Why are we afraid to die if it's inevitable?

[Tatsumaru]

Oh, my!  They have it all backward.

 

BTW  I don't do or even believe in miracles.

 

I still have only five senses.  I guess I haven't evolved well.

 

BTW (again)  Consciousness and self-awareness are the ego.  It's nothing special.  We all have one.  Most of us misunderstand our ego because it has been shaped by others.  It is just as real as one who fully understands themselves.  It's just that it has been manipulated to the point of being a false image.

 

Our enemies (and yes, we all have mental enemies) are the false images we have of ourself.  Most of these enemies have been planted into our mind by others.  These are the enemies that must be destroyed.  Once destroyed we can finally see our true self.

 

 Our ego should be the tool that drives us to be all that we can be in order to attain inner peace and contentment.  Any thoughts we have in our mind that are counter to this state of being is an enemy.  Destroy it!

 

There are no miracles, the title of the book is lame. You should be aware of six senses at least, unless you are handicapped: 

(1) sight-consciousness, (2) hearing-consciousness, (3) smell-consciousness, (4) taste-consciousness, (5) touch-consciousness, (6) brain organ-consciousness

the 6th is the so called thinking mind, which is just a tool for survival and browsing a database of memories, so it's always in the past. Nothing new there (get it?)

 

There are many consciousnesses, one of them is the ego yes.

 

Yes, I fully agree that the enemy is the false idea of what you are. Once the false is gone, the real is left (it's always there since it's real, but it's veiled by false ideas).

 

It's impossible to attain inner peace with the ego intact... What are you talking about? The ego means the illusion of separation, the ego means hope and fear. The ego means the past and the future. The ego can never experience the present. The ego can never experience truth.

[Marblehead]

I never said that you can't know reality. I said that the you who you think you are (which is not real) cannot know reality. Drop your philosophies about this school of philosophy or that school of philosophy, this isn't about any school or approach. This is a simple regurgitation of what is obvious. You need to ask yourself the question - what is truth? Obviously truth is something that doesn't change, if it changes then it's not this or that, so you can't rely on it to make any conclusions.

 

Interesting thoughts in there about truth.  However, you are speaking of "ultimate truth".  Taoists call that "Tao".  Christians call it God.  Most scientists call it the "Big Bang".

 

But, in everyday life there are smaller but very important truths.  These are aspects of the Manifest.  Yes, objective reality.  I can't fly of my own power and capabilities.  But I can get in an airplane and fly.

[Marblehead]

There are no miracles, the title of the book is lame. You should be aware of six senses at least, unless you are handicapped: 

 

I guess I'm handicapped then.  But I'm glad you agree that there are no miracles.

(1) sight-consciousness, (2) hearing-consciousness, (3) smell-consciousness, (4) taste-consciousness, (5) touch-consciousness, (6) brain organ-consciousness

the 6th is the so called thinking mind, which is just a tool for survival and browsing a database of memories, so it's always in the past. Nothing new there (get it?)

 

I have had this discussion before.  The most fun was discussing it with Vmarco.  I do miss him.  What you refer to as being the sixth sense I call the collection agent - the brain with its nervous system.

 

There are many consciousnesses, one of them is the ego yes.

 

I'm glad we agree on that.  And I do see what you are pointing at, it's just that I have problems with that view.

 

Yes, I fully agree that the enemy is the false idea of what you are. Once the false is gone, the real is left (it's always there since it's real, but it's veiled by false ideas).

 

Our disagreement is concerning what aspect of "all that we are" should be designated as an enemy.

 

It's impossible to attain inner peace with the ego intact... What are you talking about? The ego means the illusion of separation, the ego means hope and fear. The ego means the past and the future. The ego can never experience the present. The ego can never experience truth.

 

Oh, but it's very possible!  I am a perfect example.  No, the ego means the total completeness of the being.  But I would agree, a false ego would lead to hope and fear.  For me, the ego includes the past, present and future.  I don't agree with the last two sentences but cannot right now offer a counter argument.

 

[Karl]

So basically you are saying, if nothing in the dream is real, then how do you know what is true in order to recognize it when you experience it, right? Well that's a great question. One way of realizing you are in the dream is by asking "what is a thing?". A lot of people think that if nothing really exists, how can anything function? However, Nagarjuna said that it is precisely because everything does not really exist that everything functions. If everything were truly existent, existing in and of itself and thus being unchanging, things would not depend on anything. But then they could not interact with each other either because that entails change. Therefore, it is only due to everything changing all the time that interaction and functioning are possible. Ponder on this for a moment...

So this is basic logic that isn't pointing to what things are, but to what they aren't. You can play with it and try to prove it wrong, but you won't succeed (but please do try). Again we are not talking about what things are, but what they aren't. Since the lower 6 senses cannot comprehend emptiness the only thing we can do at this point is to recognize that we are not perceiving reality as it is. So if things in this dimension don't really exist then how can a self exist? Thus you realize that 1. either there's no self or 2. the self is not here. You must find out which one is true. However in both scenarios an idea that there is a true self here is ridiculous so you can recognize that your perception of what's going on is not real. The you that you think you are is not real. Basically you realize that you are not seeing truth because what you see cannot be truth by any definition. The only thing that is left is to surrender what is false, so only the truth is left at the end.

"Truth, like gold, is to be obtained not by its growth, but by washing away from it all that is not gold." - Leo Tolstoy

“The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge” - Stephen Hawking

Please read my words more carefully. I never said anywhere that the scientists have proof of truth. I only said that scientists know that the senses aren't perceiving reality. So basically they have proof of illusion and understand that what we perceive as real is not real. This is not proof of truth. I don't know what you are talking about, different approaches, cop outs... you are not paying attention is all. You seem to be looking for an example of truth in a dream world. Such goal is futile. As I explained the only thing we can do is to explain what is not true, in order to let go of it.

There is no contradiction in what I'm saying.

You are correct that when we are awake we are fully aware of what dreaming is all about. You seem to be looking for a truth in the dream that would suggest you are dreaming. Is that possible? The only thing you get in the dream is the realization that what you think is going on cannot be real, because basically you perceive things in the absence of things. Thus you don't know what truth is, but you know that whatever you perceive isn't truth. This is the beginning of the journey. So there is no true information in the dream state, there is only realization of lies. As I said multiple times already, it's not about earning and learning your way out of the dream, since nothing from the dream can propel you towards truth. It's about UN-learning what is false in order to uncover a truth.

I never said that you can't know reality. I said that the you who you think you are (which is not real) cannot know reality. Drop your philosophies about this school of philosophy or that school of philosophy, this isn't about any school or approach. This is a simple regurgitation of what is obvious. You need to ask yourself the question - what is truth? Obviously truth is something that doesn't change, if it changes then it's not this or that, so you can't rely on it to make any conclusions. So knowing that truth doesn't change, and that everything you experience with the lower 6 senses is changing, the only obvious conclusion is that you aren't experiencing truth. Read this a few times until you grasp it. There are no contradictions here.

 

Let's cut to you sophist/skeptic philosophy, because, unwittingly you are following that philosophy whether you know it or not.

 

This is in your final conclusion. Which, makes it far easier to follow your deduction than the rest of your argument which is ephemeral.

 

"I can know truth (reality) only by the characteristic that truth (reality) does not change"

 

That is not a new argument and has been thoroughly debunked by Aristole who came after the sophists.

 

What you failed to notice was that change itself IS reality. Our senses do not lie. Our perceptions of reality are perfect. However it is our conceptual integrations that can be in error.

 

From this mess of Kantian/Hegelian philosophy comes the pseudo science of quantum theory. Another attempt to adopt scepticism and weld it to science. This is what Thomas Aquinas did with religion. He attempted to make religion 'scientific' and thence prevent reason from ousting spiritual mysticism once and for all. To an extent he succeeded. However, along came Kant and where there was room for spiritual mysticism, then surely there must be room for muscle mysticism. Reason lost the battle then. Once Hegel triumphed by removing God completely, the philosophy of collectivism was born. Now man had neither reason, nor God. Man had abandoned both to pragmatic subjectivism and in rushed the communists and fascists slaughtering men like daisies before a scythe.

Edited July 3, 2016 by Karl

[Tatsumaru]

Interesting thoughts in there about truth.  However, you are speaking of "ultimate truth".  Taoists call that "Tao".  Christians call it God.  Most scientists call it the "Big Bang".

 

But, in everyday life there are smaller but very important truths.  These are aspects of the Manifest.  Yes, objective reality.  I can't fly of my own power and capabilities.  But I can get in an airplane and fly.

Yes, Taoists call it Tao, Buddhists call it Clear Light, or Tathagata.

 

Christians are not interested in truth so whatever they say is irrelevant. Many Buddhists are not interested in truth either, to be honest. There is a reason why Buddha explained that there is no God, and it isn't semantic.

Scientists are not interested in absolute truth either. A big bang wouldn't be an ultimate truth since whatever has a beginning has an end. Many scientists like Stephen Hawking and Jim Hartle suggest that the Big Bang is a myth.

 

You are correct, my point is about what's ultimately true. These so called planes, countries, travelling, eating - it's not really happening, this is the movie in the cinema. What is important about it when you die? When you are dying are you going to think about planes and food and say, "good thing I got to visit San Francisco or else I would have lived in vain"? I doubt it. The only thing that matters is what doesn't change.

 

 

 

There are no miracles, the title of the book is lame. You should be aware of six senses at least, unless you are handicapped: 

 

I guess I'm handicapped then.  But I'm glad you agree that there are no miracles.

(1) sight-consciousness, (2) hearing-consciousness, (3) smell-consciousness, (4) taste-consciousness, (5) touch-consciousness, (6) brain organ-consciousness

the 6th is the so called thinking mind, which is just a tool for survival and browsing a database of memories, so it's always in the past. Nothing new there (get it?)

 

I have had this discussion before.  The most fun was discussing it with Vmarco.  I do miss him.  What you refer to as being the sixth sense I call the collection agent - the brain with its nervous system.

 

There are many consciousnesses, one of them is the ego yes.

 

I'm glad we agree on that.  And I do see what you are pointing at, it's just that I have problems with that view.

 

Yes, I fully agree that the enemy is the false idea of what you are. Once the false is gone, the real is left (it's always there since it's real, but it's veiled by false ideas).

 

Our disagreement is concerning what aspect of "all that we are" should be designated as an enemy.

 

It's impossible to attain inner peace with the ego intact... What are you talking about? The ego means the illusion of separation, the ego means hope and fear. The ego means the past and the future. The ego can never experience the present. The ego can never experience truth.

 

Oh, but it's very possible!  I am a perfect example.  No, the ego means the total completeness of the being.  But I would agree, a false ego would lead to hope and fear.  For me, the ego includes the past, present and future.  I don't agree with the last two sentences but cannot right now offer a counter argument

Well a collection agent is pretty much what a sense is. Eyes and ears are also collection agents, so if you refer to your brain as a collection agent, then it's easy to view it as a sense. I forgot to explain that the 6th sense is not some intuition psychic thing as is thought in the west, so maybe that's why you thought you were handicapped.

 

As for the ego being able to experience the present, consider this. The ego is the consciousness of thought. Thought is always in the past because, thought is browsing past data. A thought is always based in the past. Thus a thought about the present is impossible. This is extremely important because it dismantles the whole new agey industry of "here and now". Many pseudo-zen buddhists will claim that watching birds without thoughts is being in the present, but consider this. In order to see, you perceive the light that takes time to travel from whatever you are observing to your eyes, this light then needs to be interpreted by your brain and an image must be generated in your brain. But what is interpretation? It's basically translating based on a database of knowledge. Someone might say - big deal, who cares that I'm seeing the bird with 1 millionth of a second delay (or whatever that lag is), but that's not the case. Consider that the present is still - it's just one moment really. If past is an event from A to B, then the present is just A, so there's no movement. So if there is no movement then how come you are seeing events? This points to the fact that all events and thoughts are in the past, so there is no way for the ego to experience the present. The present is not even the same dimension... This is huge.

[3bob]

"God" that can be nailed down per mind is not "God" nor is that which can be dismissed by mind "God"...a knee jerk reaction to the term "God" is revealing.

[Tatsumaru]

Let's cut to you sophist/skeptic philosophy, because, unwittingly you are following that philosophy whether you know it or not.

 

This is in your final conclusion. Which, makes it far easier to follow your deduction than the rest of your argument which is ephemeral.

 

"I can know truth (reality) only by the characteristic that truth (reality) does not change"

 

That is not a new argument and has been thoroughly debunked by Aristole who came after the sophists.

 

What you failed to notice was that change itself IS reality. Our senses do not lie. Our perceptions of reality are perfect. However it is our conceptual integrations that can be in error.

 

From this mess of Kantian/Hegelian philosophy comes the pseudo science of quantum theory. Another attempt to adopt scepticism and weld it to science. This is what Thomas Aquinas did with religion. He attempted to make religion 'scientific' and thence prevent reason from ousting spiritual mysticism once and for all. To an extent he succeeded. However, along came Kant and where there was room for spiritual mysticism, then surely there must be room for muscle mysticism. Reason lost the battle then. Once Hegel triumphed by removing God completely, the philosophy of collectivism was born. Now man had neither reason, nor God. Man had abandoned both to pragmatic subjectivism and in rushed the communists and fascists slaughtering men like daisies before a scythe.

Lol. Replying to you reminds me about my grandfather who is also extremely stubborn. It's okay though, I'm not in a hurry.

 

So basically you believe that there is no absolute truth. Absolute truth by definition doesn't change, so if you are saying that there is no such thing, then you are saying that there is no absolute truth, which is silly even from a conceptual point of view, because if there was no absolute truth, then the absolute truth would be absolutely nothing, and thus an absolute truth.

Since you love your schools of philosophy so much, guess which school is based upon a denial of absolute truth - Nihilism.

Their view is that nothing really exists except the relative, meaning that there is a real world in your brain and nothing else which already contradicts the notion that nothing exists.

The consequences of nihilism are to believe that somehow you are able to interpret an external event with your brain, even though there is nothing outside of your brain. Thus somehow you are absolute because nothing is outside of your perception, but at the same time relative because everyone has their own idea of reality. Furthermore you somehow appeared out of nothing and exist in nothing, even though nothing doesn't exist. You somehow appeared out of yourself, from nothing... No wonder Nietzsche (a prominent nihilist) lost his mind. Remember what I said in the beginning - to suggest that truth is personal is to suggest there is no difference between true and false. If everything you come up with is true, then there is no false. Thus truths can contradict each other and that is not problem, thus there is no truth and no lie etc.

 

Forget about Aristotle, who didn't debunk anything. Aristotle believed in gods and duality. Aristotle believed in oneness, ignoring the fact that there is no one without a many. He didn't uncover a single absolute truth. Focus on Socrates and Plato if you are true seeker of truth.

 

I'm not an expert on quantum theory, although I'm familiar with some basic premises and I can say that they are certainly problematic to people who cling to Aristotelian logic for their identity. Such people are not interested in truth. Quantum theory states that on the sub-atomic level there are no particles which is consistent with Buddhism's "Form is emptiness, Emptiness is also form". Gautama uncovered this many years before expensive laboratory equipment simply by wondering about absolute truth - there cannot be an absolute particle that gives rise to the relative world since that would entail change for the absolute particle. Thus scientists will never find an absolute particle.

 

As for change being reality - consider the present. Present is just a single moment, not an event, thus the present is not part of time. So if present is not part of time then, there is nothing changing in the present. So where is that reality you are talking about? Are you saying that there is no present and only past? That would be a bold statement... and an incorrect one.

 

To put it simply a nihilist believes that nothing really exists, but the relative, because somehow there is a self, even though nothing exists. You have to choose either nothing exists and no self exists, or a self exists beyond time. You don't get to mix absolute and relative truths. That is the ego's highest desire, to make the impermanent permanent. Such quest is doomed and is the root of suffering according to Buddha.

Edited July 3, 2016 by Tatsumaru

[C T]

 

As for change being reality - consider the present. Present is just a single moment, not an event, thus the present is not part of time. 

Actually what we call the 'present' is simply an echo or imprint left behind by what has passed. 

 

[Tatsumaru]

Actually what we call the 'present' is simply an echo or imprint left behind by what has passed. 

Are you saying that the present is the past? That's problematic, because that means there is no present, only past. But how can there be past without a present. If you are considering present as an effect then there must be something preceding the present. What is it? Are you saying the present arises out of the past? Then what does the past arise out of? I love radical thinking, but I don't think you are correct.

Edited July 3, 2016 by Tatsumaru

[C T]

Are you saying that the present is the past? That's problematic, because that means there is no present, only past. But how can there be past without a present. If you are considering present as an effect then there must be something preceding the present. What is it? Are you saying the present arises out of the past? Then what does the past arise out of? I love radical thinking, but I don't think you are correct.

This is why we cannot discount conventional or expedient means in order to arrive at a nondescript absolute. We cannot assert this absolute by negating the relative. 

[Tatsumaru]

This is why we cannot discount conventional or expedient means in order to arrive at a nondescript absolute. We cannot assert this absolute by negating the relative. 

 

Well you better scold whoever wrote the Heart Sutra fast then, because that's precisely what it's doing.

 

Remember what was said by the Buddha: "The Tathagata doesn't come and go".

If you think that the present is part of time then you must disprove the following statement:

"There is no present in time"

and then

"The Tathagata doesn't come and go". (because if present was part of time, then there is nothing outside of time, but if there is nothing outside of time, then the absolute Tathagata is within time, which means it's not absolute and it does indeed come and go)

I don't envy the one wishing to fit the absolute within time.

 

[C T]

Well you better scold whoever wrote the Heart Sutra fast then, because that's precisely what it's doing.

 

Remember what was said by the Buddha: "The Tathagata doesn't come and go".

If you think that the present is part of time then you must disprove the following statement:

"There is no present in time"

and then

"The Tathagata doesn't come and go". (because if present was part of time, then there is nothing outside of time, but if there is nothing outside of time, then the absolute Tathagata is within time, which means it's not absolute and it does indeed come and go)

I don't envy the one wishing to fit the absolute within time.

 

Haha the writer of the Heart Sutra is not at fault if we choose to ignore the steps that lead to wisdom needed to understand it without the chance for any doubt or contradictions to darken the understanding. 

[Marblehead]

Yes, Taoists call it Tao, Buddhists call it Clear Light, or Tathagata.

 

Christians are not interested in truth so whatever they say is irrelevant.

Oops.  Sorry for invoking the thought.

[Marblehead]

You are correct, my point is about what's ultimately true. These so called planes, countries, travelling, eating - it's not really happening, this is the movie in the cinema. What is important about it when you die? When you are dying are you going to think about planes and food and say, "good thing I got to visit San Francisco or else I would have lived in vain"? I doubt it. The only thing that matters is what doesn't change.

 

Yeah, but let's face it.  These little things still matter while I am alive.  And yes, I have visited San Francisco many a time.  I love the area but the weather is a bit too cold for me.

 

When I die these things won't matter.  That's a given.  But then, "I" won't exist when I die so nothing will matter.  Dead is dead.

[Marblehead]

 

Well a collection agent is pretty much what a sense is. Eyes and ears are also collection agents, so if you refer to your brain as a collection agent, then it's easy to view it as a sense. I forgot to explain that the 6th sense is not some intuition psychic thing as is thought in the west, so maybe that's why you thought you were handicapped.

Okay.  I try to not do the denial thing so I guess I will accept my handicap.  But, I could easily agree with what you said and consider the mind/brain as a sixth sense.

[Marblehead]

As for the ego being able to experience the present, consider this. The ego is the consciousness of thought. Thought is always in the past because, thought is browsing past data. A thought is always based in the past. Thus a thought about the present is impossible. This is extremely important because it dismantles the whole new agey industry of "here and now". Many pseudo-zen buddhists will claim that watching birds without thoughts is being in the present, but consider this. In order to see, you perceive the light that takes time to travel from whatever you are observing to your eyes, this light then needs to be interpreted by your brain and an image must be generated in your brain. But what is interpretation? It's basically translating based on a database of knowledge. Someone might say - big deal, who cares that I'm seeing the bird with 1 millionth of a second delay (or whatever that lag is), but that's not the case. Consider that the present is still - it's just one moment really. If past is an event from A to B, then the present is just A, so there's no movement. So if there is no movement then how come you are seeing events? This points to the fact that all events and thoughts are in the past, so there is no way for the ego to experience the present. The present is not even the same dimension... This is huge.

Damn!  Are you sure you are not Vmarco in disguise?  Or maybe the tow of you have been reading the same books?

 

Yes, we actually live in the past even though we call it the present because the time element is so small.  At least I do.

 

And no, we don't live in the future even though we have thoughts of it.  (Potential)

 

I think we really don't have a disagreement here.  We just use different words and we like our words better than we like the other's words.

[Marblehead]

"God" that can be nailed down per mind is not "God" nor is that which can be dismissed by mind "God"...a knee jerk reaction to the term "God" is revealing.

 

Even though I don't agree with you, at least you are staying consistent.  That's good.

[Tatsumaru]

Yeah, but let's face it.  These little things still matter while I am alive.  And yes, I have visited San Francisco many a time.  I love the area but the weather is a bit too cold for me.

 

When I die these things won't matter.  That's a given.  But then, "I" won't exist when I die so nothing will matter.  Dead is dead.

If you believe that there is no self, then you won't be able to die, because you weren't born.

If you believe that there is a self, then you won't be able to die, because you weren't born.

Better find out.

 

[Karl]

Lol. Replying to you reminds me about my grandfather who is also extremely stubborn. It's okay though, I'm not in a hurry.

So basically you believe that there is no absolute truth. Absolute truth by definition doesn't change, so if you are saying that there is no such thing, then you are saying that there is no absolute truth, which is silly even from a conceptual point of view, because if there was no absolute truth, then the absolute truth would be absolutely nothing, and thus an absolute truth.

Since you love your schools of philosophy so much, guess which school is based upon a denial of absolute truth - Nihilism.

Their view is that nothing really exists except the relative, meaning that there is a real world in your brain and nothing else which already contradicts the notion that nothing exists.

The consequences of nihilism are to believe that somehow you are able to interpret an external event with your brain, even though there is nothing outside of your brain. Thus somehow you are absolute because nothing is outside of your perception, but at the same time relative because everyone has their own idea of reality. Furthermore you somehow appeared out of nothing and exist in nothing, even though nothing doesn't exist. You somehow appeared out of yourself, from nothing... No wonder Nietzsche (a prominent nihilist) lost his mind. Remember what I said in the beginning - to suggest that truth is personal is to suggest there is no difference between true and false. If everything you come up with is true, then there is no false. Thus truths can contradict each other and that is not problem, thus there is no truth and no lie etc.

 

Forget about Aristotle, who didn't debunk anything. Aristotle believed in gods and duality. Aristotle believed in oneness, ignoring the fact that there is no one without a many. He didn't uncover a single absolute truth. Focus on Socrates and Plato if you are true seeker of truth.

I'm not an expert on quantum theory, although I'm familiar with some basic premises and I can say that they are certainly problematic to people who cling to Aristotelian logic for their identity. Such people are not interested in truth. Quantum theory states that on the sub-atomic level there are no particles which is consistent with Buddhism's "Form is emptiness, Emptiness is also form". Gautama uncovered this many years before expensive laboratory equipment simply by wondering about absolute truth - there cannot be an absolute particle that gives rise to the relative world since that would entail change for the absolute particle. Thus scientists will never find an absolute particle.

As for change being reality - consider the present. Present is just a single moment, not an event, thus the present is not part of time. So if present is not part of time then, there is nothing changing in the present. So where is that reality you are talking about? Are you saying that there is no present and only past? That would be a bold statement... and an incorrect one.

To put it simply a nihilist believes that nothing really exists, but the relative, because somehow there is a self, even though nothing exists. You have to choose either nothing exists and no self exists, or a self exists beyond time. You don't get to mix absolute and relative truths. That is the ego's highest desire, to make the impermanent permanent. Such quest is doomed and is the root of suffering according to Buddha.

Truth is the recognition of reality. The metaphysically given is an absolute. Metaphysical facts are reality.

 

You are confusing perceptual fact with conceptual error. Existence exists, A is A, a thing is a thing. We need logic in order to minimise error in conception, but not for perceptual fact. Our senses and our perception are truth. It is impossible to relate to something which has no metaphysical existence. You can build relativistic castles in the sky, but you cannot live in them. You can create things, but not out of nothing, you can only change a collection of things into some other kind of arrangement.

 

The idea of yesterday and tommorrow, of time itself is conceptual only. The reality is the ongoing causality that is observed as metaphysical fact. Space is the relationship between two or more metaphysical objects, but space is a relative concept. Man categorises existent objects conceptually. Perception does not categorise anything at all. Man can make an error in the first, but not in the second.

 

You can note these differences between the conceptual and the perceptual, the metaphysical and the epistemological. However you must relate the conceptual to perceptual fact. Concepts must be grounded in metaphysical reality, or they are just floating abstractions. You have your senses to engage with existent reality and that is all you have in terms of providing proof.

 

I would ask you to define proof and truth and you will have to define it in relation to existents. You are stuck with it no matter how many conceptual castles you build. To say the truth is unknowable is a dereliction of the mind. It is to give up, to surrender the mind completely, to say because I have a mind I am unable to think.

[Karl]

If you believe that there is no self, then you won't be able to die, because you weren't born.

If you believe that there is a self, then you won't be able to die, because you weren't born.

Better find out.

 

Where's your proof ?

 

Of course there is a self and the self will die and that will be all. Existence will continue regardless of there being a consciousness able to observe it.

 

Existence is identity; consciousness is identification.

 

No consciousness, no identification.

[C T]

 

Of course there is a self and the self will die and that will be all.

 

 

Existence will continue regardless of there being a consciousness able to observe it.

 

Existence is identity; consciousness is identification.

 

No consciousness, no identification.

Consciousness is not a thing separated from that which it is observing. Putting it differently, it can be said that the observed is none other than consciousness since you its illogical to say that one is not conscious while observing an object. And saying "I am conscious" is also without meaning if its not being conscious of something. Being conscious of something is different from identifying with it, so one can identify or not identify while being conscious of the observed. I think its incorrect therefore to state bluntly that consciousness is identification since to identify objects labels and names are necessary, yet consciousness are not dependent on these labels and names. For example, being exposed to something completely new and strange, like hearing a foreign language for the first time, one remains fully conscious of the sound and movement of the speaker's lips but completely incoherent to the meanings behind the sounds.

 

This principle applies to all things filtered in thru the senses, and because these senses are conditioned by a multitude of factors which are unique to each individual, it follows that notions of the self, which relies on data imputed via the senses to form an identity, are nothing more than an estimate, whereby these estimates again depend on degrees of cognition and levels of awareness. Two pairs of eyes seeing a mountain, for example, cannot objectify it identically other than on a gross level involving gross notions - however, as distinctions get subtler and subtler, variations to the theme will become more apparent. 

[Tatsumaru]

Truth is the recognition of reality. The metaphysically given is an absolute. Metaphysical facts are reality.

 

You are confusing perceptual fact with conceptual error. Existence exists, A is A, a thing is a thing. We need logic in order to minimise error in conception, but not for perceptual fact. Our senses and our perception are truth. It is impossible to relate to something which has no metaphysical existence. You can build relativistic castles in the sky, but you cannot live in them. You can create things, but not out of nothing, you can only change a collection of things into some other kind of arrangement.

 

The idea of yesterday and tommorrow, of time itself is conceptual only. The reality is the ongoing causality that is observed as metaphysical fact. Space is the relationship between two or more metaphysical objects, but space is a relative concept. Man categorises existent objects conceptually. Perception does not categorise anything at all. Man can make an error in the first, but not in the second.

 

You can note these differences between the conceptual and the perceptual, the metaphysical and the epistemological. However you must relate the conceptual to perceptual fact. Concepts must be grounded in metaphysical reality, or they are just floating abstractions. You have your senses to engage with existent reality and that is all you have in terms of providing proof.

 

I would ask you to define proof and truth and you will have to define it in relation to existents. You are stuck with it no matter how many conceptual castles you build. To say the truth is unknowable is a dereliction of the mind. It is to give up, to surrender the mind completely, to say because I have a mind I am unable to think.

Yes, truth is the recognition of reality. I'm not sure what you are talking about regarding the metaphysical absolute etc.

 

Existence exists, sure.

A thing is a thing, sure.

Let's make it even simpler.

What do you know for sure? Forget about gods and selves and metaphysics, let's examine the basics...

 

One thing you know by default is that existence is not nothing, because nothing doesn't exist. When the word "nothing" is mentioned, many people think of it of some sort of infinite blackness or something else, but that's not correct. Nothing doesn't exist. No such thing as nothing, thus infinite blackness is infinite blackness. Even if the whole world is an illusion and a simulation etc, it's still isn't nothing. So far so good right?

 

Now at this point it's a good idea to ask who am I?/what am I? Forget about souls, reincarnation, metaphysics etc. Just inquire into what's going on.

The idea of self may arise from the fact that you feel separated from your surroundings or because you don't have control over what's going on. You don't feel omnipresent or omniscient, nor do you remember creating the whole world. If you created the whole world (like Solipsists think) then who created you? Did you appear out of nothing even though nothing doesn't exist? Solipsism is easy to dismiss. Nihilism is easy to dismiss as well as shown in my previous post.

 

When you see someone dying you can verify that the you who you think you are is not absolute. Now many people will say, but what about the soul, isn't it absolute? The soul concept can be dismissed easily as well. Basically the idea of soul is that there is something absolute in yourself, that goes somewhere else when the body dies. Again we ask " Can an absolute thing exist within time?" If you say yes that means that you think that there are things which change, but do not change at the same time which is wrong. Thus there is no absolute self within time and thus no soul.

 

You are only left with two choices:

A. There is no self.

B. There is a self outside of time.

Vedantins and some Zen schools believe there is no self and the idea of self is an illusion.

Most Buddhist schools that I know of talk about an absolute self that is outside of time, except for maybe Theravada.

 

The Buddha wanted to uncover why people suffer and he realized that people are attached to things that do not exist. He realized that people believe that processes are things, that a Table for example has intrinsic, essential "tableness" that the table arises from. So he observed life and realized that the table is made of wood, and the wood is made of soil, and the soil is made of bodies (generally speaking). He realized that a Table is only an idea, because that same Table could be something completely else for someone else, like chair for someone or food for termites.

He realized that people are attached to things that do not exist absolutely and that if you are attached to something that is not absolute then suffering is inevitable because whatever is not absolute is constantly changing. So then he wanted to find out if there is something absolute, and so on.

 

Buddha realized that the root of suffering is the desire for things to be other than they are.

Or in different words the desire for illusions to be truth, which is important, since you want truth to be defined within the context of the relative which is futile. Again - to say that truth is personal is to say that there is no difference between true and false. Relative truth is personal truth, there is no such thing.

 

 

 

Where's your proof ?

 

Of course there is a self and the self will die and that will be all. Existence will continue regardless of there being a consciousness able to observe it.

 

Existence is identity; consciousness is identification.

 

No consciousness, no identification.

I explained this many times, but you are in denial. This is going to be the last time. Please read it carefully.

1. If there is no self, then there is no self that was born and that will die. That much is clear.

 

2. If there is a self, then it can only be absolute. If the self is not absolute then whatever you call self is changing, if it's changing it's dependent on something else to exist, because change means interaction, if it depends on something else to exist then it's a process that's not limited by boundaries, because if it's limited by boundaries then it cannot interact with whatever it originates from. To put it simply if it's not just you, then how can it be just you? If it's not a self, then how can it be a self?

Thus if something is changing it's not absolute. If what you call your self is changing it's not absolute, but based on the logic above it cannot be a self. unless it's absolute.

If you want to continue this discussion please disprove my logic, otherwise I'm not interested in repeating the same thing over and over.

Edited July 3, 2016 by Tatsumaru

[Tatsumaru]

Consciousness is not a thing separated from that which it is observing. Putting it differently, it can be said that the observed is none other than consciousness since you its illogical to say that one is not conscious while observing an object. And saying "I am conscious" is also without meaning if its not being conscious of something. Being conscious of something is different from identifying with it, so one can identify or not identify while being conscious of the observed. I think its incorrect therefore to state bluntly that consciousness is identification since to identify objects labels and names are necessary, yet consciousness are not dependent on these labels and names. For example, being exposed to something completely new and strange, like hearing a foreign language for the first time, one remains fully conscious of the sound and movement of the speaker's lips but completely incoherent to the meanings behind the sounds.

 

This principle applies to all things filtered in thru the senses, and because these senses are conditioned by a multitude of factors which are unique to each individual, it follows that notions of the self, which relies on data imputed via the senses to form an identity, are nothing more than an estimate, whereby these estimates again depend on degrees of cognition and levels of awareness. Two pairs of eyes seeing a mountain, for example, cannot objectify it identically other than on a gross level involving gross notions - however, as distinctions get subtler and subtler, variations to the theme will become more apparent. 

 

Exactly, input that is conditioned by the past cannot perceive reality. As I have said many times on this thread - to say that truth is personal is to say that there is no difference between true and false.

 

Let go of the past, and you will uncover truth. No, the ego cannot let go of the past, because ego is of the past. 

 

I'm going to re-post this video because it's one of the most important videos ever.

Edited July 3, 2016 by Tatsumaru

[Karl]

I will disprove it, but I require you to first define 'self', and 'absolute'. Unless we define it accurately there is every likelihood we won't be referring to the same thing.

[Tatsumaru]

I will disprove it, but I require you to first define 'self', and 'absolute'. Unless we define it accurately there is every likelihood we won't be referring to the same thing.

Absolute = Something that exists in and of itself, it cannot be further simplified, it doesn't change or move.

Ab-solute literally means it cannot be in a solution with - thus it's not relative.

 

Self is the absolute truth about who you are aka that self which exists in and of itself

 

This is the Buddhist/Taoist definition of self with which I agree. Essentially it's the same thing I said, but in more detail.

 

Self is synonymous with Tathagata/Clear Light/Tao:

Tathāgata: the Other Buddha; that can never be destroyed, and knows no death, only eternal life.

 

This is a subject that the majority of Buddhists stay far away from, and non-Buddhists, with the exception of some Taoists, ever farther. Tathāgata was the term that Sakyamuni referred to himself as, instead of the pronouns me, I or myself.   Tathāgata is the Buddha that most Buddhists, those on the Long Paths, don’t want to discuss.

 

“Those who cannot accept that the Tathāgata is eternal, cause misery” - Mahaparinirvana Sutra.

 

What? How can Buddha say that; didn’t he say everything is impermanent?

 

The Buddha said the Self is “indestructible like a diamond” - Mahaparinirvana Sutra.

 

No way! The Buddha said there was no self.

 

“I will now show you the nature which is not produced and not extinguished” - Shurangama Sutra.

 

Buddha said that “Buddha Nature [the Tathāgata] is the True Self and like a diamond, for example, it cannot be destroyed” Dharmaksema.

 

Yes, Buddha taught impermanence, suffering, Emptiness, non-self for child-like students; yet on the day of Parinirvana, the Tathāgata taught eternity, happiness, and the Self, saying , “now, when his students have overcome the sickness of false views and possess a healthy, more mature appetite, he can teach them the Tathāgatagarbha.”

 

“Those who hold the theory of non-self are injurers of the Buddhist doctrines, they are given up to the dualistic views of being and non-being; they are to be ejected by the convocation of the Bhikshus and are never to be spoken to” - Lankavatara Sutra 765.

 

So why did Sakyamuni Buddha speak of non-being?

 

He told a story of a woman with an ailing infant. The sickness of that child requires that it temporarily desist from drinking its mother’s milk while the medicine which has been administered to it is assimilated. To facilitate this, the mother smears her breasts with a bitter substance, and this deters the infant from suckling at his mother’s breasts. But after the medicine has been absorbed, the child can drink the health-bestowing mother’s milk to his heart’s content – although at first he is hesitant and fearful of doing so. This relates to the doctrine of non-Self, Emptiness (which many commentators on Buddhism equate with “non-substantialism” or “non-essentialism”) and Self: when his students are still spiritually “sick”, the Buddha gives them the bitter medicine of “non-Self” and Emptiness; but when they have progressed into greater health and maturity, he teaches them the reality of the Tathagatagarbha. 

 

A commentator mentions how early in this sutra the Buddha has to reprimand his enthusiastic “non-Self”-championing monks who “repeatedly meditate upon the idea that there is no Self” for being perverse in their understanding of Dharma and wrong-headedly applying the teaching of non-Self where its writ does not run – to the real Self.

 

“As when a garment is cleansed of its dirt, or when gold is removed from its impurities, they are not destroyed but remain as they are; so is the skandha self freed from its defilements”- Lankavatara Sutra 756.

 

The clearest definition of Tathāgata (and the most important mantra for those on the Direct Path) is this:

Gate, Gate, Paragate, Parasamgate, Bodhi Svaha!