Inflate or destroy self?

It's not a question of 'smartness' or intelligence, it's an awareness.

So volume equals higher thought ?

I am quite aware that I don't know what a leaf of lettuce truly is. (are you aware of that yourself?) That does not mean I'll stop using the word "lettuce"...

You seem to believe that if someone is unable to find anything more than a body and mind and concludes there is no self to be found in that body and mind then that person cannot use pronouns to communicate and interact in order to maintain that body and mind, can you explain why pronouns cannot be used under these circumstances?

Quote:

You seem to believe that if someone is unable to find anything more than a body and mind and concludes there is no self to be found in that body and mind then that person cannot use pronouns to communicate and interact in order to maintain that body and mind, can you explain why pronouns cannot be used under these circumstances?

I would certainly defend the use of pronouns in any case, whatever you think of body and mind. But those people who say that "I" and "you" should be abolished because they refer to non-entities, or because the "I" is baaaad, are the enemy of pronouns. And dare I say, the enemies of themselves, and of the entire human race. It's self-negating and self-destructive, and at the same time, it strikes me as the epitome of selfishness: "I am oh-so-aware that I don't exist, but you fools aren't..."

Olivier5 wrote:

Quote:

You seem to believe that if someone is unable to find anything more than a body and mind and concludes there is no self to be found in that body and mind then that person cannot use pronouns to communicate and interact in order to maintain that body and mind, can you explain why pronouns cannot be used under these circumstances?

I would certainly defend the use of pronouns in any case, whatever you think of body and mind. But those people who say that "I" and "you" should be abolished because they refer to non-entities, or because the "I" is baaaad, are the enemy of pronouns. And dare I say, the enemies of themselves, and of the entire human race. It's self-negating and self-destructive, and at the same time, it strikes me as the epitome of selfishness: "I am oh-so-aware that I don't exist, but you fools aren't..."

That sounds to me like an emotional reaction to hearing about such things. That is fine... really in Buddhism first you have to want to put an end to suffering then you have to believe there is a single root cause and then having heard what it is and how to remove it one needs to want to make the attempt... then and only then should these difficult topics be examined. When one has experienced directly the truth of the teachings then if someone asks and only if someone asks, is it then explained to them.

I am just debating for the sake of debating and should 'not' really talk to anyone on this subject, who is not interested in such things... but topics like this are tempting ... it 'never' works though... I'll shut up about it now and please don't blame Buddhism for my attempts to explain the subject... one has to want to hear these things... and you obviously don't.... and probably many other casual readers also.

Nothing like that..it's all way over the head of someone who just says... you must be guessing and never thinks more deeply about it than that. All words and no substance comes to mind...

If you aim at not thinking, a bullet in your brain should do the trick. What do you have to loose if you don't actually exist?

Language is the House of Being. Language speaks the Man.

To each his religion or lack thereof, indeed.

I believe that human beings exist, and that they are the salt of the earth, that each and everyone of us is unique and important, and that instead of trying to re-engineer our mind or body, we should try to use them to their potential.

I believe some amount of suffering is part of life, it's the pendant of happiness, and that those who try to stop all suffering are in effect mutilating themselves. Like the people who've been analyzed so much that they don't have any fire in the belly anymore, or the people who takes drugs so as to live in a haze.

I further believe that philosophers who have only contempt for "common sense" and "the masses" are fundamentally selfish, and stupid in that they neglect the wisdom of their fellow men and women.

I also believe that philosophy is not some sort of innocuous pastime. Most of you guys are toying with concepts as if they were sudokus, but good philosophy can save people and nations, while bad philosophy can doom them. Nietzsche, for instance, bears some responsibility for Nazism, Marx for Stalinism, etc. The fact that Heidegger was a Nazi is an issue to me.

All this is pretty banal I guess, but hopefully this "credo" will clarify why I can come across as emotional. It's because I am emotional, because I care.

Summary of Frank's contribution:

Why?
F: It is what it is.
Can you explain?
F: It is what it is.
Any other question?
F: It is what it is. It is what it is. It is what it is. It is what it is. It is what it is. It is what it is. It is what it is. It is what it is. It is what it is. It is what it is.

F: They can't know because it's only a guess.

F: But I know its only a guess.

How?

F: Because I know.

Difficult question?

F: I don't understand what you're talking about.

And so it goes on and on and on... never explained just ... stuck on a repeat cycle... because that keeps Frank in control and safe from being found out that there is nothing but these stock answers in Frank's bag.

Buddhism uses philosophy to destroy worldviews that are created by philosophies and religions. One Buddhist philosopher said that the ordinary man is mistaken about reality but the philosophers who have refuted them are 'twice' mistaken they have taken a mistaken view and laid another on top of it.

Why anyone should aim to "destroy worldviews"?

Which Heidegger was the Nazi ? ...is one resolution of your issue.

Not literally, but as a dialectic (in private meditation on the subject) so that the Buddhist 'privately' can let go of them e.g. marxism, theism etc.. etc..

...to my view he has a wise point right there..Buddhism aims to dissolve contrary perspectives to transcend them and that although it may seam wise results in less diversity...Nirvana can be a dangerous thing...