The Buddha did say that "What is the self?" is a question to be put aside, he didn't answer it. And I agree. Because every answer I come up with or hear from others, causes me stress or severe suffering, and I am also aware that any answer is sheer speculation (that is, presently, I am incapable to understand it in any other way but that it is a speculation).
Well, if you can't figure it out and the real Buddha couldn't figure it out, I am way too behind you in terms of spiritual wisdom! But then where does it lead us to regards to the discussion on emotions! How did the question of 'self' come about in the first place! Could it be that your term 'self' and mine "true nature" refer to the same thing. In that case, can self be understood by understanding our true nature. Also, we can talk about various aspect of self as in 'physical self', 'emotional self', spiritual self. I think we all know our physical self --- that is our 'body'! Or is the answer to the question "what is self" hidden in the statement that it is incomprehensible.
There is no self, the only physical reality there is is the universe which has no self. What you refer to self is consciousness, which is a biochemical and electrical physical process that occurs within humans (and other life-forms). And because it's a dynamic process, there is no state of self, no such thing as self, the same as you can not step in the same river twice. Alas we imagine that there is something uniform in our selves, but are you the same consciousness that was 20 years ago? Of course no. Some of the memory may be shared, also the data in DNA, nervous system, but that's about it.
that is --can only be--a limited definition ofreality....laddie. in actuality reality blows your analyzing little mind away. your view is merely A perspective. in your case a firmloy, seemingly unshakeable materialistic perspective. so it couod be put down in terms such as 'materialism vs 'Self' right?....ie., you choose a side buuuut, me dear boy. you cant HAVE an in-side without and out-side and vice versa. youuur inside is trying to objectify reality and eny itself go on, knock yourself out. but actual reality is something much more profound, and also can accomodate limited views, but doesn't mean it IS that limited view the tree fees, i feel, atoms feel. chemicals feel. if it wasn't for feeling/consciousness/awareness/experience there would be no conduit between me and tree, and air, and anything. it is like an Intelliegence which is a web of interelated life. to claim itis JUS 'spirit' or JUST 'mater' is being pne-sided, and thus limiting the exloration of /....which because is intelliegnce itself is an eternal fount of dynamic surprise
You need to study physics more, atoms as such don't feel, they have no physical means to. And no need to put forward as an evidence something you've felt in a drug induced trip, it's a trip through one's mind, not the objective universe. In order to have something that feels you need to have a more complex atomic structure than a single atom.
i know. tis is the mterialistic philosophy. that only comples matter can 'produce' consciousness. but we are saying, how can feelingless/consciousless dead matter come togther and out of this subjective consciousness emerge. it makes much moree sense to realize that consciousness is ALWAYS the feeling-insideness of matter-energy when yu start understanding and exploring about this, unexplianabloe phenomena will start makingmore sense, than it does to materialistic religious devotees!
Everything makes sense to me as is, including consciousness. And that which we don't know, we don't know, no need to make speculations through sticking needles in veins.
but you ARE makin speculatons by speculating the universe is just objective matter and thats it.....?
Of course not, I never said that, vital processes happen on energy and particle level. You could clearly see that from my text.
you said consciousness EMERGES from complex matter. so you ae an....emergionist.of the emergionist school. not being aboe to intuit that matter-energy HAS to have an 'inside' as well as an outside. obviously so tell me mr avatar. how can you have an inside without and ouside and vice versa?
not matter, biochemical and electrical processes, read it energy doesn't have to have any inside, I don't know from where you get such a silly idea
well siily or not, itis what is being asked. dont be afriad of being 'silly'. being so inhibited stops you spreading your wongs. you are too conservative dahlin
Well you can ask till death do us part, same as you could ask about the location of the edge of the Earth.
??? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! How does one spread their "wongs"? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Hey duendy! I saw a post of yours earlier, and nearly all of the words were spelled correctly. WHAT'S UP WITH THAT???
and it was found to have NO edge, right. itis spherical. ROUND.....rounded. ok. now an outside without an inside aint rounded is it? would u say?
But the Earth does have an inside: there is a 'beneath the Earth'. One can enter caves and such to find this, but to truly go 'beneath the Earth', one must enter 'the core'; the Earth's central magma chamber. What is emotion? I consider emotion to be experienced within the mind; physical pain is different to emotional pain, and so (as one poster correctly highlighted), we may find pure cognitive thinking (logical reasoning), to be rational, where emotion is irrational. Without emotion, we would be without encouragement or discouragement (courage seems to be crucial) for any action: we could act without remorse, or without any access to a sense of 'pride', or altruism. I think 'a living dead' scenario would be accurate.
we are seeing that planet Earth does not have an edge you can fall off....it is spherical, an has an outside AND an inside now, you seem to be trying to say that matter-energy only has an OUTside??
shakes head All your questions shall be answered when you'll choose to stop being ignorant and pick up some books on physics. That is all, Avatar out.
