back here on the scientific phenomenon I call the self in man.​

I have decided instead to consult my own self in order to react more in particular to your questions, that is further in addition to what I had explained already in my preceding post,

You see it is my habit to always seek my own mind in every question instead of seeking other people's minds, because I believe my mind is as good if not better than other people's mind.

Now, if my mind is not as good and therefore the answers I give to questions people are asking are not good enough for them to accept as making sense, then they can tell me where I am wrong and how; then it is my turn to examine their answers and tell them where they are wrong and how -- or thank them for enlightening me in a manner that I can understand owing to my more limited intelligence than theirs.

At all costs we must as independent agents avoid totally the vice of guru-ism, whereby you cannot think for yourself but must always get your answers to your own questions from other people.

Now remember when you talk with other people that if they cannot be brief and systematic in their answers, you should avoid them like the plague, because not being systematic and brief is the best and surest proof that the person not being systematic and brief does not know what he is talking about.


So now to your questions:

Originally Posted by UserGoogol:

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.
Click to expand...

I don't think the self can really be said to be a scientific concept. -- UserGoogol​

You don't think the self really can be said to be a scientific concept, then think again along this line of what is a scientific concept as understood by Yrreg.

I understand this phrase, scientific concept, as a thought in your mind that has examples outside your mind, which examples then outside can be observed and experimented on.

Do we have examples then of self outside your mind and my mind and the minds of people, which examples can be observed and experimented on? What about yourself, UserGoogol, and myself, Yrreg, and Rand, and Ryokan, are we not all examples of self outside our minds, which selves can be observed and experimented on?

Here is an experiment you can do on Randi and Ryokan and observe them, their reactions, then you can be sure that the concept of the self is a scientific concept because you can observe it outside your mind and experiment on it.

Tell Randi and Ryokan that their writings here in the JREF website and forum are all in your appreciation acid reflux, flatus, and watery feces.

There is no testable way of verifying that an object at one period in time is the "same thing" as an object... -- UserGoogol
Click to expand...

You say 'testable;' you want to test whether an object at one period in time is the same thing at another later period of time?

Try then this test on your father or mother or wife or friend or neighbor, when any of these persons are in deep sleep you blow up a firecracker into their ear, see and take note of their reaction; then after some hours later, you get to their presence again. What do you notice, can your father or mother or friend or neighbor not unmistakably realize that you are the same person who blew up a firecracker while they were deeply asleep, and you yourself are you not sure that you are that person with the firecracker mischief?

Still not sure that an object can be the same from one moment to the next, in particular a human person which we call a self? Then try this and you will realize that even though you cannot be sure of your own identity, everyone in the neighborhood will be sure of you being the same person from one period in time to another.

When most of your neighbors are outside their homes in the evening hours to seek relief from the heat inside their houses in this hot summer month of August, you strip to your bare butt and stroll up and down your neighborhood. You know what will happen? Some neighbor might just call up the police to pick you up for safekeeping in the precinct detention cells, for indecent exposure. And everyone will know you even though you have grown older and wiser and better behaved as the guy who had a flair for exhibitionism, the neighborhood's pervert.


Still not yet convinced why the self is a scientific concept and the self exists outside the mind and it can be observed and experimented on?

In which case I give up, because you are not a self or behaving as one, you don't exist. More properly you are what I call self-masochist engaged in self-extinction even before you even get to Nirvana.

Joking only, of course.


Yrreg
 
Try then this test on your father or mother or wife or friend or neighbor, when any of these persons are in deep sleep you blow up a firecracker into their ear, see and take note of their reaction; then after some hours later, you get to their presence again. What do you notice, can your father or mother or friend or neighbor not unmistakably realize that you are the same person who blew up a firecracker while they were deeply asleep, and you yourself are you not sure that you are that person with the firecracker mischief?
Click to expand...

This experiment in no way proves that there is an entity which is preserved over time. All it shows is that "Mother at T=2h" has memories of "Me at T=0h," and "Me at T=0h" and "Me at T=2h" are considered by her to be the same entity due to the obvious similarities, thus she is upset for this reason. It's still all mental.

Phrasing things in terms of the self is certainly a more succinct way to look at it, and there is absolutely nothing wrong with scientists using the idea of the self as a tool. In fact, the idea of the self is probably fairly true, but as a skeptic, I of course would rather reserve judgment until more information is in. But it's not testable, because there is no way to distinguish between an object which is the same thing as an early form of the object, and an object which is merely a suitably accurate doppleganger of the earlier object.
 
In search of the defintions of self.

I will do some thinking about what people understand by the self and how it is understood by people who cannot see any proof of the existence of the self as a continuous entity from point 'from where' of change to point 'to where' of change.

In the meantime, please also do some thinking along the same lines.


Many puzzles are puzzling owing to fuzzy definitions and/or commixtion of definitions.

Try this experiement and tell me about your solution.

Count your fingers from one hand to the others: 1,2,3,4..., you count up to 10.

Now count backward from 10 to 1, thus 10,9,8,7,6, now add 6 to the five fingers you have not yet counted backward in the other hand, what sum do you get? eleven isn't it?

How is that? 10 fingers have become 11 fingers by some arithmetic or mathematical processes?


Later.


Yrreg
 
yrreg said:
I will do some thinking about what people understand by the self and how it is understood by people who cannot see any proof of the existence of the self as a continuous entity from point 'from where' of change to point 'to where' of change.

In the meantime, please also do some thinking along the same lines.

Many puzzles are puzzling owing to fuzzy definitions and/or commixtion of definitions.

Try this experiement and tell me about your solution.

Count your fingers from one hand to the others: 1,2,3,4..., you count up to 10.

Now count backward from 10 to 1, thus 10,9,8,7,6, now add 6 to the five fingers you have not yet counted backward in the other hand, what sum do you get? eleven isn't it?

How is that? 10 fingers have become 11 fingers by some arithmetic or mathematical processes?

Later.

Yrreg
Click to expand...

I counted eight fingers and two thumbs.

I counted ten digits.

The thing I call my 'self' is just a small but integral part of a large universe. I call it 'self' for easier handling and understanding.

Just a fairly uninterested observation... You are struggling to stuff Buddhism into a dualist philosophy shoebox. Some forms of Buddhism are certainly that way, but there are also forms that are naturalistic or monist.
 
yrreg said:
I will do some thinking about what people understand by the self and how it is understood by people who cannot see any proof of the existence of the self as a continuous entity from point 'from where' of change to point 'to where' of change.

In the meantime, please also do some thinking along the same lines.


Many puzzles are puzzling owing to fuzzy definitions and/or commixtion of definitions.

Try this experiement and tell me about your solution.

Count your fingers from one hand to the others: 1,2,3,4..., you count up to 10.

Now count backward from 10 to 1, thus 10,9,8,7,6, now add 6 to the five fingers you have not yet counted backward in the other hand, what sum do you get? eleven isn't it?

How is that? 10 fingers have become 11 fingers by some arithmetic or mathematical processes?
Click to expand...

WOW!! I think you have used the old hammer trick on your noggin a few too many times, Buddy!! :eek: :eek: :eek:

Try reading a book called The Mind's I by Douglas Hoefsteader and Daniel Dennett. They do a very good job of getting you thinking about how you percieve yourself. You maybe in for a few surprises along the way. Many of the concepts were covered by Buddhism long ago.

And just for the record, Buddhism is a philosophy, not a religion. That some people bastardized it along the way is not the fault of Buddhism.
 
yrreg said:
...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. ​

Just as I have thought so, a kind of sour grapes approach or what in psychology we call the compensation or more properly the coping mechanism.

Read what I say in my first post here:





Here is also what I say in my first post about the reality of the self:



The arguments from change (nothing is permanent) and from composition (everything is composed of parts) are usually resorted to as proofs for the non-existence of the self.

However, the person making these arguments will not face the truisms:

1. The fact of change is the proof itself of the existence of the thing that undergoes change, which is numerically the identical thing from one point of change, the point from where, to the other point of change, the point to; and that is the self.

2. The fact of composition is the proof itself that there are composite things, composite selves, which can be broken down into parts which parts then are also thereby selves or entities distinct numerically if nothing else among themselves.

3. In man there is the composite self, made up of that constituent we call life and all the other functional components of organ systems.​

I will think about the self in science, and among scientists, read about what they have to say, and report back here on the scientific phenomenon I call the self in man.


Yrreg
Click to expand...

Blah , blah blah, you can write but you refuse to read.

the self as defined by the buddha consists of five things, the body, the thoughts, the emotions, the perceptions and habits. That is all there is, there is no soul, there is no perpetual self, just that which is.

But feel free to carry on your merry way.
 
yrreg said:
Addressing UserGoogol, I said in my preceding post:

I will think about the self in science, and among scientists, read about what they have to say, and report back here on the scientific phenomenon I call the self in man.​

I have decided instead to consult my own self in order to react more in particular to your questions, that is further in addition to what I had explained already in my preceding post,

You see it is my habit to always seek my own mind in every question instead of seeking other people's minds, because I believe my mind is as good if not better than other people's mind.

Now, if my mind is not as good and therefore the answers I give to questions people are asking are not good enough for them to accept as making sense, then they can tell me where I am wrong and how; then it is my turn to examine their answers and tell them where they are wrong and how -- or thank them for enlightening me in a manner that I can understand owing to my more limited intelligence than theirs.

At all costs we must as independent agents avoid totally the vice of guru-ism, whereby you cannot think for yourself but must always get your answers to your own questions from other people.

Now remember when you talk with other people that if they cannot be brief and systematic in their answers, you should avoid them like the plague, because not being systematic and brief is the best and surest proof that the person not being systematic and brief does not know what he is talking about.


So now to your questions:



I don't think the self can really be said to be a scientific concept. -- UserGoogol​

You don't think the self really can be said to be a scientific concept, then think again along this line of what is a scientific concept as understood by Yrreg.

I understand this phrase, scientific concept, as a thought in your mind that has examples outside your mind, which examples then outside can be observed and experimented on.

Do we have examples then of self outside your mind and my mind and the minds of people, which examples can be observed and experimented on? What about yourself, UserGoogol, and myself, Yrreg, and Rand, and Ryokan, are we not all examples of self outside our minds, which selves can be observed and experimented on?

Here is an experiment you can do on Randi and Ryokan and observe them, their reactions, then you can be sure that the concept of the self is a scientific concept because you can observe it outside your mind and experiment on it.

Tell Randi and Ryokan that their writings here in the JREF website and forum are all in your appreciation acid reflux, flatus, and watery feces.



You say 'testable;' you want to test whether an object at one period in time is the same thing at another later period of time?

Try then this test on your father or mother or wife or friend or neighbor, when any of these persons are in deep sleep you blow up a firecracker into their ear, see and take note of their reaction; then after some hours later, you get to their presence again. What do you notice, can your father or mother or friend or neighbor not unmistakably realize that you are the same person who blew up a firecracker while they were deeply asleep, and you yourself are you not sure that you are that person with the firecracker mischief?

Still not sure that an object can be the same from one moment to the next, in particular a human person which we call a self? Then try this and you will realize that even though you cannot be sure of your own identity, everyone in the neighborhood will be sure of you being the same person from one period in time to another.

When most of your neighbors are outside their homes in the evening hours to seek relief from the heat inside their houses in this hot summer month of August, you strip to your bare butt and stroll up and down your neighborhood. You know what will happen? Some neighbor might just call up the police to pick you up for safekeeping in the precinct detention cells, for indecent exposure. And everyone will know you even though you have grown older and wiser and better behaved as the guy who had a flair for exhibitionism, the neighborhood's pervert.


Still not yet convinced why the self is a scientific concept and the self exists outside the mind and it can be observed and experimented on?

In which case I give up, because you are not a self or behaving as one, you don't exist. More properly you are what I call self-masochist engaged in self-extinction even before you even get to Nirvana.

Joking only, of course.


Yrreg
Click to expand...

Ah , ignorant of the positions of the buddha as ever, aren't you?

Where in your above thought experiements is there anything other than a body, the thoughts, emotions, perceptions and habits of the body?

I guess I won't hold my breath to wait for your answer, have you proved yourself that Christianity is the source of all wisdom yet?
 
qayak said:
WOW!! I think you have used the old hammer trick on your noggin a few too many times, Buddy!! :eek: :eek: :eek:

Try reading a book called The Mind's I by Douglas Hoefsteader and Daniel Dennett. They do a very good job of getting you thinking about how you percieve yourself. You maybe in for a few surprises along the way. Many of the concepts were covered by Buddhism long ago.

And just for the record, Buddhism is a philosophy, not a religion. That some people bastardized it along the way is not the fault of Buddhism.
Click to expand...

Don't ask Yrreg to read either science of buddhism, his favorite proof is Google and his favorite author is himself.
 
The psychosis of self-misplacement owing to meditation.

...the self as defined by the buddha consists of five things, the body, the thoughts, the emotions, the perceptions and habits. That is all there is, there is no soul, there is no perpetual self, just that which is. -- Dancing David​

I know more things and have thought further and longer and wider than ever Buddha, because he did not have all the ways and means to know the phenomenon of life and the universe as I have had from birth.

We have different personalities, I am a person of exuberant independent inquiry by way of science, the philosophy of science, and critical thinking, and also scientific skepticism.

He got his information by meditation, from inside his brain which he did not know to be distinct from his mind. And his information by meditation is saturated by his congenital depression.

He never knew that when he depended on meditation he could come up with all kinds of imaginations about the self and the end of existence peculiar to his own biases which he himself did not know how to discern and to keep track of.

He never even learned about the fact that owing to knowledge by meditation there is nothing everyone can agree on for the purpose of existence and the universe, excerpt each one propounding his own according to his own sense and self-conviction of enlightenment.

Just joking, okay?


But I must give the man the credit for this disclaimer:

Believe nothing.
No matter where you read it,
Or who said it,
Even if I have said it,
Unless it agrees with your own reason
And your own common sense. -- Gautama​


This is the only text I find useful in Buddha, and I observe it most faithfully.

[ Please accept my apologies of my exuberance here in this post, sometimes I let myself some liberties to enjoy my irrepressible personality. ]​

Yrreg
 
What is the definition of self and how to prove identity.

UserGoogol said:
Yrreg said:
Try then this test on your father or mother or wife or friend or neighbor, when any of these persons are in deep sleep you blow up a firecracker into their ear, see and take note of their reaction; then after some hours later, you get to their presence again. What do you notice, can your father or mother or friend or neighbor not unmistakably realize that you are the same person who blew up a firecracker while they were deeply asleep, and you yourself are you not sure that you are that person with the firecracker mischief?
Click to expand...

This experiment in no way proves that there is an entity which is preserved over time. All it shows is that "Mother at T=2h" has memories of "Me at T=0h," and "Me at T=0h" and "Me at T=2h" are considered by her to be the same entity due to the obvious similarities, thus she is upset for this reason. It's still all mental.

. . . . .
Click to expand...

Dear UserGoogol:

Before anything else, I want to tell you that we should congratulate ourselves that we are both learning from each other and learning by our own thinking; but remember always and never forget for one single moment that you and I exist and the proof there is the communication we are enacting between us. If at least two persons can have contact between themselves, i.e., communicating in the most widest sense we can understand communication, then we are assured of our existence.

If only one person is communicating with himself, then he might entertain the thought that he could be just someone else's dream and nothing of reality outside the dreamer's mind.

That said, shall we continue our game of analyzing the non-self as opposed to the self?

-------------------------

I said that I would do some thinking about how we can define the self. And here is what I come up with about defining the self.

But before anything else, again I want you to keep in mind that we are into an interactive discourse or communication, in more man in the street language which is thus easier to understand. We are into a mutual discourse or communication, the use of the word discourse gives it an air of being solemn and maybe profound, but not to be unduly impressed by its awesome sound, discourse, it means nothing but communication.

Discourse or communication requires essentially the use of language, we can't have any discourse between us without language.

So, I will define 'self' first from the standpoint of language, thus:

'Self' is a word that stands for a thing taken as distinct or separate from another thing. There are three kinds of self: myself, yourself, and himself or herself or itself. It is used in a sentence as a subject or as an object or as a predicative of identity or attribution.​

Words or language is in the mind but its articulation is by sound or writing or other visible signs and symbols made by the user to be perceptible outside his mind, thereby enabling his listener to get to the thoughts he wants to communicate to the listener.


At this point I believe we can already ask ourselves the question, "What is the non-self?"

And we can answer correctly that the non-self is a compound word made up of the word 'self' and the prefix 'non,' and this compound word 'non-self' denotes everything that is opposite to the self.

Is there such a thing as a non-self? Yes, but only in the same way that there is such a thing as a sphinx, except for this difference: a sphinx is a concretely assembled entity made up of a lion's body and a man's head, while a non-self is the product of human ingenuity in arranging and assembling words and word particles even though the result compound words defy understanding except that they can still be used in sentences as subject or object.

So the word 'non-self' therefore does not represent anything outside the mind of the speaker using the word 'non-self,' unlike the word 'self'.

Do we have proof of the existence of the self outside the mind? Yes, from the fact of our communication or discourse between ourselves, it takes two selves to exchange words to get to know each other's thoughts.

For myself and I hope you can see this, the first law of thought and communication is that:

"Thou shalt not extinguish thyself as thou engage in anything as an operation of and from thyself." ​

Why is this the first law of thought and communication? Because if you don't observe it, you can't proceed to do anything at all, since you don't exist anymore. Actually of course you can disregard that law and still operate, unless you really do a physical self-extinguishment instead of just a logical one.

----------------------

But you are in the above cited post after the proof of the identity of a person from one point in time to another point in time.

This experiment in no way proves that there is an entity which is preserved over time. All it shows is that "Mother at T=2h" has memories of "Me at T=0h," and "Me at T=0h" and "Me at T=2h" are considered by her to be the same entity due to the obvious similarities, thus she is upset for this reason. It's still all mental.​

As a matter of fact, there are more than just memories in my example. Read it again, here pay attention to those words in italics and specially the ones in bold: you get to their presence again.

Yrreg said:
Try then this test on your father or mother or wife or friend or neighbor, when any of these persons are in deep sleep you blow up a firecracker into their ear, see and take note of their reaction; then after some hours later, you get to their presence again. What do you notice, can your father or mother or friend or neighbor not unmistakably realize that you are the same person who blew up a firecracker while they were deeply asleep, and you yourself are you not sure that you are that person with the firecracker mischief?
Click to expand...


So, we are not talking about memories but presence, namely, physical on the spot existence of your body and the bodies of your mother, father, friend, etc.

But you will insist even that although you are physically present and your mother is physically present after the firecracker mischief, you still cannot be sure that you are the same physical person who did the mischief and your mother the same physical person who got most harshly and rudely awakened by the firecracker burst.

That is a legitimate objection, but have you thought also that you can as well legitimately maintain that both you and your mother are the same physical persons before and after: because in both cases you don't have any evidence to conclude one way or another on the identity of yourself and your mother's.

Can we have evidence to prove that you and your mother are the same physical persons during the firecracker episode and hours after when you both are physically present to each other again?


Think hard.

I will be back later.


And remember:

"Thou shalt not extinguish thyself as thou engage in anything as an operation of and from thyself." ​

And that is why I will never if I have any sanity in myself take seriously or give any serious attention to any life philosophy or world view where one essential tenet is the non-self. At most I will have a grand time thinking of how the founder and his followers are into mass psychosis of the self-misplacement.


Yrreg

PS Have you figured out the solution of how counting the fingers of both hands can give you ten and eleven fingers?
 
Hey guys, could we please stop being trolled? Nobody takes Yyreg or Cobert seriously, but they've been getting some heated replies by people here in the forum. It's frustrating for all of us to see topics of philosophy lead by the pseudo intellectuals around here. Just. Stop. Entertaining. Them!

-_-
 
Testimony of man's millennial experience; what else is there?

Buddhists in this forum like Ryokan and Dancing David believe that there is no-self. Did they get that idea and conviction (and remember conviction is an emotional stance, it is not like a conclusion from facts and logic) from their own experience and thinking, or are they into mimicking by rote the fables passed to them by their gurus, starting with the legendary Buddha?

Buddhists here in this forum are not trained to think for themselves, notwithstanding that they mouth the disclaimer of their primeval guru, Gautama the Buddha (Buddha by popular acclamation of Buddhists like the ones here, not by inspection and certification by scientific authorities).

Here again is the disclaimer of their founding guru:

Believe nothing.
No matter where you read it,
Or who said it,
Even if I have said it,
Unless it agrees with your own reason
And your own common sense. -- Gautama​

Buddha and I, we have a continuous laugh over the gullibility of the unthinking Buddhists here: they can't write anything saying anything original from themselves, but a facsimile though crude rehash of what their gurus today tell them and they lap them up without tasting and bravely discerning what to spit out to discard.

They ingest everything but never digest anything -- and remember digestion means assimilating the true nutrients but excrementing the useless and even harmful stuffs; so instead of a thinking mind what they have inside their skull is a cupboard for the retrieval of hand-me-down hoary and obsolete and altogether absurd ideas dating from when man did not know clitoris from penis, their respective morphological development.

Now, I say that Buddha, the man Gautama, he and I, we have a continuous laugh over the Buddhists here in this forum, because they can't think for themselves; and Buddha tells me that since they converted to his ridiculous life philosophy and world view, they have not learned anything new and different except to mouth faithfully whatever their gurus today shovel into their cerebral gullets.

You see, Buddha tells me that with that disclaimer above he has saved for all future generations his good name as a profound thinker.

Here, read it again:

Believe nothing.
No matter where you read it,
Or who said it,
Even if I have said it,
Unless it agrees with your own reason
And your own common sense. -- Gautama​


There is a judge in the highest tribunal of his country who wrote a biography of himself, while he still lives and performs his office as supreme chief executive judge of the highest tribunal of his land.

In this biography the careful reader notices that the judge appears to be so stupid as to describe how they en banc* reached majority consensus on some of the most crucial decisions affecting the whole country and the direction the whole populace would have to pursue for weal or woe from these decisions.

This supreme chief and executive judge tells the reader about the human motivations in truth forming the basis of those decisions, instead of meticulous deliberations on facts and laws.

When I read those accounts where he narrates about the human motivations decisively grounding those very portentous judgments, I thought at first that this most intelligent and most erudite chief justice must be stupid, that was no way to maintain the credibility and authority of the highest court of the land.

But in a split second right away succeeding that quick reaction, I saw very clearly as with a nirvanic light the whole point of this person, namely, for being a supreme chief executive judge of the highest judicature of the state, he was not going down in history as one dishonest judge, at least for himself he knew the real authentic human considerations that go into a lot of decision making in judges.

Oh Buddhists in this forum, read with discernment this disclaimer of Gautama, and laugh with him and Pachomius over your credulous naivete.
Believe nothing.
No matter where you read it,
Or who said it,
Even if I have said it,
Unless it agrees with your own reason
And your own common sense. -- Gautama​

-----------------------

Okay, back to the existence of the self.

How do we prove the existence of the self?

What kind of proofs do you want? Proofs from facts and experience or proofs from abstract props in your mind, which if you are keen-minded you will realize that they mostly don't bring you anywhere to a definite answer of yes or no. What they do is leave you in doubt as to whether the conclusion is yes or no, except that you feel the answer is no (or yes) because there is only doubt and no answer.

Please try to understand: because you already pre-judge or prefer a no answer, so you see in the doubt and feel in the doubt a no answer whereas in fact there is no answer, the doubt is still present; or you already pre-judge or prefer a yes answer, so you see or feel in the doubt a yes answer, whereas in fact there is no answer for the doubt is not resolved.

And why do you want to see or feel the answer to be yes or no, whereas the answer if there be one, is still no answer but the persisting doubt? Why? because you had earlier decided to take the authority of your gurus, that is why. Buddhism as with every religion is founded on the authority of the founder, not on any genuine reasoning.

Does the self exist? The proof we need and must accept is that from facts and experience. Ask yourself and people you talk with, "Are you in fact existing, meaning physically present or not, is that your experience of your being physically present here and now? Ask your wife and then you both make love, there that is your proof of the existence of the self.

Next, how do you prove that the woman you made love to and the man that you were who made love to the woman, that they are the same identical persons, she wife you husband before, during, and after love-making, how do you prove that?

Addressing the Buddhists here who have ever made love to a woman:

How do you prove the identity to be the same of the parties to the love-making: before, during, and after?

Think hard, Oh Buddhists of this forum of scientific skepticism and critical thinking.


And also tell me, how do you solve the puzzle of ten figures from both hands coming out eleven by backward counting and adding.

-------------------

Believe nothing.
No matter where you read it,
Or who said it,
Even if I have said it,
Unless it agrees with your own reason
And your own common sense. -- Gautama​

Gautama is laughing at you guys from his nirvanic loft and I join him every so often when I take a nirvana break to join him there.


Yrreg

*en banc: French, in [one] bench, as in all seated together in one bench.
 
yrreg said:
Why? because you had earlier decided to take the authority of your gurus, that is why.
Click to expand...

Strangely enough, I didn't believe in a self long before I learned what Buddhism was about. I think most atheists do, and my time in this forum has reinforced that belief.

yrreg said:
Believe nothing.
No matter where you read it,
Or who said it,
Even if I have said it,
Unless it agrees with your own reason
And your own common sense. -- Gautama​
Click to expand...

What sutra is that from?

yrreg said:
Gautama is laughing at you guys from his nirvanic loft and I join him every so often when I take a nirvana break to join him there.
Click to expand...

I don't think Gautama is laughing. Any why not? Well, he's quite dead, you see.
 
Does the self exist? The proof we need and must accept is that from facts and experience. Ask yourself and people you talk with, "Are you in fact existing, meaning physically present or not, is that your experience of your being physically present here and now? Ask your wife and then you both make love, there that is your proof of the existence of the self.
Click to expand...

That doesn't sound like a very skeptical way of looking at things. Yes, the existance of the self is common sense. But skepticism is about tearing down common sense and replacing it with good sense.
 
The very first law of thought and discourse and existence and operation of man.

UserGoogol said:
Does the self exist? The proof we need and must accept is that from facts and experience. Ask yourself and people you talk with, "Are you in fact existing, meaning physically present or not, is that your experience of your being physically present here and now? Ask your wife and then you both make love, there that is your proof of the existence of the self. -- Yrreg​



That doesn't sound like a very skeptical way of looking at things. Yes, the existance of the self is common sense. But skepticism is about tearing down common sense and replacing it with good sense.
Click to expand...

Read my post above, #32. And please keep to the facts and expeience, everything else unless and until linked up to and founded upon facts and experience can lead you to sophistry, unless for being argumenative you are just being sophistr-ic. Remember, we are not into skepticism, but scientific skepticism which is essentially founded on the standard of evidence that in the last analysis is facts and experience.

Always keep this first of all commandments in life and in the search for knowledge:

"Thou shalt not extinguish thyself as thou engage in anything as an operation of and from thyself." ​

Now, read my post above, #32, here reproduced below for your convenience.

yrreg said:
Posted by Yrreg :
Try then this test on your father or mother or wife or friend or neighbor, when any of these persons are in deep sleep you blow up a firecracker into their ear, see and take note of their reaction; then after some hours later, you get to their presence again. What do you notice, can your father or mother or friend or neighbor not unmistakably realize that you are the same person who blew up a firecracker while they were deeply asleep, and you yourself are you not sure that you are that person with the firecracker mischief?

Posted by UserGoogol:
This experiment in no way proves that there is an entity which is preserved over time. All it shows is that "Mother at T=2h" has memories of "Me at T=0h," and "Me at T=0h" and "Me at T=2h" are considered by her to be the same entity due to the obvious similarities, thus she is upset for this reason. It's still all mental.

. . . . .​



Dear UserGoogol (from Yrreg):

Before anything else, I want to tell you that we should congratulate ourselves that we are both learning from each other and learning by our own thinking; but remember always and never forget for one single moment that you and I exist and the proof there is the communication we are enacting between us. If at least two persons can have contact between themselves, i.e., communicating in the most widest sense we can understand communication, then we are assured of our existence.

If only one person is communicating with himself, then he might entertain the thought that he could be just someone else's dream and nothing of reality outside the dreamer's mind.

That said, shall we continue our game of analyzing the non-self as opposed to the self?

-------------------------

I said that I would do some thinking about how we can define the self. And here is what I come up with about defining the self.

But before anything else, again I want you to keep in mind that we are into an interactive discourse or communication, in more man in the street language which is thus easier to understand. We are into a mutual discourse or communication, the use of the word discourse gives it an air of being solemn and maybe profound, but not to be unduly impressed by its awesome sound, discourse, it means nothing but communication.

Discourse or communication requires essentially the use of language, we can't have any discourse between us without language.

So, I will define 'self' first from the standpoint of language, thus:

'Self' is a word that stands for a thing taken as distinct or separate from another thing. There are three kinds of self: myself, yourself, and himself or herself or itself. It is used in a sentence as a subject or as an object or as a predicative of identity or attribution.​

Words or language is in the mind but its articulation is by sound or writing or other visible signs and symbols made by the user to be perceptible outside his mind, thereby enabling his listener to get to the thoughts he wants to communicate to the listener.


At this point I believe we can already ask ourselves the question, "What is the non-self?"

And we can answer correctly that the non-self is a compound word made up of the word 'self' and the prefix 'non,' and this compound word 'non-self' denotes everything that is opposite to the self.

Is there such a thing as a non-self? Yes, but only in the same way that there is such a thing as a sphinx, except for this difference: a sphinx is a concretely assembled entity made up of a lion's body and a man's head, while a non-self is the product of human ingenuity in arranging and assembling words and word particles even though the result compound words defy understanding except that they can still be used in sentences as subject or object.

So the word 'non-self' therefore does not represent anything outside the mind of the speaker using the word 'non-self,' unlike the word 'self'.

Do we have proof of the existence of the self outside the mind? Yes, from the fact of our communication or discourse between ourselves, it takes two selves to exchange words to get to know each other's thoughts.

For myself and I hope you can see this, the first law of thought and communication is that:

"Thou shalt not extinguish thyself as thou engage in anything as an operation of and from thyself." ​

Why is this the first law of thought and communication? Because if you don't observe it, you can't proceed to do anything at all, since you don't exist anymore. Actually of course you can disregard that law and still operate, unless you really do a physical self-extinguishment instead of just a logical one.

----------------------

But you are in the above cited post after the proof of the identity of a person from one point in time to another point in time.

This experiment in no way proves that there is an entity which is preserved over time. All it shows is that "Mother at T=2h" has memories of "Me at T=0h," and "Me at T=0h" and "Me at T=2h" are considered by her to be the same entity due to the obvious similarities, thus she is upset for this reason. It's still all mental.​

As a matter of fact, there are more than just memories in my example. Read it again, here pay attention to those words in italics and specially the ones in bold: you get to their presence again.




So, we are not talking about memories but presence, namely, physical on the spot existence of your body and the bodies of your mother, father, friend, etc.

But you will insist even that although you are physically present and your mother is physically present after the firecracker mischief, you still cannot be sure that you are the same physical person who did the mischief and your mother the same physical person who got most harshly and rudely awakened by the firecracker burst.

That is a legitimate objection, but have you thought also that you can as well legitimately maintain that both you and your mother are the same physical persons before and after: because in both cases you don't have any evidence to conclude one way or another on the identity of yourself and your mother's.

Can we have evidence to prove that you and your mother are the same physical persons during the firecracker episode and hours after when you both are physically present to each other again?


Think hard.

I will be back later.


And remember:

"Thou shalt not extinguish thyself as thou engage in anything as an operation of and from thyself." ​

And that is why I will never if I have any sanity in myself take seriously or give any serious attention to any life philosophy or world view where one essential tenet is the non-self. At most I will have a grand time thinking of how the founder and his followers are into mass psychosis of the self-misplacement.


Yrreg

PS Have you figured out the solution of how counting the fingers of both hands can give you ten and eleven fingers?
Click to expand...

For those of you Buddhists looking for the sutra of Buddha's disclaimer, try searching for it in the web, if you can't find it, then that is one very telling evidence that you guys cannot find anything unless and until your gurus tell you where and how to look for it; but it's all so silly, anyway you guys already consider yourselves to not be selves or you believe that you are no-selves.

Yrreg
 
This is ort of like Boggle, you have one minute to count, enumerate and list the fallacies in the following statement! :)
For those of you Buddhists looking for the sutra of Buddha's disclaimer, try searching for it in the web, if you can't find it, then that is one very telling evidence that you guys cannot find anything unless and until your gurus tell you where and how to look for it; but it's all so silly, anyway you guys already consider yourselves to not be selves or you believe that you are no-selves.

Yrreg
Click to expand...

Uh, Yrreg, the third or fourth rule of science is that the person making a quote is the one responsible for the citation , otherwise you are just posturing and waving your hands around.

Not that you aren't entertaining, but it somewhat shows a lack of critical thinking on your part.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom