What is your justification for thinking you know anything for sure?

It is easier to be certain that something is not true. I am certain that a rhinoceros is not hiding in the trunk of my car. I just checked.

Look again...just to be sure.

What is your justification for thinking you know anything for sure? One unusual reply would be that there is no 'I' to know anything it is a fiction that helps to orientate phenomena. But human communication requires it i.e. without the notion of self and other communication is extremely difficult. So day-to-day we may as well act as if there is a truly existent self.

All I can say is, all my life I see evidence that things change and things don't ever seem to cease to exist. Yet people keep telling me to ignore this empirical evidence and believe that the mind ceases to exist at death. I'll go with the evidence and say probably things just change and that includes the mind. Is there a truly existent self that continues? .... There is no truly existent self at all during this life so that is irrelevant.

The bedrock of it all is the belief that the perceived world, and its additions from reflected thought and experiment, are the extent of reality which one needs to be concerned with (trapped in its rules or regularities, so to speak). It is assumed there are no "behind the scenes" affairs that are perpetually unknowable or that would make a significant difference even if they were. Accordingly, many traditional beliefs will be pruned away as not being the case, as more knowledge of the empirical world progresses (evolution, cosmology, etc).

Part of this assurance rests in confusing the "external world" (EW) with a "transcendent world". The external world is exhibited to varying extent by the sensory modes. In vision and tactile sensation, one's body is plainly depicted/felt as being engulfed by an outer environment. Great would be the folly of trying to deny the EW, so present as it is across the board in human perception (achieving its objective status via interpersonal verification and interaction with its contents).

But reason has a tendency to posit that this empirical world has a counterpart, a causal source or archetype for itself, that is not dependent upon the perceptual manifestations and the understandings of reflective thought and methodological procedures. And thereby is "invisible" to itself as it exists so independently of the preceding (apparently evidenced by the absence of everything before one's life/consciousness begins). This would make the external world a mere copy of a transcendent world, and invites the possibility of it being a very poor copy, that might deceive or conceal, or both, in the course of its inferiority. Especially after the everyday version of the EW itself has been called to task by science as being illusionary in many respects (i.e., even an unhidden world seems to have many masks it wants to dwell behind, albeit ones that can be stripped away).

The woeful circumstance above can be remedied, however, by discarding the notion of a transcendent circumstance (TC) even being a world, or an aloof archetype for this exhibited ectype. That wouldn't excuse the TC from being responsible for the external world, but only that is not bothering to represent itself in the latter, anymore than a brain is trying to represent itself in a dream. This would then make our EW, the empirical/phenomenal world, the natural world -- whatever the hell one wants to call it -- the only world there is or at least no copy of another, and featuring only deceptions and secrets that science can uncover.

And that is why I safely "treat" death as the end, regard humans as the result of evolution rather than creation, etc. Some older beliefs are not applicable to this world, which is where I'm located or exhibited.

However, it's part of a pretty large process (perhaps vaguely similar to a fractal algorithm generating ceaseless territory on computer monitors for viewers) which might include other universes with varying laws. And I have no idea what a transcendental circumstance is about, should there be such a power or complex of powers (I can hardly call it a "place", after the above!). Should I be "grabbed-up" in some peculiar sense after I die and a continuation or aspect of "me" posited somewhere else, where my arrival would not break any of that universe's laws -- then I will become concerned with the rules of that new game when I get there. Meanwhile, apart from the recreational amusement, there is little point in my trying to divine what an unknowable TC might or might not deal out to humans after death -- only concern about what this natural world is dealing out in the form of one peril or another.

But what if it's very good at hiding? The point of hiding is to not be seen after all...

Fresco said earlier in the thread that the consideration of the nature of 'self' while we humans are alive, how it is not at all as unified and constant as we tend to think, might be a good indication that 'self' will not last beyond death. As he says, it doesn't even last beyond sleep. Each time we wake in the morning, a self is assembled from the memories of the self of yesterday.

While I understand and largely agree with fresco's assertions, I do not see it as evidence that there is nothing after death, only that we are ill equipped to relate to the idea of death because of our rigid adherence to the concept of self.

I do not think that 'my' mind will endure past the end of my life, because as you say, 'my mind' is merely an illusion which gets it's persistence from the memories stored in my brain. The brain will surely decay and disappear, which means that the means I have to link one moment to the next to form a continuity (memory) will not be there. I am sure that the energy which I command, and which I relate to as 'me' will not disappear; it will merely change, and since my separateness from everything else during life is an illusion, nothing will really have changed when I die.

Right on.

Your reply makes sense but to clarify what I'm saying:

I'm saying there is no self and no soul.. to put it bluntly... therefore 'I' cannot go from one moment to the next and of course from one lifetime to the next. But it seems like there is a self and it seems that every moment is followed by another. These two notions combined, effectively create life after life from the 'mere appearance' of a reality that appears but is actually not truly subject and object.

If this is an unstoppable reality then the notion of a self even though there's no truly existent self will be unstoppable. The difference is that some are convinced of this and live with that conviction and others fear to even look at reality without the belief in either a self that lasts for this life or a soul that goes from life to life or to heaven or hell.

Buddhas understand there is no self (or other) but in order to help others they communicate using the notion of subject and object when necessary otherwise it would be impossible to communicate their message (remember Buddhas are no different from human beings they just lack the misunderstanding that others have with regard to the true nature of reality).

The Buddha's teachings are designed to put an end to the suffering of all by revealing how reality is, by showing how we can all remove misconceptions about it. One of which is the belief in a truly existent self or soul the other is the belief that this fictional self can 'know' anything completely.

We have to settle with as Fresco said, 'what works' and benefit mankind temporarily using that practical but limited knowledge.

I find it difficult to belong to a church of any kind. The certitude claimed by religious practicioners can be dangerous by virtue of the fact that it can find expression in group action (cf. the Inquisition and Crusades, to name a few). The errors of philosophy, however, are (as Hume put it) simply rediculous.

Interesting!

And if you say that you are GOD incarnate are we supposed to accept that as truth no matter what?

How can you logically assert there is no self…and no soul? There MAY BE no self…and no soul…but how would you know if there is or is not?

Please, tell me, because I may buy into your assertion if you make a decent case for it.

Frank, here are my answers to your questions:

I don't think you find what I've said interesting for the correct reason.

You don't have to worry I will not be saying that I am god incarnate.

I have referred to a core tenet of Buddhism which is that there is no truly existent self or soul.

It appears in Western philosophy also for example: According to the standard interpretation of Hume on personal identity, he was a Bundle Theorist, who held that the self is nothing but a bundle of experiences ("perceptions") linked by the relations of causation and resemblance; or, more accurately, that the empirically warranted idea of the self is just the idea of such a bundle.

Your last question is your usual question but you've change the nouns and as you recall I said I wasn't going to play your game. You do remember saying, "I do it to trap them'. I mean that sincerely".

If I thought you were genuinely interested I'd attempt to explain the Buddhist refutation of a truly existent self but I don't believe you are.

You could tell me where the self or soul is if you'd like?

My original reply was to someone who is interested in Buddhism I'm not sure you really are. I might be wrong.

I believe that Hume, the Buddha and Nietzsche were similar in their ontologies of self.

That's progress. Two centuries or so ago, very few people would admit they did not believe in God. Then it seems that many people who professed a belief in God were skeptical about the soul (or the heaven and hell awaiting it). Today it is the self that is considered problematical. I suspect this has much to do with the importation of Buddhism and Hinduism to the West. There is also much skepticism--in this era of "postmodernism"-- with the concept of Truth.

Actually what you said was: I'm saying there is no self and no soul.

That is what I was asking about…not about Buddhism.



No I do not…and if I did, I probably should get my ass kicked. But I’d have to see it in its context to be sure. There are contexts where it might have been said, although my feelings are that if I said it, it was not the best way to put things. I am willing to do the ass kicking myself if the context does not change my mind, though, so give me the citation and I will let you know how I feel about it.



You are correct, I definitely am not interested in Buddhism.



I have no idea if there is a self or a soul; there may not be. So how could I do that?

An agnostic in all things, Frank? Even the self?

This all may be an illusion, JL...and even my supposed self may be an unusually persistent illusion. The non-dualists MAY be right.

I don't think it is a matter of the non-dualist or the dualist being right. Both non-dualism and dualism are perspectives of thought and perception, and I believe that the clearest perception and deepest understanding comes from embracing both.

After all, we constantly move back and forth through dualistic and non-dualistic approaches every day. When I learn to play a new piece of music, for instance, I start out listening to the piece. That is a non-dualistic perspective where I perceive the whole thing as a single piece. Then I delve into it, learn the little melodies and rhytmical shifts that make up the song. Then I perceive many little dualisms and counterparts. When I have learned all these details and play the music again, I am back to perceiving it non-dualistically.

This is just one example from a process I know very well, but it is the same in all parts of life. We move in and out of perspectives to suit our intentions.

I think I understand you. This is very difficult material to handle with words.
For all practical purposes I do have a 'self'. I am me, and my identity is the same now as it was ten years ago, at least to those who know me. This self, this identity, is a social phenomenon, a necessity if I want to interact with people and things in my surroundings.
But on a deeper level I understand the illusory nature of the concepts I use, and this understanding allows me to use them with greater detachment. I do not become attached to my idea of self any more than I become attached to the car I drive. Its function is it's value, and when that function is no longer needed, these things have no value to me.

The way I understand it, the Buddha's teachings are not intended to put an end to suffering for all. It is not the mission of a buddhist to help others out of their misery, only to seek the understanding required to see life without suffering for his own part. An enlightened man, or one who has spent some time working towards that goal, understands that there is nothing anyone can do to help others reach it unless they put in the effort themselves. To use an apt metaphor from the Matrix. You can be showed the door, but no one can walk through it on your behalf.

Yes.... (Your words 'pre' your above quote ).

and...

... Yes... the Buddha left instructions that showed the door. We could all become instructors from the 'Mahayana' Buddhist perspective i.e. we can all become Buddhas... they aren't some special 'other' type of sentient being.

Nothing more to say then Frank... on this subject... it was not hard to spot your true intention... maybe we'll find some common ground elsewhere... it won't be on your flavor of agnosticism though. I prefer to rely on 2500 yrs of teachings and philosophical texts and avoid my own made up philosophy. Universities in India would study one text such as:

The Fundamental Verses on the Middle Way, a key text of the Madhyamaka-school, written by Nagarjuna, one of the most important Buddhist philosophers.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M%C5%ABlamadhyamakak%C4%81rik%C4%81

... for three or even more years just to do justice to the subject.