Buddhism, sense and nonsense in.

[yrreg]

What is sense and what is nonsense? and what are the sensible things in Buddhism and what the nonsensible?

Let me give you an example of what is sense and also in the same example what is nonsense.

Imagine that a stone is in a trajectory heading toward your head and someone calls out to you about the stone heading toward you, you duck and the stone misses your head, that is sense. If you don't duck because you believe that the self in you does not exist, that is nonsense.

Next level of nonsense: when you got hit from the stone notwithstanding that someone had shouted out to you about the stone heading toward you, people asked you why you didn't duck, and you answered, "...because I knew that I would not be the same person I was when the stone hit me, for the self hit by the stone would no longer be the self afterward, the self is impermanent and besides there is no identity between the self before and the self after."

Those are examples, two for nonsense and one for sense. People -- and animals amazingly for being dumb -- are possessed of sense in their even mere instinctive automatic behavior, but you have got to be a Buddhist to engage in nonsense of the most gross kind.

But of course Buddhists don't really refuse to duck from the stone headed toward them; yet they still maintain that the self does not exist for them, that it is impermanent, and that there is no identity between the self some moments back and the self some moments later. That is the nonsense of thought as opposed to the sense in animal behavior in action, with Buddhists.


You ask them why they harbor those nonsensical ideas while they live like any animals with the instinctive drive and reaction to duck from a stone that is headed toward them with accelerating velocity? and they will give you more nonsensical answers which together make up the system they choose to embrace as a world-view, namely, Buddhism.


Yrreg

 

[Ducky]

But we all know what your real point is:



However, at this point:







I would reply with words, but your post indicates pretty pictures will make a bigger impression with you.

 

[UserGoogol]

Don't conflate Buddhism with this, the self is an ultimately dubious concept even if you, like myself, do not really give much attention to the Four Noble Truths.

The concept of the self is nonsense, although deeply pragmatic nonsense. There are all sorts of reasons to believe that the idea of the self being some sort of constant is silly. There are countless thought experiments that show without too much difficultly that the self is merely a combination of various loosely connected pieces, such as memory, awareness, the "continuity of personality" of a person, and so on. Suppose that you changed a person's personality, suppose that you somehow copied a person's personality, suppose that you erased a person's memory, supposed that you swapped a person's memory, and so on.

Yes, the self is a very pragmatic concept. But I see nothing wrong with being nonpragmatically rational. I think that the truth is always useful in the long term, but yes, in the short term there is a tradeoff between what is pragmatic and what is true. That said, to choose to consider high-faluting concepts such as the illusion of the self with truly logical rigor instead of just pragmatically accepting "common sense" is, I think, a worthy investment.

Of course, if you can get enlightenment out of the deal, all the better.

 

[c4ts]

Throw rocks at Buddhists and they'll duck. Or if you hit one, don't expect more than an utterance.

 

[lupus_in_fabula]

”I” don’t think ”you” have to practise Buddhism in order to realize the illusory nature of the concept of self; basic rational thinking will suffice. On the other hand, in accordance with UserGoogol, it appears to be a useful construct.

 

[cgallaga]

Hmmmmm a veritable salad bar of straw.

 

[Taffer]

Here we go again...

*sigh*

 

[Dancing David]

What is sense and what is nonsense? and what are the sensible things in Buddhism and what the nonsensible?

Let me give you an example of what is sense and also in the same example what is nonsense.

Imagine that a stone is in a trajectory heading toward your head and someone calls out to you about the stone heading toward you, you duck and the stone misses your head, that is sense. If you don't duck because you believe that the self in you does not exist, that is nonsense.

Next level of nonsense: when you got hit from the stone notwithstanding that someone had shouted out to you about the stone heading toward you, people asked you why you didn't duck, and you answered, "...because I knew that I would not be the same person I was when the stone hit me, for the self hit by the stone would no longer be the self afterward, the self is impermanent and besides there is no identity between the self before and the self after."

Those are examples, two for nonsense and one for sense. People -- and animals amazingly for being dumb -- are possessed of sense in their even mere instinctive automatic behavior, but you have got to be a Buddhist to engage in nonsense of the most gross kind.

But of course Buddhists don't really refuse to duck from the stone headed toward them; yet they still maintain that the self does not exist for them, that it is impermanent, and that there is no identity between the self some moments back and the self some moments later. That is the nonsense of thought as opposed to the sense in animal behavior in action, with Buddhists.


You ask them why they harbor those nonsensical ideas while they live like any animals with the instinctive drive and reaction to duck from a stone that is headed toward them with accelerating velocity? and they will give you more nonsensical answers which together make up the system they choose to embrace as a world-view, namely, Buddhism.


Yrreg

The self that does not exist is the eternal soul, the self that does not exist is the transcedant self, the self that does not exist is the permanent self. Annata=no atma.

I am guessing here that you are attached to the soul just as you are attached to god. So the things that attract many people to buddhism are exactly the things that you don't like. Care to tell us why an empty philosophy with god is better than an empty philosphy without god? (That really was a gem.)


As far as nonsense in buddhism(as a general sociaetal practice and set of beliefs), there sure is agreat deal of nonsense.

Reincarnation: despite the alleged historical buddha's teaching that there is no atman there are many buddhists who teach that kamma acumulates and effects the reincarnation of said lacking atman.

Kamma: despite the alleged historical buddha teaching that kamma is the action of living humans and the consequences thereof, many persist in the Vedic notion of past lives and kamma.

Faith: despite the alleged historical buddha's teaching that practice is the path to enlightenment, many teach that faith is the path.

World is Mind: despite the alleged historical buddha teaching that the five skanhas are all that is and all that a human can be and should consider as the basis for existance, there is this bizzare metaphysical strain that arises that perpetuates the Berklian system of mind as world. This leads to all sorts of nonsense.

World as illusion: despite the rather strict framing of the buddha's teachings that the world is as it appears, many persist in the mistaken notion that the world is an illusion. The self is the illusion, the world exists and is filled with apparent interdependant and unique objects in it.

Samsara: there is often this bizzare use of the expression as though samsara is a place , and the creation of this idea that there is another place other than samsara.

Elite buddhism, Ethnic buddhism: very starnge descriptor of western buddhists and societal buddhism. As buddhism has always been a syncretic force it makes no sense. Buddhists are buddhists. Western buddhists are not seperate from other buddhists, they have alot in common with many different sects. It would just like calling Chan or Zen 'elite' buddhists.

 

[yrreg]

Nonsense talk vs nonsense behavior.

Let us take this example again of a stone hurling toward the head of a person but he does not see the stone coming toward him; now, someone else sees the stone and the person toward whom it is cruising and shouts to him, "Watch out a stone is coming toward your head!"

The man hears and understands but he does not duck, this is an example of nonsense behavior.

He got a nasty wound in his head but when he was asked why he did not duck, he said that his self does not exist, or that the he at the moment of the stone impacting on him and the he afterward are not identical, explaining further that the he is not permanent but changes all the time, and therefore there is no identity between he now and he then.

That is an example of nonsense talk.

====================

Why do people engage in nonsense talk?

But first why do people engage in nonsense action?

However, before anything else, how does a person recognize another person's behavior or talk to be nonsense?

The way I see it, we can see a person's behavior to be nonsense if it is against his safety or improvement in life or living longer and better and even as long as he wants if possible.

And we can see that a person's talk is nonsense if the talk does not contribute in any way or at any time or in any place to his and our knowledge to make life better and longer and even indefinitely lasting.

Now, nonsense talk is not insanity and can be even amusing and fun, unless and until people enact their nonsense talk into nonsense behavior to correspond to their nonsense talk.

In which case we can talk without fear of nonsense talk that the people so enacting their nonsense talk into nonsense behavior are bordering on insanity.


Examine people who are into enacting their nonsense talk into nonsense behavior, and you will notice that they are into insanity to some degree or massively as to do away with their existence totally.

But what is insanity? We have to ask the people expert in treating insanity or working to curb insane people from disturbing a society that is not into nonsense behavior and nonsense talk as a routine. Excuse me while I do some instant reading in the web on insanity.


Okay, insanity is no longer a medical term, the term now is mental illness which can best be known in its various kinds and degrees by consulting the criteria for the diagnosis of a specific mental illness as given in the American Psychiatric Association's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders [and take care to search the latest edition].

However, after a quick reading of insanity in the web I found this distinction to be most relevant to my actual research hobby or mental pastime and amusement in my thread here on Buddhism, sense and nonsense in.

In Spanish there is a difference in calling a person "loco" and calling him with the reduplicative "loco loco". “Loco” in Spanish refers to someone who should be treated or in the care and control of mental health workers, while “loco loco” refers to a person who is not diagnostically “loco” but wants to play “loco” for his own whatever purposes, like in pursuit of some transcendental world-views, or as a livelihood activity because insane people don’t have to work for a living but must be supported by society.

In this context, Buddhist monks are loco loco while the Heaven's Gate folks were loco, even though they had the use of their senses including intelligence but they chose to disregard it, so as to enact into behavior their nonsense talk, owing to their faith in their nonsense talk.


We don't know if animals engage in nonsense talk, but they do to my observation engage in nonsense behavior when they play; otherwise they stick faithfully to the world as they know it from the sight of a stone coming toward them and they duck, dodge, scamper, flee.

Animals have difficulties or challenges but men have problems or make problems for themselves, like saying the cause of suffering is desire.


How to prove with words that the self exists? Stay posted.


Yrreg

 

[Malachi151]

Buddhism is a big load of crap. Its probably one of the most lied about an misrepresented religions around, and in reality is even "stupider" than Christianity.

Buddhism is about the most idiotic and delusional belief system there is.

 

[Glen.Nogami]

Buddhism is a big load of crap. Its probably one of the most lied about an mis represented religions around, and in reality is even "stupider" than Christianity.

Buddhism is about the most idiotic and delusional belief system there is.

I'm glad you put so much critical thought into this post.

 

[Darth Rotor]

Buddhism is a big load of crap. Its probably one of the most lied about an misrepresented religions around, and in reality is even "stupider" than Christianity.

Buddhism is about the most idiotic and delusional belief system there is.

Communism is the opiate of the anally retentive wet blankets or the world.

I figure that if you can, I can.

Anyone else want to play "assertion Ping Pong?"

DR

 

[Taffer]

Buddhism is a big load of crap. Its probably one of the most lied about an misrepresented religions around, and in reality is even "stupider" than Christianity.

Buddhism is about the most idiotic and delusional belief system there is.

Huh...

 

[Taffer]

Anyone else want to play "assertion Ping Pong?"

DR

Sure, although it's going to have to be "assertion Pong".

Odin is the only true god, and he is the Allfather!

| .

 

[lupus_in_fabula]

How to prove with words that the self exists? Stay posted.

Well, at least I look forward for such illumination.

Perhaps we can already start preparing for saying goodbye to the message in the following quote: “It used to be though that physics describes the universe. Now we know that physics only describes what we can say about the universe.” --- Niels Bohr

 

[Dancing David]

Let us take this example again of a stone hurling toward the head of a person but he does not see the stone coming toward him; now, someone else sees the stone and the person toward whom it is cruising and shouts to him, "Watch out a stone is coming toward your head!"

Now that is amusing Yrreg, gievn a list of things that are nonsense in buddhism, you immedeatly go back to the same old saw.

What is the deal with the soul?

Annata is the statement that the soul or atman does not exist, you seem to have this real attachment to the soul.

Why is that.

Is an empty philosophy that has a soul better than an empty philospohy that doesn't have a soul.

We all knwo that you are a committed theist.

So now we see that you are stuck on the need for a soul.

The self that the buddha also taught did not exist is the transcendant self , there is a body, there are thoughts, emotions sensations and habilts.

That is what really bothers you i guess, that buddha's teaching agrees with modern materialism.

There is nothing but the body.

The man hears and understands but he does not duck, this is an example of nonsense behavior.

He got a nasty wound in his head but when he was asked why he did not duck, he said that his self does not exist, or that the he at the moment of the stone impacting on him and the he afterward are not identical, explaining further that the he is not permanent but changes all the time, and therefore there is no identity between he now and he then.

That is an example of nonsense talk.

But that is just your scenario Yrreg, you have set the parameters and just inserted buddhists into your constrauct.

the buddha taught that there is abody and that it should be cared for, when he was study-ing at Sranath he allegedly practiced great austerity and mortification. But he found it was not productive. therefore after his rescue by the dairy maid he taught that the body should be cared for.

So where in buddhism does it say that the body shopuld not be cared for?

You have created a tautology based upon your own mistaken assignement of values.

There is no soul , and that bothers you.

====================

Why do people engage in nonsense talk?

i don't know why don't you talk about why you really do what you do?

But first why do people engage in nonsense action?

And where can you point to the buddha teaching or his followers not dodging rocks.

there is no soul, and that bothers you.

However, before anything else, how does a person recognize another person's behavior or talk to be nonsense?

The way I see it, we can see a person's behavior to be nonsense if it is against his safety or improvement in life or living longer and better and even as long as he wants if possible.

And you have yet to demonstrate that buddhism teaches people to not care for themselves.

there is no soul and that bothers you.

And we can see that a person's talk is nonsense if the talk does not contribute in any way or at any time or in any place to his and our knowledge to make life better and longer and even indefinitely lasting.

And how have you contributed to the conversation here/ You used to engage in converstaion, now just monlouge. No conversation.

there is no soul and that bothers you.

Now, nonsense talk is not insanity and can be even amusing and fun, unless and until people enact their nonsense talk into nonsense behavior to correspond to their nonsense talk.

In which case we can talk without fear of nonsense talk that the people so enacting their nonsense talk into nonsense behavior are bordering on insanity.

Ah yes like Xians who live thier lives to have a better condo on Rock candy Mountain. Or people who think the founding fathers of america weren't thief , crooks and aristocrats.

There is no soul and that bothers you.

Examine people who are into enacting their nonsense talk into nonsense behavior, and you will notice that they are into insanity to some degree or massively as to do away with their existence totally.

And where have you shown that buddhists do that?

there is no soul and that bothers you.

But what is insanity? We have to ask the people expert in treating insanity or working to curb insane people from disturbing a society that is not into nonsense behavior and nonsense talk as a routine. Excuse me while I do some instant reading in the web on insanity.


Okay, insanity is no longer a medical term, the term now is mental illness which can best be known in its various kinds and degrees by consulting the criteria for the diagnosis of a specific mental illness as given in the American Psychiatric Association's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders [and take care to search the latest edition].

However, after a quick reading of insanity in the web I found this distinction to be most relevant to my actual research hobby or mental pastime and amusement in my thread here on Buddhism, sense and nonsense in.

In Spanish there is a difference in calling a person "loco" and calling him with the reduplicative "loco loco". “Loco” in Spanish refers to someone who should be treated or in the care and control of mental health workers, while “loco loco” refers to a person who is not diagnostically “loco” but wants to play “loco” for his own whatever purposes, like in pursuit of some transcendental world-views, or as a livelihood activity because insane people don’t have to work for a living but must be supported by society.

What a load of crap, you are a bigot or very poorly informed Yrreg.

Are you sure you live in this century, I know you live in another country than the US but even there you should realize that mental illness is n illness and that people living with it can be productive memebers of society.

I suppose you don't let your wife wear slacks or vote either.

i will grant you the idea that you are just misinformed.

But mentaly ill people are people, they don't need your patronising concern. they are people and capable of productive work.

There is no soul and that bothers you.

In this context, Buddhist monks are loco loco while the Heaven's Gate folks were loco, even though they had the use of their senses including intelligence but they chose to disregard it, so as to enact into behavior their nonsense talk, owing to their faith in their nonsense talk.

Midless assertion , no evidence at all. i guess that you think Pachomius was cool because he made the monks work when he organised the first knwo order of Xians and that you think that makes Xians somehow better than buddhists.

But molesting children, sexualy abusing lots of people, and emotional predation occur in the Xian holy orders. What about the monk who killed a noviate in Bulgaria, how is that productive and useful to society.

There is no soul and that bothers you.

We don't know if animals engage in nonsense talk, but they do to my observation engage in nonsense behavior when they play; otherwise they stick faithfully to the world as they know it from the sight of a stone coming toward them and they duck, dodge, scamper, flee.

that shows you are ignorant of animal development and behaviors as well, you sure look like a Xian demagouge yrreg.

I will ask , what useful purpose could play involve?

There is no soul and that bothers you.
[/quote]


Animals have difficulties or challenges but men have problems or make problems for themselves, like saying the cause of suffering is desire.


How to prove with words that the self exists? Stay posted.


Yrreg[/QUOTE]

There is no soul and that bothers you.

 

[Malachi151]

I've debated the Buddhism issue with too many people, too many times, to bother writing much about it here:

http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=194849

http://www.samharris.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=4602

http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forum/index.php?topic=5085.msg86169#msg86169

http://www.richarddawkins.net/forum/viewtopic.php?p=112371#112371

 

[yrreg]

Words are optional when you can bring in common experiences.

Originally Posted by yrreg

How to prove with words that the self exists? Stay posted.​

​

Well, at least I look forward for such illumination.

I must have been overwhelmed with hubris when I said that I would prove with words that the self exists, because I was so excited that I have found a way to show people that words can prove to them that their self exists.

But first, there is no need to prove with words that something exists except when it is more convenient to use words than bringing in common experiences of entities asking for proof. And what are these entities asking for proof? What else or who else but humans, asking for and setting forth proof; so, bring in common experiences of humans.

We have then two very broad ways to proving something by bringing in common experiences of humans and by using words when words are more convenient.

Take the example of the self, how do we prove that it exists by bringing in common experiences of humans? Simple, first you need at least two living persons with functional physiology of the senses and the nerves which is the normal condition of living humans.

One person knows that the self exists, but the other is not so sure, and he wants you to prove to him that his self exists. To prove to him that he exists, you deliver a heavy quick punch into the pit of his stomach; this is known as the test from pain. I will not go into the test from pleasure.

If he still cannot be certain that he exists, then you grab his neck and slowly but more tightly and more tightly squeeze his neck as he gasps with greater and greater difficulty for breath; next you lighten your grip of his neck just enough to enable him to speak, as you relax your grip you ask him whether he is already certain of his self being in existence; if he still insists that he is not certain, you now strangulate him until he is almost dead, and walk away from him half dead but will recover, saying to yourself that it's useless to prove by bringing up common experiences to prove to someone that he exists if he insists on being loco loco if not genuinely loco.

In either case of a person being loco loco or truly loco, one would be also loco loco or altogether loco to prove to him anything at all.

Now, about proving with words to someone that he or his self does exist: first you examine how he explains to you that he does not exist. But is he bound to explain to you or to even prove to you that he does not exist? Yes, because when something is taken for granted by everyone but someone questions it, then it is incumbent upon that someone to explain or even to prove his contention in opposition to what everyone takes for granted.

For example, as everyone takes for granted that the sun is bigger than the earth, but someone insists that the earth is bigger than the sun, then it is incumbent upon the latter to explain or even to prove that his contention is the genuine truth of the matter.

The principle behind this rule of burden of proof is what I might call the parallel principle of the rule that the burden of the proof is on the party asserting a statement. Correct me guys here who know more Latin than I do, it is called the principle of "Fortior is pars possidentis,"* meaning the party in possession has a stronger case than the party not in possession.

So, as everyone takes for granted that the sun is bigger than the earth, they are the party in possession, and anyone questioning that common piece of knowledge has the burden of explaining or proving otherwise.

Back to proving by words that the self exists to one who maintains that it does not exist, as I said: first you examine the words he uses in his explanation why the self does not exist. Here is one familiar explanation or proof that the self does not exist:

The Buddha proclaimed that actions and their consequences exist, but that the person who acts does not. According to the Buddhist doctrine of anatta, the self is more like an ever-changing construction than a solid entity. ​

Your job is to show that the words there, some of them, make up nonsense talk, by rewriting them into simple but elaborated sentences with the subject and the predicate explicitly spelled out, thus:

Original text: The Buddha proclaimed that actions and their consequences exist, but that the person who acts does not.
Elaborated explicated text: The Buddha proclaimed that a person's actions and their consequences exist, but that the person who acts does not.

Original text:According to the Buddhist doctrine of anatta, the self is more like an ever-changing construction than a solid entity.
Elaborated explicated text: According to the Buddhist doctrine of anatta, any particular operation of the self is more like an ever-changing construction than a solid entity.

Clause_1 is nonsense talk; clause_2 is not nonsense talk, if anatta is understood as elaborated and explicated.

So, you tell Buddha or the person with whom you are having the conversation that he is either loco loco or loco in clause_1, engaging in nonsense talk, and to talk sense talk like in clause_2; otherwise you have better things to do with your time and breath than engage in his game of loco loco nonsense talk, better things to do like inventing a better mousetrap to catch mice which are pretty smarter than people who choose to act loco loco or are genuinely loco.


Yrreg

*My literary liberty of an adaptation from "Melior est causa possidentis," better is the cause of the possessor.

 

[Ryokan]

I wonder how many times the concept of no-self has to be explained to Yrreg before he realizes the claim isn't that people don't exist - it's the permanent self, or a soul, that don't exist.

This has been explained again and again and again.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anatta

 

[lupus_in_fabula]

I wonder how many times the concept of no-self has to be explained to Yrreg before he realizes the claim isn't that people don't exist - it's the permanent self, or a soul, that don't exist.

Well, I can’t say I know much about Buddhism, but indeed, I think he’s confusing ’self’ with ’person’ here. “Persona” = Latin for ‘mask’ or ‘character’, or alternatively, “per” + “sonare” = ‘to sound through’.

Moreover, much of the misunderstanding could perhaps be attributed to the introduction of nouns in the western translations of the ancient eastern texts; turning them into verbs by using gerundives might clear up much of such misunderstandings. For example, according to Alan Watts, Sanskrit doesn’t really have a name for matter; but they have “namarupa” (the two inseparable ‘name’ + ‘form’ ergo ‘named form’). So, it’s the form that matters… or everything is a matter of form.

I might be wrong here (correct me please), but abandoning the concept of matter to that of form is also happening in elementary physics: matter ultimately seems to be a representation of form made by the observer… so basically we are left with let’s pretend that we matter (by which a persona is created, or perhaps more accurately; 'personifying').

It’s my impression then, that persons can be treated as separate entities, whereas the self does not allow such distinction. Hence, if the self is everything, then it’s nothing.