pachomius2000

I have said that I am through with studying Buddhism; but I still love to dialog with Buddhists about their beliefs.

So, addressing the Buddhists here, do you really believe in rebirths?

You genuinely believe that you were in several previous rebirths prior to your present one, and if you don't get to Nirvana -- or you choose to postpone Nirvana should you deserve to get there, after this present rebirth, you will come back again in another rebirth, to work out again, maybe now getting closer, the attainment of Nirvana?

Pachomius

Magic Primate

There was no 'me' to have had previous lives nor will there be one in the future. Even at theis very moment 'me' is nothing more than a concept or label constructed by the mind/brain.

pachomius2000

I contributed a message recently in that thread on theological noncognitivism by Anlytc, where I tried to introduce the distinction between cognitivate and affectivate.

Please forgive me my dense-ness, but if you study your statement above, dear Magic, are you into cognitivism or affectivism?

Because in my book cognitivism is the idea that in a particular statement or speech utterance something knowable is conveyed, for example, the utterance: IIDB is a message board; while also in my book affectivism means no knowable something is conveyed but the listener or reader is invited to join in the feeling of awe, thrill, fear, hope, dismay, hatred, anger, pride, sublimity, nobility, shame, greed, envy, disinterest, lust, even though the object or target of the sentiment the listener is asked to join in is not cognitively indicated; for example, the exclamation: "Holy Cow!".

There was no 'me' to have had previous lives nor will there be one in the future. Even at this very moment 'me' is nothing more than a concept or label constructed by the mind/brain. -- Magic Primate

By the way are you, Magic, a Buddhist who believe in rebirths (because sometimes owing to the peculiar language usages of some Buddhists, I can't figure out what they really believe in -- I seem to be able to remember that at least one Buddhist even said that they don't have beliefs.

May I analyze your statements above using my linguistic skills into the following brief paragraph?

I was not existent before in the past and I will not be existent after in the future; I am now at present nothing but a concept or label constructed by the mind/brain.

Please see next post.


Pachomius

pachomius2000

There was no 'me' to have had previous lives nor will there be one in the future. Even at this very moment 'me' is nothing more than a concept or label constructed by the mind/brain. -- Magic Primate

Let's enumerate the above text into its two component sentences:

1. There was no 'me' to have had previous lives nor will there be one in the future.

2. Even at this very moment 'me' is nothing more than a concept or label constructed by the mind/brain.

As regards #1 sentence, is that your belief or your knowledge, understanding belief and knowledge as your educated bank teller or supermarket check-out clerk understand belief and knowledge when they are counting your money and their employers' money.

As regards #2 sentence, is that for you an example of knowledge, or is it a belief from your part, or an opinion only, maybe an affectivistic utterance? -- considering my explanation of what is cognitivism and what is affectivism.

Anyway, if you will just answer this question with a yes or no, then I will get to know something about your existence or non-existence, that is for me something of a definite answer.

When you use the computer keyboard to type out messages, are you present in the same way that the keyboard is present? Yes or No.

I hope to continue this exchange with you, for it is most absorbing to my mind/brain.


Pachomius

David B

Whenever I see people coming up with phrases like 'it's just..' or 'it's nothing more than...' some sort of flag seems to come up in my mind saying something like 'what do you mean "nothing more"'?

You have a mind/brain capable of coming up with a concept like 'me'? Wow!! Me too!!! Isn't that fantastic!!!!! Yippeeee!!!!!!

I'm going to make what I can of my mind/brain. It's been a long term project, but I'm making progress.

What are you going to do with yours?

Looks like you're in favour of rejecting it.

David B (agrees about not having previous or past lives, but revels in this one)

abaddon

I think what he's getting at is that a person's idea of being a consistent, persisting self is not a true concept in that it doesn't reflect actuality.

I would add, the concept of a persistent ego is contradictory to both phenomenological and scientific evidence.

People think they are a something that comes into being at birth and endure through their lifetimes and then disappear or go "elsewhere" at death. It's this concept of a persisting "something" with a label ("me", "I") that fools us into thinking we are set apart from the rest of nature; it's "out there," we're "in here." This idea neglects our connection with the rest of nature: we come from matter and energy in its various manifestations (which ultimately is what "I" am, whatever state that is at any given moment) and change to other manifestations.

A helpful hint might be to consider Herakleitos' "you cannot step into the same river twice" and ask, Is it only the river that's changed?

The most persistent quality of experienced reality (as opposed to conceptions about reality, trying to tie it down) are its complex, everchanging interrelations. Everything is constantly in motion, and any memory of a "me" that existed yesterday is just that -- an event called a memory, and it's happening now. I see reincarnation (and also karma) as an affirmation of all being's connections to everything else. The concept(s) are part of an ancient expression quite similar to what today would be called systems theory. A persisting Me that survives death is wishful thinking, no more real than a persisting Me that survives through the years of a life. To be sad about its demise at death is to misunderstand the self's nature -- everchanging states that are not limited to the concept of a personal, separated ego ... "I" am neither personal nor separate from what's "around me," so it's a misleading concept.

Magic Primate

Pachomius and David, I didn't realise I was being obscure. Abaddon summed it up nicely.

There is no substantial or enduring self. We are *not* the same from one moment to the next - even if we usually think and feel that we are. This is actually far more consistent with what we know of neurology and indeed with philosophical materialism than any dualistic philosophy of mind or quasi-dualistic common-sense psychology.

It was the (western, rationalist) philosopher Derek Parfit who finally convinced me of the inherent absurdity of our sense of a continuing self.

In a sense we 'die' and are 'born' every moment, IOW, there is a process of continuous change, which is absent of any permanent or fixed nature. You could call that 'rebirth' if you wanted.

More or less. Our minds classify various phenomena into 'self' and 'not-self', but really there is no self that 'has' thoughts any more than there is a 'not-self' that has rain. But thoughts and feelings exist just as rain does.

I suppose at this present moment of intellectualising they are 'beliefs' held with a high degree of certainty. I don't mean a belief in the sense of some faith-based dogma, but a view on reality which is confirmed by reason and observation.

It depends what you mean by 'you'. Thoughts and feelings exist, my fingers exist, a sense of self exists, but actually there is no separate 'me' that has all those things. 'Me' is just a conceptually and linguistically useful symbol, but does not have a real existence beyond that.

Magic Primate

What I mean is that although the sense of self is a real phenomenon, the sense it produces that we are continuous or separate entities that 'have' thoughts, feelings etc is an illusion.

That's an assumption and actually slightly offensive. Nowhere did I suggest that we shouldn't make use of our minds/brains. On the contrary, I'm a great believer in developing our mental faculties. And indeed, our sense of self is useful too, or at least it is useful to our genes.

But Buddhism is not about 'usefulness' in the sense of getting some advantage. It is a premise of Buddhism that the illusion that the sense of self generates is a source of avoidable suffering and dissatisfaction with life.

All concerns about 'what happens after we die' become absurd when we see through the illusion of a continuous and separate self.

danrael

That may be, but before you knew that, you had already stirred up karmic activity on this earthly plane, ie; cause and effect, which is still going on, and for which YOU are responsible. Dismissing for the moment the idea of reincarnation, what happens to all of this unpaid for karmic activity when you decide to exit this life? Do the rest of us simply shoulder it for you, and you either cease to exist or go on to some other existence without having to work out the suffering you caused before you understood that there was no "you" to have caused anything?

Anger

When the Tesshu, a master of Zen, calligraphy and swordsmanship, was a young man he called on the Zen master Dokuon. Wishing to impress Dokuon he said, “The mind, the Buddha, and all sentient beings after all do not exist. The true nature of phenomenon is emptiness. There is no realisation, no delusion, no sagacity, no mediocrity, nothing to give and nothing to receive.Dokuon promptly hit him with a bamboo stick. Tesshu became quite furious.Dokuon said quietly: “If nothing exists, where did this anger come from?�?

danrael

Excuse me? Exactly which beliefs are you referring to which you think Buddhists hold?