Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Joshua10]

To put things bluntly, you can and do exist and don't exist if you believe that you are nothing more than an automatically operating BUT lifeless piece of meat.

But do you honestly believe that?

[Joshua10]

Buddhism doesn’t teach anything about consciousness toggling and the need to control it.

This is precisely why the Buddha was a “Prisoner of Consciousness”.

I gave up on inward only meditation years back for something far far better and ever lasting.

The real deal.

[Joshua10]

Atheists shouldn’t be policing philosophy forums.That should be obvious all.

[Joshua10]

Why? because the atheists view of themselves is unbalanced because they only claim that they DON’T exist and yet they have VOICE.

[Samana Johann]

Hello and greetings

Buddhism has its central spiritual philosophy,
and the central part of this philosophy pertains
to our deep understanding of the nature of our self,
the first-person "I", our spiritual understanding of who we really are,
of what our True Nature is.

The nature of our mind is consciousness,
and being conscious always is a first-person experience
for all living beings without exception, including plant life (Flora).
Even single-cell organisms have an acute sense of self.

The sense of self is the centre of our conscious life
and the centre of our subjective experience of the objective reality
which also includes other persons, human and animal alike,
for example, our beloved pets, whom have their individual unique personalities.

Without any further ado, to start our spiritual journey
of self-discovery and our philosophical debate,
I am asking you this question of central importance :

What is your self ?

Good householder,

the Sublime Buddha teaches "just" about suffering and stress and the cessation of suffering and stress. As far as seeing, such a question was not even raised by anybody toward the Buddha.

So it's certain acting as "straw-puppet" if thinking it's of use to introduce into the Dhamma in this way.

If speaking about the/a perception of "Self", than it has to be answered with "not for sure", impermanent, no refuge.

[Samana Johann]

What is your self?

I don't know.

I think I have some understanding of your question, but I think I am about as close to the answer as any of us — i.e. not close at all. Perhaps we don't even have a clue?

Our dear self is so familiar to us that it simply seems to be too obvious to talk about. We are very busy with everything else. Not only all serious historical religious and spiritual traditions of the past and present, but even modern Western materialistic-atheistic science recognizes the self to be a legitimate object of scientific research.

Your short answer is a proper starting point of any serious deep philosophical inquiry. It reflects philosophical open-mindedness which is essential in our quest for understanding.

The is no place for philosophy within the Dhamma, good householder.

Buddhism is not a dogmatic religion.

That's a modern/western "to be trade-able" and to "fit into every house" modification. And it's the nature of what is called Re-legion, or legion, to do dogmatic.

It is not even a religion. It is an experimental spiritual philosophy that expects one to arrive at one's own conclusions by oneself.

"That's so wonderful that it should be bought right here and now..." might be the expected reaction on it, but of course the opposite.

It is akin to experimental physics that is guided by physical theories and hypotheses, a set of reasonable axioms and premises. Buddhism is essentially empirical being grounded in direct human experience.

Of course, there is naturally a set of premises that one needs to examine first, to see if they are acceptable enough to oneself, or not. If not, then you are NOT going to go to a Buddhist Hell. No worries.

Hell is for sure for one of wrong view, whether he knows right and wrong, or not, and also for sure if slander the Sublime Dhamma, misleading, misinterpret. "Worry" and shame are, not out of reason, actually Ariya-treasures

So, naturally, this particular topic is heavily biased toward exploring the set of Buddhist premises.

It's good to overcome biases by searching for ways to become well informed instead of a chain in a pyramid-sell-shame, good householder.

[Lagayascienza]

Ah, yes, good householder, always look at what they are trying to sell you. "Pyramid-sell-shame" indeed. Sublime dhamma, Nirvana, Samedi,... It's all snake oil.

[Samana Johann]

Ah, yes, good householder, always look at what they are trying to sell you. "Pyramid-sell-shame" indeed. Sublime dhamma, Nirvana, Samedi,... It's all snake oil.

That there is no way to share or gain the Dhamma in ways of trade, no way to use it helpful just to maintain a house, home, stand, it's certain not accessible via the "freedom" to buy, commonly trade into it's domain. So no way for stingy and "liberal" people at all, good householder. And it's not a lose for Sublime when common remains bond.