Proofs for existence of God

[Proph 1]

quite true, I make a simillar point in my thread on the philosophy section - "Mickey mouse exists! Do you?"

Which very few people have commented on. Im a bit dissapointed about that, I thought it was a really good thread.

I replied, check it out.

[Vajradhara]

Originally Posted by presser_kun

This may sound simplistic, but I think of my "self" as the part of me that does the thinking.

Namaste press,

not simplistic at all.

let me pose this query to you...

let us say that your thinking becomes imparied through an accident.

are you still "you"?

metta,

~v

[earl]

Of course you exist. Now, who is it that exists?

You have thoughts that come and go. Are those thoughts "You?"
You have feelings that come and go. Are those feelings "You?"
You have relationships, things, possessions, etc. that come and go. Are they "You?"

Have a good one, earl, (my space-time nominal designation-really is not a "screen" name )

[presser_kun]

Originally Posted by Vajradhara

let us say that your thinking becomes imparied through an accident.

are you still "you"?

Hmm...I tend to think the answer is yes. Here's why.

I am constantly changing. As a small child, I learn to tie my shoe; to pronounce "spaghetti"; to ride a bike. Each experience builds my self confidence.

The neighbor's dog snarls at me; I see my dad explode in anger for the first time; I cut my finger. These events teach me caution.

Every event, experience, thought that I take in changes me. I grow, I become.

My tissue changes, too. Skin flakes off, is replaced by new skin. Et cetera. I mention this because the changes in my physical form affect the way I think, my world and self views.

Change doesn't have to be upward, outward, more refined, more sophisticated. It can be downward, inward, et cetera.

An accident leaves me mentally impaired. I am still me, but not as mobile, not as competent. My world and self views shrink.

I'm still me until I can no longer think, at which point I cease to be.

This is my view of the matter.

Many argue whether someone who is braindead is alive or not. To me, a body pumping blood and oxygen in the absence of thought is not alive.

I'm somewhat comfortable with my conclusion on this subject, but open to change, as I like to think I am on all of my beliefs.

What do you think?

peace,

press

[Vajradhara]

Namaste press,

thank you for the post.

Originally Posted by presser_kun

Hmm...I tend to think the answer is yes. Here's why.

I am constantly changing.

indeed, this is the case.

since you are, in fact, constantly changing, there cannot be a permenantly existing, unchanging entity of self, or soul, or being.

As a small child, I learn to tie my shoe; to pronounce "spaghetti"; to ride a bike. Each experience builds my self confidence.

The neighbor's dog snarls at me; I see my dad explode in anger for the first time; I cut my finger. These events teach me caution.

Every event, experience, thought that I take in changes me. I grow, I become.

it would seem that you are saying that "you" are the sum of your experiences. are "you" more than the sum of your experiences?

My tissue changes, too. Skin flakes off, is replaced by new skin. Et cetera. I mention this because the changes in my physical form affect the way I think, my world and self views.

how does the change of the physical form effect how "you" think?

i'm not really asking how physical changes change the thought process, per se, what i'm asking is, really, how any of these physical changes effect "you" if "you" are not the physical body?

Change doesn't have to be upward, outward, more refined, more sophisticated. It can be downward, inward, et cetera.

change, in our view, doesn't have directions or purpose, per se.

An accident leaves me mentally impaired. I am still me, but not as mobile, not as competent. My world and self views shrink.

I'm still me until I can no longer think, at which point I cease to be.

what is still you? the process of thinking?

when you are asleep and no longer consciously thinking, do you exist?

This is my view of the matter.

and a fine view to hold, it is.

Many argue whether someone who is braindead is alive or not. To me, a body pumping blood and oxygen in the absence of thought is not alive.

would you say that a being in a coma is alive or dead?

how about a tree? is a tree alive or dead?

I'm somewhat comfortable with my conclusion on this subject, but open to change, as I like to think I am on all of my beliefs.

What do you think?

peace,

press

what do *i* think?

i think that if one defines the idea of self or soul to be something which is constantly changing, not eternally existing from its own side, then there is no reason for imputing the concept of an eternally existing self other than to appease the clinging mind.

to be honest with you... this is a very subtle point in the Buddha Dharma and, (showing my bias), even other Buddhists have difficulty in this realization. whilst we may have some intellectual understanding of impermenance and selflessness, that is quite a different thing than the emotional impact of the realization that there is no Atman.

metta,

~v

[Zenda71]

I can't help jumping in here to ask a question ... if everyone is the sum of their experiences, then doesn't the fact that that being has had those particular experiences in some way lend the being a form and a "self"? It is like water that arranges itself to a container ... it is still water but changes ... from liquid to gas to solid, its shape depending on the container or conditions.

Or are you saying that the water itself is an illusion?

Perhaps I am mixing metaphors?

Metta,
Z

[Devadatta]

Originally Posted by Vajradhara

to be honest with you... this is a very subtle point in the Buddha Dharma and, (showing my bias), even other Buddhists have difficulty in this realization. whilst we may have some intellectual understanding of impermenance and selflessness, that is quite a different thing than the emotional impact of the realization that there is no Atman.

metta,~v

Following your Buddhist lead (we should all be banished forthwith!), we can apply the idea of the two truths, conventional & absolute. On the conventional level, of course we exist in innumerable measurable ways. On that level, we can apply the pragmatic test: what makes a difference is a difference. After all, the participants in this discussion have made a difference just in exchanging their views!

On the absolute level, no independent, permanent, metaphysical self can be logically demonstrated.

That said, it seems to me that too often we get hung up on mere words and the self/non-self dichotomy – and I include Buddhists in this. The self not only exists, pragmatically speaking, it’s probably the most important thing about us. Without an idea of self, we would be at a loss to explain practically anything about human behaviour. The self – our human self – is precisely the vehicle of enlightenment (see for example Dhammapada, Chapter 12). We may be speaking through personas here, but beneath Vajradhara, Bandit, Presser Kun, Awaiting the Fifth, Devadatta, etc., are organizing gestalts that make for personality and for the distinctively different ways in which each of us speaks. The thing is this gestalt of personality is complex, multiple, interdependent and in constant motion. For me this is the crux. The self is not a noun but a verb, not a thing but a process.

This I feel is the true difficulty. To see one’s self as action, as process, as movement rather than as any “thing” in particular by definition implies no ownership and really nothing to cling to. And that’s the source of our anxiety. Any “doctrine of self” as the Buddhists say is an attempt to overcome that anxiety, but only results in a descent into “a thicket of views, a wilderness of views”.

But as I’ve suggested even the doctrine of non-self can lead us astray and get us hung up in mere words. It’s not a matter of denying any concept of self but of understanding how self really works.

So it’s not easy. And at the same time, at certain lucky moments, it’s the easiest thing in the world: just let go. A sudden lack of clinging can be such a relief!

[Vajradhara]

Namaste Devadatta,

thank you for the post.

Originally Posted by Devadatta

Following your Buddhist lead (we should all be banished forthwith!), we can apply the idea of the two truths, conventional & absolute. On the conventional level, of course we exist in innumerable measurable ways. On that level, we can apply the pragmatic test: what makes a difference is a difference. After all, the participants in this discussion have made a difference just in exchanging their views!


On the absolute level, no independent, permanent, metaphysical self can be logically demonstrated.

i agree, in general, with what has been stated here.

That said, it seems to me that too often we get hung up on mere words and the self/non-self dichotomy – and I include Buddhists in this. The self not only exists, pragmatically speaking, it’s probably the most important thing about us. Without an idea of self, we would be at a loss to explain practically anything about human behaviour.

indeed, this can be a problem. one of the primary reasons why the Ch'an traditions stress the realization more than the verbalization, in my view.

The self – our human self – is precisely the vehicle of enlightenment (see for example Dhammapada, Chapter 12). We may be speaking through personas here, but beneath Vajradhara, Bandit, Presser Kun, Awaiting the Fifth, Devadatta, etc., are organizing gestalts that make for personality and for the distinctively different ways in which each of us speaks. The thing is this gestalt of personality is complex, multiple, interdependent and in constant motion. For me this is the crux. The self is not a noun but a verb, not a thing but a process.

the Buddhist term for these are "skandhas". the heaps of aggregates, as it were.

This I feel is the true difficulty. To see one’s self as action, as process, as movement rather than as any “thing” in particular by definition implies no ownership and really nothing to cling to. And that’s the source of our anxiety. Any “doctrine of self” as the Buddhists say is an attempt to overcome that anxiety, but only results in a descent into “a thicket of views, a wilderness of views”.

indeed.. hence the teaching of Right View in the Noble Eightfold Path

But as I’ve suggested even the doctrine of non-self can lead us astray and get us hung up in mere words. It’s not a matter of denying any concept of self but of understanding how self really works.

it depends on the dialetic being employed, within the Buddhist context at any rate, in my view.

however.....

none of this has anything to do with proof or evidence for God, one way or the other

metta,

~v

[lunamoth]

I have no problem with the idea that my entire body is turned over every, what was it Vaj, six years? Yet my body looks more or less the same thanks to my DNA blueprint. Why couldn't the self be the same way, ever turning over, remaining the same in essence, yet completely different. We are the river, not the water in it. Which is the oak, the acorn or the tree? They look completely different, yet they are both "oak."

Never mind me... I'm strictly a lightweight.

lunamoth

[lunamoth]

Originally Posted by Vajradhara

none of this has anything to do with proof or evidence for God, one way or the other

Good point! But sometimes I wonder if in fact the two qestions are related more than we have examined here. After all, In Christianity our self dies and what remains is the Christ Spirit.

lunamoth

[Vajradhara]

Originally Posted by lunamoth

Good point! But sometimes I wonder if in fact the two qestions are related more than we have examined here. After all, In Christianity our self dies and what remains is the Christ Spirit.

lunamoth

however... that very formulation reveals the wide gulf in our traditions.

in our tradition, when the self dies, there is nothing that remains. in your tradition, when the self dies, something eternal takes its place, in this case the spirit of the Annointed One.

it isn't really a philosophical objection that Buddhism, in general, has towards the conception of eternalism. rather, it is a religious objection predicated on a vastly different ontology than what the Buddha taught.

that being said, there is a philosophical objection as well... however, that objection is fairly specific to a fairly specific school of Sanatana Dharma thought. by and large, it more closely corresponds to how the Jews understand the soul than it does to the Christian understanding of it, nevertheless, my point being that the philosophical objections for certain conceptions that are found in the Buddha Dharma are fairly specific, and as such, it behooves us to get an understanding of the audience to whom the teaching was given.

it is quite possible that many of the teachings which we read in the Buddha Dharma are actually not suited for us, it really depends on our capacities and so forth. the point being that, due to this difference, the Buddha Shakyamuni will give answers that seem to contradict themselves, should we not have an understanding of whom he is addressing.

the oft cited "Noble Silence" is a prime example.

many, many theists believe that Buddha Shakyamuni was "silent" on the idea of God. some come to conclude that this is because the situation would not permit him to teach monotheism, some come to conclude that this is because he didn't know about monotheism, and some conclude that he knew God but couldn't express it.

whilst these are valid views to have, they do not find any support in the Buddha Dharma itself.

when asked about God, he remained silent when the questioners were Brahmins that held a view of God already. when he spoke to the Sangha, however, he completely refuted the idea of a Creator Deity.

without knowing which group he is speaking to and why they are given different answers, i can't imagine that it is anything but confusing!

having said all of that...

i do think that many of the conceptions regarding a Creator Deity are predicated on a perception of self.

metta,

~v

[Devadatta]

Originally Posted by Vajradhara

the Buddhist term for these are "skandhas". the heaps of aggregates, as it were.

Well, here's where I find a kind of oddity if not lack in the tradition. The tradition asserts non-self ad nauseum - while being the most self-reliant practice imaginable. My point is that the Abdhidhamma/dharma commitment to this sort of analysis leaves the true instrumentality of the self in sort of limbo. I understand the soteriological reasoning here - we must deny any shred of concept of self to cling to - but the intent is not to deny self, which is listed among the wrong views, but to help effect a turning in the mind, to reorient the mind to the true state of affairs, as repeated in the Lankavatara. Now, we can scholastically list "self" under the heading of the skanda of mental formations - that may satisfy our fear of clinging - but it only takes us so far... But as you suggest somewhere above, this problem can lead us to all sorts of convolutions maybe better left to another thread. In the end, I don't think we disagree. Perhaps my difference is that I think that we needn't be too afraid of ideas like "process self" and "interbeing" and a greater emphasis on "interdependence" as ways of smuggling selfhood in through the back door. Every culture that has adopted Buddhism has brought in new perspectives and new gifts. My hunch is that Western Buddhism will bring in new and fruitful correctives to the self/non-self dichotomy.

Originally Posted by Vajradhara

it depends on the dialetic being employed, within the Buddhist context at any rate, in my view.

Certainly. My comments simply pertain to the vagaries of Buddhism as actually practiced by we frail human beings.

Originally Posted by Vajradhara

none of this has anything to do with proof or evidence for God, one way or the other

Here I agree with Lunamoth below and Earl above. The existence of self and god are indissolubly linked, especially in the montheistic systems. At the end of the day they probably do have to be discussed together. So in that sense this discussion has not really veered off course. My only concern was ladling on more Buddhism than is to the taste of some.

Cheers.

[Devadatta]

Originally Posted by Vajradhara

however... that very formulation reveals the wide gulf in our traditions.

in our tradition, when the self dies, there is nothing that remains. in your tradition, when the self dies, something eternal takes its place, in this case the spirit of the Annointed One.

Speaking of tailoring a message to any audience, this is not the way the Buddha - from what I've read in the Pali Canon - would answer a question like this. The Buddha was careful never to tell anyone who believed in a self in this sense that this self "dies"; that as you know is a wrong view. Wrong in several ways, but first of all wrong in sowing confusion and misconception. What "self" are we talking about that "dies" here? I must be honest here, and I don't claim to be an enlightened master in any sense, but I think you've slipped past your expertise here. When there is a danger of misleading, I would suggest noble silence. This is again what I see as being tangled up in mere words. The aim is not to make distinctions between traditions which use words like "eternal" or "non-eternal" or any other wrong view; but in effectively arriving at the reality that all these traditions point to.

Originally Posted by Vajradhara

it isn't really a philosophical objection that Buddhism, in general, has towards the conception of eternalism. rather, it is a religious objection predicated on a vastly different ontology than what the Buddha taught.

I'm not actually following this religious/philosophical distinction you're making here. As well, the Buddha taught no ontology. Even the abhidhamma - which was not likely formulated by the Buddha in any case - is a phenomenological excercise, and certainly Nagarjuna established no position, let alone an ontology.

Look, I hope you can find it in your heart not to be offended by my rather stiff response above. I was speaking honestly and from the heart. But if you think I was off-base, don't hesitate to tell me so.

[earl]

I guess you call a sub-theme of this thread, "proofs for the existence of self."
Actually think I posted a link to this web article by Theravadin Bhikku, Thanissaro Bhikku, at a large Web archive of Theravadin teachings, "Access to Insight." He wrote an interesting piece entitled, "The Not-Self Strategy," wherein he makes a good argument that technically Buddha taught "anatta," not-self, not as a metaphysical position, but merely as "medicine" to facilitate the release from suffering:
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/a...o/notself.html

Quite literally, "I" know "I" exist, just don't know what "I" am, but used in zen way, "Don't Know" mind, phrase used by recently deceased Korean zen teacher, Seung Sohn, though, is the growing edge of the open-minded mental process which allows for the journey of discovery to move along. Since in some unknown way, (sorry but I don't either Buddhist or monotheistic explanations really explain the Mystery fully anymore than physics has figured out this level of reality), the process that brought "me" into this world-larger and more encompassing than little old me-exists & to which I apply terms such as "the Divine" or "God"-I just simply don't know re what that is either.

Concepts about any kind of "Big Other," though as Buddha would have pointed out can entail subtle traps as one cannot think of an "Other" without simultaneously thinking of a "self." Those moments though as all Buddhists would say when one is functioning without "self" are then moments when "Wisdom" and "Compassion" flow, not " my" wisdom and compassion, nor "Other's" , but just wisdom and compassion. Reminiscent of that quote I posted at this forum somewhere by Eckhart regarding that when "he left his created form" there was neither "Brother Eckhart," nor God.

I'd say this position of Buddhists allows for the most fruitful, creative koanic process-as I've joked befroe, in terms of discussing the ineffable suchness of Reality, they'd vote for "yes, no, none of the above, all of the above, both none of the above and all of the above." (that whole Nagarjuna thing )

Take care, Earl

[lunamoth]

Originally Posted by earl

I guess you call a sub-theme of this thread, "proofs for the existence of self."
Actually think I posted a link to this web article by Theravadin Bhikku, Thanissaro Bhikku, at a large Web archive of Theravadin teachings, "Access to Insight." He wrote an interesting piece entitled, "The Not-Self Strategy," wherein he makes a good argument that technically Buddha taught "anatta," not-self, not as a metaphysical position, but merely as "medicine" to facilitate the release from suffering:
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/a...o/notself.html

Quite literally, "I" know "I" exist, just don't know what "I" am, but used in zen way, "Don't Know" mind, phrase used by recently deceased Korean zen teacher, Seung Sohn, though, is the growing edge of the open-minded mental process which allows for the journey of discovery to move along. Since in some unknown way, (sorry but I don't either Buddhist or monotheistic explanations really explain the Mystery fully anymore than physics has figured out this level of reality), the process that brought "me" into this world-larger and more encompassing than little old me-exists & to which I apply terms such as "the Divine" or "God"-I just simply don't know re what that is either.

Concepts about any kind of "Big Other," though as Buddha would have pointed out can entail subtle traps as one cannot think of an "Other" without simultaneously thinking of a "self." Those moments though as all Buddhists would say when one is functioning without "self" are then moments when "Wisdom" and "Compassion" flow, not " my" wisdom and compassion, nor "Other's" , but just wisdom and compassion. Reminiscent of that quote I posted at this forum somewhere by Eckhart regarding that when "he left his created form" there was neither "Brother Eckhart," nor God.

I'd say this position of Buddhists allows for the most fruitful, creative koanic process-as I've joked befroe, in terms of discussing the ineffable suchness of Reality, they'd vote for "yes, no, none of the above, all of the above, both none of the above and all of the above." (that whole Nagarjuna thing )

Take care, Earl

Enjoyed that earl. Thank you.

lunamoth