The implication from the above question...Then buddhists have no parents?...implies that the self is somehow part of the body. Or the whole body. But is that the case? I am a biological being no different, apart from minor functionality, to any of you. For all intents and purposes we are identical biological beings. If it is 'self' that sets us apart, it is obviously not the biological body.Wizardsblade wrote:Then buddhists have no parents? Can a buddhists create them selves from nothing? bc i have never seen someone pop into existence from nothing.bernee51 wrote:Can you define 'self'?Wizardsblade wrote:"I am god, I am perfect, I have perfect love of myself. No dilemma."
One can not create ones self.
Buddhists would hold otherwise. We do indeed create our self. It can be no other way.
Self - "1. a person or thing referred to with respect to complete individuality" (dictionary.com)
We say "my' limbs, "my" brain, "my" name, "my" comsciousness. Is the 'self' the exclusive owner of these things? If my leg is cut off, my 'self' has lost an arm but itself remains intact. My physical integrity may be diminished, my 'self' however is preserved. If limbs are lost, at what point does the self begin to vanish? We perceive a self as long as we have the power of thought.
Which brings us to Descartes..."I think therefor I am". Does the fact of thought prove anything about the self? Is not the "I" nothing more than the current contents of our mental flow - changing from moment to moment. It is not enough for something to be perceived or conceived of for that thing toexist. We can see a mirage but it has no reality.
The self is a concept of which we can identify no distinct parts but which allows us to conceive of ourselves as single and complete beings.
But does it really exist and if so where is it?
