Frank Apisa wrote:But present them as guesses...or at very least, do not present them as truths being revealed.
Just another aspect of your disingenuous attitude. Sure science uses guess work but it doesn't stop on the guesses. It takes another step to disprove the guess or to prove it with evidence and/or mathematics. So you are being dishonest if you claim science only has guesses and nothing more. Either that or you are willfully ignorant. Take your pick I guess.. (pun intended)
Frank Apisa wrote:The question of whether or not there is a self...which was the subject being discussed...
...is a BLIND GUESS.
It is no one's fault beside your own that you only see it as a guess.
The problem is, where ever there is attachment to the self, the person will ultimately deny and resist any attempt to shed light on the fact that there is no self that can be found. It is part of the self's attempt to solidify itself. It desperately WANTS it to be true.
This is the whole premise of buddhism and what the Buddha mentioned on many occasions. In fact he even warned against discussing it because people who are bound to the self will suffer any time you tell them, the self does not exist. The Buddha's point is to avoid placing a mindset where the result is suffering even if it is a mental one.
The aspect can not be shown. It has to be personally explored. I can't provide any evidence that the self does not exist. You must investigate it yourself. If you refuse to, that is not my problem that you don't understand it.
I gave you a few thought experiments. But they obviously were overlooked. So how about I make it a little more simplistic.
Let's just deal with the eye. If you were born blind and never saw anything. Later you were having a discussion with someone who was talking about the color red. You have never experienced the color red and NO amount of their explaining to you would ever get you to the point of actualizing what it is to experience the color red. That person talking about the color red could stand there a billion years describing the color to you and you would be NO WHERE closer to the experience.
This is why the self can not be explained away using evidence. It must be experienced directly. It has to be personally investigated. Not I nor anyone can prove it to you. Only you can experience it for yourself that what has been said is true.
Until then you are like a blind man insisting that the person who can see provide evidence that the color red exists.
Krumple wrote:
Frank Apisa wrote:The question of whether or not there is a self...which was the subject being discussed...
...is a BLIND GUESS.
It is no one's fault beside your own that you only see it as a guess.
The only reason I see it as a guess...is because it is a guess.
Quote:The problem is, where ever there is attachment to the self, the person will ultimately deny and resist any attempt to shed light on the fact that there is no self that can be found. It is part of the self's attempt to solidify itself. It desperately WANTS it to be true.
This is the whole premise of buddhism and what the Buddha mentioned on many occasions. In fact he even warned against discussing it because people who are bound to the self will suffer any time you tell them, the self does not exist. The Buddha's point is to avoid placing a mindset where the result is suffering even if it is a mental one.
The aspect can not be shown. It has to be personally explored. I can't provide any evidence that the self does not exist. You must investigate it yourself. If you refuse to, that is not my problem that you don't understand it.
I gave you a few thought experiments. But they obviously were overlooked. So how about I make it a little more simplistic.
Let's just deal with the eye. If you were born blind and never saw anything. Later you were having a discussion with someone who was talking about the color red. You have never experienced the color red and NO amount of their explaining to you would ever get you to the point of actualizing what it is to experience the color red. That person talking about the color red could stand there a billion years describing the color to you and you would be NO WHERE closer to the experience.
This is why the self can not be explained away using evidence. It must be experienced directly. It has to be personally investigated. Not I nor anyone can prove it to you. Only you can experience it for yourself that what has been said is true.
Until then you are like a blind man insisting that the person who can see provide evidence that the color red exists.
Yeah...Catholics do this same thing with transubstantiation...and the explanation of the trinity.
It is a belief system, Krumple.
But continue to discuss it. You tend to help me show that it is.
Frank Apisa wrote:
Krumple wrote:
Frank Apisa wrote:The question of whether or not there is a self...which was the subject being discussed...
...is a BLIND GUESS.
It is no one's fault beside your own that you only see it as a guess.
The only reason I see it as a guess...is because it is a guess.
Quote:The problem is, where ever there is attachment to the self, the person will ultimately deny and resist any attempt to shed light on the fact that there is no self that can be found. It is part of the self's attempt to solidify itself. It desperately WANTS it to be true.
This is the whole premise of buddhism and what the Buddha mentioned on many occasions. In fact he even warned against discussing it because people who are bound to the self will suffer any time you tell them, the self does not exist. The Buddha's point is to avoid placing a mindset where the result is suffering even if it is a mental one.
The aspect can not be shown. It has to be personally explored. I can't provide any evidence that the self does not exist. You must investigate it yourself. If you refuse to, that is not my problem that you don't understand it.
I gave you a few thought experiments. But they obviously were overlooked. So how about I make it a little more simplistic.
Let's just deal with the eye. If you were born blind and never saw anything. Later you were having a discussion with someone who was talking about the color red. You have never experienced the color red and NO amount of their explaining to you would ever get you to the point of actualizing what it is to experience the color red. That person talking about the color red could stand there a billion years describing the color to you and you would be NO WHERE closer to the experience.
This is why the self can not be explained away using evidence. It must be experienced directly. It has to be personally investigated. Not I nor anyone can prove it to you. Only you can experience it for yourself that what has been said is true.
Until then you are like a blind man insisting that the person who can see provide evidence that the color red exists.
Yeah...Catholics do this same thing with transubstantiation...and the explanation of the trinity.
It is a belief system, Krumple.
But continue to discuss it. You tend to help me show that it is.
I have examined catholicism and there is no transcendental wisdom to be obtained in any of it's teachings. It doesn't lead to the end of suffering, in fact it only compounds it.
Actually I haven't be completely honest. Part of the point was to use the self as an attempt to gain some insight. But the reality is there is a self but it is not static, it is not a substance that remains the same. It constantly changes from moment to moment. In fact you can't compare it from one moment to the next because it changes constantly.
It is like water in a stream, a river, a lake, an ocean or in a cup. The water never remains static. In fact not even the molecules remain static. But the problem is when the concept of the self arises they assume it to be a static being. You are not the same person you were at age five. In fact you can't even compare you now with you then. You are almost completely different in every way. In fact you can't even compare you yesterday to you today. You might think you can but even these two are different.
It is the illusion created through memory that confuses you into assuming the self is a real substantial entity that is living out a life. Nope. You are just a water molecule flowing down a stream, into a river, into a lake, and into the ocean.
