In my understanding of the Madhyamaka school of Buddhism, based upon something I’m currently reading….. The existence of the self, or ego, can be viewed in two ways: The first is conventionally. In everyday life we recognize the existence of a self in each individual when we use phrases such as “I am”, “I have”, and “I did” or “I do”. In this sense the individual self is a real objective object. The second way to view the self is by considering its ultimate reality. Even though the concept of a self is used in everyday living, if we stop and try to find this self we discover that it does not truly exist. This has been explained by comparing the self to a ship, by way of analogy. Certainly we will agree that a ship is an object that can be used in everyday life. But if we try to analyze this ship we find that we must break it down into its constituent parts. It may be found to be made of boards, nails, cloth, and paint. Ultimately, it is just an assemblage of various parts that we have assigned a use to and is not a single unrelated thing. It is only a concept formed by the human mind and cannot sustain itself on its own. Ultimately it has no true identity. However, even this ultimate lack of identity is not ultimately ultimate, for if we try to analyze this ultimate lack of true identity we will find that it cannot be located. Each part of the ship will also be found to lack an ultimate identity, ad infinitum, and so what is the ship really made of? Therefore, the conventional nature of the self is found to be ultimately nonexistent, but only in a conventional manner.
Yeah I think thats fairly accurate. BUT To state that the self/phenomena don't exist at all is nihilism and is 'wrong view'. My take on it; All phenomena have 'subtle existence'. We don't exist of our own accord, true, but we do have some level of existence and that is that we are totally dependent on the phenomena around us... "Even the committing of harmful actions depends on the existence of others...The most subtle level of material phenomena is also governed by interdependence. All phenomena, from the planet we inhabit to the oceans, clouds, forests, and flowers that surround us, arise in dependence upon subtle patterns of energy." - Dalai Lama "Every object needs causes and conditions to exist, just like we need our parents, food, air, clothes and many more things to exist." Because we don't realise that we and all phenomena don't have inherent existence we tend to label and conceptualise whatever we percieve. This causes attachment which causes negative mind states, karma and thus karmic delusion and suffering. Not sure if this take on it is correct?
It's been doing quite well; it does sustain itself through the mind. A fear of death is evidence enough for this.
LOL, Feather, I see what you mean, but this proves the interdependance of all things. We could say that the concept of the self "rides" upon the human mind as a computer program "rides" the computer's hardware, or a particular thought structure such as freedom (a meme) rides the collective minds of humans and thus has an existence. But a mind still must be present to "support" the idea of a self. It is perhaps a symbiotic relationship. Pete, I didn't say it didn't exist, I said it has no independant existence. It does not exist of its own volation and so has no true independant identity. So, I think we agree.
i know what you were saying meagain I was just warning of one of the two extremes one can fall into; One being nihilism claiming non-existence of self, the other claiming existence of a permanent self. Middle-way.
Peterness, there is non-existence of the self, and there is also permanent existence of self. Non-existence is of the individual, deluded self-illusion we are suffering from, while eternal existence is of the higher self, Buddha nature, reality. And that reality, reflected through all our little 'selves' gives them the appearance of separate existence - like the one colorless light that falls on all objects, which according to their nature, appear to be of different colors.
It's a ship. I am a person with a certain name used to indicate my identity. My name might not sum up all that I am, but I am still an individual, despite the fact that my actions are determined by God.
KharaKov, Yes...It's an individual ship, we can even name a particular ship, like the Molly Brown. But it can not exist on its own, it is interrelated to all things. This is all I am trying to say in relation to the self. If we view oursleves as something that exists independantly of other things, this is an incorrect view based on wrong understanding. This means that there is no self independent from "God" and no "God" without self. And while I am an individual, if I don't pay my taxes I get locked up, not you. Still if there were no taxes, no you, no government, etc., there would be no me. The "Middle Way"; there is a self and there is not a self, there is not a self and there is, there is a self, there is no-self, and there is neither. (Did I forget any combinations, I'm too tired to think right now?)
That is spurious logic I think. What if all the humans were suddenly to disappear, leaving everything else behind here on the planet? The ship would still exist as a ship, the sum of its component parts. Just because there was nobody around to label it a ship doesn't mean it wouldn't exist as a ship. One can extend this to the earth itself. Only the most extreme variety of subjectivism would say that the earth doesn't exist because it can be broken down into constituent elements etc. The fact is that the earth existed prior to the emergence of human individuals, and will probably continue to exist after they become extinct. Unless, of course, you imagine that the universe is unreal or an illusion, in which case it is fruitless to say anything at all.
Hmm....well let me see if I can answer that BBB. I agree that a component entity that we label a ship would still exist (if we assume that anything exists without human consciousness). But would it be a ship.....or just a pile of things? How to put this....a ship is a concept. To be recognized as a ship, an object must have certain properties, it must be hollow, of a certain size, able to navagate certain waters, and be used for transport. If it lacks any of these it is not a ship. This is a rough definition of a ship. Within that definition there can be many types of ships made of many types of materials. One ship maybe completely different from another as to how it navagates, size, where it goes, what it hauls, etc. It may look completely different. So that if I were someone who had never seen a ship before and you showed me one ship, I might not recognize another ship as being a ship. So where am I going with this?...good question...let me think.... There is no a priori ship. A ship can only be defined by its purpose. If it is not used as a ship, is it still a ship? If we place the ship The Queen Mary in the middle of the Sahara is it still a ship? I am contending that it is not. It was once a ship...but not now. A ship can only exist in relation to other things, such as an ocean. Take away the ocean, and you take away the ship. Now, you still have something that certainly looks like a ship, but it is not a ship as it cannot perform the function of a ship. So, in your example, if we take away the humans, we are left with something that at one time was a ship, but is not now, it has no purpose. It cannot sustain it self on its own. (Excuse the bold) Now, let's take the Earth. I submit that you cannot define the Earth without defining the universe that contains the Earth. The earth can only exist in relation to everything else. It cannot sustain itself on its own. I didn't say it doesn't exist, I am saying it is a concept that is defined by humans and has no seperate identity. If I am not being clear, or if I am in error, (which is certainly possible), let's try to define what we mean by the Earth and see what happens. Go ahead and I'll see if I can wiggle out of your definition and include the entire universe!
Must be nice to sit all day in meditation and have the rest of the village work + bust ass and offer you food.
It just occurs to me to quote a small rhyme quoted from the section of Bertrand Russell's 'History of Western Philosophy' about Berkeley: "There was a young man who said God must find it exceedingly odd if he see's that the tree continues to be when there's no-one around in the quad. Reply: Dear Sir, your astonishment's odd I am always about in the quad so you see that the tree will continue to be for observed by yours faithfully, God" Now - I know Buddhism doesn't believe in 'God' as such, but I think the underlying principle holds good here. So - you're saying a ship has a 'self' but not a human being??
I like how you capitalised the words of my name... I agree. If you still existed, you would be a different me, not having the same accumulated personal experience that you do at this moment. There is self and others.
meagain, what you're describing reminds me a lot of a book I just read for an existentialism class- Martin Buber's I and Thou. He resonates the same ideas, and expresses that we really only get value out of an I-you relationship, especially out of one of these relationships with God, or the eternal You. You should check it out-
BBB, I'll rephrase that: It cannot be sustained in isolation. KharaKov, Purely accidental! I am not real familiar with existentialism.
I don't say the ship can be sustained in isolation, I said it continues to exist whether or not anyone is there to witness its existence. I can't really see that Watt's comments say anything here beyond word jugglery. The 'names' obviously exist in 'mind'. I'm not clear if he's trying to say that names are all that exist - if so, then I would accuse him of nominalism, similar to Kant. Also, to say western philosophy starts with a dualism of mind/matter seems very wide of the mark, even simplistic. And Buddhism too begins with a duality of samsara/nirvana. However, the facts of the universe are that the earth and many other forms existed prior to the existence of thinking creatures possesed of mind, so it's hard to see how 'nama' can be the source of 'rupa', unless some kind of God type being is also posited, in whose mind the original names exist. If we go back to hindu philosophy regarding nama-rupa, it is also said that there exists 'svarupa', or 'real form', and this is usually applied to the self. On this level, there is no distinction between nama and rupa - the distinction comes through false consciousness. BTW - Hinduism does have a concept for matter or 'stuff' - sometimes Brahman is thought of as undifferentiated 'stuff'. There is also the idea of the Mahat Tattva, a kind of 'primitive' and undifferentiated form of matter from which sperate forms are elaborated.
I think you are saying that things can exist apart from conciousness of the thing in question. Am I right? (I would agree that existence exists [the ship] but could it be called a ship?) If so, I believe this is what Watts is trying to address. I am not claiming to fully understand his position, as I quoted; as I would need to do some research on his use of Mind-Form and Name-Form. But, I will attempt. I don't think this is his position, in my view. I understand him to be saying that in the West we believe, generally (leaving Quantum Mechanics and such out of the picture), that there is something called mind and something seperate called matter. He is addressing materialism here, I believe, which is what the general population subscibes to. Whereas in the East mind and matter are opposite poles of the same thing. I've heard of nominalism, but you would have to explain it to me. Buddhism is full of seeming contradictions. Without getting into this to deeply samsara and nirvana are states of being, not things. I believe you are talking of mind and not Mind. The human mind is a part of Ultimate Mind. Ultimate Mind takes on many forms, all of which are conscious to some degree. Human mind is just one form. This view does not mean there must be a seperate God as Buddhism does not entertain dualities. So, yes we can say that something existed, but is what existed what humans now describe as having existed? Okay, except Buddism and Hinduism differ on the self, unless you get into Vedanta. There are so many forms of Hinduism and Buddhism that it gets very hard to say that Hinduism sez this and Buddism that. We have to really dig deeply to understand the core teachings, I think. And now I'm forgetting what this thread is about! LOL
