Death of the Body versus Death of the Self

Discuss any topics related to metaphysics (the philosophical study of the principles of reality) or epistemology (the philosophical study of knowledge) in this forum.
Spectrum
Posts: 5161
Joined: December 21st, 2010, 1:25 am
Favorite Philosopher: Eclectic -Various

Re: Death of the Body versus Death of the Self

Post by Spectrum »

Martian Visitor wrote:I have met and spoken to several acknowledged Buddhist teachers, published authors, leaders of large and active groups, and they were just ordinary people with these daft ideas about attaining a higher sense of identity etc. One bloke had spent 7 years in a cave up a mountain somewhere, looking at a wall and trying to think about nothing.
Such a waste of time, of life. Really, what is supposed to be good about renouncing this life, the only one we have? What is good about losing our attachment to our memories, our identity?
There are the pros and cons relating to how one is entangled psychologically and neurally with the sense-of-self.
In the ordinary and common sense, it is definitely essential that one has a sense of self, a personal identity with one's own memories, physical self, health, etc.

However when one takes the sense of self to the extremes, then, for the majority, the consequence can be generally detrimental to the survival of the individual.
One extreme is to take the self as a soul or entity that survives physical death. This is detrimental to humanity when one or a group goes to the extreme to ensure one's self or soul survives physical death and immortality. Note the associated wars and wastes (pyramids, human sacrifices, etc.).
Another extreme is egoism of the self, where one person think too highly of one oneself and that oneself is most important above the selves of others.
There are many other examples why the extreme view of a sense of self is detrimental to the individual and humanity.

In the case of Buddhism, the Buddha understood how the extreme concept of an independent self and other extreme views of the self are a liability to the individual and humanity. Buddhism proper did not abandon a sense-of-self by an individual but advocate that the self is not an independent entity, and because it is impermanent, one should not cling and be obsessed with the self in a way that will bring about sufferings to oneself.
To Buddhism, since the self is not permanent, the sense of self should be taken on a pragmatic basis based on skilful means.

Prince Siddhārtha was an ascetic, but after he became a Buddha, he discouraged and did not accept ascetism. Ascetism is not the core principle of Buddhism proper, but a small percentage of humans will be inclined towards ascetism and Buddhists schools are flexible and understanding to allow it. (Praying to idols is not a true core practice of Buddhism-proper, but Buddhist temples and priest accomodate it due to the inevitable inclinations of some of their practitioners.) There are many famous monks and hermits who were said to stay alone in caves for 7 years or a long time and thereafter came out to teach or die in the cave. Such ascetism is specific to the individuals and not a general principle of Buddhism.
Not-a-theist. Religion is a critical necessity for humanity now, but not the FUTURE.
Somthingsucantunfund
Posts: 29
Joined: September 23rd, 2012, 12:56 am
Favorite Philosopher: Epictitus

Re: Death of the Body versus Death of the Self

Post by Somthingsucantunfund »

SCOTT WROTE "If anyone else has any philosophical thought experiments that would address other issues involving the definition of the self in regards to death, please explain them."

Death of the Body vs. Death of the Self Hypothetical Experiment: The Introduction of the Death of Self: Suppose you were suddenly living in a time when biotechnology had advanced to a level where actual scientific "mind reading" through brain mapping and algorithms has become possible. Amazing, but not only has science now advanced to the level of direct communication with the brain, but now the processing speed of computers has created the ability for scientific observers to respond in real time to actual thought processes. Since the initiation is uninvited, let's call it an induced conversation. Girls, you know what I mean, you've been on those dates. OMG, I bet some of you guys want to sign up for this technology, like yesterday!

Let's imagine that science starts to define this communication structure with terms like semiotic alphabet, and you suddenly realize that the concept of the sentient being is referring to is you. I bet you will feel like a dumbass in the future for not speaking out about it at the time, but don't worry, no one wants to cryogenically preserve you forever. At least you are saved from the possible horror of reincarnation. But please remember that the limits of evil that an individual can experience are now only limited by the imagination, or financial funding, of the evil doer. The death of self is the new scientific intervention. Self is inconvenient to this hypothetical modern society, especially to the "self less" needs of realizing the ability to actually limit biological potential. This is a hypothetical time in the future of science where self does not exist except as a philosophical construct. By the way, your desire to know thyself is getting in my "selfish" way.

To be continued...
"I never call anything ugly. I never call anything strange and alone. I never want to, take [deep] things lightly, Like they have never been my own..." Tanita Takiram
Martian Visitor
Posts: 177
Joined: March 24th, 2012, 7:39 am

Re: Death of the Body versus Death of the Self

Post by Martian Visitor »

Quotidian wrote: A good, reasonably current book on this idea is Alan Watts' The Supreme Identity.
Alan Watts was a charlatan and a hypocrite. He could talk the talk but he couldn't walk the walk. He was a serial sexual predator, seducing large numbers of gullible young women who attended his talks. Watts became an Episcopal (Christian) priest, but he was expelled from the priesthood (and his first wife divorced him) because of an affair with a young girl in his congregation. That was in 1950, when the book you mention was published.

By the 1970s Watts' health had been destroyed by years of heavy smoking and even heavier drinking. His lady companion at that time reports that he was drinking a bottle of vodka a day, he was admitted to hospital suffering from delerium tremens, and all this time he was touring around giving talks about renunciation, contemplation and the spiritual life generally, and seducing his young female followers. He was 58 when he drank himself to death.

-- Updated October 2nd, 2012, 4:13 am to add the following --
Spectrum wrote: In the ordinary and common sense, it is definitely essential that one has a sense of self, a personal identity with one's own memories, physical self, health, etc.
So Quotidian is wrong:
In the spiritual traditions 'the death of the self' is not necessarily a breakdown or something to be dreaded, but the gateway to the realization of a higher sense of identity. It is the process of divesting oneself of attachments to memories, identity, and the things you cling to as 'me and mine', so as to realize that which is beyond those elements of the person. This is the meaning behind renunciation, contemplation, and the spiritual life generally.
Spectrum wrote:Another extreme is egoism of the self, where one person think too highly of one oneself and that oneself is most important above the selves of others. There are many other examples why the extreme view of a sense of self is detrimental to the individual and humanity.
Oneself quite obviously is the most important to oneself. You have to look after yourself first before you can do anything for anyone else.
Buddhism proper did not abandon a sense-of-self by an individual but advocate that the self is not an independent entity, and because it is impermanent, one should not cling and be obsessed with the self in a way that will bring about sufferings to oneself.
If oneself is as unimportant as you claim, then why should one devote oneself to trying to avoid sufferings to oneself?
There are many famous monks and hermits who were said to stay alone in caves for 7 years or a long time and thereafter came out to teach or die in the cave. Such ascetism is specific to the individuals and not a general principle of Buddhism.
So all the millions of Buddhist monks, renouncing the world in their monasteries, all the practitioners trying to realise the truth by sitting for hours looking at a wall, all the teachers I have read and listened to, telling me this sort of stuff:
Quotidian wrote:'the death of the self' is ... the gateway to the realization of a higher sense of identity. It is the process of divesting oneself of attachments to memories, identity, and the things you cling to as 'me and mine', so as to realize that which is beyond those elements of the person. This is the meaning behind renunciation, contemplation, and the spiritual life generally.
all those people were wrong were they?
User avatar
Quotidian
Posts: 2681
Joined: August 29th, 2012, 7:47 am
Favorite Philosopher: Nagel
Location: Sydney
Contact:

Re: Death of the Body versus Death of the Self

Post by Quotidian »

I know about Alan Watt's flaws, but they are exaggerated here. The definitive account is Monica Furlong's biography, written in the early 90's, published as Genuine Fake in some markets, and Zen Effects in others. But I still stand by his books, regardless. He was an excellent writer and possessed genuine insights. And he was never a self-righteous hypocrite, he never pretended to be anything other than what he was, regardless of what other faults he had.

I don't understand the closing question.
'For there are many here among us who think that life is but a joke' ~ Dylan
Spectrum
Posts: 5161
Joined: December 21st, 2010, 1:25 am
Favorite Philosopher: Eclectic -Various

Re: Death of the Body versus Death of the Self

Post by Spectrum »

Spectrum wrote:In the ordinary and common sense, it is definitely essential that one has a sense of self, a personal identity with one's own memories, physical self, health, etc.
Martian Visitor wrote:So Quotidian is wrong:
Quotidian is not wrong in principle, but his explanation is insufficient and not taking the varied perspectives into account.
Spectrum wrote:Another extreme is egoism of the self, where one person think too highly of one oneself and that oneself is most important above the selves of others. There are many other examples why the extreme view of a sense of self is detrimental to the individual and humanity.
Oneself quite obviously is the most important to oneself. You have to look after yourself first before you can do anything for anyone else.
I stated, in the conventional and common sense perspective, oneself is obviously most important to oneself, but not at the expense of others, i.e. being selfish, self-centered, egocentric, egoistic, egomaniacal, grandstanding, having a swelled head, narcissistic, on an ego trip, self-absorbed, self-indulgent, self-interested, self-involved, self-seeking, self-serving, stuck on oneself, wrapped up with oneself, to the extreme of harming others.
Martian Visitor wrote:If oneself is as unimportant as you claim, then why should one devote oneself to trying to avoid sufferings to oneself?
I never said oneself is not important to oneself, but rather overly 'important' relative to others. I stated one should not be obsessive to the negative traits I listed above.
There are many famous monks and hermits who were said to stay alone in caves for 7 years or a long time and thereafter came out to teach or die in the cave. Such ascetism is specific to the individuals and not a general principle of Buddhism.
Martian Visitor wrote:So all the millions of Buddhist monks, renouncing the world in their monasteries, all the practitioners trying to realise the truth by sitting for hours looking at a wall, all the teachers I have read and listened to, telling me this sort of stuff:
Other than old Tibet*, the percentage of Buddhist monks all over the world, from my guess, is very minimal in olden times. They were necessary to study and sustain the teachings for future generations then. In spirituality, there is a need for the 'human touch' in communicating difficult concepts and practices.
*Apparently there were a large population of monks in old Tibet was due to economic reasons. Poor families (no modern contraceptions then) who are unable to support a large family would sent sons to the monastery.
IMO, in the future, there will be less and less need for monks when the medium of communication are more advanced via the internet and other IT mediums.
There will also be less and less extra-ordinary and esoteric practices when Buddhism is refined via incremental knowledge from modern sources. Note Buddhism is flexible and not immutable like the Abrahamics. In anycase, I am optimistic the religious elements of Buddhism would be weaned off within the next 100 to 200 years or ASAP, leaving the spiritual and philosophical elements to be absorbed as secular knowledge with others for self-improvements.
Last edited by Spectrum on October 2nd, 2012, 7:35 am, edited 1 time in total.
Not-a-theist. Religion is a critical necessity for humanity now, but not the FUTURE.
User avatar
Quotidian
Posts: 2681
Joined: August 29th, 2012, 7:47 am
Favorite Philosopher: Nagel
Location: Sydney
Contact:

Re: Death of the Body versus Death of the Self

Post by Quotidian »

Spectrum wrote:Quotidian is not wrong in principle, but his explanation is insufficient and not taking the varied perspectives into account.
Why thanks, and same to you.

-- Updated October 2nd, 2012, 10:53 pm to add the following --

the whole point of the OP is 'hanging on to what you think of as yourself'. This is called 'clinging'. I don't know if anyone around here is old enough to remember Steely Dan's first hit:


'Your everlasting summer you can see it fading fast

So you grab a piece of something that you think is going to last

Well you wouldn't even know a diamond if you held it in your hand

The things you think are precious I can't understand'


Steely Dan, Reelin' in the Years

-- Updated October 2nd, 2012, 11:31 pm to add the following --
spectrum wrote:There will also be less and less extra-ordinary and esoteric practices when Buddhism is refined via incremental knowledge from modern sources. Note Buddhism is flexible and not immutable like the Abrahamics. In anycase, I am optimistic the religious elements of Buddhism would be weaned off within the next 100 to 200 years or ASAP, leaving the spiritual and philosophical elements to be absorbed as secular knowledge with others for self-improvements.
I have to protest this assertion. There is a movement around called 'secular Buddhism' which is trying to eviscerate Buddhism and present the mummified remains as something worth knowing about. While it might indeed be possible to develop a secular philosophy based on Buddhist principles, such a beast would no longer be Dharma, as such. The fact is that the simian brain which modern man takes as the sine qua non of human intelligence is completely unable to comprehend rational let alone noetic or transcendent realities. What it considers philosophy is entirely a matter of utility, which is fitting, as in it's view the only reason it exists is in order to survive. Beyond that it sees nothing.

The Buddha is reported as saying in many places that the truth of which he speaks is 'subtle, difficult to comprehend, deep, hard to fathom, perceivable only by the wise'. I see no indication that the modern mentality has the depth to understand this, let alone 'adapt' it. Buddhism may not be a religion in the sense that the Semitic religions are, but the Buddha is unarguably a spiritual teacher and the main concepts of the tradition are religious or spiritual truths. Get rid of those and you dry up the river.
Last edited by Quotidian on October 2nd, 2012, 8:33 am, edited 1 time in total.
'For there are many here among us who think that life is but a joke' ~ Dylan
Martian Visitor
Posts: 177
Joined: March 24th, 2012, 7:39 am

Re: Death of the Body versus Death of the Self

Post by Martian Visitor »

Quotidian wrote:I know about Alan Watt's flaws, but they are exaggerated here. The definitive account is Monica Furlong's biography, written in the early 90's, published as Genuine Fake in some markets, and Zen Effects in others. But I still stand by his books, regardless. He was an excellent writer and possessed genuine insights. And he was never a self-righteous hypocrite, he never pretended to be anything other than what he was, regardless of what other faults he had.
A drunken priest molesting his underage parishioners, and he wasn't pretending to be other than he was? The reports of him drinking a bottle of vodka a day and seducing gullible young girls come from Furlong's biography. What exactly would a priest have to do for you to recognise him as a hypocrite? I'm reminded of all these catholic bishops and their squalid little pope, sheltering their legions of drunken, violent paedophile priests. Regardless.
User avatar
Quotidian
Posts: 2681
Joined: August 29th, 2012, 7:47 am
Favorite Philosopher: Nagel
Location: Sydney
Contact:

Re: Death of the Body versus Death of the Self

Post by Quotidian »

I read the book, there was nothing about child molestation in it. He was never really a priest either, his career as an episcopal priest was short and a unhappy.

Why do I feel that you're always typing though gritted teeth? You seem really spoiling for a fight every time we debate.
'For there are many here among us who think that life is but a joke' ~ Dylan
Martian Visitor
Posts: 177
Joined: March 24th, 2012, 7:39 am

Re: Death of the Body versus Death of the Self

Post by Martian Visitor »

Spectrum wrote: I stated, in the conventional and common sense perspective, oneself is obviously most important to oneself, but not at the expense of others, i.e. being selfish, self-centered, egocentric, egoistic, egomaniacal, grandstanding, having a swelled head, narcissistic, on an ego trip, self-absorbed, self-indulgent, self-interested, self-involved, self-seeking, self-serving, stuck on oneself, wrapped up with oneself,
Copying out lists of synonyms from an online Thesaurus doesn't really count as philosophical argumentation Spectrum.
Martian Visitor wrote:If oneself is as unimportant as you claim, then why should one devote oneself to trying to avoid sufferings to oneself?
Spectrum wrote: I never said oneself is not important to oneself, but rather overly 'important' relative to others. I stated one should not be obsessive to the negative traits I listed above.
These aren't really coherent sentences are they? Have another try, and this time make an effort to respond in a comprehensible way to the point that is being put to you: if the self is so unimportant, and one should really be trying to do things for others, why do adherents of these religions spend their time trying to make themselves happy? For example, when I look at the Four so-called Noble so-called Truths of Buddhism, they are all about trying to achieve personal happiness for oneself.

-- Updated October 2nd, 2012, 9:37 am to add the following --
Quotidian wrote:I read the book, there was nothing about child molestation in it. He was never really a priest either, his career as an episcopal priest was short and a unhappy.
He was a priest throughout his career, touring around and writing endless books. Of course as a hypocrite he would deny that he was a priest. He was also certainly a sexual predator, that's why he was thrown out of the Episcopalian Church. A great many priests are sexual predators, as you can see if you read the news. Being a priest appeals to them because it gives them an authority they wouldn't otherwise possess. They are, generally speaking, social inadequates, like Watts, indeed like the Buddha himself. They can't deal with the real world so they retreat into fantasy. That's what Buddhism and other religions basically are, rather silly and transparent fantasies.

The woman who wrote the biography was herself religiously deluded, her main interests were religion and spirituality.
Why do I feel that you're always typing though gritted teeth?
Hard for me to say mate, I'm not responsible for your delusions. I suppose you think like this because it's what your priests have told you to expect. I'm actually typing with a faintly amused grin.
Spectrum
Posts: 5161
Joined: December 21st, 2010, 1:25 am
Favorite Philosopher: Eclectic -Various

Re: Death of the Body versus Death of the Self

Post by Spectrum »

Martian Visitor wrote: (Nested quote removed.)

Copying out lists of synonyms from an online Thesaurus doesn't really count as philosophical argumentation Spectrum.
Why not? I am very surprised you did not get the point and wanted to be spoon-fed. The above self-centered traits are not mentally healthy when they are driven to the extreme. I can list another 100 hundred or more, but it is a waste of time. There are a lot of psychological research on the dangers of being in a state of being too self-obsessiveness. If you are ignorant of this, I am not going to give you a tutorial on this. I'll give it a pass.
Martian Visitor wrote:If oneself is as unimportant as you claim, then why should one devote oneself to trying to avoid sufferings to oneself?
Spectrum wrote: I never said oneself is not important to oneself, but rather overly 'important' relative to others. I stated one should not be obsessive to the negative traits I listed above.
These aren't really coherent sentences are they? Have another try, and this time make an effort to respond in a comprehensible way to the point that is being put to you: if the self is so unimportant, and one should really be trying to do things for others, why do adherents of these religions spend their time trying to make themselves happy? For example, when I look at the Four so-called Noble so-called Truths of Buddhism, they are all about trying to achieve personal happiness for oneself.
The Four Noble Truths (4NT) are not focused on the need for happiness, if any, that is secondary. The Four Noble Truths are geared at resolving the cognitive dissonance (CDM) arising from a human being being programmed with a fear of death while at the same time is aware of one's inevitable death at some future time. This cognitive dissonance is reflected in the Buddha story if you are aware of it. Thus 'happiness' is not the focus of the 4NT. The ultimate of the 4NT is to facilitate the modulation of the 'mother' of all sufferings, i.e. the CDM and whatever other mental (not physical) suffering a normal* human being is likely to encounter in his lifetime. If anyone felt any happiness, that is secondary, and Buddhism will advise one not to cling or get obsessed with that 'happiness' in itself. *extreme psychological problems should be dealt by professionals.

Within the various Buddhist schools, believers will engage in all sort of behaviours (some weird) to resolve the CDM in accordance to what the various main and sub-Buddhist schools teach, but at least no violence is advocated in the holy texts of the main Buddhist schools.
At the extreme, Abrahamics believers go the extent of killing non-believers and commit all sort of violence in their entanglement with their tackling of the CDM.

At a more subtle level, the manners and attitude in how one post in forums like this is also a reflection of how the CDM effects their psychological states.
Not-a-theist. Religion is a critical necessity for humanity now, but not the FUTURE.
Martian Visitor
Posts: 177
Joined: March 24th, 2012, 7:39 am

Re: Death of the Body versus Death of the Self

Post by Martian Visitor »

Spectrum wrote: I never said oneself is not important to oneself, but rather overly 'important' relative to others. I stated one should not be obsessive to the negative traits I listed above.
And that's supposed to be a blinding piece of philosophical insight is it? That's the truth that the Buddha says is 'subtle, difficult to comprehend, deep, hard to fathom, perceivable only by the wise'? That you should think about others apart from yourself?

It's normal for a human being to understand that you should think about others apart from yourself, it's instinctive, it's not something you need a guru to tell you, it's something almost every mother and father in the world show their children. And at the same time, each of us as in individual is overwhelmingly the most important thing, because if we weren't here experiencing it, there wouldn't be a world at all for us.

It's not normal and it's not desirable to lose the natural attachment to what we call the "self", to our own individual happiness and well-being. It is normal and desirable to regret the coming of our own deaths, to be attached to life.

Buddhism is a con. It claims to be able to take something negative away, although of course you can never get Buddhists to agree exactly what that is, as we've seen in the present discussion. You're now telling us Buddhism cures the fear of death, other people say Buddhism can take away suffering or the unsatisfactory aspects of life.

It can't, and if it could, it wouldn't be a good idea.
The Four Noble Truths (4NT) are not focused on the need for happiness, if any, that is secondary. The Four Noble Truths are geared at resolving the cognitive dissonance (CDM) arising from a human being being programmed with a fear of death while at the same time is aware of one's inevitable death at some future time.
So all the other Buddhists are wrong are they? You know, if you Google Four Noble Truths you find a lot of stuff about Dukha and overcoming it, and Dukha is described as "suffering", "unsatisfactoriness", and it is is the opposite of Sukha, which is described as sweetness, or pleasure.

In the end it doesn't matter to me what the Buddha meant, he was wrong. You can't take the negative aspects out of our world, and it isn't a good idea anyway. The Buddha had a perfectly good existence to start with, he should have stayed at home with his wife and children and done something useful with his life.
Spectrum
Posts: 5161
Joined: December 21st, 2010, 1:25 am
Favorite Philosopher: Eclectic -Various

Re: Death of the Body versus Death of the Self

Post by Spectrum »

Spectrum wrote:
I never said oneself is not important to oneself, but rather overly 'important' relative to others. I stated one should not be obsessive to the negative traits I listed above.

Martian Visitor wrote:
And that's supposed to be a blinding piece of philosophical insight is it? That's the truth that the Buddha says is 'subtle, difficult to comprehend, deep, hard to fathom, perceivable only by the wise'? That you should think about others apart from yourself?

I did not state nor emphasized that it is a blinding piece of philosophical insight. Note I stated, "the other" amongst many other examples.
Another extreme is egoism of the self, where one person think too highly of one oneself and that oneself is most important above the selves of others. There are many other examples why the extreme view of a sense of self is detrimental to the individual and humanity.

My original intention was to highlight a few points, qualify there are many others and hope that you could understand. What is surprising is, you took one minor point and make it a big deal!
It's normal for a human being to understand that you should think about others apart from yourself, it's instinctive, it's not something you need a guru to tell you, it's something almost every mother and father in the world show their children. And at the same time, each of us as in individual is overwhelmingly the most important thing, because if we weren't here experiencing it, there wouldn't be a world at all for us.

If may be normal from a narrow point of view but it is not normal for many who had committed violence, injustice, and intolerance based on selfish acts either individually and collectively as a group.
It's not normal and it's not desirable to lose the natural attachment to what we call the "self", to our own individual happiness and well-being. It is normal and desirable to regret the coming of our own deaths, to be attached to life.

As I had stated, in the ordinary, conventional and common sense perspective, a sense of self and high self-esteem is necessary, but one must be aware of its limits, i.e. not to the extreme of obsession.
Buddhism is a con. It claims to be able to take something negative away, although of course you can never get Buddhists to agree exactly what that is, as we've seen in the present discussion. You're now telling us Buddhism cures the fear of death, other people say Buddhism can take away suffering or the unsatisfactory aspects of life. It can't, and if it could, it wouldn't be a good idea.

Buddhism is not a con, it is a package that comprised, the religious, the spiritual, and the philosophical. The spiritual and philosophical aspects can be verified and justified rationally. I agree some of its religious aspects may be illusional. However, religions (some more illusional than religious-Buddhism) are a critical necessity for the the majority of human in this present phase of humanity. There is no way the majority of humans with their current state of brain/mind at present can survive peacefully without being religious. Can you dispute this?

Yes, Buddhism's main purpose is to modulate the fear of inevitable death (CDM) in some future time. Resolving sufferings are ways of contributing to the main purpose of modulating fear re CDM. Buddhism hinges on the story of the Buddha (imo a myth) which is centered on a 'corpse', 'illness', 'old age'. If you can understand the myth heuristically, the central point is to to modulate the fear of inevitable death (CDM). The 4NT stabilize this primal fear and also provide guidance for one to live life optimally.

The Four Noble Truths (4NT) are not focused on the need for happiness, if any, that is secondary. The Four Noble Truths are geared at resolving the cognitive dissonance (CDM) arising from a human being being programmed with a fear of death while at the same time is aware of one's inevitable death at some future time.
So all the other Buddhists are wrong are they? You know, if you Google Four Noble Truths you find a lot of stuff about Dukha and overcoming it, and Dukha is described as "suffering", "unsatisfactoriness", and it is is the opposite of Sukha, which is described as sweetness, or pleasure.

Many Buddhists understood the central purpose re CDM. The majority may not understand the real purpose, but by following the secondary purposes, they will naturally resolve the main issue as well. The majority are not wrong, rather, they would be more effective if they had understood the main objective.
In the end it doesn't matter to me what the Buddha meant, he was wrong. You can't take the negative aspects out of our world, and it isn't a good idea anyway. The Buddha had a perfectly good existence to start with, he should have stayed at home with his wife and children and done something useful with his life.

Btw, note, this is merely a philosophical discussion, not a proselytizing session on Buddhism. Besides, I am NOT a Buddhist. If you have the capacity to quantify what the Buddha had contributed and will do so in the future, you will understand and appreciate Buddhism's positive contribution to humanity.

The Buddha story was a myth to represent the inevitable anxieties/problems/sufferings/pains/existential_crisis of a human in its lifetime, and from there the 4NT provide the diagnosis methods and effective solutions to resolve them. It is ridiculous for a Prince who had lived for 20+? years not to have been exposed to death, sickness and illness in his presumably large palace. Then out of the blue he saw those events and then almost immediately gave up the potential to be king and abandon his family. Such things are not likely to happen 2500 years ago. His father enemies would have killed the Prince and hang his head as a prize. The Buddha story is a pure myth and no way can be realistic.

-- Updated Tue Oct 02, 2012 10:11 pm to add the following --
Quotidian wrote:I have to protest this assertion. There is a movement around called 'secular Buddhism' which is trying to eviscerate Buddhism and present the mummified remains as something worth knowing about. While it might indeed be possible to develop a secular philosophy based on Buddhist principles, such a beast would no longer be Dharma, as such. The fact is that the simian brain which modern man takes as the sine qua non of human intelligence is completely unable to comprehend rational let alone noetic or transcendent realities.
..
The Buddha is reported as saying in many places that the truth of which he speaks is 'subtle, difficult to comprehend, deep, hard to fathom, perceivable only by the wise'. I see no indication that the modern mentality has the depth to understand this, let alone 'adapt' it.
I fully understand your point but disagree with it. The Buddha presented principles with understanding that range from 1 to 100.
What is implied was those within the range of 80-100 are subtle and difficult to understand. But reading heuristically, he did not advocate acceptance of the supernatural nor the illusional. Ultimately, the core principles of anatta, anicca and dependent origination just do not jive with the transcendental, otherwise Siddharta would have remained a hindu rather than made a paradigm shift to Buddhism

Note Kant's on the necessity of the transcendental illusions for a more tranquil practical life. Perhaps someday you will understand the critical necessity of those necessary transcendental illusions. These more refined illusions (in the spiritual or religious perspectives) are on the same continuum from cruder but necessary sexual fantasies to enhance one's sex life.
Not-a-theist. Religion is a critical necessity for humanity now, but not the FUTURE.
User avatar
Quotidian
Posts: 2681
Joined: August 29th, 2012, 7:47 am
Favorite Philosopher: Nagel
Location: Sydney
Contact:

Re: Death of the Body versus Death of the Self

Post by Quotidian »

Note the automatic equation of 'supernatural' with 'illusional' (a word that doesn't exist, by the way, but the implication is clear). From that assumption, everything else you say follows.

I don't share it.
'For there are many here among us who think that life is but a joke' ~ Dylan
Spectrum
Posts: 5161
Joined: December 21st, 2010, 1:25 am
Favorite Philosopher: Eclectic -Various

Re: Death of the Body versus Death of the Self

Post by Spectrum »

Quotidian wrote:Note the automatic equation of 'supernatural' with 'illusional' (a word that doesn't exist, by the way, but the implication is clear). From that assumption, everything else you say follows.
I don't share it.
A word that doesn't exist?

Illusional: of, pertaining to, or characterized by illusions; deceptive; misleading.
Just in case,
Supernatural:
1. of, pertaining to, or being above or beyond what is natural; unexplainable by natural law or phenomena; abnormal.
2. of, pertaining to, characteristic of, or attributed to God or a deity.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/supernatural?s=t

Transcendent:
1. going beyond ordinary limits; surpassing; exceeding.
2. superior or supreme.
3. Theology . (of the Deity) transcending the universe, time, etc. Compare immanent ( def. 3 ) .
4. Philosophy .
-a. Scholasticism . above all possible modes of the infinite.
-b. Kantianism . transcending experience; not realizable in human experience. Compare transcendental ( defs. 5a, c ) .
-c. (in modern realism) referred to, but beyond, direct apprehension; outside consciousness.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/transcendent?s=t
Meaning 3 and 4 are applicable to the discussion.

The above terms are non-sequitor within the central theme of what the Buddha taught despite them being inserted in many of the sutras of the various Buddhist schools.
You mentioned the relevance of the 'transcendental' in Buddhist teachings as subtle and critical?
Not-a-theist. Religion is a critical necessity for humanity now, but not the FUTURE.
Somthingsucantunfund
Posts: 29
Joined: September 23rd, 2012, 12:56 am
Favorite Philosopher: Epictitus

Re: Death of the Body versus Death of the Self

Post by Somthingsucantunfund »

SPECTRUM WROTE: "Theoretically, if any of the experiments listed above work, I do not mind choosing the most effective and optimal one to the circumstances. Whether it works or not, can easily be verified by testing others who had done the conversion procedure. This can be done via interacting and communicating with the 'self' of one's friends, relatives or persons to confirm whether they are the same core person as before."

If we rely on the verification of others to validate the self is healthy and functioning, we have entered into dangerous territory in the science of moralizing the death of self. Others are all too often more than happy to invalidate us, or overly validate us, if it serves their personal needs.

Exploring what makes the death of self just< in the first place, is a "loaded" concept. By the very nature of asking if the self is sellable for a future personal or societal reward, we imply a willingness to deny the importance of self to individuals. Often what we are willing to deny to ourselves, we are even more willing to deny to others. Especially if it can be justified by a tangible or future reward.

I do not want to slip into a religious argument that attacks my personal, but not organized religious belief, in the value of the "goal" of selflessness for the individual. Not for society, but the individual. The selflessness I personally seek is not the loss or donation of my physical or neurological self to some higher entity. It is the individual value of the actual psychological work involved in the process of knowing thyself, and if successful, we often value not only the self but also the selfs of others. If I know myself better. I know what my beliefs are, instead of simply taking on the beliefs of others because they "sound good". Others recognition of me no longer defines me for eternity. I am able to evolve.
Last edited by Somthingsucantunfund on October 3rd, 2012, 12:35 am, edited 2 times in total.
"I never call anything ugly. I never call anything strange and alone. I never want to, take [deep] things lightly, Like they have never been my own..." Tanita Takiram
Post Reply

Return to “Epistemology and Metaphysics”

2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise
by John K Danenbarger
January 2023

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023

The Unfakeable Code®

The Unfakeable Code®
by Tony Jeton Selimi
April 2023

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are
by Alan Watts
May 2023

Killing Abel

Killing Abel
by Michael Tieman
June 2023

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead
by E. Alan Fleischauer
July 2023

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough
by Mark Unger
August 2023

Predictably Irrational

Predictably Irrational
by Dan Ariely
September 2023

Artwords

Artwords
by Beatriz M. Robles
November 2023

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope
by Dr. Randy Ross
December 2023

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes
by Ali Master
February 2024

2022 Philosophy Books of the Month

Emotional Intelligence At Work

Emotional Intelligence At Work
by Richard M Contino & Penelope J Holt
January 2022

Free Will, Do You Have It?

Free Will, Do You Have It?
by Albertus Kral
February 2022

My Enemy in Vietnam

My Enemy in Vietnam
by Billy Springer
March 2022

2X2 on the Ark

2X2 on the Ark
by Mary J Giuffra, PhD
April 2022

The Maestro Monologue

The Maestro Monologue
by Rob White
May 2022

What Makes America Great

What Makes America Great
by Bob Dowell
June 2022

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!
by Jerry Durr
July 2022

Living in Color

Living in Color
by Mike Murphy
August 2022 (tentative)

The Not So Great American Novel

The Not So Great American Novel
by James E Doucette
September 2022

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches
by John N. (Jake) Ferris
October 2022

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All
by Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
November 2022

The Smartest Person in the Room: The Root Cause and New Solution for Cybersecurity

The Smartest Person in the Room
by Christian Espinosa
December 2022

2021 Philosophy Books of the Month

The Biblical Clock: The Untold Secrets Linking the Universe and Humanity with God's Plan

The Biblical Clock
by Daniel Friedmann
March 2021

Wilderness Cry: A Scientific and Philosophical Approach to Understanding God and the Universe

Wilderness Cry
by Dr. Hilary L Hunt M.D.
April 2021

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute: Tools To Spark Your Dream And Ignite Your Follow-Through

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute
by Jeff Meyer
May 2021

Surviving the Business of Healthcare: Knowledge is Power

Surviving the Business of Healthcare
by Barbara Galutia Regis M.S. PA-C
June 2021

Winning the War on Cancer: The Epic Journey Towards a Natural Cure

Winning the War on Cancer
by Sylvie Beljanski
July 2021

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream
by Dr Frank L Douglas
August 2021

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts
by Mark L. Wdowiak
September 2021

The Preppers Medical Handbook

The Preppers Medical Handbook
by Dr. William W Forgey M.D.
October 2021

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress: A Practical Guide

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress
by Dr. Gustavo Kinrys, MD
November 2021

Dream For Peace: An Ambassador Memoir

Dream For Peace
by Dr. Ghoulem Berrah
December 2021