It is clear for any objective reader to see Lotusgirl. I know you do not believe in the anatman doctrine really, form our previous discussion about your husband.
My husband is not the same person who earned that degree many years ago. He has changed, like all of life. Moment by moment. That piece of paper is only that. What he has is knowledge. That knowledge changes from moment to moment. That knowledge trumps the piece of paper. The paper is materialistic at this point. My husband has never defined who he is by what he has achieved. Did he work his butt of to get that degree? Yes. But that moment has passed and he is no longer the same person who worked his butt off. Does that take away the knowledge? Nope!
You don’t lose what you know. It becomes part of a larger perspective with experience.
If he is not the same person as the one that got the degree and the one that you married, then who is the man that holds the degree now and you are married too and share intimate moments with? Clearly you believe it is the same man and clearly his employers also believe he is the same man.
We know there is a continuation of self from memory. I remember myself to be the same person as the person that existed a few moments ago whilst beginning the composition of this post, as the person who joined this forum a few months ago, as the person who went out last weekend and partied, as the person who was born 30 years ago to my parents. As the person whose gone through several experiences in life, the good, the bad and the ugly. I remember most of the people I met and they remember me and would recognise me. I remember most of the 30 years of my life. Therefore clearly I am the same person.
But here is what has changed over the 30 years of my life. My body has changed many times. I was fat and short when I was born, then I became skinny and short, then I became skinny and tall, then I became toned and tall, then I became average and tall with a slight beer bellly 
My mind has changed many times. I was born with no beliefs, no knowledge. I then learned to walk and talk. Then I went to school and I learned to read and write. Then I went to high school, and I learned Science, English, Maths, French, Geography, PE, Music. I then went to college and I learned advanced science, advanced maths and advanced computing. I then went to university and I learned Philosophy and Logic. In terms of beliefs I was born Sikh, I went to the temple with my parents and prayed to god. Then I left Sikhism and became an atheist. Then I rejected atheism and became a spiritualist. Then I reject spiritualism and became a Hindu.
I am still the same person, but my body and mind has changed. To say this means I am not the same person is bordering on idiocy.
If your body changes, then you clearly are not the same person you were just a second ago. Cells change second by second. Some die, some multiply. You are never the same second by second.
The man I married is not the same man he is today. Oops. another second or two went by and he has changed once again. How can the self continue if the self is constructed of “this and that”. This and that change moment to moment. I certainly hope he not the same man and that his employer feels the same. He has much more knowledge and wisdom now compared to when he earned and received his degree. Constant change. That we can be certain.
A man who views the world the same at fifty as he did at twenty has wasted thirty years of his life. - Muhammad Ali
As time goes on we change, I am not the same person I was 20 years ago… or for that matter…yesterday
If your body changes, then you clearly are not the same person you were just a second ago. Cells change second by second. Some die, some multiply. You are never the same second by second.
No, if my body changes, then the thing that has changed is not myself, but my body. This is why I say “my” It is my possession, but I am not my possession. I have changed my clothes many times, this does not change me as a person. I have changed my residence many times, but does this does not change me as a person.
If your “I” was your body then you would have no I-awareness. That is because the body being constantly changing would never be able be to aware of any single I-awareness. Moreover, it would mean that every cell in your body would have its own I-awareness. Then you would be multiple people not one. This is not true, it is obvious I am only one person, who is aware of a changing body. It is also obvious that the body can continue to exist after physical death, and yet have no I-awareness. This therefore means that the body cannot be the self, but rather is a possession of the self.
Likewise my mind does not have any I-awareness, otherwise everyone of my thoughts would have I-awareness and be thinking things. I would be multiple people not one. This is not true though, I am only one person, who is aware of thoughts, feelings, sensations. My thoughts, feeling and sensations have no “I-awareness” but it is I the person who is aware of them. I watch them rise and fall, and I can even control them. There is only one controller.
Change is constant. True. But for change to be constant there has to be one to be aware change has taken place and that itself would have to be unchanging. It is obvious that one cannot consistently deny the self, because even denial of self, requires one to doubt. If there is no self there is no “I”, no perceiver, no doubter, no knower, no experiecer.
There are not many things in the world that we can remain certain about because we doubt everything. We doubt things we perceive, we doubt our theories, beliefs, interpretations. But one thing we clearly cannot doubt is that “I” exist. This is not something that is open to doubt because it is not something we know, it is something self-evident. Thinking requires a thinker; acting requires an actor; speaking requires a speaker. The self is an absolute precondition to know, think, and act.
The “Self” is what we know to be consciousness because we are conscious beings not unconscious beings. Bodies, thoughts, and actions are unconscious things, the only thing we know to be conscious is the “I”. Now, knowing this is where the masterstroke comes from Hindu Vedanta philosophy, the “I” is something that is distinct from body and mind and it is the only substance that does not change. It is therefore not something within space and time. It is not born and it does not die. It is the basic “I AM” condition that is existed for eternity. The aim of Yoga is to undo this confusion we have made by mistaking the “I” to be the body and the mind.
I somehow did not get the context of the comments about change, and a person changing etc., but to say someone is a “different person” because of knowledge or even because of a change of heart is false. I am the same person I was when I was conceived. I don’t remember back that far, but do remember back to when I was 5 and fleeting glimpses of earlier times, and I am the same person today that I have been these past 50 years, watching myself grow, learn, make mistakes, raise a familiy, etc. New knowledge has not made me a different person. Forgotten knowledge has not made me a different person.
And a belief in Nirvanna is like a belief in Heaven, though once again to me it seems like a dissolution of the soul and not a continuation of the soul, but maybe I don’t understand it. Regardless, it’s a belief that cannot be demonstrated scientifically, and I don’t see how it could fall into any category other than that of faith, so I don’t see how Buddhism is not a religion or why anyone would claim it is not. So getting back to the topic of the thread, I would conclude Buddhism is a religion.
Sorry to interrupt…just had to comment for a second …
SD
In terms of beliefs I was born Sikh
[B]A Sikh[/B]…A Sikh…words failing m .[B].A Sikh[/B]…A Sikh…ahha
well…!!!
Carry on
I think Thomas is correct that Buddhism sounds very much like atheism and materialism. Even atheism and materialism does not believe in a self. There are plenty of discourses written in cybernetics on the non-existence of the self and how we can manufacture a self using electronics and computing technology. Look up a current philosopher in cybernetics who has written a major work, “Being Nobody” This has lead to the current crisis in posthumanism where the human is being stripped of its humanity and is now looked at as nothing more than a natural machine. It is a very dangerous belief and will lead to dangerous consequences. Much of contemporary cinema is exploring those anxieities that such a worldview entails, such as Avatar, Matrix etc
Like Christian philosophers this century have realised about Buddhism and Buddhism like beliefs, Hindu philosophers too realised what a virus Buddhism and Buddhism like beliefs were. So we were wise enough to drive Buddhism out of our country in fair formal debates. This virus went onto infect South East Asia though.
[QUOTE=Surya Deva;42764]I think Thomas is correct that Buddhism sounds very much like atheism and materialism. Even atheist and materialism does not believe in a self. There are plenty of discourses written in cybernetics on the non-existence of the self and how we can manufacture a self using electronics and computing technology. Look up a current philosopher in cybernetics who has written a major work, “Being Nobody” This has lead to the current crisis in posthumanism where the human is being stripped of its humanity and is now looked at as nothing more than a natural machine. It is a very dangerous belief and will lead to dangerous consequences. Much of contemporary cinema is exploring those anxieities that such a worldview entails, such as Avatar, Matrix etc
Like Christian philosophers this century have realised about Buddhism and Buddhism like beliefs, Hindu philosophers too realised what a virus Buddhism and Buddhism like beliefs were. So we were wise enough to drive Buddhism out of our country in fair formal debates. This virus went onto infect South East Asia though.[/QUOTE]
I’m sorry; I have tried really hard to stay out of this but…
Buddhism and materialism… :lol: that made me laugh out loud… like a poor marksman, you keep missing the target.
I can see where someone that did not really understand Buddhism could come up with atheism or for that matter I can even see why any one of the Christian faith would call it atheism but materialism… oooo that’s funny
please carry on… I am enjoying this
It is certainly interesting how little substance the Buddhist responses here carry. They are either thinly veiled personal attacks, mocking/scoffing or evocations of the questions being asked. The religious character is certainly rearing its head here
Moving on.
Materialism is the view that all of the world is made out of inert material and that self/consciousness is an epiphenomena of material activity, not a real substance, but more like a ghost in the machine. According to this view, everything in nature is recycled from the previous parts, but no such thing as a consciousness/spirit continues. Taken to its extreme conclusion the human being is seen as nothing more than a machine.
Buddhism is the view that all world is made out of basic elements(skandas) coming from nothingness and the self/consciousness is an ephphenomena of the activity of elements, not a real substance, but a momentary and fleeting thing. According to this view, everything in the world is recycled from previous parts, but no such thing as a consciousness/self continues. Taken to its extreme conclusion the human being is nothing more than a causal process.
There certainly are a lot of similarities there for the objective reader to see.
I’m sorry; I have tried really hard to stay out of this but…
Buddhism and materialism… that made me laugh out loud… like a poor marksman, you keep missing the target.
I can see where someone that did not really understand Buddhism could come up with atheism or for that matter I can even see why any one of the Christian faith would call it atheism but materialism… oooo that’s funny
please carry on… I am enjoying this
If you can see why some would see it as atheism, why not materialism too? What’s the difference?
[QUOTE=Surya Deva;42773]It is certainly interesting how little substance the Buddhist responses here carry. They are either thinly veiled personal attacks, mocking/scoffing or evocations of the questions being asked. The religious character is certainly rearing its head here ;).[/QUOTE]
That was not a personal attack nor was it thinly veiled… nor am I a Buddhist… if you were following Sun Tzu Bing Fa… I would say you need to reread it… particularly the bits about knowing your enemy and yourself
And to go deeper with any post to you is a complete waste of time since time and time again you have refused to answer questions and you continue with your agenda and as long as you have your agenda there is no need to respond to you in any serious way beyond entertainment purposes.
Frankly I find you entertaining because you cannot be wrong.
[QUOTE=Surya Deva;42773]
Moving on.
Materialism is the view that all of the world is made out of inert material and that self/consciousness is an epiphenomena of material activity, not a real substance, but more like a ghost in the machine. According to this view, everything in nature is recycled from the previous parts, but no such thing as a consciousness/spirit continues. Taken to its extreme conclusion the human being is seen as nothing more than a machine.
Buddhism is the view that all world is made out of basic elements(skandas) coming from nothingness and the self/consciousness is an ephphenomena of the activity of elements, not a real substance, but a momentary and fleeting thing. According to this view, everything in the world is recycled from previous parts, but no such thing as a consciousness/self continues. Taken to its extreme conclusion the human being is nothing more than a causal process.
There certainly are a lot of similarities there for the objective reader to see.[/QUOTE]
Moving on
materialism
?noun
-
Preoccupation with or emphasis on material objects, comforts, and considerations, with a disinterest in or rejection of spiritual, intellectual, or cultural values.
-
The philosophical theory that regards matter and its motions as constituting the universe, and all phenomena, including those of mind, as due to material agencies.
now I need a laugh, now that is not veiled at all now is it, much like many of the insults you throw out veiled and otherwise and try and cover up with an awkward use of a smilie
But to my question (that you likely will not answer) tell me how is transcending the conceptions of self by attaining self-realization through Dharma practice and meditation materialistic
- The philosophical theory that regards matter and its motions as constituting the universe, and all phenomena, including those of mind, as due to material agencies.
That is what I just said and described
tell me how is transcending the conceptions of self by attaining self-realization
Hilarious contradiction there. Transcending of self through self-realization. Haha.
Hang on, just getting books out…?50 notes your wrong SD
Ahhh Surya Deva you posted before I got a chance to do something you could never do…admit a mistake. I posted in response to how I feel about you not so much your post since I tend not to take you seriously, but in this case you actually might be right but then a stopped clock is right twice a day.
After reading thomas’ post I went back and thought about it and realized I might be in error so I then did a little reading
I have to change what I am saying because, watch this Surya Deva this is where I am going to do something you can never do, I may be wrong, I was in fact looking at materialism from the wrong perspective or worse yet assume you were.
If you are saying materialistic and meaning a preoccupation with or emphasis on material objects, comforts, and considerations, with a disinterest in or rejection of spiritual, intellectual, or cultural values. Then no, it is not materialistic.
But if you are saying it is materialistic in the same way you could say quantum physics is materialistic meaning matter is the only substance then I can see where you would get that impression much the same as you would call it atheism
sorry I am human and do from time to time make mistakes…and I can even admit it when I do too.
Drat…do you want it in Rupees:D…
[QUOTE=Yulaw;42791]Ahhh Surya Deva you posted before I got a chance to do something you could never do…admit a mistake. I posted in response to how I feel about you not so much your post since I tend not to take you seriously, but in this case you actually might be right but then a stopped clock is right twice a day.
After reading thomas’ post I went back and thought about it and realized I might be in error so I then did a little reading
I have to change what I am saying because, watch this Surya Deva this is where I am going to do something you can never do, I may be wrong, I was in fact looking at materialism from the wrong perspective or worse yet assume you were.
If you are saying materialistic and meaning a preoccupation with or emphasis on material objects, comforts, and considerations, with a disinterest in or rejection of spiritual, intellectual, or cultural values. Then no, it is not materialistic.
But if you are saying it is materialistic in the same way you could say quantum physics is materialistic meaning matter is the only substance then I can see where you would get that impression much the same as you would call it atheism
sorry I am human and do from time to time make mistakes…and I can even admit it when I do too. ;)[/QUOTE]
I can only say one thing Yulaw… qiān x?n!
No, if my body changes, then the thing that has changed is not myself, but my body. This is why I say “my” It is my possession, but I am not my possession. I have changed my clothes many times, this does not change me as a person. I have changed my residence many times, but does this does not change me as a person.
If your body changes, the self also changes. YOU are not the same as you were at conception! Come on everyone. With each moment, YOU change. And if YOU changes it is considered impermanent. So how can there be a YOU? Who are you? Don’t your views change? Your likes and dislikes? Of course they do. Haven’t you loved someone with all your heart and later discover through whatever reason, you no longer love them? Well, who changed? POssibly them, but You also.
It is certainly interesting how little substance the Buddhist responses here carry. They are either thinly veiled personal attacks, mocking/scoffing or evocations of the questions being asked. The religious character is certainly rearing its head here
This is a matter of your opinion Surya Deva. And pray tell, what thinly veiled personal attacks? I think we’ve been playing pretty nice here. Who is mocking?
And yes, the religious character is certainly rearing its ugly head here. Glad you are being honest with yourself!
Go check out the new thread I started in this section. International tolerance day. Post your thoughts, but be tolerant of others please.
[QUOTE=kareng;42801]I can only say one thing Yulaw… qiān x?n![/QUOTE]
xie xie