I think it is not a cop out but a mistake on the part of some Buddhists (?). Luis, I think has clarified.
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2340463-post9.html
...
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Is disavowal of self an easy way out?
- Thread starter sandandfoam
- Start date
I think it is not a cop out but a mistake on the part of some Buddhists (?). Luis, I think has clarified.
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2340463-post9.html
...
There is the Self that ordinarily identifies itself as 'stephenw' and/or 'satish.'
That is the normal, everyday 'consciousness' and 'identification' - which makes the world go round..and round!
To find out intellectually what 'that self' is, you can undertake a thought experiment.
Close your eyes. Think deeply.
Imagine you have lost your left leg in a car accident.
Is the self still there? Yes. Therefore, 'self' does not necessarily require the 'left leg' for its existence.
Imagine you have lost both of your eyes in a car accident.
Is the self still there? Yes. Therefore, 'self' does not necessarily require "eyes" for its existence.
The self remains even if non-critical areas of the brain are removed!
The Cambridge handbook of consciousness - Google Books
Does the self remain if one is deprived of all the 5 senses?
Sensory deprivation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This self exists because it 'PUTS ITSELF TOGETHER'
&
it does NOT exist because it 'PUTS ITSELF TOGETHER!'
It is possible to experience 'another' consciousness in which the 'Self' or 'Me' ..Fills the Void Completely....! Now, this Self comes to understand that WHAT lies beneath the self's of 'stephenw' and/or 'satish' is this same Self. That the self's of 'stephenw' and/or 'satish and a billion other names..will come into existence and disappear...like the Waves of an Ocean... but the Deeper Self..is there..always...like the Ocean.
Once this is understood, the Reality of Waves disappears...though you will still be seeing waves when you walk along the Beach of Infinity!
Satish
That is the normal, everyday 'consciousness' and 'identification' - which makes the world go round..and round!
To find out intellectually what 'that self' is, you can undertake a thought experiment.
Close your eyes. Think deeply.
Imagine you have lost your left leg in a car accident.
Is the self still there? Yes. Therefore, 'self' does not necessarily require the 'left leg' for its existence.
Imagine you have lost both of your eyes in a car accident.
Is the self still there? Yes. Therefore, 'self' does not necessarily require "eyes" for its existence.
The self remains even if non-critical areas of the brain are removed!
The Cambridge handbook of consciousness - Google Books
Does the self remain if one is deprived of all the 5 senses?
Sensory deprivation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This self exists because it 'PUTS ITSELF TOGETHER'
&
it does NOT exist because it 'PUTS ITSELF TOGETHER!'
It is possible to experience 'another' consciousness in which the 'Self' or 'Me' ..Fills the Void Completely....! Now, this Self comes to understand that WHAT lies beneath the self's of 'stephenw' and/or 'satish' is this same Self. That the self's of 'stephenw' and/or 'satish and a billion other names..will come into existence and disappear...like the Waves of an Ocean... but the Deeper Self..is there..always...like the Ocean.
Once this is understood, the Reality of Waves disappears...though you will still be seeing waves when you walk along the Beach of Infinity!
Satish
I don't see him "saying clearly that there is no self," but rather saying clearly that there is no self in (blah blah) context but rather in (blah blah) context.
But maybe that's just me.
If it helps to see "no self" better, imagine a narrative that has you reach out, pick up a glass and raise it to your lips, and take a sip. The same scene can be poetically portrayed as a hand reaching out, a glass rising, and eager lips taking a sip. The former has "you" (an agency) doing the acts, with all its attributable responsibility; the latter has all the same acts, and responsibility is not lacking, it's just not a significant part of the picture.
The "cop out" need not apply.
(For a job.)
Last edited:
Breathe
Hostis humani generis
But what were the common conceptions of self that existed in the Buddha's time that he denied?