No, but then again do you not have to say it. It is implied. It is obvious to everybody that a Buddhist wants enlightenment. This is the goal of Buddhism. You would not be putting yourself through all that pain sitting long hours in meditation if this was not true. You want enlightenment. Nothing wrong with that, I think myself and Thomas would respect your religious goals more if you were honest about it.
Now this is funny. You the Philosophical debater, assuming. Funny. Very funny.
Nothing dishonest about my goals.
Honesty has been a recurrent theme in my criticisms of your views. Interesting.
So are you calling me a liar? Interesting. There is no need on my part to defend this attack.
So you use I for practical purposes, but do not believe it exists? If that is the case then why are you emotionally invested in the “I” Why did you react with outrage when I said that your husband is either an imposter or the anatta doctrine is false. You said to me, “My husband has worked his ass off” Why do you react with such great frustration and threaten you will leave the forum and call this sad, if you do not believe there is no you? I am sorry but actions speak louder than words, and it is clear to any objective person you believe in the “I” and are as invested in it, as the average joe.
Again, be honest.
You keep bringing this up WHY? I think saying my husband worked his ass off for his degree does not equate with anger. You on the other hand, if you shared more of that debate, were angry with me. Yes, let’s be honest.
No worries, I expected this of you Like I said Buddhists are walking-talking contradictions. One moment they say something, the other moment they say the opposite. And this is to be expected from a religion where change is seen as sacred.
You know so little SD.
However, for the reasonable person somebody who does not have a stable and coherent viewpoint has no credibility. Why should I, or any other reasonable person, take you seriously, when you yourself do not take anything you say seriously.
After all you do not exist, so why should I take anything seriously by somebody who does not exist
Personal attacks. Again, you know so little.
In your mind that maybe the case, but in actuality you have still not answered our simple question: Who is the one that remembers the changes and remembers themselves as the person who witnessed those changes over 50 years?
Why bother, to be honest. It matters not what I, yes I say. It will be disregarded as fluff.
I am familiar with Shunyatavada(doctrine of void/emptiness) and it is definitely believed that everything is ultimately void. The void is everything. If you dissect any concept, object ultimately you reduce it to nothingness. You can no longer claim I am ignorant of Buddhism. I studied Buddhism at university, I did my exam question on Buddhism and now I have actually lived like a monk in a Buddhist centre for a week.
Yes I can. Again, you know so little.
There is “you” and then is one that observes “you” There is the “you” that is changing, growing, evolving and then there is the one that remains constant. Who is the one that remains constant and who is the one that is growing up, learning, getting married and raising children.