Descartes’s famous line, “I think, therefore I am”. Oddly considered to be a fundamental truth, and yet is exactly false.
As any good Buddhist can tell you, the truth is;
I think, therefore I am NOT.
To explain:
Given that I am dreaming of a thinking person, by definition, the person is thinking, yet is not real, merely a figment of a dream, but a thinking figment. The person is thinking, yet does not exist.
And then if I am dreaming that I am a thinking monkey, by definition, that monkey is thinking, yet does not exist.
It is impossible for me to imagine myself as I really am. I might come a little close, but more likely, not even close to what I really am. Thus, when I say that “I think”, I am really talking about a self that doesn’t exist, a “me” that doesn’t really exist, yet is thinking. The “I” that I imagine to be me is the one that I am saying is thinking, yet in reality does not exist.
As any good Buddhist can tell you, you are only awake to reality when there is no “I” to be thinking about. If you think, “I think…”, you are dreaming.
Truth’s only accomplice is sense. If we can’t trust or affirm a sense, then its truth will never be found.
Descartes tries to affirm thought and being, as one proving the other.
A more sluggish spirit would probably not bother to affirm itself and live actively. It would be agnostic or nihilist, towards sense and living.
Right, and we would then not be able to prove that it exists. A rock is dormant, it doesn’t mean it’s lifeless. All matter is a part of life even if it looks dead. This I can sense, but science tells me not to trust the sense that senses it.
Just to clarify, there is a lot of fake “science” put on by noobz in order to feel superior to everyone else falsely.
Real science is not about putting all studies and tests together into a theory.
Theorizing is its own unique thing.
Science is about clearly recording the repeatables of life and the environment.
Without repeatables there would be no fire, no food, no water, etc.
According to the basics of science, a high percent if our senses are existent because of a real stimuli world.
The stimuli world needs to be sensed, but it can also live without being watched.
We are the wanters and the little rule makers.
Can you tell me which Buddhist school exactly promotes this as a premise? I studied many schools, never quite heard this one… I would love to get in contact with them to have just what it is they are trying to make a point of explained within the confines of Buddhist tradition.
Maybe the OP of “I think, therefor i am Not”, is referring to how thoughts and self-ism is divisive. It causes separations within the consciousness which normally are not necessary. The goal is to not think, but it’s not just about stopping thought, it’s about stopping all kinds of “mind acrobatics”, which most people can’t identify or stop even though they have been living with these things for their whole life.
“I think” is self-ism. There is an I, and the assumption is that both you, and your ideas, are real solid objective things.
People cling from thing to thing, and are existing in a cage of thingness.
If thought is not a thing, that means you can’t fully know it or master it.
People don’t like that kind of idea. They want to be in control.
You only need to influence things which need your help, though.
The ego would say that all your attainments and favorite properties of personality are and were necessary.
(I accidentally merged my post with yours then tried to fix it up again. Sorry. I hope you didn’t notice.)
Right, science discards what it can’t directly prove because it’s inconsistent. They will only truly account for that which is; which means they should discount themselves for being inconsistent throughout their entire lives. But, they won’t.
As I explained on the other thread, I don’t know something until I have verified it properly.
Thinking it, doesn’t make it known fact, regardless of the level of confidence.
“I think, therefore I am” is a testimony to willful blindness; “I can’t see anything else, so what I see must be truth”.
… very common among men and endlessly used against them. Magicians (and women) are experts at it.
And what “belief system” would that be?
Just about all of them. With your vast experience and vast education and vast understanding and vast number of contacts, surely you can find the phone number of one of your old buddies and just ask. Propose the idea as if you are defending it and hear what he says.
The buddhists I seen which are more serious about it, would probably not say “self is bad”, like the quickies which want to make it so simple. Self is less good than true being and true pure existence. When you reach a better state, you can look back at your old ways and realize that was not the big picture, that was not as good as enlightenment. “Self is bad” in its western form, is like pulling a bone out of the body of a asian spiritual carcus.
Things like self awareness are easy at lower levels, and even if a person gets advanced, it is not the thing “advancement”. It’s more simple but instead of it taking years of work, it takes years of non work.
Can you prove you exist, Ben? Can you prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that you exist and this world is reality? Can you even prove that you are living and experiencing and not dead and just remembering? Can you prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that you interact with others at all? For all you know, the real you could be laying in a hospital bed somewhere outside of this world inside your head and you could be in a coma, dreaming of real life all the while. You could be dead and in the ground; stuck in your body; thinking you’re still alive as your consciousness no longer senses anything around it. You could be in a tube hooked up to a computer program like in the Matrix and this is only a massive illusion. You don’t know.
To doubt, is to confirm. To believe, is to confirm.
I can’t do either, without first existing.
Thus, I know I exist.
When questioned about these matters, James refused to give a straight answer. That speaks volumes to me. I’m not interested in taking that road any further ATM, so I’ve stopped communication.