Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
No. Not in a solid, tangible, exact and definitive sense, it isn't....
and the same could be said of gravity or air but they're still real... It's a physical reaction. Does everyone here need to be smacked with a stick by a wise old monk like in that lil Buddhist tale?
buddhistically speaking - [not everything is real]
Where did the Buddha state that pain isn't real? He taught that it's not-self not that it isn't real.
. Does everyone here need to be smacked with a stick by a wise old monk like in that lil Buddhist tale?
I was going to quote that
And exactly oOMundus I always thought this pain is not real is new age 60's hippy crap. I was always told Bhudda was talking about mental constructs and the delusions our mind creates about reality. Not that there was no rreality
This "me"or "I" or "self" is merely a creation of your mind.
Is the computer screen you are looking at "merely a creation of your mind"? No. Neither are "you". You ARE your mind, or rather, a persistent phenomenon of your consciousness.
Daozen: Our ancestors evolved the sense of persistent self you're talking about to help them survive in a world mostly lacking science, learning and reason. It's an outdated tool of self-preservation.
How can a tool of self-preservation be 'outdated' if we use it effectively everyday? How can ANY tool of self-preservation be outdated, evolutionarily speaking?
Actually, medically speaking, the pain isn't "real" either. It's simply a bunch of electrical impulses in your brain. Attach a certain molecule to those particular receptor sites in your brain and there is no pain. So pain isn't any more real than any other perception.
federica: I'm saying figments of the imagination are also "real", but in a different way. Think about it, there are things which you are, in fact, imagining, things that you're not imagining, and things you could only imagine yourself imagining even if you tried, like this 6-dimensional Calabi-Yau shape:
How can a tool of self-preservation be 'outdated' if we use it effectively everyday? How can ANY tool of self-preservation be outdated, evolutionarily speaking?
We're not using it anymore. It's no longer useful when we have far better and more sophisticated ways of perceiving and understanding the world. Why must we keep using primitive, naturally evolved (or learned) tools?
Language can be misused in many ways, but it is never fundamentally, in and of itself, 'wrong'.
It is wrong when it trades accuracy and completeness of representation for concision. A fully accurate language would be something like this: http://www.ithkuil.net/ (not that these have 100% complete view or anything!)
Apparent reality, which is complete and accurate only to a certain extent, hence usually limited.
Gotta run!
PS. Being a Taoist, you should be trying to see things impartially from all valid perspectives including the Buddhist view.
BTW, it's a known fact that we shape expressions based on convention and aesthetic sensibility when using natural languages, rather than attempting to reflect the true mechanism of actual events. Ask any trained linguist, they're the group most skeptical about the reliability of natural language within the academia.
Is the computer screen you are looking at "merely a creation of your mind"? No. Neither are "you". You ARE your mind, or rather, a persistent phenomenon of your consciousness.
But your mind your consciousness is not permanent, it changes every moment. Your question is about permanent self, which implies either the Occidental concept of soul, or oriental concept of being one with the Toa / Brahma . Most Buddhism fundamental rejects this concept IMO. You are only your self in this moment, in the next your manner may change due to enviroment,, hormones or brain damage; your memory pathways will be rewritten, relinked. By retelling and rerunning of memories or simply by aging of physical links. We all constantly rewrite who we or others are in our mind.
So the question is if we are constanly rewriting what we are what is our real self? There is no real self as every moment we are recreating who we are. Our real self is a delusion brought on by clinging and our ego.
We're not using it [our sense of persistent self] anymore.
Well, I am certainly using it, and so is every human being I have ever met. And since you used the pronoun ‘we’ to indicate a sense of ‘you and I’, I’m pretty sure you use it too.<o></o>
No it's not. Language isn't maths. Correct language tells you nothing more than the aesthetic tastes of a certain group of speakers. … It [language] is wrong when it trades accuracy and completeness of representation for concision.
Mathematics, like natural language, it is a representational system of arbitrary symbols governed by rules of transition.
<o>
What you apparently meant to say was that natural language tends to be imprecise, which is a very different statement to flat out claiming it is ‘wrong’. On that point, I completely agree.
<o></o>
Namaste</o></o>
I never claimed to be supporting a permanent self in the sense of an eternal essence, ie like the Brahmic atman.
I originally used the term semi-permanent, but i subsequently decided that this was too imprecise and have switched to using 'persistent' instead. I'm talking about the basic self-awareness all human have throughout their lives, the sense they have of being themselves. In Buddhist terms, this might be called 'conventional', 'mundane' thinking, but my point i that this thinking is not to be casually dismissed just because people have read books about what enlightenment supposedly feels like.
I was always told that the thought everything is not real was incorrect, unskillful and is the fist step toward nihilism. ...
But there is reality around us. If the sun goes supernova try telling everyone it's delusion as you fry.
Daozen: Sorry, <o><o>I can't help you unless you're willing to participate. Go back and read everything that has been said with an open mind. Just to reiterate the parts you may have misunderstood: Unlike mathematics, natural language is necessarily and irrevocably wrong, because linguistic paradigms are essentially conservative artforms based on primitive and myopic idealizations that miss out on a lot of subtlety present in the real world. This allows, say, Platonic and Aristotlean metaphysics to be distilled out of the Indo-European grammatical structure as the set of basic ideas that evolved as "common sense" among the proto-Indo-European peoples, and which will probably remain in place until these memes evolve into something else. Please try not to mistake rustic country charm for sophisticated and transcendental wisdom that's still pertinent to modern life. Taking your native language as a guide on a serious philosophical investigation or a spiritual quest seems like a foolish waste of time to me, since you'd only be reinforcing the preconceptions which your parents and your grandparents held, while bulldozing over anything to the contrary!
Om mani padme hung
Let's pray that Daozen wakes up and sees the light. _o_
</o></o>
Daozen the important part of the quote from me is the part you've missed.
"Our mental constructs and memories of people / things are unreal and delusion."
If as I think you don't see a permanent self then you are on the same path as the other posters, the way this is interpreted varies from school to school even from person to person. I don't know enough about differences to help.
Please let me tell you where I come from my back ground is science and someone who was brought up an Irish catholic. So I don't come to Buddhism as someone who needs mysticism (nothing wrong with that) I've had enough bells and smoke to fill 10 life time. Rather the version of reality I have found thought my work and reading just happens to fit with the the world Buddhism. My wifes a psychologist I often proof read her work, so have a small understanding of the world of the brain and consciousness, it just happens that this fits again with Buddhism.
So I don't come from a background of reading about how enlightened being feel, I come from a background of science and just happen to find that the things that interest me fit with much of Buddhism.
I think no one here argues that there is no self (some schools may), what we say is the self re writes itself from thought moment to thought moment. So what we call the self has no solid essence, it is a delusion caused by a series of base elements.
We have given you many physical examples.
Change of demeanor,
hormone imbalance,
brain damage,
recreation of memories,
the way we see people from one moment to the next, he used to be myt best friend now I hate her,
Physical damage, if brad pitt had serious burns would he be the same brad pitt before the burns,
If you loose your sight will you be the same person.
However if you still believe there is some from of higher self,and you may be right, I think? some Zen schools hold this to be true, so perhaps you should look into them.
Perhaps thinking of it was ego or sould might be better for you?
Practically all of Daozen's concerns have been addressed within these 2 pages. There's little we can do if he chooses to keep ignoring our responses and voice his own preconceptions again and again. It's not like Buddhism is the only tradition that considers the self to be an ever-changing abstraction. Western process philosophy shares a similar view: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/process-philosophy/
Here's one area where you should consider improving your cooperation:
1) You have already been reminded about the relative self several times.
2) I've tried to explain that we can employ natural languages to communicate even when we disagree with their implied grammatical metaphysics the same way we use a shorthand notation without apotheosizing it into the universal transcendental language around which all meaning revolves. Actually, I don't understand this language objection. Do you refuse to believe Buddhism has a point if the Buddha is recorded as ever having used the word "I"? If I say "this one" instead of "I", is that proof I'm thinking differently? Please stop being superficial. Frankly, if I didn't know better, I'd say these imposed conditions follow from a false expectation that enlightenment is more like a disability than the flowering of wisdom. (which is what it would be if it rendered us incapable or unwilling to use correct English)
3) I've even shown you an actual language (Blackfoot) that works by directly describing emergent phenomena without analyzing everything in the manner of Platonism, thus handling the function of "personal pronouns" very differently from English and other Indo-European languages. (namely, by marking proximity rather than person) This article is pilfered from a psychology journal, so I'll let it speak for itself: http://forum.richarddawkins.net/viewtopic.php?f=18&t=105794 Unfortunately, I doubt telling you about the unique cultural outlook of the Piraha is going to do much good at this point. Look it up if you're interested.
The net result? Well, I'm not sure, since all those smilies might indicate that you're joking, but on face value, you still seem to be going "since you're using personal pronouns, you think the same way as I do, so now you're being pretentious lol" If you're actually serious, then I'm afraid this conversation ends here unless you're willing to explain the basis for your claim that the objective, essentialistic metaphysics of English grammar is universal, unchanging and/or unchangeable. To be honest, I don't understand your position very well either, so could you please clarify that too?
However if you still believe there is some from of higher self,and you may be right, I think?
No, I don't believe thatin any 'higher self'. I believe the plain old vanilla concept of persistent self is valid, natural & helpful along the path to other possible concepts of self, but which never becomes wholly redundant.
Daozen I don't know what vanilla self is, perhaps you should tell us what you think the "persistent" self is. I think we have "tried" to explain via our understanding of some branches of Buddhism and psychology why the self is delusional. That is something that is not permanent and is manipulable via changes of mental and physical agrigates?
But you do not present a case, you'er simply saying you don't agree. It is a like this sort of argument
Poster A "I think Jesus is God"
Rest of forum "we don't and present argument A, B, C"
Poster A "I still think he's God"
Rest of forum "OK we present argument D, E F How do you reply"
Poster A "No No No"
So there's no debate you've made up your mind, with out presenting an argument
Originally Posted by tony67 if brad pitt had serious burns would he be the same brad pitt before the burns
Yes.
You can say either yes or no to these questions as you like, as long as you're consistent. Being a metaphysical question, it comes down to a matter of view. Aristotle would've said yes, the Buddha would've said no, and they'd both be "right" so long as they're consistent. However, I'd argue that the Buddha's realization of the fundamental point here is better thought out and results in a more consistent and fully inclusive worldview, while Aristotle is being superstitious, falling into wishful thinking and needlessly complicating his overall scheme, all for the sake of language. It's not worth it. It's going to hold together for conventional speech in a barbaric age, but cause a lot of problems in the future.
BTW, there's no such thing as a vanilla anything in the macroscopic world.
Daozen I don't know what vanilla self is, perhaps you should tell us what you think the "persistent" self is. I think we have "tried" to explain via our understanding of some branches of Buddhism and psychology why the self is delusional. That is something that is not permanent and is manipulable via changes of mental and physical agrigates?
I think I've already explained it in various ways, but i'm happy to continue explaining it.
When you look at old photos of yourself, you think “Wow, i've changed so much”. And of course you have, both physically and mentally. But my point is that the 'new' you still knows that the 'old' you in the photo is fundamentally the same person, ie, YOU. Despite change, there is a level of consistency that allows us to recognise this persistent phenomenon.
Hence, when Brad Pitt has serious burns he may look different, but he will still know that he is Brad Pitt. And so will we. His 'self' has persisted. Ditto the person who becomes blind.
Now, what did Buddha think about this everyday reality of our selves? Did he deny it? No. Did he say we didn't exist? No. In fact what Buddha DID say about ourselves was that we shouldn't necessarily get attached to our idea of self. This however does NOT mean that we should completely deny it exists at all. Just as we accept the idea of a table, a river, the sun and the moon, we can accept the idea of ourselves.
Of course Buddha was critical of the idea of an eternal self, the atman, but I have never claimed to support the idea of an eternal atman, soul or anything like that.
Then we have the teachings of emptiness. Unlike conventional, mundane, reality, the teachings of emptiness convey ultimate, absolute reality. It's a reality where “there is neither form ...nor body, nor mind … no path, no understanding, no attainment” (Heart Sutra). Unfortunately, this incredible teaching leads many people astray because they do not understand its deep message, and they get carried away with half-baked nihilistic ideas such as “nothing exists”, or, “the conventional self doesn't exist”.
Daozen I suspect you already had the answer you wanted long before you asked.
You are looking for an argument and the chance to lecture about "nothing exists" unfortunately you didn't get one. But still insist on your lecture anyway. As I was pointed out almost every school never mind every person has there own twist on this. Of course I'm sure yours is right
PS IT'S CONSIDERED BAD MANNERS USING CAPITALS as it means you are shouting at people
Everything conditioned is impermanent. I think the OP uses semi, to refer to the persistence of self, his view that because you recognize yourself from a photo you have a semi-permanent.
In the same way others myself included use it for seeing yourself in this moment, a bit like in this moment the mountain is real, 70 million years ago it was not, in 100 million it will not be again.
But you are grammatically right, but soemtimes people use wrong language as the concept is hard to get across in a quick way.
Daozen I suspect you already had the answer you wanted long before you asked.
I seriously didn't. I have learned much from the comments and links. Thank you for yours. My last post was a short summary of where my understanding has 'come to'. I believe it fits with Buddhist teachings, but of course some may disagree.
Everything conditioned is impermanent. I think the OP uses semi, to refer to the persistence of self, his view that because you recognize yourself from a photo you have a semi-permanent.
In the same way others myself included use it for seeing yourself in this moment, a bit like in this moment the mountain is real, 70 million years ago it was not, in 100 million it will not be again.
But you are grammatically right, but soemtimes people use wrong language as the concept is hard to get across in a quick way.
If I poke you in the eye with a stick, they'll be no pain right? Perhaps you won't go blind as reality is just an illusion?
"If you prick us do we not bleed? If you tickle us do we not laugh? If you poison us do we not die?"
Will Shakespear
If I poke you in the eye with a stick, they'll be no pain right? Perhaps you won't go blind as reality is just an illusion?
"If you prick us do we not bleed? If you tickle us do we not laugh? If you poison us do we not die?"
Will Shakespear
You're using Shakespear to counter Buddha?!
Anyways, Shakespear's criticism presupposes his conclusion in his premises. When criticizing the claim that reality is an illusion, you don't counter it by saying pain is real or using an appeal to emotion. Of course we will bleed, of course will go blind, but all of those occurrences are still part of the illusions of reality, despite our weak thresholds of pain.
When criticizing the claim that reality is an illusion, you don't counter it by saying pain is real or using an appeal to emotion. Of course we will bleed, of course will go blind, but all of those occurrences are still part of the illusions of reality, despite our weak thresholds of pain.
.
Do you mean "you" as in me, which I most certainly do. Or do you mean "you" people who object to your assertion in general.
Do you mean "you" as in me, which I most certainly do. Or do you mean "you" people who object to your assertion in general.
I was referring to this:
"If I poke you in the eye with a stick, they'll be no pain right? Perhaps you won't go blind as reality is just an illusion?
"If you prick us do we not bleed? If you tickle us do we not laugh? If you poison us do we not die?"
Will Shakespear"
Which I thought was all just one quote from Shakespear and that's what I attempted to refute.
No only the only the bit in quotes, there's no " before the first if.
Also the sentence you use is only part of a much larger debate, it's problematic just quoting one sentence from a much large more complicated debate. I'm not learned enough to quote scripture but I don't think that is from any Gautama Buddha quote I've read? Nice webpage BTW. Really enjoyed it.
Comments
and the same could be said of gravity or air but they're still real... It's a physical reaction. Does everyone here need to be smacked with a stick by a wise old monk like in that lil Buddhist tale?
Where did the Buddha state that pain isn't real? He taught that it's not-self not that it isn't real.
I was going to quote that
And exactly oOMundus I always thought this pain is not real is new age 60's hippy crap. I was always told Bhudda was talking about mental constructs and the delusions our mind creates about reality. Not that there was no rreality
That's the point. There are no existents whatsoever in Buddhist metaphysics.
No, certain molecular configurations represent certain figments of the imagination as perceived by the individual in a different level of abstraction.
Of course it's not in the suttas, I'm talking about how Buddhist metaphysics relates to conventional language.
Dhamma Dhatu – I thought your post #42 was spot on.
Is the computer screen you are looking at "merely a creation of your mind"? No. Neither are "you". You ARE your mind, or rather, a persistent phenomenon of your consciousness.
How can a tool of self-preservation be 'outdated' if we use it effectively everyday? How can ANY tool of self-preservation be outdated, evolutionarily speaking?
That's like saying 'mathematics is wrong'. Language can be misused in many ways, but it is never fundamentally, in and of itself, 'wrong'.
Perception is reality for the perceiver.
a) Gravity, light and sound are not 'solid', but they are real. b) If you can read this post, it's tangible.
See post #42.
A figment is by definition a representative image or model.
Namaste
We're not using it anymore. It's no longer useful when we have far better and more sophisticated ways of perceiving and understanding the world. Why must we keep using primitive, naturally evolved (or learned) tools?
No it's not. Language isn't maths. Correct language tells you nothing more than the aesthetic tastes of a certain group of speakers.
It is wrong when it trades accuracy and completeness of representation for concision. A fully accurate language would be something like this: http://www.ithkuil.net/ (not that these have 100% complete view or anything!)
Apparent reality, which is complete and accurate only to a certain extent, hence usually limited.
Gotta run!
PS. Being a Taoist, you should be trying to see things impartially from all valid perspectives including the Buddhist view.
BTW, it's a known fact that we shape expressions based on convention and aesthetic sensibility when using natural languages, rather than attempting to reflect the true mechanism of actual events. Ask any trained linguist, they're the group most skeptical about the reliability of natural language within the academia.
But your mind your consciousness is not permanent, it changes every moment. Your question is about permanent self, which implies either the Occidental concept of soul, or oriental concept of being one with the Toa / Brahma . Most Buddhism fundamental rejects this concept IMO. You are only your self in this moment, in the next your manner may change due to enviroment,, hormones or brain damage; your memory pathways will be rewritten, relinked. By retelling and rerunning of memories or simply by aging of physical links. We all constantly rewrite who we or others are in our mind.
So the question is if we are constanly rewriting what we are what is our real self? There is no real self as every moment we are recreating who we are. Our real self is a delusion brought on by clinging and our ego.
Well, I am certainly using it, and so is every human being I have ever met. And since you used the pronoun ‘we’ to indicate a sense of ‘you and I’, I’m pretty sure you use it too.<o></o>
<o> Mathematics, like natural language, it is a representational system of arbitrary symbols governed by rules of transition.
<o>
What you apparently meant to say was that natural language tends to be imprecise, which is a very different statement to flat out claiming it is ‘wrong’. On that point, I completely agree.
<o></o>
Namaste</o></o>
I never claimed to be supporting a permanent self in the sense of an eternal essence, ie like the Brahmic atman.
I originally used the term semi-permanent, but i subsequently decided that this was too imprecise and have switched to using 'persistent' instead. I'm talking about the basic self-awareness all human have throughout their lives, the sense they have of being themselves. In Buddhist terms, this might be called 'conventional', 'mundane' thinking, but my point i that this thinking is not to be casually dismissed just because people have read books about what enlightenment supposedly feels like.
Exactly.
Om mani padme hung
Let's pray that Daozen wakes up and sees the light. _o_
</o></o>
"Our mental constructs and memories of people / things are unreal and delusion."
If as I think you don't see a permanent self then you are on the same path as the other posters, the way this is interpreted varies from school to school even from person to person. I don't know enough about differences to help.
Please let me tell you where I come from my back ground is science and someone who was brought up an Irish catholic. So I don't come to Buddhism as someone who needs mysticism (nothing wrong with that) I've had enough bells and smoke to fill 10 life time. Rather the version of reality I have found thought my work and reading just happens to fit with the the world Buddhism. My wifes a psychologist I often proof read her work, so have a small understanding of the world of the brain and consciousness, it just happens that this fits again with Buddhism.
So I don't come from a background of reading about how enlightened being feel, I come from a background of science and just happen to find that the things that interest me fit with much of Buddhism.
I think no one here argues that there is no self (some schools may), what we say is the self re writes itself from thought moment to thought moment. So what we call the self has no solid essence, it is a delusion caused by a series of base elements.
We have given you many physical examples.
Change of demeanor,
hormone imbalance,
brain damage,
recreation of memories,
the way we see people from one moment to the next, he used to be myt best friend now I hate her,
Physical damage, if brad pitt had serious burns would he be the same brad pitt before the burns,
If you loose your sight will you be the same person.
However if you still believe there is some from of higher self,and you may be right, I think? some Zen schools hold this to be true, so perhaps you should look into them.
Perhaps thinking of it was ego or sould might be better for you?
Here's one area where you should consider improving your cooperation:
1) You have already been reminded about the relative self several times.
2) I've tried to explain that we can employ natural languages to communicate even when we disagree with their implied grammatical metaphysics the same way we use a shorthand notation without apotheosizing it into the universal transcendental language around which all meaning revolves. Actually, I don't understand this language objection. Do you refuse to believe Buddhism has a point if the Buddha is recorded as ever having used the word "I"? If I say "this one" instead of "I", is that proof I'm thinking differently? Please stop being superficial. Frankly, if I didn't know better, I'd say these imposed conditions follow from a false expectation that enlightenment is more like a disability than the flowering of wisdom. (which is what it would be if it rendered us incapable or unwilling to use correct English)
3) I've even shown you an actual language (Blackfoot) that works by directly describing emergent phenomena without analyzing everything in the manner of Platonism, thus handling the function of "personal pronouns" very differently from English and other Indo-European languages. (namely, by marking proximity rather than person) This article is pilfered from a psychology journal, so I'll let it speak for itself: http://forum.richarddawkins.net/viewtopic.php?f=18&t=105794 Unfortunately, I doubt telling you about the unique cultural outlook of the Piraha is going to do much good at this point. Look it up if you're interested.
The net result? Well, I'm not sure, since all those smilies might indicate that you're joking, but on face value, you still seem to be going "since you're using personal pronouns, you think the same way as I do, so now you're being pretentious lol" If you're actually serious, then I'm afraid this conversation ends here unless you're willing to explain the basis for your claim that the objective, essentialistic metaphysics of English grammar is universal, unchanging and/or unchangeable. To be honest, I don't understand your position very well either, so could you please clarify that too?
Yes.
Yes.
No, I don't believe thatin any 'higher self'. I believe the plain old vanilla concept of persistent self is valid, natural & helpful along the path to other possible concepts of self, but which never becomes wholly redundant.
Namaste
But you do not present a case, you'er simply saying you don't agree. It is a like this sort of argument
Poster A "I think Jesus is God"
Rest of forum "we don't and present argument A, B, C"
Poster A "I still think he's God"
Rest of forum "OK we present argument D, E F How do you reply"
Poster A "No No No"
So there's no debate you've made up your mind, with out presenting an argument
BTW, there's no such thing as a vanilla anything in the macroscopic world.
I think I've already explained it in various ways, but i'm happy to continue explaining it.
When you look at old photos of yourself, you think “Wow, i've changed so much”. And of course you have, both physically and mentally. But my point is that the 'new' you still knows that the 'old' you in the photo is fundamentally the same person, ie, YOU. Despite change, there is a level of consistency that allows us to recognise this persistent phenomenon.
Hence, when Brad Pitt has serious burns he may look different, but he will still know that he is Brad Pitt. And so will we. His 'self' has persisted. Ditto the person who becomes blind.
Now, what did Buddha think about this everyday reality of our selves? Did he deny it? No. Did he say we didn't exist? No. In fact what Buddha DID say about ourselves was that we shouldn't necessarily get attached to our idea of self. This however does NOT mean that we should completely deny it exists at all. Just as we accept the idea of a table, a river, the sun and the moon, we can accept the idea of ourselves.
Of course Buddha was critical of the idea of an eternal self, the atman, but I have never claimed to support the idea of an eternal atman, soul or anything like that.
Then we have the teachings of emptiness. Unlike conventional, mundane, reality, the teachings of emptiness convey ultimate, absolute reality. It's a reality where “there is neither form ...nor body, nor mind … no path, no understanding, no attainment” (Heart Sutra). Unfortunately, this incredible teaching leads many people astray because they do not understand its deep message, and they get carried away with half-baked nihilistic ideas such as “nothing exists”, or, “the conventional self doesn't exist”.
Namaste
You are looking for an argument and the chance to lecture about "nothing exists" unfortunately you didn't get one. But still insist on your lecture anyway. As I was pointed out almost every school never mind every person has there own twist on this. Of course I'm sure yours is right
PS IT'S CONSIDERED BAD MANNERS USING CAPITALS as it means you are shouting at people
In the same way others myself included use it for seeing yourself in this moment, a bit like in this moment the mountain is real, 70 million years ago it was not, in 100 million it will not be again.
But you are grammatically right, but soemtimes people use wrong language as the concept is hard to get across in a quick way.
I seriously didn't. I have learned much from the comments and links. Thank you for yours. My last post was a short summary of where my understanding has 'come to'. I believe it fits with Buddhist teachings, but of course some may disagree.
I was prompted by comments i kept hearing about no-self which annoyed me.
Point taken.
Agree. That's why i now say "persistent" instead.
Yes that's true.
Namaste
"A wise man, recognizing that the world is but an illusion, does not act as if it is real, so he escapes the suffering." - Gautama Buddha
"If you prick us do we not bleed? If you tickle us do we not laugh? If you poison us do we not die?"
Will Shakespear
Source for this actual quote within the tipitaka rather than an inspirational quote website?
You're using Shakespear to counter Buddha?!
Anyways, Shakespear's criticism presupposes his conclusion in his premises. When criticizing the claim that reality is an illusion, you don't counter it by saying pain is real or using an appeal to emotion. Of course we will bleed, of course will go blind, but all of those occurrences are still part of the illusions of reality, despite our weak thresholds of pain.
.
Source:
http://www.amidabuddha.org/buddha1-2.html
.
I know my quote is by Shakespear. Please don't say Marlowe really wrote it
Do you mean "you" as in me, which I most certainly do. Or do you mean "you" people who object to your assertion in general.
I was referring to this:
"If I poke you in the eye with a stick, they'll be no pain right? Perhaps you won't go blind as reality is just an illusion?
"If you prick us do we not bleed? If you tickle us do we not laugh? If you poison us do we not die?"
Will Shakespear"
Which I thought was all just one quote from Shakespear and that's what I attempted to refute.
Also the sentence you use is only part of a much larger debate, it's problematic just quoting one sentence from a much large more complicated debate. I'm not learned enough to quote scripture but I don't think that is from any Gautama Buddha quote I've read? Nice webpage BTW. Really enjoyed it.