KT,
You provide a more rounded summary which I agree with. In future, take my silence as an agreement. I will only comment on your posts if there is something I disagree with or really feel the need to say something. If I keep saying that you’re right, it will be perceived as a bias 
.
This is crucial.
I am not here to provide a totally coherent and detailed argument which will take a lot of my time.
So far I have provided information up to the limit I am willing to go.
I have intention to write a book on it where I will provide the full information.
Note that this was stated after Prismatic was asked to provide the evidence which validates his claim.
“Is The Buddhist ‘No-Self’ Doctrine Compatible With Pursuing Nirvana?”
Katie Javanaud asks whether there is a contradiction at the heart of Buddhism.
Clearly we have to be wary of arguments in which the conclusions are predicated by and large on the premises. Especially when the premises themselves are constructed almost entirely out of the definitions and the meaning assigned to the words.
And which of the four points above is the exception to that rule? The logic is sound because one is expected to agree with the definitions used to give meaning to the words.
Always coming back [in religious narratives] to the most fundamental premise of all: The existence of God and/or Enlightenment.
The only thing missing of course is an actual moment to moment description of this unfolding as one goes about choosing behaviors. It is all just taken for granted that in relation to the conclusion derived from the premises above it’s how it, uh, works.
Completely obviating the need to make any distinctions at all between the either/or me and the is/ought me. It’s all at one intellectually with the impermanence of the self itself.
Next up: the argument from control…
And of course this is a valid option. To not write something complete. But then one should not also present what one has written as ‘proofs’, nor should one say one has refuted all counterclaims and critique when one has not. I think the arguments have large missing steps, even when compared to other arguments made here, but it is perfectly reasonable to stay with something more like an opinion essay. However these can actually be more solidly written and certain do not constitute proofs. And his approach to dialogue has no, in general, show an ability to interact with counter-ideas - since he tends to simply reassert or dismiss - nor to acknowledge anything counter to his ideas as having any validity. Which puts him not only at odds with scholars in the fields he claims final knowledge in - which doesn’t mean he’s wrong but needs to be dealt with - but also makes him a less than adequate discussion partner - to a degree that leads me to think that discussion is not really the goal, lecturing is.
“Is The Buddhist ‘No-Self’ Doctrine Compatible With Pursuing Nirvana?”
Katie Javanaud asks whether there is a contradiction at the heart of Buddhism.
I think this is an important point in and of itself. How close or how far is Buddhism from the “common discourse” that seems to sustain human interaction from day to day? Obviously, this is far more a subjective/intersubjective social, political and economic contraption as it pertains to living the “good [virtuous] life” here and now; and pertaining to the fate of “I” there and then beyond the grave. But there are still many, many things we either can or cannot alter [control] about ourselves that are applicable to all mere mortals regardless of their religious or spiritual bent. We share these things in common. Starting with the need to sustain our very existence from day to day and ending with the behaviors we choose that may well result in our ceasing to exist altogether.
The “human condition” that we are all a part of.
All we need to assume here is that human autonomy is an actual thing.
This is precisely the sort of assessment that [to me] amounts to intellectual gibberish when attempts are made to describe in detail how it unfolds for a particular person in a particular context choosing particular behaviors. Here there are specific things about our self that dissatisfy us for specific [personal] reasons embedded in our understanding of a specific set of circumstances. We either have or do not have options to change those things.
Instead, where “I” becomes increasingly more problematic is when that which comes to dissatisfy us, is thought by others to be something that, on the contrary, ought to satisfy us very much. This can revolve around the food we eat or the music we listen to or the films we like or the values we choose that precipitate behaviors deemed to be either the right or the wrong thing to do.
The latter of course precipitating the most profound consequences in our lives. “I” here becomes attached to conflicting moral and political narratives that can result in any number ghastly newspaper headlines as some strive to propel the behaviors of others in a direction they are convinced reflects the only “right thing to do”.
“Is The Buddhist ‘No-Self’ Doctrine Compatible With Pursuing Nirvana?”
Katie Javanaud asks whether there is a contradiction at the heart of Buddhism.
Of course when you are dealing with the concept of things like “Nirvana” or “no-self”, you are largely embedded [or even entrenched] in a discussion of definitions.
In a world of words, you argue [or assert] that they mean this instead of that. And, depending on whether others share your own definition of what these words are argued [or asserted] to mean, you either do or do not come to an agreement.
That way you don’t have to take the definitions used to concoct the concepts any further than what you think is true in your head.
There is then no need to demonstrate that this Nirvana actually does exist; or to take us to it; or to note how those who have reached it choose to interact from day to day; or to contrast that with the options available to us on this side of mortality.
Then this part of the “concept”.
Here of course to ask “what on earth does this mean?”, is entirely obviated. Instead, all is subsumed in the sophistic manner in which some are able to convince themselves that given their own understanding of the assumptions embedded [if only conceptually] in their own rendition of Buddhism, Nirvana is “out there” or “up there” somewhere.
And if this allows them emotionally and psychologically to sustain a comforting and consoling frame of mind all the way to the grave, well, that’s just icing on the cake.
“Is The Buddhist ‘No-Self’ Doctrine Compatible With Pursuing Nirvana?”
Katie Javanaud asks whether there is a contradiction at the heart of Buddhism.
Got that? Okay, now, in plain English, describe one’s actual day to day existence having reached Nirvana. No-self in what sense? Really, any descriptive details at all will be helpful.
Or, instead, is the whole point to entirely rid yourself of such mundane obligations. You merely “think” yourself into imagining the farthest possibly reality from the one you have now. And, if it makes you feel a comforting combination of equilibrium and equanimity, you’ve already managed to embody a semblance of it on this side of the grave.
Nihilism [like Buddhism, like Nirvana, like nothingness, like liberation] is a word that was invented to “capture” a particular manner in which we come [as individuals] to order relationships in our head. But without a context it all just evaporates in to these mental, emotional and psychological states. Nihilism pertaining to what?
Until and unless Nirvana can be substantiated in a way that we can relate it to the self interacting on this side of the grave, it can [conveniently] remain whatever we think it is. That way if another argues it is actually the way she thinks it is instead, you can both walk away convinced your own rendition comes closest. After all, there is nothing “out there” you can turn to resolve such conflicts.
It’s basically just another “spiritual” rendition of God and Heaven. In other words, tailor-made for leaps of faith.
Once again, substantively, these are “alternatives” only in a narrative sense. The stories are different but there is no way in which to either verify or falsify either one. The only thing being described are the words themselves. Ever and always connected only to other words. Dueling definitions over and over and over again. With practically nothing of an empirical nature to show for it.
The no-self self then becomes just another ghost in the machine.
Unlike Hinduism, which is a religion proper and presents an ontology, buddhism is only a process. It does not intend to answer questions, it only describes instructions for following a path.
To meditate on questions of “self” and permanence is detrimental to following that path and therefore to be avoided.
That is not to say that there is a self, or no-self, or both, or neither. Neither it is to say that one must not think about those things.
It is simply to warn that these questions lead to attachment, and attachment leads to suffering.
This is why when posed with these questions, Buddha did not answer in any way, and instead chose to be silent.
There are a lot of Buddhisms and for some it this description obviously does not work, right off the bat. But, really, all of them have some kind of implicit or explicit ontology. It is pretty much impossible to avoid having one. The Four Noble Truths include an ontology or set of ontological ideas. What must happen, why it happens, what causes it to happen, how to extricate yourself from this causal pattern, all based on what is consider the being of life.
There are plenty of pretty straighforward ontological ideas in and around all this: Whatever is subject to origination is subject to cessation, for example.
There are ontological concepts of course, but their goal is not to present a complete, coherent model of reality. It does not aim to resolve existential questions. It asks you to let go of them.
Though there are ontological concepts where it is required in order to describe the process, there is no complete ontology because it deliberately stops short of answering those questions, for the reasons above.
Naturally that does not work for some, for many even. I do not think that buddhism is for everyone.
Or one could say…to justify it. But this same justification, explaining, means that other ontological ideas are not necessary. Not saying that’s bad, just that it does end up staking an ontological position against, for example, many of the HInduisms. Like, you really don’t have to think about any of the gods. Why not? Well, whatever the implicit or explicit answer is an ontological position. Likewise when going against everyday conceptions of reality.
No, it’s not. You’d have to want the goal, with its implicit disidenfitications with emotions and self, for example.
My instinct is that Buddhism and Hinduism are one and the same, that Buddhism is an abbreviation of Hinduism.
Stop me if I am speaking nonsense.
yeah what you probably have is an indian guy who was a bit more skeptical than the typical hindus, and so defaulted to a kind of make-shift atheistic version of the same nonsense.
“in life you gotta pick a nonsense, and just roll with it.”
They’re rather contradictory I would say - Hinduism is a war-religion, counting many Gods commanding obedience and social order among humans.
Don’t let yourself be fooled into thinking western yoga teachers have anything to do with Hinduism.
Hinduism is very violent and preaches violence as a means to keep social order and basically to give meaning and prove ones salt before oneself.
In order to enforce the caste-system, people were forced to drink their own piss and it was forbidden for them to wash themselves -the chandala class had to be created.
I suspect Siddhartha was a Hindu prince who was fed up with all and said fuck it, life sucks (“life is suffering”), Im gonna spend the rest of it here under a tree practicing the art of not giving a fuck.
Again: What particular instructions regarding what particular behaviors along what particular path given what particular context? In that respect, from my point of view, Buddhism is no different from Hinduism or Christianity or fascism or Communism. The words they use are either embedded in the world of actual human interactions or they are used more to attain and then to sustain some measure of psychological comfort and consolation on that existential sojourn from dust to dust.
To ground “I” in something…anything.
On the other hand, there are Buddhist practices and exercises that are in fact clearly able to bring about states of mind that “here and now” [for many} allow for the attainment of mental and emotional and physical equanimity not available to most of us.
On the other other hand, however, my own personal interest in it revolves around the three things that most preoccupy me here:
1] the existential nature of “self” rooted in dasein
2] conflicting goods relating to moral and political values
3] the fate of “I” after falling over into the abyss perceived by people like me as falling over into nothingness.
Well, sure, to the extent that particular Buddhists are able to largely cloister themselves off from the rest of us, that may seem like best path of all. But for the overwhelming preponderance of us, just interacting with others in order to subsist from day to day, brings into focus all manner of contexts in which “I” is challenged.
Of course my reaction to “general descriptions” like this is to insist on a context. Attachment to/detachment from what, whom? To/from one’s self? to/from one’s family, friends and loved ones? to/from ones community? to/from one’s race or gender or ethnic origins? to/from one’s nation? to/from one’s moral and political values? to/from one’s religion?
How is this not profoundly rooted instead in dasein, out in a particular world, understood from a particular point of view?
I think there’s some truth to this, despite Fixed Crosses answer. Of course Hinduism is 100s if not thousands of religions, sects, cults and approaches, but Buddhism is definitely an outcropping of Hinduism, and while I have challenged what you said about the lack of ontology, it does not focus on its ontology and its ontology is stripped down, but it comes from Hinduism. It just depersonalizes the ontology - except in all those versions of Buddhism that personalize the Buddha and even demons and other deities and us.
There’s a kind of trend from HInduism to Buddhism to Mindfulness. (not in any particular historical or intentional process, just that I see minfulness as a bit like the next step in paring things down on a mass level. TM was kind of a HInduism direct to Mindfulness hop.)
From essentialism to pragmatism to a single heuristic.
The next step is Anti-natalism. ( I mean this both as a joke and a serious statement with some ire in it) Want to get rid of suffering, get rid of people.
Then you don’t even need the heuristic.
There’s an anti-life element in all these religions/practices, and the historical paring down process draws this out and makes it clearer.
Another kind of final solution is Prismatics spirituality which has the simple measure of holding your breath as long as you can. But the anti-natalists have a cleaner more perfect solution.
Buddhism is to Hinduism what Judaism is to Hellenism.
Buddhism’s
Religions be like that. You pick one, or none, and roll with it.
Or I guess get stuck in a loop of wondering which is the right one, forever, I guess. Whatever floats your boat, homie.
Religions are grounded on belief.
Sounds like buddhism isn’t for you, dude. It’s not so much that you are preoccupied with these things, it’s that you get off on it.
You don’t want an answer, you want to feel like you’ve stumped people.
Sure there are monks who practice Buddhism strictly and live in seclusion, but also remember that Buddhism is the religion of millions of normal people living their lives, having families, etc. That is because there is no hell, if you are attached to things it is not as though you are sinning. You’re still on a path, just not ready to detach from those things. It is not a process of a single lifetime. They understand that as long as you are living a righteous life, you are evolving toward the goal of eventually gaining the maturity needed to give up all things.
There is no question of “I”, I don’t think. I’m right here talking to you. The question is of self, and who the fuck knows what that is.
Literally everything.
[/quote]
Who says it ain’t?