Do you believe in souls?

JLNobody

You wrote:

"Ah, I see your point. I suggest that although ego doesn't do anything, because of its non-existence, it is the illusion that it does exist that influences behavior. Animals that have not developed a sense of self respond differently to situations and events than do humans precisely because the latter operate under the ego illusion. A mirage of a body of water, draws us to it in order to quence our thirst. Yet, as a body of water it does not exist. Like the ego, the mirage's ontological status is purely psychological."

It sounds like you are correct, however, if an illusion can influence behavior, in the form of body movements and actions, then an illusion can influence the manifested universe, which would be analogous to a dreamt character influencing the dream it is in. Impossible no?

The illusion that the ego and behavior are two creates the idea that the ego can influence behavior, but it can't if it IS that behavior.

That said, I think we are almost correct, and that we are trying to say the same thing, but have yet to say it.

Maybe a better way to say it is, the presence of the ego illusion is the presence of certain behavior and the absence of the ego illusion is the presence of certain behavior.

0 Replies

Joe, That is correct. Ultimately, to my mind, everything within the illusory world is only a projection of the Ultimate indivisible ineffable. It seems to me that one of the great hurtles that I, JL and other Buddhist-like posters have here is getting across the idea that the self doesn't exist in us, or in anyone else. Folks appear to have a real problem conceiving that "they" don't exist. This goes to that "knowing/believing" thingy that we've been discussing with Frank. If "knowing" is the ability to present evidence of a high order, then even the most profound personal experience must be admitted as nothing more than belief. How much more difficult is it to meet that criteria of "knowing" if one's beliefs are founded upon what we "learn" from others and haven't personally experienced? The blind may believe in color, but do they "know" it? Even when we "see" there is no more than a strong belief that our visual experience is the same as that of all others.

"Knowing" that the world is illusory does not "excuse" us from having to deal with it as if it were real. Dream creatures hunger, bleed and suffer even if they have no substance. To have the Awakening Experience is to reduce our ignorance, and in understanding we are less apt to behave in ways that reinforce suffering. Even if one never has the Experience, the practice of the Way will reduce suffering and lead to a better life both for the individual and others.

Buddhism is really more about living a better life, about reducing the suffering naturally attendant upon being sentient in the Illusory World. Here, we have probably placed to much emphasis on the philosophical importance of the Awakening Experience and not enough on the usefulness of merely following the Middle Way. In a way, Buddhism is not so much an intellectual religion as it is a practical prescription for overcoming suffering. The historical Buddha seems to talked about the Awakening Experience very little, but quite a lot on meditation, thought and proper action. Yet Buddhism has found much of its appeal in the West within intellectual circles. I imagine that his response today might be, "Less talk, more doing; less doing, more mindfulness".

0 Replies

no offense to JLNobody and Asherman (two people who i have alot of respect for) but i really really dislike Zen Buddhism

0 Replies

Joe, as you asked Tywvel, and regarding your challenge to Asherman, how do YOU know that Asherman doesn't know if his thesis is correct?
Do you have no confidence in the possibility of intuitive insight? What would you require of Tywvel and Asherman to affirm their statements?

0 Replies

Gold Barz, I respect your dislike of zen Buddhism. That's simply where you are, neither good nor bad. In the Buddhist perspective, you have "buddha mind" whether you like it or not. You just choose not to take advantage of it. As long as you stay as intelligent, curious and civil as you are, I think you are a successful human being. My "attachment" to zen buddhism has not made me, as far as I can tell, a better human being. It just gives me a perspective that seems very "nutritious."

0 Replies

Twyvel, your "Maybe a better way to say it is, the presence of the ego illusion IS [not causes] the presence of certain behavior and the absence of the ego illusion IS [not causes] the presence of certain behavior" transcends the dualisms of our talk. Thanks.

0 Replies

JLNobody wrote:

Twyvel, your "Maybe a better way to say it is, the presence of the ego illusion IS [not causes] the presence of certain behavior and the absence of the ego illusion IS [not causes] the presence of certain behavior" transcends the dualisms of our talk. Thanks.

OK Mouth, Open Up... here comes foot.

I'll admit I'm not all that much up to date on Buddhism or Zen Buddhism but I've studied in my years enough to know a fair amount about many diverse religions both eastern and western and some in betweens. I'll offer the same advice to interpreting Buddhism as I would Islam, Judaism, Christianity, Hinduism, Shinto, Taoism, Sikhism or any of the many other faiths that our planet has adopted based primarily on "scripture".

That being : "Everything Evolves". Religion, just like a galaxy, a sun, a planet, a species, a government, a country, a genus, a person, a soul, a belief, evolves. A religion based on scripture, 100 years old or 10,000 years old must either evolve to survive or perish.

I am not saying Buddhism has not evolved so I please hope you don't misinterpret my point. If anything Buddhism has evolved very well to keep up with society and science. There are many truths both clear and disguised inside Buddhist scripture just like many other religions but to appreciate, truly appreciate, any religion I feel you need perspective and that is why I feel it important to recognize the importance of the evolution of religion in general. Once you get out of the mind set that a religion must be static you can recognize that almost every mature religion has evolved in many different ways and even replicated offspring.

Step outside our solar system and go back 25,000 years. Then monitor the events for the last 25,000 and the next 25,000. That is called perspective. That is the perspective you need to use as a frame of reference in order to dissect from scripture that which has merit and that which will lead you astray.

Is it a temporal illusion, of course it is. If time is infinite then a finite length of time called oh lets say my lifespan or the lifespan of this planet is a drop in the bucket. But then again it is not. They are not drops they are points in time and space. By definition a point is a massless, timeless, spaceless, energyless nothingness that in the real world, that defined by measurable Cartesian space , Does Not Exist! So if I don't exist it must be an illusion.

Well, I don't know about the rest of you but I am for Descartes. I think therefore I am. I am not an illusion no matter how insignificant my time on this planet may be in the grand scheme of the universe. Does that mean I should hide from the insignificance in scripture or embrace the insignificance because of the understanding it brings and clarity it brings to comprehending the sole fact that not one of us is insignificant.

I found an awesome link by the way to HyperHistory ( http://www.hyperhistory.com/online_n2/History_n2/a.html ) that gives you a lot of perspective on how little time has passed and how much has been accomplished in the last 10,000 years alone.

Inside a tiny drop in the bucket of time, "All We Are" has evolved exponentially.
It has the ability to do so for quite some more time if we let it.
(and foster it)

0 Replies

Goldbars ... If Buddhism doesn't work for you now, thats won't hurt a thing. I believe that the study and practice of Buddhism, especially the more sophisticated forms, hold great promise for the relief of suffering. Perhaps the seed has been planted, and when you need surcease from suffering the seed will sprout. Pay attention, and use your brains.

Nipok ... I don't think you've put your foot in your mouth. Our understanding deepens, our way of expressing our selves changes to meet the needs of whatever time/place we think we are inhabiting. If Buddhism, for instance, had not evolved into Mahayana it might never have been successfully transplanted outside of India where it did virtually vanish after the Golden Age of Ashoka. Buddhism adapted itself to Chinese culture and thrived. It melded with Japanese aesthetics and gave rise to great beauties. It has been in the process of adapting to Western Culture now for a little over two hundred years, and has only found popular acceptance in the last 75 years. As you said above, a mere fingersnap in the history of civilization, much less the age of our universe. A pretty insight, and I doubt that anyone will say otherwise.

0 Replies

From the Buddhist perspective--as I understand it--I am not right, nor am I on the right track. Both are dualistic statements implying wrongness. Buddhism, as a nondualistic, practice and perspective is far more subtle than that. And from that perspective I am not a Buddhist, nor am I not a Buddhist. Go figure. Or, better, just watch.
By the way, Nipok, you make some interesting philosophical statements. But zen is not philosophical in that sense. It is transcendental. I wish Fresco were here to explain that.

0 Replies

That was an excellent post, Twyvel.

Please consider the comments I make in response.

twyvel wrote:

Frank wrote:

Quote:
A belief system...just as certain as Christianity is a belief system.

If you guys can't see that...you ought to reconsider any thoughts you have that you can see REALITY.

Try to focus, Twyvel.

I have never said that I guess myself to be a self in a dualistic reality.

Remember...I am the agnostic here.

You non-dualists MAY be correct (in fact, I have mentioned several times that my personal tendency is toward non-dualism)...but the dualists MAY be correct.

But the certainty...and the emphasis you folks put on your guesses is way, way out of line.

Quote:

Most, most of the time, do not even realize that the self they think and believe they are has to be believed in, but it does. It is a belief.

I agree with a lot of what you say Frank, but you have a strong tendency to place yourself above the fray, with your condescending attitude, as if you have no beliefs, or what you like to call guesses. But you do, we all do. In fact we are a guess.

Try to focus, Twyvel.

I have NEVER said that I do not have guesses. NEVER.

Of course we all guess.

But I do not hide the fact that I am making a guess when I make one...because I always call it a guess. I do not try to disguise it by calling the guess "a belief." And I do not, as you do, offer my guesses as facts.

I simply say I am guessing when I am guessing.

And if you considering it "condescending" to do that...that is your problem, not mine.

Quote:

And it is that level of inquiry that seems to loose you, That we are a guess, a belief. You tend to stop there and go back to your proselytising agnosticism.

I have no idea of what you are trying to say here...but you didn't get it said.

Quote:

Is it really one thing to believe (guess) in subject-object dualism, and another to believe in a god, or a transcendence? There certainly are differences, but the irony is you/I have to believe in the former to believe/guess in the latter.

The difference between the belief system of subject-object dualism and Buddhism (a non-deity belief), or nondualism, Advaita etc, is the grand old " I ".

Only in your mind.

Buddhist "belief" and non-dualistic "beliefs" are beliefs, period.

Christians want to paint their beliefs as better or more accurate than other beliefs...believing atheists want to paint their beliefs as better or more accurate than other beliefs...and Buddhists and non-dualists want to paint their beliefs as better or more accurate than other beliefs.

I say to all of you: Shitcan the beliefs...and deal with the "I don't know" part of life.

Quote:

Buddhism--nondualism is a philosophy on the nature of self. It is a self inquiry process. What is the self? Where is the self. What is this self that wants to know? etc. It moves form intellectual to observational.

Buddhism is a religion and a belief system that takes itself way too seriously...and it is a religion and a belief system that presents itself in an arrogant and condescending way.

Quote:

If everything is a belief, as asherman says, as Frank says (but tends to exclude the self and agnosticism), then there is no self that believes/guesses, for that too is assumed; the self is also a belief and a belief cannot have a belief.

If the self that guesses is also a guess then it is necessarily a fiction for a guess cannot guess.

The point is, one cannot exclude their own position and the self they think they are from inquiry without being hypocritical and contradictory, and without remaining at a superficial level.

Strawman!

Quote:

Quote:

Is the existence of this blind spot a belief?I think it's more in the line of observation.

Not sure of what you are saying here...but it seems to be part of your belief system.

For the record...almost all belief systems maintain that portions of their belief system is NOT belief...but experience or observation.

But that is the way it is with belief systems.

I understand it may make you more comfortable with your own belief system, Twyvel, to continually suggest that agnosticism is a belief system also...but you absolutely wrong on that.

0 Replies

JLNobody wrote:

Joe, as you asked Tywvel, and regarding your challenge to Asherman, how do YOU know that Asherman doesn't know if his thesis is correct?

I have no idea if Asherman is correct or not, but then I'm quite confident that Asherman has no way of knowing if he is correct or not either. If one holds that all reality is illusory, and also that all illusion is illusory, then one has no basis for knowing anything, not even the nature of illusion.

JLNobody wrote:

Do you have no confidence in the possibility of intuitive insight? What would you require of Tywvel and Asherman to affirm their statements?

I am perfectly willing to allow for the possibility of intuitive insights. I do not have any confidence, however, in the validity of those insights when they are based on an epistemology that denies the validity of all knowledge. As such, I would require of Asherman or twyvel or you what I would require of anyone who makes any kind of assertion: an epistemological basis for the truth of that assertion.

0 Replies

i never said i dislike Buddhism (i love Buddhism) i said i dislike Zen Buddhism

0 Replies

Goldbars, they are the same thing. Of course, what you mean is that the Zen schools don't appeal to you. What I mean is that the Zen Schools are among the most sophisticated and internally consistent with what is believed to be the most historically accurate description's of the historical Buddha's teachings and doctrines. The Tantric Schools are Buddhism's adaption to the cultural set of remote Nepal and Tibet. Many of the Buddhist sects with large followings spring from Chinese adaptations, and the Doctrinal Drift is regarded by many as large. C'han, or Zen, from Southern China and Japan adapted to those cultures with fewer compromises in the fundamental doctrines. Theravada is still the closest to the historical teachings, but it's pretty tough for anyone living in the world to strictly follow. Buddhism is in the process of adapting to American Culture, and will a few hundred years from now probably unique enough to be a distinct school/sect in its own right. My guess is that American Buddhism will be most influenced by C'han/Zen with liberal dashes of Theravada, Tantric, and Pure Land doctrines.

To my mind it is a mistake to dismiss any of the primary Buddhist Schools out of hand. All of them have strong points and weaknesses that we American's will borrow from and shape into our own unique form of Buddhism.

0 Replies

Wow, Ash. What a concise and accurate statement. Gold Barz, my position is almost the opposite of yours. I love zen (not the Japanese aesthetic that has come to be confused with it) and see Buddhism (and the Hindu Upanishads and ancient Taoist teachings) as an almost unfathomable historical foundation for zen. Zen is an evolutionary result of Buddhism's adaptation to Chinese and other cultures. It is, as I see it, a spiritual psychology, somewhat like the psychology of Mazlow: an attempt not just to overcome illness but to further the development of Health (with upper case "H"), taking as its foundation a realistic recognition of Mankind's existential (ontological and epistemological) condition.

0 Replies

Joe, that is a very challenging comment, i.e., that while you are willing to accept the possibility of intuitive insights, you "do not have any confidence...in the validity of those insights when they are based on an epistemology that denies the validity of all knowledge. As such, I would require of Asherman or twyvel or you what I would require of anyone who makes any kind of assertion: an epistemological basis for the truth of that assertion."

It is a frustration for me that I cannot--in these "intellectual" discussions-- provide a "scientifically clear" epistemology for the validity of the mystical perspective. But this is in the nature of zen. It is not a form of knowledge in the ordinary sense of the term, quite the opposite, it is a way of being that eliminates conceptual barriers to a complete experience (or experiencing) of life.
Knowledge or undestanding results from the effort to impose a conceptual order on what would otherwise be, from the perspective of reason, a confusing pattern of perceptions.
The practice of zen is the absence of the attempt to impose order on immediate experience. Knowledge results from the attempt to subject immediate (sensory) experience to an artificial, albeit useful, conceptual framework. Zen does not do that and is thus the product of a deliberate absence of knowledge. There is a Korean zen master who instructs his students to meditate with the phrase "Don't know" (Frank might appreciate him). As such, students of zen must not attach to the ideas of zen or enlightenment themselves. As such, zen is incommunicable to others as well as to oneself. It is a very private effort, and result of the effort, to transcend understanding of Reality and the desire for enlightenment, an extremely subtle process, characterized throughout by an intensification of experience rather than knowledge ABOUT the world we experience. One can do both: seek scientific and philosophical formulas for their pragmatic value, and practice the blissful and sensitizing ignorance of zen. I guess that is a KIND of epistemological basis for our otherwise nonlogical statements.

0 Replies

It is nonlogical if I do not agree with it. I do not need to satisfy anybody else with my beliefs.

0 Replies

Frank, thanks for your reply and comments.

You wrote:

Quote:

I have never said that I guess myself to be a self in a dualistic reality.

Do you guess your self to be a self in a dualistic reality?

Quote:

Remember...I am the agnostic here.

Irrelevant. Agnostics have guesses.

Quote:

You non-dualists MAY be correct (in fact, I have mentioned several times that my personal tendency is toward non-dualism)...but the dualists MAY be correct.

But the certainty...and the emphasis you folks put on your guesses is way, way out of line.

What informs this evaluation of yours?

What informs your guess that no one on the face of this planet, dead or alive , knows anything about the nature this world reality, about whether or not this existence is an illusion? That is, apart from the absence of evidence or ambiguous evidence.

Quote:

Buddhist "belief" and non-dualistic "beliefs" are beliefs, period.

That's a tautology.

Quote:

Christians want to paint their beliefs as better or more accurate than other beliefs...believing atheists want to paint their beliefs as better or more accurate than other beliefs...and Buddhists and non-dualists want to paint their beliefs as better or more accurate than other beliefs.

Although I'm not a Buddhist, I'll say, something you seem to miss or over look or dismiss, is that Buddhism, is not only a philosophy, religion or belief system. Buddhist philosophy, in part, is an attempt to articulate what is experienced and observed during moments when the mind is empty, or void of perceptions, incoming sense data and mental activity etc. That articulation, even though not based on belief, but rather on observation, can, as an interpretation, be considered a guess, but the experience of mindlessness is not. Beliefs (guesses) are dependent on mental actively for their existence. No mental activity, no beliefs.

Quote:

I say to all of you: Shitcan the beliefs...and deal with the "I don't know" part of life.

You cannot convince someone that has seen X that they didn't see X. But then, I guess brain washing is possible, Smile

Quote:

Buddhism is a religion and a belief system that takes itself way too seriously...and it is a religion and a belief system that presents itself in an arrogant and condescending way.

That's absurd.

Buddhism doesn't take itself seriously, nor does it present itself in any way. People do.

Quote:

Strawman!

As far as I have read, you rarely if ever Frank, criticize or attack people who put forward and believe in subject-object dualism. Do you tacitly support it?

Quote:

Quote:
Not sure of what you are saying here...but it seems to be part of your belief system.

I think not.

There is not one looking at this screen. Within the field of vision that includes this screen and these words there is no seer that can be seen. This is the case prior to forming any concepts and beliefs about what is being observed.

Quote:

For the record...almost all belief systems maintain that portions of their belief system is NOT belief...but experience or observation.

But that is the way it is with belief systems.

If a belief system contains elements that are not beliefs then it is inaccurate and fallacious to call it a belief system for that whitewashs over those aspects which are not beliefs. And that is what you attempt to do here and else where. You don't want to deal with the fact that a perception is not a guess or belief.

Is a perception a belief or a guess?
Is an observation a belief or guess?

Quote:

I understand it may make you more comfortable with your own belief system, Twyvel, to continually suggest that agnosticism is a belief system also...but you absolutely wrong on that.

Generally I would not call agnosticism a guess or belief system. But if the self is a guess Frank, everything else follows, i.e. there may be no 'one' that doesn't know...........no ignorance no enlightenment.

0 Replies

joefromchicago wrote:

twyvel wrote:
... a belief cannot have a belief.

How do you know that?

twyvel wrote:
... a guess cannot guess.

How do you know that?

How?I don't know.

Know?..I contend that beliefs and guesses are objects and objects do not have beliefs or make guesses.

0 Replies

Horray!!! C.I. is back. About time. Very Happy

0 Replies

Thanks, JLN. Glad to be back!

0 Replies

Do you believe in souls?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know