Just accept the no-self doctrine is false and move on. Anyway I think I have disproven this doctrine beyond a reason of doubt now.
Buddhism loses. Hinduism wins 
The following shows a formal debate in ancient India between Adisankara and a great rival Mimasa philosopher. I think many people here too arrogant to accept they have lost a debate should watch this and note that there is honor in losing as well.
Those who lose a debate but do not accept it are dishonorable. They will never know truth because they have blinded themselves.
[QUOTE=FlexPenguin;34661]I’ll have to look for another partner in the upcoming Dharma tournament at Banff Springs.
Surya Deva, a lot of the conversation revolves around you. You are a very assertive person, no doubt. Your youth is full of ‘aha’ moments and you have chosen an ‘aha’ path. Bear in mind many of us have been down our ‘aha’ paths too, but keep propheteering. It’s a fun read.[/QUOTE]
Wow, your spot on!! He does have all these ‘aha’ moments. It’s always the ones who have figured it out, that clearly have no idea. Look at him having a go at Lotusgirl’s husband. I’d love to see how long SD would last at my local pub lol
You’re just going to have to get use to my straight forward and blunt approach. I do not faff about and say it as it is - straight to the point.
I do not put on acts of feigning politeness. If I am convinced something is true or something is false I will say it direct.
Speaking truth is one of the yamas of Yoga. I am afraid many of you are not as polite as you try to put on. I can see through it 
[QUOTE=Surya Deva;34699]Speaking truth is one of the yamas of Yoga. I am afraid many of you are not as polite as you try to put on. I can see through it ;)[/QUOTE]
Yeah, but having a go at peoples families is not one of the yamas! Talking bulls@#t is not one of the yamas! Calling people weak for taking anti-depressants is not one of the yamas! Thinking your always right is not one of the yamas! Why don’t you blow the dust off your mat, and go actually do a bit of yoga, instead of preaching.
Yeah, but having a go at peoples families is not one of the yamas!
I did not have a go at Lotusgirl’s husband. I merely presented an example to show that if she really does believe in the doctrine of no self then EITHER her husband is an imposter and the masters degree does not belong to him, because the one who worked for it is not the same person as the who has it OR the doctrine of no-self is false.
Talking bulls@#t is not one of the yamas!
I have not done any such thing. I have spoken facts since I’ve got here.
Calling people weak for taking anti-depressants is not one of the yamas!
So somebody who is taking anti-depressants is strong? Can you imagine a happy and successful person taking anti-depressants? You take anti-depressants if you have a weakess not if you’re strong.
Thinking your always right is not one of the yamas!
I am open to refutations all the time. I will revise my views based on the evidence presented. I am definitely right most of the time though, because I always think very carefully before I make a statement. I rarely get much wrong. If I am wrong I will readily admit it.
Thanks to Wikipedia I don’t have to write it out.
In Buddhism, anattā (Pāli) or anātman (Sanskrit: अनात्मन्) refers to the notion of “not-self”. In the early texts, the Buddha commonly uses the word in the context of teaching that all things perceived by the senses (including the mental sense) are not really “I” or “mine”, and for this reason one should not cling to them.
In the same vein, the Pali suttas (and parallel āgamas, both referred to collectively below as the nikayas), categorize the phenomena experienced by a being into five groups (“khandhas”) that serve as the objects of clinging, and the basis for a sense of self. In the Nikayas, the Buddha repeatedly emphasizes not only that the five khandhas of living being “not-self”, that is, not “I” or “mine”, but that clinging to them as if they were “what I am”, or were “mine”, gives rise to unhappiness.
According to the early texts, while on the path, one should develop oneself in healthy and liberating ways, only letting go of the attempt to improve the self as it becomes unnecessary.[1]
The one scriptural passage where Gautama is asked by a layperson what the meaning of anatta is as follows: [Samyutta Nikaya] At one time in Savatthi, the venerable Radha seated himself and asked of the Blessed Lord Buddha: “Anatta, anatta I hear said venerable. What pray tell does Anatta mean?” “Just this, Radha, form is not the self (anatta), sensations are not the self (anatta), perceptions are not the self (anatta), assemblages are not the self (anatta), consciousness is not the self (anatta). Seeing thusly, this is the end of birth, the Brahman life has been fulfilled, what must be done has been done.
YAWN.
I agree Scales.
Buddha is not denying the Self, he is denying what we think to be the self. He is denying “I-am-that-ness” not “I-am-ness”
It is a shame how Buddhists have distorted his teaching into the stupid life denying and nihilistic doctrine of no self.
[QUOTE=Surya Deva;34713]I agree Scales.
Buddha is not denying the Self, he is denying what we think to be the self. He is denying “I-am-that-ness” not “I-am-ness”
It is a shame how Buddhists have distorted his teaching into the stupid life denying and nihilistic doctrine of no self.[/QUOTE]
SD…
I honestly dont’ know any buddhists. So I can’t say one way or another if this 'there is no self" pervades Buddhism. I personally don’t view the teaching as such.
Like I’ve said before . . . I agree with alan watts . . . Buddhism is basically hinduism stripped for export.
Stripped of the Caste system. Stripped of reliance on the Brahmins. Stripped of the various Personifications of the Ultimate Reality. Stripped of all the mythology. Stripped of all the fluff.
Leaving the essentials.
[QUOTE=Pawel;34651]Hi Sasha,
Could you provide link to this “face test”. Sounds interesting.
About “holistic-divisive” mind I think both aspects are necessary. Is it even related to brain hemispheres? With left more analytical and right more holistic? I guess we should learn how to use both and not identify with just one of them and praise one at cost of the other. That would be limiting our mind which is greater than its aspects (holistic/divisive and others).[/QUOTE]
Namaste Pawel,
Holistic mind and divisive mind are not equivalent, because while divisive mind does not have holistic mind, holistic mind has both.
[QUOTE=Surya Deva;34719]Namaste Pawel,
Holistic mind and divisive mind are not equivalent, because while divisive mind does not have holistic mind, holistic mind has both.[/QUOTE]
Namaste Surya,
Sure, if you define holistic mind as consisting divisive skills - sort of “over-mind”. I just thought I hear echo of “reductionism-holism” conflict. For me this conflict is a symptom of identity struggle which can lock up someone for long time. One can argue all life which type of description is more proper and never move beyond intellectual level of identity. And from more existential level of awareness there is no real conflict. Just two approaches trying hard to describe the overwhelming extraordinariness of existence. And it is as useful and correct as trying to explain mental concepts (e.g. mathematics) using feelings.
[QUOTE=The Scales;34718]SD…
I honestly dont’ know any buddhists. So I can’t say one way or another if this 'there is no self" pervades Buddhism. I personally don’t view the teaching as such.
Like I’ve said before . . . I agree with alan watts . . . Buddhism is basically hinduism stripped for export.
Stripped of the Caste system. Stripped of reliance on the Brahmins. Stripped of the various Personifications of the Ultimate Reality. Stripped of all the mythology. Stripped of all the fluff.
Leaving the essentials.[/QUOTE]
It is basically the true meaning of Hinduism because it is closer to the Vedic times when there was no mythology, no birth based caste system, no personifications. All these different religions that came later like Shivaism, Vaishnavism, Shaktism came much later. I am not condemning them though because they still adhere to the old Vedic religion, they simply add loads of new stuff to it(idol worship, mythology, temples) There were no temples and idols in Vedic times.
[QUOTE=Pawel;34722]Namaste Surya,
Sure, if you define holistic mind as consisting divisive skills - sort of “over-mind”. I just thought I hear echo of “reductionism-holism” conflict. For me this conflict is a symptom of identity struggle which can lock up someone for long time. One can argue all life which type of description is more proper and never move beyond intellectual level of identity. And from more existential level of awareness there is no real conflict. Just two approaches trying hard to describe the overwhelming extraordinariness of existence. And it is as useful and correct as trying to explain mental concepts (e.g. mathematics) using feelings.[/QUOTE]
I watched a video of Ken Wilber recently and I loved how he classified different religions. He said some religions are magical(shamanism) some are mythical(Judaism) some are emotional(Christianity) some are rational(Buddhism) and some are anti-rational(Zen Buddhism) and some are trans-rational(Hinduism). Now trans-rational is a religion that does not reject the rational(reductionism) but also teaches one to transcend rationality(through mystical experience).
In this sense what is holistic can only be holistic if it can also account for the rational as well. This is my favourite thing about Hinduism it recognises the rational(aparavidya) and transrational(paravidya) are both necessary for full knowledge. Krishna says in the Gita know both the knower and the field and the relationship between them and this is true knowledge. If you only know one without the other your knowledge is incomplete. This is why in Hinduism all kinds of sciences are encouraged and all kinds of methods of knowing truth(empirical, rational, and mystical) are recognised.
Hi, Pawel.
I read it in Russian, here http://www.membrana.ru/lenta/?10056
they referenced to this site (in English)
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6VRT-4X0FH86-5&_user=10&_coverDate=09%2F29%2F2009&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=564eed340255793351f401f7efe925b6
another link, is it ok that i`ve used so many of them in one post? )
http://www.physorg.com/news183724341.html
what a fast thread )
[QUOTE=Sasha;34748]Hi, Pawel.
I read it in Russian, here http://www.membrana.ru/lenta/?10056
they referenced to this site (in English)
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6VRT-4X0FH86-5&_user=10&_coverDate=09%2F29%2F2009&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=564eed340255793351f401f7efe925b6
another link, is it ok that i`ve used so many of them in one post? )
http://www.physorg.com/news183724341.html
what a fast thread )[/QUOTE]
Thanks Sasha,
Fascinating study. However I failed to understand conclusion that easterners haver more holistic approach and westerners more analytical. It seems its not supported by this study. Both groups had set of face features that they based interpretation and they just were different (nose for easterners and eyes and lips for westerners). And even opposite - easterners fixated on smaller area so they didn’t perform well.
“… showing that Eastern observers use a culture-specific decoding strategy that is inadequate to reliably distinguish universal facial expressions of ?fear? and ?disgust.? Rather than distributing their fixations evenly across the face as Westerners do, Eastern observers persistently fixate the eye region. Using a model information sampler, we demonstrate that by persistently fixating the eyes, Eastern observers sample ambiguous information, thus causing significant confusion.”
Nevertheless, amazing. To think such things like emotion reading is in part in our DNA…
[QUOTE=Pawel;34763]Thanks Sasha,
Fascinating study. However I failed to understand conclusion that easterners haver more holistic approach and westerners more analytical. [/QUOTE]
Pawel, i think the fact that Easterns fixate on the nose [U]does[/U] mean the holistic approach (or type of perception, since it is unconscious). My opinion is that they fixate on one point not to analyse it but to grab some information around using more complicated algorythm (which is out of our consciousness, and so we call it holistic) of working with it. Westerns actually analyse running from one point to another, collecting information gradually.
Also, I think its not a prerogative of Easteners to use this more advanced (as I see it) type of perception. Almost everybody use it. Its a question of predominance and situation.
[quote=Pawel;34763]
Nevertheless, amazing. To think such things like emotion reading is in part in our DNA…[/quote]
Interesting.
They now say that DNA can and does change within one life-time. I think it was previously thought this was not the case.
[QUOTE=Sasha;34766]Pawel, i think the fact that Easterns fixate on the nose [U]does[/U] mean the holistic approach (or type of perception, since it is unconscious). My opinion is that they fixate on one point not to analyse it but to grab some information around using more complicated algorythm (which is out of our consciousness, and so we call it holistic) of working with it. Westerns actually analyse running from one point to another, collecting information gradually.
Also, I think its not a prerogative of Easteners to use this more advanced (as I see it) type of perception. Almost everybody use it. Its a question of predominance and situation.[/QUOTE]
Hm, then I don’t understand why they scored less in emotion recognition if they used more complicated and holistic algorithm. I would expect more holistic perception would make you more sensitive to expressed emotions. I have to get original of this paper to clear out - couldn’t download it from home… Most probably its something super-specific which was blown up out of proportion by journalist to a message that easterners are more holistic
[QUOTE=core789;34767]Interesting.
They now say that DNA can and does change within one life-time. I think it was previously thought this was not the case.[/QUOTE]
True. One sad example is cancer - its caused by mutation in DNA…
[quote=siva;34221]Suhas,
Since the human mind and body have remained essentially unchanged without evolution over the past 5000 years[/quote]
One of the universal mistakes we need to get rid of.
It is easy to be nostalgic about the golden age of humanity, and cry about the darkness of kali yuga. This makes people to cherish ancient wisdom as the highest. It’s also easy as we really only have scarce evidence how people lived and felt in those times. Much of we think about them is just projecting our unconscious assumptions on them.
I have lived in the time of Arjuna, the charriot driver. I have lived in the time of Zarathustra, the breadmaker, too. And in the time of the swift footed Achilles. (Our best athletes fail compared to him. But read what Sivananda or other sages say about the quality of human bodies today.)
And I am living today. I have learnt what there was to be learnt in those times, and I am learning what is to be learnt today. There is no need for me to go back, but to realize what I already have aquired. The gist of the work is to aquire what can only be aquired today, to reach what can only be reached today.