This talk would have been helped by first agreeing on what we are calling the "self". Certainly, what many non-Buddhists have trouble digesting in talks like this is the argument that the (auto-)biographical self does not exist. The fact that I was born when and where I was born, like and dislike what I indeed do like and dislike, have had the childhood only I have had (which no other human being has had or WILL ever have), and the particular life experiences that are known, such as they are, exclusively to "me" are simply indisputable. To suggest to any layperson that this self does not exist is at best unhelpful. What I wish Robert would have done here, instead, is argue that one's SENSE OF SELF is an illusion, and does not exist. The sense that I am the author-owner of the thoughts that arise in consciousness (and the feelings these thoughts in turn produce) is the illusion. "My" thoughts arise within the chain of cause and effect. These causes and effects include events that I have experienced, but obviously reach back to before I was born, and to realms which will forever remain unknowable to me. In that sense my thoughts are not mine. Which is to say, finally, that the THINKER AS ME does not exist. In other words, the words I speak and think, which seem to be so intimately mine and mine alone, are not mine and ultimately beyond my control. This speaker-thinker-as-me does not exist. Grasping this, btw, is what makes "letting go of selfishness" desirable and moral in the first place. As far as my biographical ("conventional") self, again, I believe it's more helpful to take it as a given and say it is not vulnerable to the Buddhist conception of the way things are.
wrong question Bob -- "the Buddha on two occasions assigned the question of the existence or non-existence of the self to the category of questions to be put aside". The not-self teaching is primarily a strategy of using not-self perceptions to "end any passion or delight that would keep the mind clinging".
I always thought the whole "not self" thing was just a way of trying to describe the experience of having a calm mind. Like as in your not caught up in the momentum of thought and emotion connected to your past and future, and are just experiencing the moment and the thoughts both with a sort of equal objectiveness and clarity
I am late to this discussion, but I would like to say to anyone else coming in around this point, that the comment section is one of the most interesting aspects of the experience.
If you’ve ever experienced a flow state without thoughts, you’ve experienced “no self”, at least partially. For anyone confused by this discussion, Jay Garfield does an excellent job of distinguishing between the illusory “self” and the real “person”. Essentially, the sense of a self that resides in our head and makes choices about our actions like a CEO/homunculus living in our brain is created by thoughts. The sense of self is real inasmuch as thoughts are real, but the self has no control and therein lies the illusion. It’s a story the mind tells to explain its actions, similar to what happens in the experiments done by Gazzaniga on split brain patients. Unfortunately, the discussion doesn’t come to this definitive of the self until the very end when they’re out of time.
"Not self" is not "not exist" or nothingness. "Not exist" is one of the extreme fault view (extreme hedonism and asceticism). Both should have more background this buddhism dharma topic before discussing further to avoid more confusion. Not self, in fact, it is the Dependent Origination.
Dan would seem to me to have an inability to consider the arguments being made, when something begins to impinge on what he's saying, he moves on to a different argument, negating the validity by essentially saying "so what" or "practically this has no application". This may be rhetorically useful, but pretty unconvincing, and feels like it's being made in bad faith though I don't feel like this was his intention. From my view both Bob and Dan seem to have a great misunderstanding about what it means to be enlightened. Consider that being enlightened doesn't mean you are morally perfect. It would be better conceived as a change in perspective, on a fundamental level. You cannot fully understand a change in perspective until you experience it, and while the conversation was entertaining, if frustrating, I think you will have little success trying to argue about aspects of enlightenment like no-self. The only argument to be made here is to really try meditation or contemplative practices, otherwise you can only speak about your own conceptions about enlightenment, which is not useful. For my own practice, I find it better to view enlightenment as a total unknown to try to avoid just butting heads with my own conceptions about it. I realize the paradox, just earlier I was saying it is a change in perspective, and now that I try to think of it as completely unknowable (from my current perspective). Talking about practice is not identical to the practice, it is an approximation, and words themselves draw you inevitably into dualisms. Thanks to Bob for this channel and so many great and thought provoking interviews!
"No, it doesn't." is usually the best answer in my opinion. But here we are talking about teachings, so be careful. "Anything possessing any sign is illusory." - Sheng Yen
In western terms this is a disagreement between a process philosophy and a substance philosophy. In process philosophy there is no substance called a "self". The Buddha makes the case that the 5 aggregates or processes is all that is need to explain our experience of self. However, the argument of the chariot may show that there is more to it. If you take a chariot apart is there anything more than the pieces that make up the chariot? Yes and no. A pile of wood is not a chariot. The chariot has to configured and formed in a certain way to work. So the " form " of the chariot is not only part of the chariot bout a necessary condition for having a chariot. In the same way, the self is a unifying factor or form of the consciousness.
I found this discussion to be disappointing and frustrating. Dan seems to be constantly changing the subject because he is completely missing the point of the not-self, which I admit can be difficult to grasp. Also, I honestly don't think Bob does the best job of communicating the concept. Rather than saying the self does not exist, it might be more useful to say that the self is not what we think it is. If Bob would go into the idea of sub-selves or mind-modules, his audience might begin to see that what we think of as the self begins to break down. Cross-referencing some Sam Harris "there is no such thing as free will" could help bring together a better understanding of what it actually means to be human. I am convinced that Bob is correct in his analysis, but I was able to come to that place after having read his book, and listening to a lot of Alan Watts lectures.
Dan speaks of a value being that which matters to someone. Shared values mattering to most of us. A hard science view might be- in the moments of sharing values our widely dispersed mirror neurons are in play,dissolving the borders between the illusion of selves. This supports the ides of no stable self over time.
Good conversation and thanks for the upload. I think it could be good to have another more developed discussion on this topic, or touching on it, at a later time. A lot of the comments made underneath the video make sense and it would be good to take some of them on board. I will just add that that though I understand you are both passionate about the topic, it would be more productive to try to stay a bit calmer. I think Dan made some valuable criticism's of Bob's presentation of 'not-self', but found the arguments towards the end about our evolved intuitions and prioritising your loved ones very shallow. I think the defence of a parent doing exceptional things for a child is much more about the parent having primary responsibility for the child, and that being their role (who else will do it?), rather than 'I do it because I care about them more and I want to'. Also any argument on these grounds in favour of eating animals is completely different to a parental relationship, and is just a post hoc rationalisation. I would disagree more with Singer that it is the role of politics to eliminate poverty (public, social), rather than individuals donating their money (private, personal). I don't see why we should be pitting good schooling against a starving child. That is too much accepting the parameters of this economic and political system. I would also add that moral values aren't just subjective, they are intersubjective. The fact that others' interests are as real as mine is the objective basis for ethics, it is not a simple matter of me preferring to help others or not.
The "Self" is the Father/Brahma within each human. Each individual person must Purify their thoughts that is to increase the positive/love/forgive thoughts while decrease/eliminate the self-centered hateful thoughts.....And work on love the Creator/Father/Brahma and Love will be reflected back to the individual person
Learning through talking points, they are searching so don't say they are wrong, Write has an empty spot after losing his religion he needs to review Carl Jung and regonize that awareness is only possible by enlightenment and non enlightenment therefore conscienness. The Tao
Funny talk. Point for Bob though in the moral issue. It's so evident that our family love is instinctive and result of evolutionary process (many animals feel the same). About the self I would say Daniel to return to meditation practice. Very weak defense from part of Daniel to his points of view for a philosopher. Of course I'm kind of Buddhist but in my defense I'd say that I did have study philosophy and buddhism.
The baseball hat guy can't philosophically defend his preference for his kid over a stranger. He's backed up against a wall and utterly defeated. Checkmate, Bob.
Interesting conversation - The goal of Buddhism is transcendental - although yes, earnestly cultivating the Noble Eightfold path will result in benefits (especially moral ones) in this impermanent world as well - but the ultimate point is not to create a utopian society, it isn't really about ideals as much as it is about experiencing penetrating insight into the nature of the conditioned world, especially how suffering comes to be. Unfortunately, according to Buddhism, the conditioned reality that we are experiencing now is impermanent, and unsatisfactory (and not-self) - but you can't blame the Buddha for that. He didn't create reality, but he did explain it so that we can become free from ignorance and suffering. BTW, I do believe true enlightenment is possible - although I have not attained it! (I also am skeptical that some of your guests have actually attained enlightenment as they claim - but hey...) I'm enjoying watching your interviews, and look forward to reading your latest book. Best
I'm with Dan...it seems like the idea to not fixate on envy is good advice outside of Buddhism, and the idea that the self disappears is confused (eg, who is it that is not thinking as a self?).
"Due to sameness of selflessness of all phenomena,. One's mind is primordially unborn;. It is in the nature of emptiness. " empty of what? empty of inherent existence. empty of self.
Some sense of morality is built into the fabric of reality, not merely created by human beings - otherwise karma/kamma doesn't make sense...but it doesn't come from natural selection. consciousness not a product of brain - though it is associated with a functioning brain in a human being (and animals).
Daniel must be an existentialist. I say this because he is ego-centered and needs the stage of society to exist well opposing religion and science. The thing is existentialists think their existence precedes essence and are the sum of their own choices.Their theory collapses because religeon, science and society have to pick up after their bad choices.
If you believe the self is only real in the sense of its relatedness to others, well, you are VERY close (IMO) to understanding anatta - because then you should ask yourself, am "I" other people's emotions/thoughts - that doesn't really make any sense. and different people have contradictory views, and will look at me in totally different ways, so am I a totally contradictory but nonetheless inherently existing totally substantial entity? No - the social self is not an absolute self, it is a conditioned, impermanent, relative thing which also is anatta.
I must comment again, a Jivanmukti in a state of Turiya is described as being able to be human and yet has defeated Karma and Samsara, since he has experienced a form of Purusha for a period of time where the Gods (in Christianity something like Archangels) have granted an unlimited enjoyment of the earth Since Brahma is along by his side for a ride as a pure human.
On humans,Notions about the Self are derivative consequences from the recursive structure on the used languages ... What You believe is "Your Self" is just a collection of local/body memories associated on a "feedback looped programming language algorithm" ( conditional imposed conversations "inside" the body, silent speech on the body about the body, localized fear's chemistry ) ... Self notions exist, but those notions are not a requirement for Existence ... Therefore, Existence without self notions , Exist ... But Self Notions can not exist without an Existential Background ... Local/Personal Notions require an Impersonal background to exist, meanwhile, Impersonal/non local notions do not require a Personal background to exist (except on The Personal God hypothesis, but that is just Imaginary Human's Speculation without factual observations) ... Therefore, by excluding the Personal God hypothesis, We can declare that Non Local Impersonal Nature is primordial to any sort of local and Personal Existence ... Of course, Apes trapped on beliefs were/are/will be protecting their Self (God) up to their extinction ... Truth is forever, Lie perish ... Then, If You want to perish, feed The Self ... If You want to survive, feed the Existential Background ... The Talking Apes do not know how The Language Structures affect their existential "specs, features and possibilities" ... But It seems educational to bring the kids to the Segregation Zoo to learn about Apes as Ancestors ...
Self = No Self/Being/Consciousness. Definition: Self is "That-which-is-and-that-which-is-experiencing" *Does the self exist?* Unpacking it: Does experiencing exist..? Does Consciousness exist..? Is there Being..? If the answer to these questions is "yes" the self exist. If the answer is "no" the self does not exist.
I don't think enlightenment comes with a mandatory erase of the "self mode" of experience. In today's world, all 7 billion of us are doing a most unbelievable thing - each night we disengage our self; and we do it as if it's the most trivial thing! Talking of which, there is the saying that "The common man is amazed only in front of miraculous events, while the learned man is amazed in front off what appear to be unexceptional everyday affairs". But back to what i wanted to say, i don't see why the human being couldn't have more than the usual awake/deep sleep/REM/altered modes of consciousness. If you think awakening = loosing the self, you might not be awakened fully to "the ground of being" (or at least the GoB we can reach as humans). I think an enlightened being is able to disengage it's biological and social center of gravity, abandoning the selfish mode of being and freeing its consciousness from being structured by the social "persona", BUT just as it always comes a time to wake up in the morning, it could also come a time to engage the "self mode" and start doing art, fuck, break stuff, enjoy a drama, and so on. Waking up in the morning is automatic, being taking care of by the biological apparatus, but how would such a being choose when to engage and disengage the self? I very much enjoyed a line from the brilliant tv series "Fortitude" when the sheriff says: "It simply presents itself..". An enlightened being knows that we're moved by a source outside ourselves (even when we're manifesting our will.. we're not the cause of it (causa sui)), so it has absolutely no qualms with it. Otherwise, "enlightened" folks, running around "without their selves" only because they fell to cultural delusion while hiding away from personal negative circumstances, are in the tens or hundreds of thousands only here in the west. So, another dimension opened within the human being for a new state of consciousness doesn't sound half bad. And, i'm not sure that people writing essays about the dangers of turning ourselves into saints, know the world in which they are living. Right now, if that woman mentioned in the discussion, would feel the average conscious-state of the lower (economic wise) 4 billion human souls, plus the animals impacted by our behavior, she would eat every single piece of paper on which she wrote that smart essay.. or perhaps even her laptop. I hear there's a Guiness Book record where a fellow eat an entire small aircraft, ingesting small pieces of it throughout a decade or two so i'm sure she'll manage it. There's nothing more disgusting than an individual who's feeling threatened by the possibility of too much "goodness", while he's obviously living in a society where this should be our last worry. Unfortunately, and amazingly ,there are quite a few waging war on prosocial/pro-environmental mindsets. The following link can take you to a most intriguing statistic and a suggestive 2 minute clip, pointing towards the elephant in the room - medium.com/@rares_mircea_82/even-if-you-were-to-spend-a-million-dollars-a-day-you-would-still-have-to-wait-2-736-years-to-go-c70888766d ; I wish that smart woman would have the sufficient emotional intelligence and moral fiber to consider the share magnitude of the situation.
Kaufman's an idiot to fail to recognize the absolutely critical purpose of evolutionary "intuition" on what 'makes us tick' (i.e., human nature) and, thus, how critically important it is to consider that 'intuition' in any decent philosophical discussion. I would, however, frame Wright's "intuition" concept in terms of instincts/feelings/emotions and the neuro-chemicals which evolved in us over eons that give rise to those instincts/etc, ALL in the service of SURVIVAL. The thinking part of our brains (which Kaufman has twisted into knots) is primarily used to justify those instincts/etc and to plan how best to achieve our wants and avoid our fears (i.e., how best to survive). If we could fully intellectually (i.e., use the thinking part of our brain) to understand that fact, then, finally, finally, the thinking part of our brain might be used to harness those instinctively driven fears and wants rather than enable them.
![Did Hume encounter Buddhism? | Robert Wright & Alison Gopnik [The Wright Show]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/OXjsu6dFz10/mqdefault.jpg)
![Did Hume encounter Buddhism? | Robert Wright & Alison Gopnik [The Wright Show]](/img/tr.png)
![Engaging Buddhism | Robert Wright & Jay Garfield [The Wright Show]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/-GqsYA1pGqo/mqdefault.jpg)
![Understanding Marxism: Q&A with Richard D. Wolff [June 2019]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/eU-AkeOyiOQ/mqdefault.jpg)
![Our weird universe | Robert Wright & Brian Greene [The Wright Show]](/img/n.gif)
This talk would have been helped by first agreeing on what we are calling the "self". Certainly, what many non-Buddhists have trouble digesting in talks like this is the argument that the (auto-)biographical self does not exist. The fact that I was born when and where I was born, like and dislike what I indeed do like and dislike, have had the childhood only I have had (which no other human being has had or WILL ever have), and the particular life experiences that are known, such as they are, exclusively to "me" are simply indisputable. To suggest to any layperson that this self does not exist is at best unhelpful.
What I wish Robert would have done here, instead, is argue that one's SENSE OF SELF is an illusion, and does not exist. The sense that I am the author-owner of the thoughts that arise in consciousness (and the feelings these thoughts in turn produce) is the illusion. "My" thoughts arise within the chain of cause and effect. These causes and effects include events that I have experienced, but obviously reach back to before I was born, and to realms which will forever remain unknowable to me. In that sense my thoughts are not mine. Which is to say, finally, that the THINKER AS ME does not exist.
In other words, the words I speak and think, which seem to be so intimately mine and mine alone, are not mine and ultimately beyond my control. This speaker-thinker-as-me does not exist. Grasping this, btw, is what makes "letting go of selfishness" desirable and moral in the first place.
As far as my biographical ("conventional") self, again, I believe it's more helpful to take it as a given and say it is not vulnerable to the Buddhist conception of the way things are.
M.Y
wrong question Bob -- "the Buddha on two occasions assigned the question of the existence or non-existence of the self to the category of questions to be put aside". The not-self teaching is primarily a strategy of using not-self perceptions to "end any passion or delight that would keep the mind clinging".
I always thought the whole "not self" thing was just a way of trying to describe the experience of having a calm mind. Like as in your not caught up in the momentum of thought and emotion connected to your past and future, and are just experiencing the moment and the thoughts both with a sort of equal objectiveness and clarity
I am late to this discussion, but I would like to say to anyone else coming in around this point, that the comment section is
one of the most interesting aspects of the experience.
If you’ve ever experienced a flow state without thoughts, you’ve experienced “no self”, at least partially. For anyone confused by this discussion, Jay Garfield does an excellent job of distinguishing between the illusory “self” and the real “person”. Essentially, the sense of a self that resides in our head and makes choices about our actions like a CEO/homunculus living in our brain is created by thoughts. The sense of self is real inasmuch as thoughts are real, but the self has no control and therein lies the illusion. It’s a story the mind tells to explain its actions, similar to what happens in the experiments done by Gazzaniga on split brain patients. Unfortunately, the discussion doesn’t come to this definitive of the self until the very end when they’re out of time.
These disagreements are rooted in linguistics. First, you need to define/deconstruct "the self".
This was great.
At times this conversation is uncomfortabe because Kaufman is talking about "persons" while Wright is talking about "selves."
"Not self" is not "not exist" or nothingness. "Not exist" is one of the extreme fault view (extreme hedonism and asceticism). Both should have more background this buddhism dharma topic before discussing further to avoid more confusion. Not self, in fact, it is the Dependent Origination.
Dan would seem to me to have an inability to consider the arguments being made, when something begins to impinge on what he's saying, he moves on to a different argument, negating the validity by essentially saying "so what" or "practically this has no application". This may be rhetorically useful, but pretty unconvincing, and feels like it's being made in bad faith though I don't feel like this was his intention. From my view both Bob and Dan seem to have a great misunderstanding about what it means to be enlightened. Consider that being enlightened doesn't mean you are morally perfect. It would be better conceived as a change in perspective, on a fundamental level. You cannot fully understand a change in perspective until you experience it, and while the conversation was entertaining, if frustrating, I think you will have little success trying to argue about aspects of enlightenment like no-self. The only argument to be made here is to really try meditation or contemplative practices, otherwise you can only speak about your own conceptions about enlightenment, which is not useful. For my own practice, I find it better to view enlightenment as a total unknown to try to avoid just butting heads with my own conceptions about it. I realize the paradox, just earlier I was saying it is a change in perspective, and now that I try to think of it as completely unknowable (from my current perspective). Talking about practice is not identical to the practice, it is an approximation, and words themselves draw you inevitably into dualisms. Thanks to Bob for this channel and so many great and thought provoking interviews!
I also found your observations regarding this conversation to be true.
"No, it doesn't." is usually the best answer in my opinion. But here we are talking about teachings, so be careful. "Anything possessing any sign is illusory." - Sheng Yen
In western terms this is a disagreement between a process philosophy and a substance philosophy. In process philosophy there is no substance called a "self". The Buddha makes the case that the 5 aggregates or processes is all that is need to explain our experience of self. However, the argument of the chariot may show that there is more to it. If you take a chariot apart is there anything more than the pieces that make up the chariot? Yes and no. A pile of wood is not a chariot. The chariot has to configured and formed in a certain way to work. So the " form " of the chariot is not only part of the chariot bout a necessary condition for having a chariot. In the same way, the self is a unifying factor or form of the consciousness.
I found this discussion to be disappointing and frustrating. Dan seems to be constantly changing the subject because he is completely missing the point of the not-self, which I admit can be difficult to grasp. Also, I honestly don't think Bob does the best job of communicating the concept.
Rather than saying the self does not exist, it might be more useful to say that the self is not what we think it is. If Bob would go into the idea of sub-selves or mind-modules, his audience might begin to see that what we think of as the self begins to break down. Cross-referencing some Sam Harris "there is no such thing as free will" could help bring together a better understanding of what it actually means to be human.
I am convinced that Bob is correct in his analysis, but I was able to come to that place after having read his book, and listening to a lot of Alan Watts lectures.
Dan speaks of a value being that which matters to someone. Shared values mattering to most of us. A hard science view might be- in the moments of sharing values our widely dispersed mirror neurons are in play,dissolving the borders between the illusion of selves. This supports the ides of no stable self over time.
if there is no continuity of identity then how can you get better at anything?
"You" can't.
Good conversation and thanks for the upload. I think it could be good to have another more developed discussion on this topic, or touching on it, at a later time. A lot of the comments made underneath the video make sense and it would be good to take some of them on board. I will just add that that though I understand you are both passionate about the topic, it would be more productive to try to stay a bit calmer.
I think Dan made some valuable criticism's of Bob's presentation of 'not-self', but found the arguments towards the end about our evolved intuitions and prioritising your loved ones very shallow. I think the defence of a parent doing exceptional things for a child is much more about the parent having primary responsibility for the child, and that being their role (who else will do it?), rather than 'I do it because I care about them more and I want to'. Also any argument on these grounds in favour of eating animals is completely different to a parental relationship, and is just a post hoc rationalisation.
I would disagree more with Singer that it is the role of politics to eliminate poverty (public, social), rather than individuals donating their money (private, personal). I don't see why we should be pitting good schooling against a starving child. That is too much accepting the parameters of this economic and political system.
I would also add that moral values aren't just subjective, they are intersubjective. The fact that others' interests are as real as mine is the objective basis for ethics, it is not a simple matter of me preferring to help others or not.
Love Wright's videos but he really does no justice to the concept of nonself.
Well, you can't blame himself.
Another excellent talk.....
Although his refusal to engage with Peter Singer philosophically is alarming, a total cop-out. Good vid.
The "Self" is the Father/Brahma within each human. Each individual person must Purify their thoughts that is to increase the positive/love/forgive thoughts while decrease/eliminate the self-centered hateful thoughts.....And work on love the Creator/Father/Brahma and Love will be reflected back to the individual person
muddled
Learning through talking points, they are searching so don't say they are wrong, Write has an empty spot after losing his religion he needs to review Carl Jung and regonize that awareness is only possible by enlightenment and non enlightenment therefore conscienness. The Tao
kaufman's critique is not structured. it's a gish gallop of objection
Funny talk. Point for Bob though in the moral issue. It's so evident that our family love is instinctive and result of evolutionary process (many animals feel the same). About the self I would say Daniel to return to meditation practice. Very weak defense from part of Daniel to his points of view for a philosopher. Of course I'm kind of Buddhist but in my defense I'd say that I did have study philosophy and buddhism.
The baseball hat guy can't philosophically defend his preference for his kid over a stranger. He's backed up against a wall and utterly defeated. Checkmate, Bob.
Nice strawman
Interesting conversation -
The goal of Buddhism is transcendental - although yes, earnestly cultivating the Noble Eightfold path will result in benefits (especially moral ones) in this impermanent world as well - but the ultimate point is not to create a utopian society, it isn't really about ideals as much as it is about experiencing penetrating insight into the nature of the conditioned world, especially how suffering comes to be. Unfortunately, according to Buddhism, the conditioned reality that we are experiencing now is impermanent, and unsatisfactory (and not-self) - but you can't blame the Buddha for that. He didn't create reality, but he did explain it so that we can become free from ignorance and suffering.
BTW, I do believe true enlightenment is possible - although I have not attained it!
(I also am skeptical that some of your guests have actually attained enlightenment as they claim - but hey...)
I'm enjoying watching your interviews, and look forward to reading your latest book.
Best
The blind leading the blinder.
Blind and blinderer.
I'm with Dan...it seems like the idea to not fixate on envy is good advice outside of Buddhism, and the idea that the self disappears is confused (eg, who is it that is not thinking as a self?).
"Due to sameness of selflessness of all phenomena,. One's mind is primordially unborn;. It is in the nature of emptiness. " empty of what? empty of inherent existence. empty of self.
Some sense of morality is built into the fabric of reality, not merely created by human beings - otherwise karma/kamma doesn't make sense...but it doesn't come from natural selection. consciousness not a product of brain - though it is associated with a functioning brain in a human being (and animals).
Daniel must be an existentialist. I say this because he is ego-centered and needs the stage of society to exist well opposing religion and science. The thing is existentialists think their existence precedes essence and are the sum of their own choices.Their theory collapses because religeon, science and society have to pick up after their bad choices.
If you believe the self is only real in the sense of its relatedness to others, well, you are VERY close (IMO) to understanding anatta - because then you should ask yourself, am "I" other people's emotions/thoughts - that doesn't really make any sense. and different people have contradictory views, and will look at me in totally different ways, so am I a totally contradictory but nonetheless inherently existing totally substantial entity? No - the social self is not an absolute self, it is a conditioned, impermanent, relative thing which also is anatta.
I must comment again, a Jivanmukti in a state of Turiya is described as being able to be human and yet has defeated Karma and Samsara, since he has experienced a form of Purusha for a period of time where the Gods (in Christianity something like Archangels) have granted an unlimited enjoyment of the earth Since Brahma is along by his side for a ride as a pure human.
On humans,Notions about the Self are derivative consequences from the recursive structure on the used languages ... What You believe is "Your Self" is just a collection of local/body memories associated on a "feedback looped programming language algorithm" ( conditional imposed conversations "inside" the body, silent speech on the body about the body, localized fear's chemistry ) ...
Self notions exist, but those notions are not a requirement for Existence ... Therefore, Existence without self notions , Exist ...
But Self Notions can not exist without an Existential Background ...
Local/Personal Notions require an Impersonal background to exist, meanwhile, Impersonal/non local notions do not require a Personal background to exist (except on The Personal God hypothesis, but that is just Imaginary Human's Speculation without factual observations) ...
Therefore, by excluding the Personal God hypothesis, We can declare that Non Local Impersonal Nature is primordial to any sort of local and Personal Existence ...
Of course, Apes trapped on beliefs were/are/will be protecting their Self (God) up to their extinction ...
Truth is forever, Lie perish ...
Then, If You want to perish, feed The Self ...
If You want to survive, feed the Existential Background ...
The Talking Apes do not know how The Language Structures affect their existential "specs, features and possibilities" ...
But It seems educational to bring the kids to the Segregation Zoo to learn about Apes as Ancestors ...
Self = No Self/Being/Consciousness. Definition: Self is "That-which-is-and-that-which-is-experiencing"
*Does the self exist?* Unpacking it: Does experiencing exist..? Does Consciousness exist..? Is there Being..? If the answer to these questions is "yes" the self exist. If the answer is "no" the self does not exist.
Midiwave Pr
The self exist ????
I don't think enlightenment comes with a mandatory erase of the "self mode" of experience. In today's world, all 7 billion of us are doing a most unbelievable thing - each night we disengage our self; and we do it as if it's the most trivial thing! Talking of which, there is the saying that "The common man is amazed only in front of miraculous events, while the learned man is amazed in front off what appear to be unexceptional everyday affairs". But back to what i wanted to say, i don't see why the human being couldn't have more than the usual awake/deep sleep/REM/altered modes of consciousness. If you think awakening = loosing the self, you might not be awakened fully to "the ground of being" (or at least the GoB we can reach as humans). I think an enlightened being is able to disengage it's biological and social center of gravity, abandoning the selfish mode of being and freeing its consciousness from being structured by the social "persona", BUT just as it always comes a time to wake up in the morning, it could also come a time to engage the "self mode" and start doing art, fuck, break stuff, enjoy a drama, and so on. Waking up in the morning is automatic, being taking care of by the biological apparatus, but how would such a being choose when to engage and disengage the self? I very much enjoyed a line from the brilliant tv series "Fortitude" when the sheriff says: "It simply presents itself..". An enlightened being knows that we're moved by a source outside ourselves (even when we're manifesting our will.. we're not the cause of it (causa sui)), so it has absolutely no qualms with it. Otherwise, "enlightened" folks, running around "without their selves" only because they fell to cultural delusion while hiding away from personal negative circumstances, are in the tens or hundreds of thousands only here in the west. So, another dimension opened within the human being for a new state of consciousness doesn't sound half bad.
And, i'm not sure that people writing essays about the dangers of turning ourselves into saints, know the world in which they are living. Right now, if that woman mentioned in the discussion, would feel the average conscious-state of the lower (economic wise) 4 billion human souls, plus the animals impacted by our behavior, she would eat every single piece of paper on which she wrote that smart essay.. or perhaps even her laptop. I hear there's a Guiness Book record where a fellow eat an entire small aircraft, ingesting small pieces of it throughout a decade or two so i'm sure she'll manage it. There's nothing more disgusting than an individual who's feeling threatened by the possibility of too much "goodness", while he's obviously living in a society where this should be our last worry. Unfortunately, and amazingly ,there are quite a few waging war on prosocial/pro-environmental mindsets. The following link can take you to a most intriguing statistic and a suggestive 2 minute clip, pointing towards the elephant in the room - medium.com/@rares_mircea_82/even-if-you-were-to-spend-a-million-dollars-a-day-you-would-still-have-to-wait-2-736-years-to-go-c70888766d ; I wish that smart woman would have the sufficient emotional intelligence and moral fiber to consider the share magnitude of the situation.
Kaufman's an idiot to fail to recognize the absolutely critical purpose of evolutionary "intuition" on what 'makes us tick' (i.e., human nature) and, thus, how critically important it is to consider that 'intuition' in any decent philosophical discussion. I would, however, frame Wright's "intuition" concept in terms of instincts/feelings/emotions and the neuro-chemicals which evolved in us over eons that give rise to those instincts/etc, ALL in the service of SURVIVAL.
The thinking part of our brains (which Kaufman has twisted into knots) is primarily used to justify those instincts/etc and to plan how best to achieve our wants and avoid our fears (i.e., how best to survive). If we could fully intellectually (i.e., use the thinking part of our brain) to understand that fact, then, finally, finally, the thinking part of our brain might be used to harness those instinctively driven fears and wants rather than enable them.
The philosopher hits every nail on the head. The touchy-feely wannabe Buddhist dude doesn't have a clue.