Clyde G. is a respected thinker and Neo-Buddhist who has been acknowledged for his ability to ask questions going to the heart of issues regarding metaphysical models of reality.

Re: Self and the lack of self: Part IV

[050617 djs continues] Although I'm not sure what to do with the last three statements let me state the following:

[050619 cg] And I'm not sure what to do with your comments below. We all claim Truth and we are all true.

[050617 djs continues] The metaphysical understanding put forward by symbiotic panentheism fully embraces your positions.

The purpose of symbiotic panentheism is not to establish a religion but rather to place into society a model of reality based upon scientific, religious, and philosophical wisdoms which together establish the underlying rationality needed to validate the model itself.

The model, interestingly enough, does nothing to reduce the significance or the legitimacy of Buddhism, Islam, Atheism, Judaism, Tao, Hinduism, Rosicrucians, Theosophers, Catholics, Protestents, Cosmologists, Existentialists, Phenomenologists, ...

Symbiotic panentheism is a universal philosophy capable of acting as the trunk from which all of the above can branch uniquely. The roots of sp are composed of the human wisdom generated by the above and the roots of sp find themselves anchored in the soil of rational discourse.

As such to argue the points you present is in essence to suggest Buddhism is 'wrong' when in fact it is no more wrong than is Christianity, Hinduism, ...

[050621 djs] I am not ‘claiming truth’. I am simply analyzing the vast libraries of humanity in the attempt to understand the whole of reality and the role we, you and I, have to play within such a reality.

As for your aphorism: ‘We all claim Truth and we are all true.’ Let us hope this is not the case since the statement implies ‘relative moralism’ is valid. Is this what you are suggesting?

[050614 cg continues] ... Such a person

[050619 cg] And to your statements below, you may purport whatever pleases you. As I have stated previously, I do not represent Buddhism. I am not a philosopher, scientist, or theologian. I only express my own beliefs and understanding. Your comments are about symbiotic panentheism and Buddhism. I am not Buddhism. I am a person.

[050617 djs] But there can be no 'person' if there is 'no self'. Symbiotic panentheism would purport that Buddhism is correct when it address positive issues, address issues of what is as opposed to issues of 'what is not'. Symbiotic panentheism holds this view of all religions, sciences, and philosophies. Symbiotic panentheism also suggest that the negative absolutism embraced by religions, sciences, and philosophies is where the three must tread lightly and where the three are most likely to be in error.

For instance Buddhism address the issue of The Whole in a positive sense, but appears to state the 'self' does not exist. The absolutism of the negative, "self 'does not' exist", is what is Buddhism leaves as it emerges from the trunk of the tree represented by sp. The religion of Buddhism then becomes a branch which distinguishes itself from the trunk through the process of removing 'self'. The branch therefore is symbolically 'smaller' than the trunk.

This does not cause the branch to be insignificant nor does it cause the branch to be invalid but rather the branch simply represents a unique perception of reality which fits the needs of specific organizations (branches of branches, stems of branches, ... ) and of individuals (the leaves) and the thinkers, developers of new ideas, artists, creative individuals ... (flowers found on the branches).

[050621 djs] I also am not a philosopher, scientist, or theologian. I, like you, am simply a person. If you sensed I was suggesting otherwise, I did not intend to mislead you. If you sense I have been suggesting you are an expert in Buddhism, I have not intended to put you in that position.

All the dialogues have listed you as a ‘Neo-Buddhist’. This terminology was extracted from you at my encouragement. You never were enthusiastically professing yourself to be any form of Buddhist nor have you ever indicated you were an expert in Buddhistic dogmas, traditions, or fundamentals. You have always been very forthright, honest, and well intentioned.

I sincerely hope I have not shaken your faith for that was not my intent. My questions were statements intended to open the mind to the concept of pluralism.

I have a brother and a sister who are very religious. They never question their beliefs. They simply state the obvious: They are religious and believe through faith alone. There is nothing wrong with such a position. In fact it is very refreshing and honest.

I too am religious. Symbiotic panentheism is not my religion. If symbiotic panentheism ever becomes a religion it will have failed miserably in terms of what it was intended to do. Sp is intended to be the foundation from which all religions, sciences, and philosophies can spring. Sp is intended to provide a model of reality which provides the means by which pluralism, tolerance, respect, and brotherhood can flourish.

The questions I have directed towards you are no less unsettling to you than they are to those of my religious leaning.

[050614 cg continues] ... (Such a person) would understand the illusion of separateness, of self, of gain and loss and would be free to act compassionately; i.e., respectfully, kindly, and selflessly.

[050617 djs] I agree completely with your analysis as to the affect Buddhism would have upon civilization should everyone become a Buddhist. But the fact of the matter is that not everyone will become a Buddhist because not everyone agrees with the Buddhistic premise that 'self' does not exist, since the premise is based upon 'faith' as opposed to 'reason'.

[050619 cg] My analysis is of my beliefs and understanding, not Buddhism and it is not based on faith (a belief without evidence). It is based on personal experience and reflection. It is the very lack of faith! You have faith. You have faith that you have a "soul", but can you experience your soul? Can you demonstrate your soul?So your comments regarding faith below may take on meanings that you had not intended.

[050617 djs continues] Now there is nothing 'wrong' with basing one's life upon faith as opposed to 'reason'. In fact faith is a wonderful characteristic of humanity. We have faith in our observations and thus we reach to open the door before entering a room as opposed to walking into the door.

We have faith in our fellow man. We have faith in science. We have faith in the teachings of our religions. We have faith in our ability reason.

Without faith we could not survive.

One must not lose sight of the fact, however, that all people are not 'logical' and not all people are 'reasonable', nor will this ever be true of all people.

What then needs to be established is the trunk of the tree from which all religions, sciences, and philosophies can spring. I would suggest such a trunk can be established using human wisdom/knowledge as the roots from which the trunk emerges and rationality as the soil which anchors the roots.

The trunk is a mutual religious, scientific, and philosophical consensus arrived at through the coordinated analysis of the vast accumulation of human wisdom/knowledge developed by our specie. The trunk provides a common ground upon which the diversity of human opinion can commune and embrace diversity.

[050621 djs] You state: ‘So your comments regarding faith below may take on meanings that you had not intended.’ Excuse my density but are you referring to something in particular?

Leave Comment | Permanent Link | Cosmos

Dialogue with a Neo-Buddhist: Re: Self and the lack of self: Part III

by Daniel J. Shepard on Fri 24 Jun 2005 12:35 PM EDT

Dialogue: A Neo-Buddhist and a Symbiotic Panentheist

Clyde G. is a respected thinker and Neo-Buddhist who has been acknowledged for his ability to ask questions going to the heart of issues regarding metaphysical models of reality.

Re: Self and the lack of self: Part III

[050614 cg continues] ... All things, including us, are not self-existent; i.e., things lack a "self" (or an "eternal soul") and will pass away. This means that there is no self to be selfish.

[050617 djs] I respect your perception, but the question becomes: If there is no self to be selfish then why do we speak of the individual being 'self'ish, since there is no self?

[050619 cg] We are sometimes confused and speak of delusions. That is also our nature.[050621 djs] Delusions are simply perceptions lacking supporting verification. Just because we classify certain perceptions as ‘delusions’ does not mean they are not ‘real’.

[050614 cg continues] ... and that we, our desire, and the things we desire are temporary, and this is the source of selflessness.

[050617 djs] Again I respect your perception but again I ask: If there is no 'self' then do we speak of an individuals 'desire', an individuals selfishness, an individuals incorrect perception, ... ?

[050619 cg] I do not deny that desires arise and pass away, that perceptions arise and pass away, ... . We call them "our" desires, "our" perceptions, ... because we experience them, but there is no owner (one who possesses and has control), there is no owner of the desires, there is no owner of the perceptions, ... . Our desires, our perceptions, ... arise; we do not command that they occur. Our desires, our perceptions, ... pass away; we do not command that they cease. Our experiences occur and cease without our consent; we are not the owners of our experiences.

[050621 djs] Two questions emerge from your statements: If we do not ‘own’ ‘our’ perceptions then who does? And if ‘we’ are unwilling to own our perceptions than who will?

[050614 cg continues] ... A truly logical and reasonable entity, knowing (or believing) the above to be true, would act accordingly.

[050617 djs] And again I respect your position. Here again you speak of 'the' 'entity' as if it exists as 'a' 'self' and as if it has free will to choose yet you speak of there being no 'self'. Where is the rationale which explains the apparent discrepancy of the lack of self and the constant reference to self?

[050619 cg] I do not deny the obvious; i.e., that you and I exist. We are entities. I deny that we have a self (essence or "eternal soul").For example, I do not deny that the chair upon which I sit exists. But if I dissemble the chair into its parts, is there still the chair? Which piece is the chair? Where is the essence of the chair? The chair came into existence and then ceased to exist. We come into existence and then cease to exist. The chair has existence, but no self. We have existence, but no self.If you believe otherwise, then: Examine yourself carefully. Which piece is your "self"? Where is the essence of you; i.e., your soul? Have you experienced your soul?

[050621 djs] Deny what you will, but where does this certainty of absolute denial come from? Is it reason that leads you there? Is it observation that leads you there? Is it believability that leads you there?

Regarding your position and question:For example, I do not deny that the chair upon which I sit exists. But if I dissemble the chair into its parts, is there still the chair? In the tangible/physical, the chair is gone. In the intangible/abstract, the chair remains. In the intangible/knowing, once the chair has been assembled it is never erased. Nothing is lost.

As for the question: Which piece is the chair? Where is the essence of the chair? The chair came into existence and then ceased to exist. In the physical sense you are correct, the chair ceases to exist. In the intangible sense, the chair, once created, never ceases to be.

In terms of your statement:We come into existence and then cease to exist. In the physical sense this would appear to be true. In regards to the intangible I would disagree. I would suggest, nothing is lost. But how can it be that we are lost in the physical sense and yet the statement remains true that ‘Nothing is lost’? If the physical emerges from nothingness, then the physical is nothingness in a different form, thus anything physical which is lost is simply a from of nothingness returning to nothingness and thus ‘nothing is lost’. On the other hand, in terms of the intangible/knowing/consciousness, the chair remains as an entity experienced and thus once again, ‘nothing is lost’.

You say:The chair has existence, but no self. I would tend to agree with this but this point is not yet fully understood by science, philosophy, and/or religion.

You then proceed to say:We have existence, but no self. That is your personal ‘belief’ but it flies in the face of most sciences, most religions, and most philosophies. It is a belief because it is supported by no observations or dialectics.

As for your suggestion:If you believe otherwise, then: Examine yourself carefully. Which piece is your "self"? Where is the essence of you; i.e., your soul? Have you experienced your soul? I would suggest to you that ‘I am my soul/spirit’ and ‘My soul/spirit is who I am.’ I would suggest to you that I am consciousness, consciousness of my experiencing. Symbiotic panentheism supports this perception.I have, therefore, experienced my soul for my soul is who I am.

Leave Comment | Permanent Link | Cosmos