Destroy My Belief System, Please!

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.

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.

You ask me "Is there a self?" You might have phrased it "What is the nature of the widespread sense of self? That would be a very extensive conversation, not one I would like to have. But to play it safe with you I would answer to "Is there a self?" Not one that I can find when I look intently and honestly for it (i.e., meditation). I DO however assume its existence in my everyday life just as you do.

Everything is a guess according to you. Boring and inaccurate...

But Frank persists in knowing he is right about most things discussed on a2k.

He values his guesses more than facts as seen by most people on a2k.

He doesn't value privacy laws under the Constitution, and continues to insist he is right.

Here's a cut and paste from another forum.

Quote:

@Frank Apisa,
Quote:
"Spying is not a pretty thing...but it has been deemed necessary by society since Biblical times."

It has only been deemed necessary by tyrants based on history.

Frank doesn't understand why privacy is important.

Just type why privacy is important to society on any search engine.

Sometimes I believe in the self and sometimes I do not. But my theoretical position (and my existential one when meditating and attending to experience) is that I am my experience not a self (subject) to which experiences (objects) are happening.

I think Frank would be better received if he used terms like speculations, constructions and assumptions instead of guesses, especially "blind" guesses.

But my theoretical position (and my existential one when meditating and attending to experience) is that I am my experience not a self (subject) to which experiences (objects) are happening.

Olivier, that is very insightful, that for all intent and purposes, I believe in my self. I just suspend that belief when I meditate.
But it may also be the case that I normally (or most often) feel I am one with all the so-called objects of experience but suspend that feeling when engaged in ordinary social and practical life.

When we do not follow the precepts of "normal" behavior the oddness of our actions may result in the straightjacket (if you'll pardon the exaggeration) or an inability to make and retain friendships, marriages, economic transactions, etc. etc..

But let me just remain with the general suggestion that an ego-transcendant non-dualistic orientation does not promote "normal" behavior, with the consequences that follow from being (statistically) abnormal.

Since 'normal' is just a human construct, it's in direct contradiction to what animals do as 'natural.' Some species of monkeys are violent against others - and they're not restricted by any code; it's 'natural.' No police, no courts, no jails/prisons.

i agree that you could argue that animals are 'more natural' than humans, but essentially we are just more complex animals. and all our police and courts and prisons are natural for us.