Inflate or destroy self?

@Cyracuz,

Quote:

but to understand them and their illusory, temporary and arbitrary nature.

If you understand that much, what's the point to the details?

0 Replies

@Olivier5,

I must defer to igm's post of 7:51. There is no curt answer to these questions. How can one explain awareness of anything? Awareness is the intentional experiencing of your experiences.

1 Reply

@Cyracuz,

Quote:

The goal is not to destroy these things, but to understand them and their illusory, temporary and arbitrary nature.

Still, that strikes me as a very negative attitude. How do you know that the self is an illusion? Is that a belief or a proven fact?

And don’t forget that illusion can be productive. Hypotheses can be factually unproven and simplistic, yet useful. Without the illusion of positivist science, we’d still be bowing to priests. Without the illusion of love, we’d still be marrying the person our parents chose for us. Without the illusion of art, we’d all be brutes. Without the illusion of democracy, we’d all live in dictatorships -- and in fact, we’re IMO fast going back to dictatorship, for lack of faith in democracy.

The world is one large Wittgenstein’s ladder. Don’t destroy the rungs. Climb them.

1 Reply

@igm,

Quote:

Pronouns and other words that are dualistic can be used under those circumstances - please see my last post.

Define "dualistic" and explain how a pronoun has to be "dualistic".

When I say: "I am going to the market", am I stating anything metaphysical? Anything about the nature of the self? About the nature of relations between body and mind???

0 Replies

@IRFRANK,

Quote:

How can one explain awareness of anything? Awareness is the intentional experiencing of your experiences.

As long as you remain aware that your awareness can be an illusion...

0 Replies

@Olivier5,

Quote:

Still, that strikes me as a very negative attitude. How do you know that the self is an illusion? Is that a belief or a proven fact?

And don’t forget that illusion can be productive. Hypotheses can be factually unproven and simplistic, yet useful. Without the illusion of positivist science, we’d still be bowing to priests. Without the illusion of love, we’d still be marrying the person our parents chose for us. Without the illusion of art, we’d all be brutes. Without the illusion of democracy, we’d all live in dictatorships -- and in fact, we’re IMO fast going back to dictatorship, for lack of faith in democracy.

The world is one large Wittgenstein’s ladder. Don’t destroy the rungs. Climb them.

I responded that way because that's what you stated. I would agree that the term 'proven fact' is not possible.

The illusions you mentioned were a good list and I agree with them also. They are all good things, but a Buddhist would say they were samsara. I certainly live with them though.

As far as the comment about dictatorship, I think that is a good example of getting so hung up in the word and the fear and arguing about who is causing what (samsara) , we miss the higher level view and what we really all are doing wrong, that is fighting for control and money and missing the opportunities to better mankind.

1 Reply

@IRFRANK,

Quote:

They are all good things, but a Buddhist would say they were samsara. I certainly live with them though.

And you'd better, in my opinion... Honestly, what have Buddhists achieved? Are Sri Lanka and Thailand paradise on earth? Nope. They may be nice place to go on vacation but are also full of racism, towards the Tamil in Sri Lanka and towards the non-Thai in Thailand. The level of corruption in Sri Lanka is pretty bad. In Thailand, some families can sell their kids on the sex market, and the government is not doing a thing against it... This fascination for oriental religions is in my view very naive. It's another form of self-hatred, westerners throwing away their own culture and embracing an exotic religious fantasy to try and atone for their sins... It's just another illusion, and not a very productive one.

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

Well, you're certainly entitled to your opinion. I don't base my religious views on the actions of the adherents. If I did I probably wouldn't have any at all, which may be a valid conclusion. You're certainly correct about the human condition in many Buddhist countries. It is sad. It's because the people are not very good Buddhists, not because of the Buddha's teachings. There are also very disturbing activities all over the world. I'm not atoning for my sins, I believe what I believe because it makes sense to me. I grew up in a Christian household and I saw the irrational actions from it cause a great deal of pain. Perhaps that did drive me away from it. I don't blame that on Jesus. Irrational following of any 'fantasy' is a bad thing and that's not limited to any one religion. Religion has caused much of the suffering in the human condition. I don't believe I am an irrational follower.

2 Replies

@IRFRANK,

To be frank, I'm totally ignorant of Buddhism. But having traveled in Sri Lanka and Thailand got me wondering. Is there a moral or social dimension to Buddhism? Like, any message about respecting other human beings, their lives and belongings, not lying, protecting the children and the weak, etc? Or is it simply focused on the pursuit of personal goals, e.g. illumination?

2 Replies

@IRFRANK,

Frank,

Quote:

I don't believe I am an irrational follower.

I do not think you are irrational at all, Frank, so I am not commenting on that aspect of the quoted sentence. But as you know, I have a problem with the use of the words "believe" and "belief" for several reasons. One of them is that there is an ambiguity that arises from certain conventional uses.

I'd like to ask you about the way you used the word "believe" here.

I suspect you were saying, "I believe I am not an irrational follower."

But that can only be arrived at with your wording (using the "don't) by assuming it to be a convention...a convention that can cause confusion.

Obviously "I don't believe I am an irrational follower" can be interpreted completely differently from "I believe I am not an irrational follower." (Just as "I don't believe gods exist" can be interpreted completely differently from "I believe gods no not exist.") (One is expressing a belief...the other merely expressing the absence of a belief.)

My first question is: When you wrote, "I don't believe I am an irrational follower, were you saying,"I believe I am not an irrational follower?"

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

A basic tenet of Buddhism is 'DO NO HARM'

Compassion is also a major component.

The actions of the people in those countries disturbs me also. I don't understand it. I think it just means that hurting others is a basic human condition. There are also many sects or denominations of Buddhism. I don't know much about many of them.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

When you wrote, "I don't believe I am an irrational follower, were you saying,"I believe I am not an irrational follower?"

I was trying to say that I don't think my reasons for following the teachings of the Buddha are irrational. Or that I don't irrationally apply those teachings, at least I hope not. So yes, your second statement is better.

0 Replies

@IRFRANK,

Quote:

I think it just means that hurting others is a basic human condition.

Racism is definitely a natural human trait, often made worse by organized religion. In my experience, Buddhist priests can be pretty scornful of Hindus and Muslims. Many of these priests are also deeply corrupt.

Power corrupts. Religions should be powerless, for their own good.

0 Replies

@Olivier5,

Olivier5 wrote:

Could you let go of Buddhism this way?

Buddhism 'is' about letting go... Buddhism is of course eventually discarded... it's a medicine.. so when cured one stops taking the medicine.

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

Olivier5 wrote:

But igm said "destroy"

No I didn't say 'destroy'... but I did say 'let go' there is a big difference...

1 Reply

@igm,

Quote:

Buddhism is of course eventually discarded... it's a medicine.. so when cured one stops taking the medicine.

That must be the stage I am in...

1 Reply

@igm,

Quote:

No I didn't say 'destroy'... but I did say 'let go' there is a big difference...

First you said “destroy” (in http://able2know.org/topic/216093-18#post-5361438 - “Buddhism uses philosophy to destroy worldviews that are created by philosophies and religions.”), then you said “let go”.

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

No you have your own medicine... I hope it works for you...

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

Olivier5 wrote:

Quote:
No I didn't say 'destroy'... but I did say 'let go' there is a big difference...

First you said “destroy” (in http://able2know.org/topic/216093-18#post-5361438 - “

But personally... in meditation... not to literally attempt to destroy... let go is a much better term to describe the process... again it is just for personal contemplation during that type of meditation.

You obviously have no positive interest in Buddhism so I'll not bring up the subject with you again... you'll be glad to hear.

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

Yes, Fil, an attachment to the IDEA of Nirvana can be a dangerous thing.

0 Replies

Inflate or destroy self?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know