What if there really is no "You"
-
It is the usual and common understanding, but he made that statement approx. 400 years ago... and the world has moved on from Descartes ...Originally posted by An Eternal Now:Wrong understanding of Descartes... Descartes did not mean it that way. But neither does Descartes see the 'complete picture'.
See: Descartes: Reviving the West's Greatest Modern Vedantist
-
Yeah..I'm dense..have you found out what 'Dualism' is?Originally posted by AndrewPKYap:... but exists as a composite of neurons, body parts, thoughts and feelings... and don't bother to try to understand that, you are too dense... 
-
The world has moved on from Descartes?!?!?!OMG!! What have my lecturers (who are Philosophers themselves) been teaching us???Originally posted by AndrewPKYap:It is the usual and common understanding, but he made that statement approx. 400 years ago... and the world has moved on from Descartes ... -
after Googling all those big words you do not understand, you are asking me to explain Dualism to you?Originally posted by Demonight:Yeah..I'm dense..have you found out what 'Dualism' is? -
I want back my cosplay pics (the one with you dressing up as Seiko Matsuda) back cuz you really hurt my feelingsOriginally posted by AndrewPKYap:you are so stupid... when and where did I say I went to the cosplay event? When someone starts a thread in sgforums, it is the same thing as he went to the cosplay event? OMG, are you insane? 
this time -
ah so... you think that philosophy 101 must be read like the holy scriptures.... and your lecturers are Ayatollahs ...Originally posted by Demonight:The world has moved on from Descartes?!?!?!OMG!! What have my lecturers (who are Philosophers themselves) been teaching us???
Boy are you dense...
-
Talk about denseOriginally posted by AndrewPKYap:after Googling all those big words you do not understand, you are asking me to explain Dualism to you? You and Gazelle are brothers aren't you? Here I am trying to reach out to you by suggesting you read up on these things and all you attempt to do is belittle my intelligence. You are the one who needs to do some growing up my friend -
The question 'what' or 'who' is exactly pointed out by Buddha to be irrelevant, false from the beginning.Originally posted by AndrewPKYap:... the thing is, if you believe that the "self" is a composite (non-inherent) then what is that which is carried over to the next life? If you do not believe that "something" is carried over to the next life, than why do you believe in Karma that is carried forward?
In other words -- the question cannot be asked that way, because to say 'what' or 'who' presumes there must be an existent entity or self behind rebirth, but in reality no such entity can be found. In Buddhism, there is no such thing as an existing soul or atman that 'passes on' to the next life.
Rather, the Buddha say, it should be correctly asked 'Why', or "With what as condition is there birth?'
And the answer for that is very simple. There is birth, i.e. suffering, because of affliction and action. As long as the aggregates are afflicted, afflicted aggregates will continue to be appropriated.
And the primary affliction/delusion is the conceit of 'I am', and this is the '7th Consciousness', and it is this conditioned by the karmic propensities of the 8th Consciousness that drives rebirth.
In Madhyamaka it is explained there is birth because of the innate self-grasping "I am" appearing to the afflicted mind. It is asserted that what appropriates birth in a new series of aggregates is the mental habit "I am." That "I am" is baseless, has no correspondence in the aggregates or seperate from them or in any one of them, just as a car is not found in its parts, seperate from them, or in any one of the parts. Nevertheless, the imputation "car" allows us to use cars effectively. Likewise, the mental habit "I am" is proper as both the agent of action and the object upon which it ripens even though it is basically unreal and has no basis in the aggregates, outside the aggregates, or in any one of them, but allows us to treat the aggreates as a nominally designated "person".
But to be more technical, the Buddha taught the 12 Dependent links of Origination which is founded on the principle of Dependent Arising.
Note how in each case the Buddha rejects the question of 'Who' or 'What' as an assumption that is fundamentally wrong, and insteads, inform the questioner of what he ought to have asked: "With what as condition...?" and finally "With what as condition is there birth?" (note that birth = 'becoming' in Pali terms)
The full sutra is here:
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn12/sn12.012.nypo.html
Phagguna Sutta
"There are, O monks, four nutriments for the sustenance of beings born, and for the support of beings seeking birth. What are the four? Edible food, coarse and fine; secondly, sense-impression; thirdly, volitional thought; fourthly, consciousness."
After these words, the venerable Moliya-Phagguna addressed the Exalted One as follows:
"Who, O Lord, consumes1 the nutriment consciousness?"
"The question is not correct," said the Exalted One. "I do not say that 'he consumes.'2 If I had said so, then the question 'Who consumes?' would be appropriate. But since I did not speak thus, the correct way to ask the question will be: 'For what is the nutriment consciousness (the condition)?'3 And to that the correct reply is: 'The nutriment consciousness4 is a condition for the future arising of a renewed existence;5 when that has come into being, there is (also) the sixfold sense-base; and conditioned by the sixfold sense-base is sense-impression.'"6
"Who, O Lord, has a sense-impression?"
"The question is not correct," said the Exalted One.
"I do not say that 'he has a sense-impression.' Had I said so, then the question 'Who has a sense-impression?' would be appropriate. But since I did not speak thus, the correct way to ask the question will be 'What is the condition of sense-impression?' And to that the correct reply is: 'The sixfold sense-base is a condition of sense-impression, and sense-impression is the condition of feeling.'"
"Who, O Lord, feels?"
"The question is not correct," said the Exalted One. "I do not say that 'he feels.' Had I said so, then the question 'Who feels?' would be appropriate. But since I did not speak thus, the correct way to ask the question will be 'What is the condition of feeling?' And to that the correct reply is: 'sense-impression is the condition of feeling; and feeling is the condition of craving.'"
"Who, O Lord, craves?"
"The question is not correct," said the Exalted One. "I do not say that 'he craves.' Had I said so, then the question 'Who craves?' would be appropriate. But since I did not speak thus, the correct way to ask the question will be 'What is the condition of craving?' And to that the correct reply is: 'Feeling is the condition of craving, and craving is the condition of clinging.'"
"Who, O Lord, clings?"
"The question is not correct," said the Exalted One, "I do not say that 'he clings.' Had I said so, then the question 'Who clings?' would be appropriate. But since I did not speak thus, the correct way to ask the question will be 'What is the condition of clinging?' And to that the correct reply is: 'Craving is the condition of clinging; and clinging is the condition of the process of becoming.' Such is the origin of this entire mass of suffering.7
"Through the complete fading away and cessation of even these six bases of sense-impression, sense-impression ceases;8 through the cessation of sense-impression, feeling ceases; through the cessation of feeling, craving ceases; through the cessation of craving, clinging ceases; through the cessation of clinging, the process of becoming ceases; through the cessation of the process of becoming, birth ceases; through the cessation of birth, old age, death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief and despair cease. Such is the cessation of this entire mass of suffering." -
... more evidence of your insanity... you better be careful boy... that picture of "Seiko Matsuda" is not me... you are seeing things... you better see a psychiatrist...Originally posted by Short Ninja:I want back my cosplay pics (the one with you dressing up as Seiko Matsuda) back cuz you really hurt my feelings this time -
What I meant is that most of us have misunderstood Descartes, but neither did Descartes himself gain complete understanding.Originally posted by AndrewPKYap:It is the usual and common understanding, but he made that statement approx. 400 years ago... and the world has moved on from Descartes ...
Most of us are in fact, quite behind Descartes's level of understanding. -
Descartes philosophies form the basis of latter philosophies you simpleton. To discard his meanderings because they're old shows that you have absolutely no clue about modern day philosophy in regards to the soul and self. All you are arguing for is substance dualism but the buck doesn't stop there because it doesn't explain our tendency to act in direct opposition to our physiological alarm systems.Originally posted by AndrewPKYap:ah so... you think that philosophy 101 must be read like the holy scriptures.... and your lecturers are Ayatollahs ...
Boy are you dense... -
Originally posted by An Eternal Now:
If you explain it like that, you are also saying that that the aggregates combine to form essentially the "same" "being" that exists as a composite... because you also say that the Karma of his previous existence is carried forward....
The question 'what' or 'who' is exactly pointed out by Buddha to be irrelevant, false from the beginning.
In other words -- the question cannot be asked that way, because to say 'what' or 'who' presumes there must be an existent entity or self behind rebirth, but in reality no such entity can be found. In Buddhism, there is no such thing as an existing soul or atman that 'passes on' to the next life.
Rather, the Buddha say, it should be correctly asked 'Why', or "With what as condition is there birth?'
And the answer for that is very simple. There is birth, i.e. suffering, because of affliction and action. As long as the aggregates are afflicted, afflicted aggregates will continue to be appropriated.
And the primary affliction/delusion is the conceit of 'I am', and this is the '7th Consciousness', and it is this conditioned by the karmic propensities of the 8th Consciousness that drives rebirth.
In Madhyamaka it is explained there is birth because of the innate self-grasping "I am" appearing to the afflicted mind. It is asserted that what appropriates birth in a new series of aggregates is the mental habit "I am." That "I am" is baseless, has no correspondence in the aggregates or seperate from them or in any one of them, just as a car is not found in its parts, seperate from them, or in any one of the parts. Nevertheless, the imputation "car" allows us to use cars effectively. Likewise, the mental habit "I am" is proper as both the agent of action and the object upon which it ripens even though it is basically unreal and has no basis in the aggregates, outside the aggregates, or in any one of them, but allows us to treat the aggreates as a nominally designated "person".
But to be more technical, the Buddha taught the 12 Dependent links of Origination which is founded on the principle of Dependent Arising.
Note how in each case the Buddha rejects the question of 'Who' or 'What' as an assumption that is fundamentally wrong, and insteads, inform the questioner of what he ought to have asked: "With what as condition...?" and finally "With what as condition is there birth?" (note that birth = 'becoming' in Pali terms)
The full sutra is here:
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn12/sn12.012.nypo.html
[b]Phagguna Sutta
"There are, O monks, four nutriments for the sustenance of beings born, and for the support of beings seeking birth. What are the four? Edible food, coarse and fine; secondly, sense-impression; thirdly, volitional thought; fourthly, consciousness."
After these words, the venerable Moliya-Phagguna addressed the Exalted One as follows:
"Who, O Lord, consumes1 the nutriment consciousness?"
"The question is not correct," said the Exalted One. "I do not say that 'he consumes.'2 If I had said so, then the question 'Who consumes?' would be appropriate. But since I did not speak thus, the correct way to ask the question will be: 'For what is the nutriment consciousness (the condition)?'3 And to that the correct reply is: 'The nutriment consciousness4 is a condition for the future arising of a renewed existence;5 when that has come into being, there is (also) the sixfold sense-base; and conditioned by the sixfold sense-base is sense-impression.'"6
"Who, O Lord, has a sense-impression?"
"The question is not correct," said the Exalted One.
"I do not say that 'he has a sense-impression.' Had I said so, then the question 'Who has a sense-impression?' would be appropriate. But since I did not speak thus, the correct way to ask the question will be 'What is the condition of sense-impression?' And to that the correct reply is: 'The sixfold sense-base is a condition of sense-impression, and sense-impression is the condition of feeling.'"
"Who, O Lord, feels?"
"The question is not correct," said the Exalted One. "I do not say that 'he feels.' Had I said so, then the question 'Who feels?' would be appropriate. But since I did not speak thus, the correct way to ask the question will be 'What is the condition of feeling?' And to that the correct reply is: 'sense-impression is the condition of feeling; and feeling is the condition of craving.'"
"Who, O Lord, craves?"
"The question is not correct," said the Exalted One. "I do not say that 'he craves.' Had I said so, then the question 'Who craves?' would be appropriate. But since I did not speak thus, the correct way to ask the question will be 'What is the condition of craving?' And to that the correct reply is: 'Feeling is the condition of craving, and craving is the condition of clinging.'"
"Who, O Lord, clings?"
"The question is not correct," said the Exalted One, "I do not say that 'he clings.' Had I said so, then the question 'Who clings?' would be appropriate. But since I did not speak thus, the correct way to ask the question will be 'What is the condition of clinging?' And to that the correct reply is: 'Craving is the condition of clinging; and clinging is the condition of the process of becoming.' Such is the origin of this entire mass of suffering.7
"Through the complete fading away and cessation of even these six bases of sense-impression, sense-impression ceases;8 through the cessation of sense-impression, feeling ceases; through the cessation of feeling, craving ceases; through the cessation of craving, clinging ceases; through the cessation of clinging, the process of becoming ceases; through the cessation of the process of becoming, birth ceases; through the cessation of birth, old age, death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief and despair cease. Such is the cessation of this entire mass of suffering."[/b] -
Descartes is a Christian philosopher and his contribution is not so much in philosophical conclusions but in his "methods" of arriving at conclusions and that formed the basis of the scientific method... the scientific way of thinking....Originally posted by An Eternal Now:What I meant is that most of us have misunderstood Descartes, but neither did Descartes himself gain complete understanding.
Most of us are in fact, quite behind Descartes's level of understanding. -
Descartes was a Christian and a philosopher but not a Christian philosopher. An example of a Christian philosopher would be Saint Anselm with his ontological argument for the existence of God. A better example, and one more recognisable, would be Saint Thomas Aquinas. Descartes, on the other hand, had his own metaphysical meanderings about soul and self. His arguments don't form the basis of scientific thinking but the criticisms against him doOriginally posted by AndrewPKYap:Descartes is a Christian philosopher and his contribution is not so much in philosophical conclusions but in his "methods" of arriving at conclusions and that formed the basis of the scientific method... the scientific way of thinking.... -
yah sure... what an idiot.... you could have simply Google the fact before you spit out your gibberish....Originally posted by Demonight:Descartes was a Christian and a philosopher but not a Christian philosopher. An example of a Christian philosopher would be Saint Anselm with his ontological argument for the existence of God. A better example, and one more recognisable, would be Saint Thomas Aquinas. Descartes, on the other hand, had his own metaphysical meanderings about soul and self. His arguments don't form the basis of scientific thinking but the criticisms against him do
Descartes' contribution to scientific thought is undisputed and that just prove you are one dense idiot given to throwing big words around to show off when you have no understanding of what they mean. -
His method is through doubt and self inquiry to arrive at the experience of pure being -- the pure I AM. He did not push through to the Non-Dual side of the equation, however. Go watch the youtube video, it is insightful.Originally posted by AndrewPKYap:Descartes is a Christian philosopher and his contribution is not so much in philosophical conclusions but in his "methods" of arriving at conclusions and that formed the basis of the scientific method... the scientific way of thinking....
If you would be a real seeker after truth, it is necessary that at least once in your life you doubt, as far as possible, all things.
~ Rene Descartes (1596-1650) -
I told you already, karma and rebirth are the continuation of a process, and not the passing on of any sort of entity.Originally posted by AndrewPKYap:If you explain it like that, you are also saying that that the aggregates combine to form essentially the "same" "being" that exists as a composite... because you also say that the Karma of his previous existence is carried forward.... -
-
Originally posted by AndrewPKYap:yah sure... what an idiot.... you could have simply Google the fact before you spit out your gibberish....
Descartes' contribution to scientific thought is undisputed and that just prove you are one dense idiot given to throwing big words around to show off when you have no understanding of what they mean.
Man you give the word 'dense' a whole new definition. You know zilch about philosophy, which I can easily gather from the lack of philosophical terms, Cartesian or otherwise, that you use. To add to that you call me an idiot bandying about what you assume to be 'big words'. Please pull the other one. It has bells on. Oh yeah, one more thing. In Philosophy, NOTHING is undisputed except your stupidity. -
That nihilistic quote leads to Sartre's absurdism. IF you're unfamiliar with Sartre you should check out his work Existentialism is a HumanismOriginally posted by An Eternal Now:His method is through doubt and self inquiry to arrive at the experience of pure being -- the pure I AM. He did not push through to the Non-Dual side of the equation, however. Go watch the youtube video, it is insightful.
If you would be a real seeker after truth, it is necessary that at least once in your life you doubt, as far as possible, all things.
~ Rene Descartes (1596-1650) [/i] -
Thanks.. might look into it in future. Honestly my knowledge of philosophy is really shallow, I have not read any works by them yet. My knowledge is more on the 'spiritual field' but I know a little bit of the sort of realisations that those philosophers have hadOriginally posted by Demonight:That nihilistic quote leads to Sartre's absurdism. IF you're unfamiliar with Sartre you should check out his work Existentialism is a Humanism [/i]
Regarding Sartre, Sartre said:
"In looking at Descartes’ “I think therefore I am.” I realised “The consciousness that says ‘I am” is not the consciousness that thinks."
Just as Ken Wilber said -- many people misunderstood what Descartes meant by his statement, and neither did any of his critics (such as Sartre) got to the non-dual side of the equation -- they too only got as far as where Descartes went.
In terms of experience, both Sartre and Descartes has experienced the pure consciousness of pure being, i.e the transcendental self. But they have not broken through the basic cartesian dualism of subject and object to reach the realisation that there is no self apart from manifestation, which is the realisation of non-duality.
Regarding the two kinds (the pure causal I AM and the nondual) of transcendental insights just mentioned, do look at Ken Wilber's articles based on his own experiences and you can find these experiences are similar in the awakening of lots of mystics and contemplatives worldwide -- http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/2007/05/some-writings-on-non-duality-by-ken.html
And also my friend (who posts in sgforums too), Thusness, who wrote 6 stages of his experiences on this matter: http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/2007/03/thusnesss-six-stages-of-experience.html.
Here, Stage 1~3 corresponds to the Causal realisation (I AM/Witness), and Stage 4~6 are the realisations corresponding to Non-Duality, though strictly speaking only Stage 5 and above have depth of realisation on Non-dual.
I and Thusness have reasons to believe that AndrewPKYap is currently at Stage 4 level of experience, realisation, understanding.
Unfortunately, unlike some of my forummers many who are also highly enlightened, who had experiences of remembering past lives, AndrewPKYap did not himself experienced or remembered his past lives, and therefore he does not really believe in past lives or karma. -
I'm not familiar with Buddhist philosophy besides Dharma and Karma, the knowledge of which is quite sparse to me. Could you recommend buddhist books that deal with western philosophy?Originally posted by An Eternal Now:Thanks.. might look into it in future. Honestly my knowledge of philosophy is really shallow, I have not read any works by them yet. My knowledge is more on the 'spiritual field' but I know a little bit of the sort of realisations that those philosophers have had
Regarding Sartre, Sartre said:
"In looking at Descartes’ “I think therefore I am.” I realised “The consciousness that says ‘I am” is not the consciousness that thinks."
Just as Ken Wilber said -- many people misunderstood what Descartes meant by his statement, and neither did any of his critics got to the non-dual side of the equation -- they too only got as far as where Sartre went.
In terms of experience, both Sartre and Descartes has experienced the pure consciousness of pure being, i.e the transcendental self. But they have not broken through the basic cartesian dualism of subject and object to reach the realisation that there is no self apart from manifestation, which is the realisation of non-duality.
Regarding the two kinds (the pure causal I AM and the nondual) of transcendental insights just mentioned, do look at Ken Wilber's articles based on his own experiences and you can find these experiences are similar in the awakening of lots of mystics and contemplatives worldwide -- http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/2007/05/some-writings-on-non-duality-by-ken.html
And also my friend (who posts in sgforums too), Thusness, who wrote 6 stages of his experiences on this matter: http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/2007/03/thusnesss-six-stages-of-experience.html.
Here, Stage 1~3 corresponds to the Causal realisation (I AM/Witness), and Stage 4~6 are the realisations corresponding to Non-Duality, though strictly speaking only Stage 5 and above have depth of realisation on Non-dual.
I and Thusness have reasons to believe that AndrewPKYap is currently at Stage 4 level of experience, realisation, understanding.
Unfortunately, unlike some of my forummers many who are also highly enlightened, who had experiences of remembering past lives, AndrewPKYap did not himself experienced or remembered his past lives, and therefore he does not really believe in past lives or karma. -
Hmm... haven't read up on buddhist books that deal with western philosophy.. so far I only read a little on integral philosophy (i.e those that Ken Wilber wrote), and comparative philosophy on the aspect of Nonduality by David Loy.Originally posted by Demonight:I'm not familiar with Buddhist philosophy besides Dharma and Karma, the knowledge of which is quite sparse to me. Could you recommend buddhist books that deal with western philosophy?
For more general books comparing buddhist philosophy with western philosophy.. you have to do a search.. -
Alright. Thanks for the links by the wayOriginally posted by An Eternal Now:Hmm... haven't read up on buddhist books that deal with western philosophy.. so far I only read a little on integral philosophy (i.e those that Ken Wilber wrote), and comparative philosophy on the aspect of Nonduality by David Loy.
For more general books comparing buddhist philosophy with western philosophy.. you have to do a search.. -
Cogito Ergo Sum
COOKIE
OM NOM NOM NOM