t has come to mmedate attenton ther are ndvduals wth ntensons to be a bt rrtatng n ther nsstance about the ncluson of the partcular use of the n buddhsm so 'm leavng t out
hope ths satsfes and doesnt convennce you.
Ps not really here
VOD < 0…ok
Not here
g o n e
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.
Or like I said before based on SD’s post… any rational reader can see that SD simply does not understand… it all depends on your point of view
But either way it is not worth getting upset about…SD is right…as usual… and if you doubt him all you need to do is ask him and he will tell you how right he is.
You cannot debate, argue or discuss with a person with a closed mind that knows they are right no matter what the truth might be
I admit I don’t understand what it means that I have no “self.”
I wish someone would explain that.
I know at times I’ve been selfless, and cared more about others. A greater amount of the time, I’ve been selfish, thinking mostly about “number 1.” There are times when I want to be with others, but there are times when I want to be just “by myself.”
Who is this “self” we talk about? If it’s an “illusion” then am I not being deceived? If so, then who is being deceived?
I have memories of when I was in grade school, high scool, and college. Any point in that time line I could look back to where I was the year before. My knowledge increased. I became taller. My externals changed continuously, yet there was a certain “core” that seems to have been constant–like an observer throughout my life, watching myself grow and learn, get married, raise children, etc. This “center” is what seems to be “me” and this “me” has been substantially constant, perhaps changing in some ways, but in growth and development, not in becoming something different.
I also asked a legitimate question several times in several ways that has never been answered–Is the self like a drop of water that becomes one with the ocean, or like an ice cube the melts into one big puddle? That’s what the Buddhist seems to be saying, but if not, can someone illustrate it in a way I could understand?
Stop wishing, stop craving, and stop longing all this leads to suffering.
Just know, just except, and just understand
Don’t think…do
Live for today not for tomorrow
If all you focus on is the end you will miss now
You concentrate on the reward, heaven, god, eternal reward and you miss now, and you miss life, which is suffering.
These things are not either/or.
One can think AND do.
One can think about the reward, AND enjoy life.
We would not have any good things without desire.
I can agree, of course, that wrong desires can lead to suffering.
But I’m perplexed how anyone can think good desires are bad.
Think Quantum Physics or a drop of water whatever you like it is pretty much up to you to figure it out it is not something that you can be told and if I had to guess most Buddhist would tell you that you’re thinking way too much.
I just need to add that SD’s tactic is to get up Lotusgirls nose by bringing up the word honesty to dig and her husband to dig deeper…this is to keep the fire stoked else it might go out…
Perception and form are both false SD and Thomas??we need to relinquish our attachment to them…
sight, sound, smell, taste, touch, thinking is unreal…will that do SD and Thomas…so this makes Lotusgirl spot on chappies…sorry SD and Thomas…both of you are up the creek without a paddle.
Now no boo hooing you two…my vision has come back again…baseball caps turned sideways, noses running, long shorts below the knee, spitting on ground every few feet, kicking the dust as you go whilst chewing gum and carrying Superman comic in back pockets…ahh yes, i see it …xxx
Thomas
I admit I don’t understand what it means that I have no “self.”
Yep this is because of ego Thomas…this is why xx
[QUOTE=thomas;44073]These things are not either/or.
One can think AND do.
One can think about the reward, AND enjoy life.
We would not have any good things without desire.
I can agree, of course, that wrong desires can lead to suffering.
But I’m perplexed how anyone can think good desires are bad.[/QUOTE]
The desires are not good or bad it is the desiring that is the issue and your thinking way to much
Perception and form are both false SD and Thomas??we need to relinquish our attachment to them…
sight, sound, smell, taste, touch, thinking is unreal…will that do SD and Thomas…so this makes Lotusgirl spot on chappies…sorry SD and Thomas…both of you are up the creek without a paddle.
None of these things are “real”? Why not?
And how do I give up my attachment to my eyesight, and why would I want to? I wouldn’t be able to read your post if I didn’t have that sense, and you wouldn’t be able to convey whatever knowledge you’re striving to impart without others relying on their senses.
Oh dear the Buddhists are turning hostile 
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.
This is now the third or fourth time you have been asked who is it the one that remembers and you have still not answered the question
To be honest I am not surprised you cannot answer the question. Even the most accomplished Buddhist scholars cannot answer this question
and this is why they lost in all debates with the Hindus. Just as you have with me
[QUOTE=Yulaw;44077]The desires are not good or bad it is the desiring that is the issue and your thinking way to much[/QUOTE]
Hmm, how can you have a desire without desiring? 
Do Buddhists hear themselves speak? If they did, and actually critically read what they write, they would
be a bit embarrased…
yet there was a certain “core” that seems to have been constant–like an observer throughout my life, watching myself grow and learn, get married, raise children, etc.
You are very close to intuiting the true nature of the Self 
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.
Even before this universe existed, I AM.
SD
Even before this universe existed, I AM
A PAIN IN THE NECK…lol.
[QUOTE=Surya Deva;44085]Hmm, how can you have a desire without desiring?
Do Buddhists hear themselves speak? If they did, and actually critically read what they write, they would
be a bit embarrased…[/QUOTE]
You know that very first question…is a koan…maybe you should contemplate it for awhile and then get back to me
Oh Dear SD… How many times must I tell you… I am not a Buddhist.
And in addition, I am not hostile… but your belittling comments and snide remarks are getting a bit old… if you can’t post without condescension then we need to stop referring to this as a discussion
I is what i is not coz i is not wot i is init…westside
This short discourse by Ken Wilber will shed much light on the confused Buddhists mind