509: A look at Japan

The tendency of the Platonic-Christian tradition to privilege the soul over the body is manifest in the fact that it was not until Schopenhauer and Nietzsche in the nineteenth century- and then, later, Merleau-Ponty--that European thinkers began to develop extensive philosophies of the body. 

In East Asian thought, by contrast, the body has consistently been a focus of philosophical reflection, whether by virtue of the emphasis on ritual performance in the teachings of Confucius,

the development of breathing and concentration techniques or physical skills in Taoism, or the practice of meditation in sitting, walking, and other physical activity in Buddhism.

Even though the ancient Greeks attached great importance to the training of the body, Plato's association of the head with intellect and rational thought distracted the attention of the subsequent philosophical tradition from the body as a whole. 

Thinking came to be understood as an "internal" process, the outward somatic manifestations of which are relatively unimportant. 

However, by disciplining the movements and postures of the body through ritual practice, one could refine the faculties and capacities of the whole human being. 

This attitude was maintained in the Taoist tradition that developed after Confucius and was thus incorporated in Chinese Buddhism as well as in the Japanese forms of Buddhism that were descended from it. 

This is why the ideas of Zen have traditionally embodied themselves in such activities as archery, swordplay, tea ceremony, Noh drama, painting, and calligraphy.

This is how we know Japan. Not as the historical center of philosophical developments, but as a culture that has assimilated, what came from abroad.

During the 7th through 9th century two major intellectual systems—Confucianism and Buddhism—were imported from Korea and China. 

Whereas Confucianism addressed the “social self,” influencing government structure and patterns of formal behavior, Buddhism provided psychological insight into the workings of the inner self.

These two on their turn were incorporated in, or absorbed by an indigenous intellectual system, which we known as Shinto.

Although the authority of sacred or by god inspired books has often been important, it has not been as singular in its focus in Japan as in many other cultures. 

Thus, the Japanese have not typically identified a single text such as the Bible, the Analects, the Qur’an or the Bhagavad Gītā as foundational to their culture.

Shintō is more readily observed in the social life of the Japanese people and in their personal motivations than in a pattern of formal belief or philosophy.

The basic worldview of the Japanese has been animistic for thousands of years, when Confucianism and Buddhism arrived in Japan.

This worldview assumes that non-human entities, including animals, plants, and often even inanimate objects or phenomena, possess a spiritual essence - SHIN, where TO means “The way” -

Under the entry “Shinto sects and schools” in Wikipedia more that a hundred are mentioned, many initiated by Buddhist monks or Confucians.

And that is characteristic of Japanese thinking: there has never been something like the Truth, a Bible or Holy Text. There hardly exists dogmatism. All world views coexist peacefully.

As you see, no new philosophical or ethical theories. What may be interesting,is the fact that Shinto never was “exported” like Confucianism or Buddhism or Christianity.

The main reason for this is probably that Japan was closed for foreigners with a small exception until Admiral Perry steamed into the bay of Yokohama on July 8, 1853.

Here ends our journey into an Asia of Confucianism, Taoism, and Buddhism. Our next stop will be in India, which among other things is the birthplace of what we now call logic.

The Discussion

[13:19] Qwark Allen: ::::::::: * E * X * C * E * L * L * E * N * T  * ::::::::::

[13:19] Daruma BoaDaruma Boa claps

[13:19] herman Bergson: Thank you ^_^

[13:19] Gemma Allen: really?

[13:19] herman Bergson: Really what Gemma?

[13:19] Lizzy Pleides: great lecture again!

[13:20] Gemma Allen: that was the birthplace of logic???

[13:20] Nectanebus: well done

[13:20] Oceane: thank you for a great lecture, herman

[13:20] herman Bergson: thank you Lizzy :-)

[13:20] Bejiita Imako: yes this was some good things

[13:20] Gemma Allen: india?

[13:20] herman Bergson: Yes as a student I really was surprised myself then

[13:20] Oceane: sorry folks but I got to run rl calls me, good bye ㋡

[13:20] Gemma Allen: see you soon

[13:20] herman Bergson: Bye Oceane...

[13:20] Daruma Boa: bye oceane

[13:21] herman Bergson: Of course Aristotle is the grandfather of our logic....

[13:21] Gemma Allen: Yes-ah!

[13:21] Bejiita Imako: ah4

[13:21] Bejiita Imako: seems so

[13:21] herman Bergson: But there are rumors that he had contacts in India...

[13:21] Lizzy Pleides: the indian people were good in mathematics i think

[13:22] herman Bergson: But don’t worry...we'll dig into that Gemma :-)

[13:22] Bejiita Imako: ok ㋡

[13:22] herman Bergson: Yes Lizzy...

[13:22] Lizzy Pleides: and they influenced the arabian intellectuals

[13:22] Nectanebus: There's a lot of veins that run back to India. I've heard it thought that Yeshua's journey into the desert sent him there.

[13:22] Nectanebus: gah, three lines, sorry.

[13:22] herman Bergson: and philosophically there were pure materialist schools too

[13:23] herman Bergson: lol..that is ok Netanebus

[13:23] herman Bergson: The idea is only not to dump complete notecards in chat :-)

[13:23] Chantal: ㋡

[13:23] Nectanebus: k

[13:24] .: Beertje :.: if you strech the window Nectanebus..it can be written on just one line :))))

[13:24] Lizzy Pleides: lol beertje

[13:24] herman Bergson: hush Beertje ! :-))

[13:24] Daruma Boa: ^^

[13:24] .: Beertje :.: ㋡

[13:24] Gemma AllenGemma Allen GIGGLES!!

[13:24] Gemma Allen: ...LOL...

[13:24] Qwark Allen: °͜° l ☺ ☻ ☺ l °͜°

[13:24] Qwark Allen: lol

[13:24] Nectanebus: I guess there is that

[13:24] Bejiita Imako: hehehe

[13:24] Qwark Allen: was just a line in my view

[13:25] Lizzy Pleides: you can buy a larger screen too beertje

[13:25] herman Bergson: One remark on  the Japanese....

[13:25] Nectanebus: IDK, I'm kind of stuffed to the brim with stuff like this, I'm afraid to start talking. Suizen, that's all

[13:25] Nectanebus: brim*

[13:25] herman Bergson: They didn’t export their philosophy because they thought thety were superior to other people....

[13:26] Bejiita Imako: ok

[13:26] Lizzy Pleides: many cultures did that and still do

[13:26] Nectanebus: think*

[13:26] herman Bergson: Yes indeed..

[13:26] Bejiita Imako: aha

[13:26] Bejiita Imako: true

[13:27] Nectanebus: I'm going to be the one to say it, then: I think elitism can be healthy

[13:27] Gemma Allen: The American Indian always believed in the sprit of everything

[13:27] Gemma Allen: in everything that is

[13:27] Nectanebus: so I give the Japanese a bit of leeway in that regard haha

[13:27] herman Bergson: I already expected that this lecture wouldn’t provoke serious questions and debates :-)

[13:28] herman Bergson: Yes Gemma.....

[13:28] Nectanebus: and yes Gem, interesting parallel there.

[13:28] Bejiita Imako: yes

[13:28] herman Bergson: The interesting thing about animism is that it is the way the mind begins to understand the world....

[13:28] Velvet: Nectanebus, how is elitism healthy?

[13:29] herman Bergson: Kids in the age of 3 to 5 believe that animals can talk, trees can feel pain...even a stone can live ...

[13:29] Bejiita Imako: yes

[13:29] Bejiita Imako: sort of that way

[13:29] Nectanebus: makes sense to me, Herman

[13:29] herman Bergson: It also is the beginning of religion in culture

[13:30] herman Bergson: First stage is animism....

[13:30] herman Bergson: then the spirits become antropomorph ...human shape....

[13:31] herman Bergson: then you go from a polytheist to a monotheism and then hell breaks loose :-)

[13:31] Nectanebus: Such as Sumer

[13:31] Gemma AllenGemma Allen GIGGLES!!

[13:31] Gemma Allen: ...LOL...

[13:31] Qwark Allen: °͜° l ☺ ☻ ☺ l °͜°

[13:31] Qwark Allen: lol

[13:31] Bejiita Imako: hahaha and then the bombs start falling

[13:31] Qwark Allen: my god is better then yours bejita, let me bomb your country

[13:31] herman Bergson: yes...because then they gonna say that their One God is the true god....

[13:31] Qwark Allen: °͜° l ☺ ☻ ☺ l °͜°

[13:31] Qwark Allen: lol

[13:32] Bejiita Imako: hahah yes that is how they think

[13:32] Bejiita Imako: i guess

[13:32] herman Bergson: No mine is better...he is the true one Qwark

[13:32] Bejiita Imako: at least some guys

[13:32] Areyn Laurasia: but.. but.. the power of the god and the sun is in the bomb... :P

[13:32] Nectanebus: Cthulhu, why vote for the lesser evil?

[13:32] Qwark Allen: i`ll bomb your country to herman

[13:32] Qwark Allen: °͜° l ☺ ☻ ☺ l °͜°

[13:32] Qwark Allen: lol

[13:32] Bejiita Imako: hahaha chutullu yes, that is a bad guy for sure

[13:32] Bejiita Imako: ㋡

[13:32] herman Bergson: How divine Qwark :-))

[13:33] Bejiita Imako: ㋡

[13:33] Qwark Allen: somehow its how i see this religions nowadays

[13:33] herman Bergson: Around 1650 - 1750 the Japanese kicked out all jesuits and prosecuted christians

[13:33] Qwark Allen: good for them :-)))

[13:33] Qwark Allen: very wise

[13:33] Nectanebus: Japan was the only country to refuse muskets, IIRC

[13:34] herman Bergson: They thought that this monotheistic religion was disrupting their society

[13:34] Qwark Allen: look what hapen to us all

[13:34] Nectanebus: I think herman, that's the crux of why "religion" is a dirtier word in the West than elsewhere.

[13:34] Lizzy Pleides: when people don't have religion they substitute it with any other thing which often is not much better

[13:34] Nectanebus: gah, typos

[13:34] Bejiita Imako: i guess so

[13:34] Nectanebus: Good point there, Liz. That's what Nietzsche's "God is Dead" was REALLY about...

[13:35] Bejiita Imako: buddhism is one of the few religions that is not used to start wars

[13:35] Bejiita Imako: like islams jihad and similar things

[13:35] herman Bergson: I just wanted to mention that Bejiita...

[13:35] Qwark Allen: this major religions are involved in politics and economy! i think that says all

[13:35] herman Bergson: Buddhism SINT a religion.....

[13:35] Bejiita Imako: yes

[13:35] herman Bergson: it is a way of life

[13:35] herman Bergson: ISNT

[13:35] Nectanebus: Bejita, I'd look up how Budd/Confu/Tao-ism have had friction in Chinese society before saying that haha

[13:35] Bejiita Imako: and that is a big problem when u let religion and politics mix

[13:36] Qwark Allen: yes

[13:36] herman Bergson: True Nectanebus....

[13:36] Bejiita Imako: but budhism seems more peace related in general

[13:36] herman Bergson: also Buddhists were prosecuted in China

[13:36] Velvet: I agree Bejiita

[13:36] Bejiita Imako: at least the basic concept of it

[13:36] Qwark Allen: that was the improvement in society when in the 17th century we broke that connection

[13:36] herman Bergson: I agree Bejiita

[13:36] Nectanebus: Christianity is about as peaceful as they come if you read the New Testament too, we shouldn't judge a book by it's adherents haah

[13:36] Velvet: religion & politics don't go together

[13:36] Bejiita Imako: indeed

[13:37] Bejiita Imako: then it get a big mess

[13:37] Bejiita Imako: just look on Iran after 1979

[13:37] Nectanebus: I prefer a theocracy to a 1984 state, at least there's some morality inherent in the former system

[13:37] Bejiita Imako: basically went back in time several 100 years

[13:37] Bejiita Imako: cause of khomeini’s terror

[13:37] Qwark Allen: look for , where are all major warfare events in the globe, and what are they related to

[13:38] Nectanebus: what is a smokescreen?

[13:38] Velvet: Ah, but is morality inherent, or does it only come with a religion?

[13:38] Areyn Laurasia: mistakes of the past foreign policies

[13:38] herman Bergson: Morality is not the privilege of religion....

[13:38] Velvet: one can be atheist and moral.

[13:38] herman Bergson: Aristotalian virtue ethics doesn't need religion as an argument

[13:38] Nectanebus: Oh, that's a sticky fish Velvet haha. Does altruism exist? Do we act morally without judges? heavy stuff

[13:39] Velvet: Professor made us kick that idea around earlier

[13:39] Gemma Allen: i htink it does exisit

[13:39] Velvet: I'm still working on it.

[13:39] Gemma AllenGemma Allen GIGGLES!!

[13:39] Gemma Allen: ...LOL...

[13:39] herman Bergson: And indeed we are altruistic by nature...

[13:39] Nectanebus: Herman the optimist!

[13:39] Gemma Allen: i am stil working on years of classes

[13:39] Qwark Allen: °͜° l ☺ ☻ ☺ l °͜°

[13:39] Qwark Allen: lol

[13:39] Areyn Laurasia: :)

[13:39] Velvet: we are moral by nature!

[13:40] herman Bergson: Behind me you see the book cover of a book by de Waal...

[13:40] Gemma Allen: ohoh

[13:40] Bejiita Imako: that i hope indeed

[13:40] Bejiita Imako: ㋡

[13:40] Nectanebus: nature versus nurture again

[13:40] herman Bergson: Not really I would say nectanebus...

[13:41] herman Bergson: Look at all cultures we discussed so far....everywhere is morality...

[13:41] Nectanebus: I was talking about Velevet's comment, just having a giggle

[13:41] philosophers Giver 1.0: Philosopher's Gift at Wainscot has just been used by Gemma Cleanslate!

[13:41] Qwark Allen: ehheh got you necta

[13:41] Velvet: but we are moral because it's logical and benefits us when we live with others

[13:41] Nectanebus: Yeah, it's just whether there is a common thread within said moralities that would point towards an "inherent human morality"

[13:41] Bejiita Imako: ㋡

[13:41] herman Bergson: The homo sapiens is a social animal.....that is in his genes....

[13:41] Velvet: that makes it inherent

[13:41] Bejiita Imako: yes

[13:41] Bejiita Imako: true

[13:42] Nectanebus: No, I mean if they all have moralities, but they are different moralities with no common thread, then is there and inherrent for all humans or have they all learnt it socially?

[13:42] Nectanebus: an*

[13:42] herman Bergson: Sometimes I believe that there present day problems with morality is that mankind lives in all kinds of stages of mental development....

[13:42] Nectanebus: gah, fragment haha

[13:42] Velvet: lol. the answer is yes.

[13:43] herman Bergson: from stone age mentality to individualistic greed

[13:43] Areyn Laurasia: so morality changes over the years?

[13:43] Velvet: moralities have common threads

[13:43] Gemma Allen: and we change as we age too

[13:43] Nectanebus: idk, name me a taboo and I'll probably be able to think of a culture where it's not....if my research is worth anything haha

[13:43] Bejiita Imako: hehe ok

[13:43] Bejiita Imako: ㋡

[13:43] Nectanebus: ah, now progressive morality, that's an interesting thread as well

[13:43] Velvet: yeah, but you are looking for loopholes instead of common threads

[13:43] Nectanebus: maybe

[13:44] Velvet: don't kill, don't steal.

[13:44] Velvet: common.

[13:44] Velvet: logical.

[13:44] Bejiita Imako: yes

[13:44] Bejiita Imako: very¨

[13:44] herman Bergson: The problem is that we think of some general "Mind"

[13:44] herman Bergson: but there isnt...

[13:44] herman Bergson: Like the universal Rights of Man.....

[13:44] Bejiita Imako: so many different minds it seems

[13:45] Bejiita Imako: not a universal on

[13:45] Bejiita Imako: e

[13:45] Velvet: yes, but there is an element of groupthink.

[13:45] herman Bergson: For some people they are even not understandable

[13:45] Bejiita Imako: aha

[13:45] Nectanebus: killing is fine via many religious tenents, and stealing...well, I@m sure some of us have heard of the pirate party...

[13:45] herman Bergson: And yes logic and mathematics are universal :-)

[13:46] Velvet: loopholes!

[13:46] Nectanebus: threads

[13:46] Velvet: logic and mathematics are universal

[13:46] Nectanebus: Don't get me wrong, I'm towards the idea of inherrent morality, but I always flounder for decent sources haha

[13:46] Bejiita Imako: u mean the party here in Sweden that hame as main way free flow of information on the internet ect?

[13:46] Bejiita Imako: have

[13:46] Nectanebus: yup

[13:46] herman Bergson: it was our mind that created it in interaction with its environment

[13:47] Nectanebus: I think the ideas of Open Source can be traced back to libertairian ideas represented nowadays by romaticized pirates, but having philo- groundings

[13:47] Velvet: agreeing with Nectanebus now.

[13:47] Gemma Allen: hmmm

[13:48] Nectanebus: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertatia

[13:48] herman Bergson: There is one problem here.....

[13:48] Nectanebus: for instance

[13:48] Nectanebus: aye?

[13:48] Bejiita Imako: the idea is basically that they don’t want someone deciding what u can and cant do with your data, also they are against NSA and for personal privacy ect

[13:48] herman Bergson: the concept "information"

[13:48] Nectanebus: ??

[13:49] herman Bergson: information is interpreted data....

[13:49] Bejiita Imako: like CERN stated when they made the www, No one own the internet

[13:49] herman Bergson: for the interpretation you need a context and rules

[13:49] Nectanebus: but when servers are hosted in countries that impose laws, it's already there.

[13:49] herman Bergson: and those matters are controlled by culture, politics, psychology etc

[13:49] Velvet: internet is just a net

[13:50] Velvet: information can be owned

[13:50] Bejiita Imako: yes

[13:50] Nectanebus: I think information wants to be free

[13:50] Velvet: my SS# is not free information

[13:50] Velvet: ... or is it?

[13:50] herman Bergson: That is the worst part of it....owned and thus become an economic comodity...money!

[13:50] Nectanebus: yup

[13:51] Velvet: but money is virtual as well

[13:51] Bejiita Imako: yes

[13:51] Nectanebus: I'd say CrimethInc. is the right way to go about it

[13:51] Bejiita Imako: my payroll is just binary data on a banks server

[13:51] Nectanebus: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CrimethInc

[13:51] Bejiita Imako: what i have on my account

[13:51] Bejiita Imako: also makes such thing a target for hackers

[13:52] Bejiita Imako: to try get to your money, but making viruses ect

[13:52] herman Bergson: I think way wandered of pretty far from the Way of the spirit now....the Shinto :-)

[13:52] Velvet: waaaay off

[13:52] Gemma Allen: true

[13:52] Velvet: off

[13:52] Daruma Boa: ^^^

[13:52] Bejiita Imako: haha

[13:52] herman Bergson: So I guess...you all got enough to think about now :-)

[13:52] Gemma Allen: hope i can get here thursday

[13:53] Bejiita Imako: well my head is spinning now with all this stuff

[13:53] Gemma Allen: ♥ Thank Youuuuuuuuuu!! ♥

[13:53] Nectanebus: I'll be here next week, all being well.

[13:53] herman Bergson: I thank you all for yhe lively debate :-)

[13:53] Bejiita Imako: need to store it on a driv somewhere

[13:53] Daruma Boa: thank u

[13:53] Nectanebus: Thanks for the lecture. A pleasure as always.

[13:53] Bejiita Imako: this is more and more interesting

[13:53] Qwark Allen: ¸¸.☆´ ¯¨☆.¸¸`☆** **☆´ ¸¸.☆¨¯`☆ H E R MA N ☆´ ¯¨☆.¸¸`☆**   **☆´ ¸¸.☆¨¯`

[13:53] Qwark Allen: was excellent as usual

[13:53] Daruma Boa: and see u on thursday

[13:53] Chantal: Thank you Herman ㋡

[13:53] Corronach: thanks herman

[13:53] Areyn Laurasia: lots of reading :)

[13:53] Bejiita Imako: ㋡

[13:53] Gemma Allen: Bye, Bye  ㋡ 

[13:53] Gemma Allen: for now

[13:53] herman Bergson: See you next Thursday....

[13:53] Chantal: Waves ㋡

[13:53] herman Bergson: Class dismissed..^_^

[13:53] Bejiita Imako: cu soon all

[13:53] Bejiita Imako: ㋡

[13:53] Areyn Laurasia: Thanks again

[13:54] Gemma Allen: oops

[13:54] Qwark Allen: nice jewelery bej

[13:54] Qwark Allen: ^^

[13:54] Gemma Allen: nto sure tp is working

[13:54] Lizzy Pleides: Thank you herman and good night everybody

[13:54] Gemma Allen: GIGGLES!!

[13:54] Gemma Allen: ...LOL...

[13:54] Bejiita Imako: i think i got it from you

[13:54] .: Beertje :.: thank you Herman ㋡

[13:54] Qwark Allen: ehheeh nice

[13:54] Bejiita Imako: used it for a punk event yesterday

[13:54] Qwark Allen: looking great m

[13:54] Qwark Allen: m8

[13:54] Bejiita Imako: ㋡

[13:54] .: Beertje :.: have a goodnight all

[13:54] Velvet: Thanks again, Professor!

[13:54] Gemma Allen: Yes-ah!

[13:54] Gemma Allen: and herman always wears you watch fob

[13:54] Gemma Allen: for years now

[13:54] Lizzy PleidesLizzy Pleides waves bye

[13:54] Bejiita Imako: i have loads if these that i got before

[13:55] Bejiita Imako: hugs all

[13:55] Bejiita Imako: ㋡

[13:55] Areyn Laurasia: good night :)

[13:55] herman Bergson: Indeed Gemma

[13:55] Areyn Laurasia: tries to find zen in there somewhere..

508: Karma and Rebirth

Why is this talk about a Self or non-Self not just philosophical hair-splitting? It is because it relates to really fundamental questions in life.

For instance our longing for enduring happiness. The Buddha could have been reasoning like this. Suppose you are craving for beautiful clothes, because they make you feel good and attractive.

And indeed, when walking around in your new clothes people look at you with admiration and you feel good. Happiness ! However, after a while the clothes begin to bore you. One of the reasons might be because nobody is looking at you anymore. So, goodbye happiness.

In the Buddha’s words it might sound like: the psychophysical events you are enjoying are not permanent, therefor they can not be the basis of true happiness. Nor can your always changing body. This is about the five aggregates, which I referred to in previous lectures.

This line of reasoning in relation to the idea of a permanent happiness or wellbeing is not uncommon. You also find it among ancient Greek and christian philosophers.

We say “I want to be happy” and the Buddha points out that there is nothing that the word ‘I’ genuinely denotes, as he reasons:

1. If there were a self it would be permanent.

2. None of the five kinds of psychophysical element  

           is permanent.

3. ∴ There is no self.

Therefor this “I” in “I want to be happy” can not refer to something permanent in us, which can get into or be in a state of permanent happiness.

This brings up a second problem: is there or isn’t there something permanent in us? A self, a person, an identity, anything?

This too is a fundamental philosophical problem: substance dualism. You find this kind of answers given by religions, but also by a philosopher like Descartes. 

The basic idea here is that there are two substances: on the one hand the material substance of the body and its psychophysical experiences, which is not permanent, and on the other hand a non-material permanent substance, called the Mind or in religion the Soul.

Since the Pāli Nikāyas, an important basic Buddhist text, accepts the common sense usages of the word “self”, primarily in idiomatic expressions and as a reflexive pronoun meaning “oneself,” the doctrine of non-self does not imply a literal negation of the self. 

Similarly, since the Buddha explicitly criticizes views that reject karma and moral responsibility, the doctrine of non-self should not be understood as the absolute rejection of moral agency and any concept of personal identity.

This puts the Buddha in a difficult position.It is clear that the body ceases to exist at death. And given his argument that mental states all originate in dependence on sense-object contact events, it seems no psychological constituent of the person can transmigrate either in rebirth. 

Yet the Buddha claims that persons who have not yet achieved enlightenment will be reborn as sentient beings of some sort after they die. 

If there is no constituent whatever that moves from one life to the next, how could the being in the next life be the same person as the being in this life?

Is there a personal identity through time, a diachronic personal identity? Yes or no? Some Buddhist schools say no and do not support the idea of rebirth.

The Buddha gives a subtle answer. He rejected the two extreme positions of a permanent, unchanging self persisting in a cycle of death and rebirth through successive lives, and of a self which is completely destroyed at death. 

He taught instead a middle position of dependent origination, according to which our existence in this life has arisen as a result of our Karma in our last life, which means our ethically significant volitional acts, and such volitional acts in our present life will give rise to our new existence, but will not determine our acts in our next life. 

What we are now is thus not the same as what we were, since this is a new life with a different body, different feelings and so on, but neither is it entirely separate from what we were, since what we are now is the result of decisions made in our past life.

A way how I could understand such a point of view could be like this: You have some job and are corrupt, make people pay extra. You die and based on your actions your successor continues this immoral action 

until a next successor sees that it is wrong and gets rid of the corruption and treats people in a fair way. Perhaps this is how Buddhist rebirth leads to a better world eventually, since this last person might have achieved his insight through meditation.

The Discussion

[13:20] herman Bergson: Thank you ^_^

[13:21] oola Neruda: this is very confusing

[13:21] Bejiita Imako: hehe a bit at least

[13:21] herman Bergson: The basic idea might be this...

[13:21] Areyn Laurasia: looks thoughtful

[13:21] Bejiita Imako: ㋡

[13:21] Bejiita Imako: but i think i get most of it

[13:21] Gemma Allen: karma follows us then

[13:22] Gemma Allen: but we don’t really know it

[13:22] herman Bergson: Buddha called reality Dharma....and reality was amoral reality....

[13:22] Gemma Allen: in the next life if that is what they are saying

[13:22] Areyn Laurasia: what are the five psychophysical elements again?

[13:22] herman Bergson: Karma means "action", "moral action"

[13:22] oola Neruda: but if you are not well off or ill or something...one can just say...oh well it is your own fault... you deserve what you get ...you were no good in your last life

[13:23] herman Bergson: The elements are our body and physical world and our senses and mind Aryen

[13:23] oola Neruda: and the concept of helping others... is null and void

[13:23] Areyn Laurasia: hi Connie

[13:23] CONNIE Eichel: hi :)

[13:23] Gemma Allen: ??

[13:23] Bejiita Imako: but healing others might give yo a better next life also then cause if what u did in this life determines the next one

[13:24] herman Bergson: That is a classic remark oola but more in line with christian thought....the idea of a punishing god

[13:24] Bejiita Imako: helping

[13:24] oola Neruda: good point Bejita

[13:24] herman Bergson: The main point is that we are not some immaterial soul that reincarnates, but we are our moral actions in this life

[13:25] Bejiita Imako: so if you have been bad to others the previous life then it would be why the life you have now is bad ect in same way

[13:25] Gemma Allen: but you don’t really know what you were in the past life

[13:25] herman Bergson: You also could say that the world then would be worse than before Bejiita....

[13:26] Bejiita Imako: ah

[13:26] Areyn Laurasia: so the self is just an evolution of awareness?

[13:26] herman Bergson: I think I hold a very liberal interpretation of rebirth here :-)

[13:26] Gemma Allen: don’t we have to assume that we had good karma from before?

[13:27] oola Neruda: the tea party seems to already believe this... and do not wish to help those who are in need...even when their policies put people into need

[13:27] Gemma Allen: and proceed in that say in this life

[13:27] herman Bergson: Something like that Aryen....where reality is some total moral awareness of which we are part

[13:27] Lizzy Pleides: sounds like a random rule in Buddhism

[13:27] Gemma Allen: ♥ LOL ♥

[13:27] Gemma Allen: i think the tea party has terrible karma coming and going

[13:27] Areyn Laurasia: this is so different from Ubuntu

[13:28] herman Bergson: I only know that Ubuntu is the name of a kind of Linux operating system Aryen :-)

[13:28] Bejiita Imako: ubuntu means humanness

[13:29] Bejiita Imako: the name is used for linux since it is seen as a very user friendly version of it

[13:29] herman Bergson: I see

[13:29] Areyn Laurasia: african philosophy I think... still learning.. like saying I am me because you acknowledge me.. and you are because I acknowledge you

[13:29] Bejiita Imako: have it on an old machine i salvaged from work btw, works great

[13:30] Areyn Laurasia: Took this from wikipedia  :) "...humanity is not embedded in my person solely as an individual; my humanity is co-substantively bestowed upon the other and me. Humanity is a quality we owe to each other. We create each other and need to sustain this otherness creation. And if we belong to each other, we participate in our creations: we are because you are, and since you are, definitely I am. The ‘I am’ is not a rigid subject, but a dynamic self-constitution dependent on this otherness creation of relation and distance” - Michael Onyebuchi Eze

[13:31] herman Bergson: Makes sense....

[13:31] oola Neruda: i like that

[13:32] herman Bergson: The issue of personal Identity and in Buddha's case rebirth stays an unanswered question.

[13:32] Gemma Allen: put it in the fire cabinet

[13:32] herman Bergson: Like christianity gets into big trouble when talking about resurrection...

[13:32] herman Bergson: It has the same philosophical problems

[13:33] herman Bergson: in the fire place, Gemma ^_^   ?

[13:33] Gemma Allen: i meant file cabinet

[13:33] Gemma Allen: ♥ LOL ♥

[13:33] Bejiita Imako: hahaha

[13:33] Gemma Allen: along with all the other questions

[13:33] Areyn Laurasia: fire is good too :)

[13:33] CONNIE Eichel: :)

[13:33] herman Bergsonherman Bergson grins

[13:33] Bejiita Imako: lol

[13:34] Bejiita Imako: burn it up and move to next subject

[13:34] Bejiita Imako: hahaha

[13:34] Bejiita Imako: it is tricky subject indeed this

[13:34] Bejiita Imako: but interesting non the less

[13:34] herman Bergson: I will Bejiita :-)

[13:34] Bejiita Imako: hehe

[13:35] herman Bergson: as I dealt with karma and rebirth today, I think buddhism has had attention enough :-)

[13:36] .: Beertje :.: what will be the next subject Herman?

[13:36] Bejiita Imako: we have done some comparison with other religions and defined buddhism in general anyway

[13:36] Bejiita Imako: the concepts behind it and so

[13:36] Bejiita Imako: indeed its a bit different

[13:37] herman Bergson: Maybe Arabic philosophy will be the next subject...

[13:37] Bejiita Imako: why not ㋡

[13:37] oola Neruda: i spent a lot of time today on Rumi's poetry... so am ready for you

[13:37] herman Bergson: Hinduism is an option but too much a religion

[13:37] oola Neruda: well... not ready...but interested

[13:38] herman Bergson: However, Indian philosophy had also materialist philosophers....

[13:38] .: Beertje :..: Beertje :. grins at Oola

[13:38] Bejiita Imako: hinduism is in someway related to buddhism it seems but here they have gods, and a lot of them

[13:38] herman Bergson: which (of course) were prosecuted and ignored

[13:39] Bejiita Imako: hinduism also gave us the word avatar which is how these gods show themselves for us

[13:39] herman Bergson: Maybe the Indian philosophers who opposed hinduism and religion can be a next subject :-)

[13:39] Bejiita Imako: like shiva ect

[13:39] oola Neruda: some of their poets made it out alive

[13:39] oola Neruda: Tagore.. mirabai

[13:40] herman Bergson: Krisnamurti

[13:40] oola Neruda: smiles

[13:40] herman Bergson: Well...We'll see where our road leads to next Tuesday

[13:40] oola Neruda: marveling that you could spell that

[13:40] Bejiita Imako: ㋡

[13:41] herman Bergson: Don’t believe it is correctly spelled oola ^_^

[13:41] Bejiita Imako: hehe

[13:41] oola Neruda: oh....smiles

[13:41] oola Neruda: just when you had my awe and admiration

[13:42] herman Bergson: Anyway....you had your introduction into Buddhism...and meditation...

[13:42] herman Bergson: May your left prefrontal cortex  prosper and grow :-))

[13:42] Gemma Allen: Yes-ah!

[13:42] herman Bergson: Thank you all again :-))

[13:42] Bejiita Imako: was really interesting indeed

[13:42] Gemma Allen: ♥ Thank Youuuuuuuuuu!! ♥

[13:42] oola Neruda: smiles

[13:42] Bejiita Imako: very nice

[13:42] Bejiita Imako: Hooo!!!

[13:42] Bejiita Imako: Hoooo!

[13:43] Areyn Laurasia: Thank you, Professor :)

[13:43] Lizzy Pleides: Thank you!

[13:43] herman Bergson: See you again on Tuesday

[13:43] Gemma Allen: Bye, Bye  ㋡ 

[13:43] Gemma Allen: for now all

[13:43] Bejiita Imako: ㋡

507: The doctrine of the non-Self

Once the Buddha asked someone the following questions: “What do you think, monks, is material form permanent or impermanent?” – “Impermanent, venerable sir.” 

– “Is what is impermanent suffering or happiness?” – “Suffering, venerable sir.” –Is what is impermanent, suffering, and subject to change, fit to be regarded as: “this is mine, this I am, this is my self?” – “No, venerable sir”. The same reasoning is applied to the other aggregates.

To remind you, the five aggregates were:

1. “Form" or "matter" ,  the physical world.  the material body and the physical sense organs.

2.  “Sensation" or "feeling"  sensing an object[g] as either pleasant or unpleasant or neutral.

3.  “Perception", " registers whether an object is recognized or not (for instance, the sound of a bell or the shape of a tree).

4.  “Mental formations",  all types of mental habits, thoughts, ideas, opinions, prejudices, compulsions, and decisions triggered by an object.

 5. “Consciousness"  

And here we have one of the fundamental ideas of Buddhism: the doctrine of the Non-Self. The assumption underlying the Buddha’s arguments is 

that something might be considered a self only if it were permanent, not leading to suffering, not dependently arisen, and subject to one’s own will. 

Since none of the five aggregates fulfill any of these conditions, it is wrong to see them as belonging to us or as our self.

As Buddha argues: “If anyone says: ‘the visual organ is self,’ that is unacceptable. The rising and falling of the visual organ are fully known. 

Since the rising and falling of the visual organ are fully known, it would follow that: ‘my self arises and falls.’ Therefore, it is unacceptable to say: ‘the visual organ is self.’

Here we face a complex philosophical problem: when we refer to ourselves, who or what IS this Self? We certainly have the feeling that our Self is something permanent. Every day of our life we say: yes, yes this is still the same old ME.

But according to Buddha this “same old me” can not be derived from the impermanent information as produced by our sensory organs or consciousness.

You might discard the problem as super abstract philosophical hair splitting, but it is not. You and I definitely believe that there exists a permanent self.

Especially in ethical matters we do so. We even have special expressions for it. For instance in a situation where you did something immoral. Just think of war criminals.

Your excuse for your action sometimes is: “I wasn’t myself then”, “I was beside myself with anger”, “I didn’t recognize myself anymore….”, “I am another person now….”

So, philosophizing about this mysterious Self of us and thence about moral responsibility and true wellbeing is quite understandable from Buddha’s perspective.

The matter has also a long tradition in Western Philosophy. We call it the problem of Personal Identity.

For Buddha there is the problem of the self. This word is sometimes used to mean the whole series of a person’s inner mental states and sometimes, more restrictedly, the spiritual substance to which the philosopher says they belong.

As you see, to answer the question what this mysterious Self in us is and to understand how the Buddha answers this question, is not that simple at all, especially when you think of reincarnation, for instance 

It certainly needs another lecture.

Thank you ^_^

Main Sources:

MacMillan The Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2nd edition

Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 1995

Philosophy of the Buddha, Christopher W. Gowans (2003)

 Buddhist Ethics, Damien Keown (2005) 

From Africa to Zen, R.C. Solomon & K.M. Higgins

Encyclopedia of Buddhism, Robert E. Buswell, Jr., ed. (2004)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page

http://www.iep.utm.edu/

http://plato.stanford.edu/contents.html

The Discussion

[13:18] Zanicia: wow

[13:18] Zanicia: Thank you

[13:19] herman Bergson: Feel free to take the floor...

[13:19] Zanicia: puts her hand up...........

[13:19] herman Bergson smiles

[13:19] herman Bergson: Go ahead ZANICAI

[13:20] Zanicia: I think you CANNOT separate the consciousness on moral ground

[13:20] herman Bergson: What do you mean?

[13:20] Zanicia: it is still who we are....or rather, how we evolve

[13:21] herman Bergson: The idea of the Self refers to us as being the same person through time

[13:22] herman Bergson: I mean...am I the same person as when I was ten years of age...I said this is ME indeed

[13:22] Zanicia: surely the consciousness is ENTIRELY who we evolve to be as 'self'?

[13:22] Zanicia: both are permanent because they are one and the same

[13:22] herman Bergson: But this consciousness is, like Buddha also suggested not permanent...it is in constant change

[13:23] oola Neruda: like a river...

[13:23] herman Bergson: so what is the unchanging part of consciousness?

[13:23] oola Neruda: it is ... and it is not... the same

[13:23] herman Bergson: Yes oola

[13:24] oola Neruda: but we still recognize it and it's features/characteristics

[13:24] herman Bergson: The more you think about it, the more fascinating this becomes

[13:24] Zanicia: Beg to disagree with Buddha on this...the me is also in constant change as we grow

[13:24] oola Neruda: and ... what time scale is supposed to predominate...

[13:24] oola Neruda: and why

[13:25] oola Neruda: predominate

[13:25] herman Bergson: Indeed ZANICIA....I guess you might follow David Hume's interpretation then :-)

[13:25] herman Bergson: We'll get to that later

[13:26] herman Bergson: But fascinating is that the Buddha discovered that there seems to be no permanent something that you can call Self

[13:27] herman Bergson: and believe me...this philosophical problem still exists

[13:27] oola Neruda: permanent in what way... we watch the river pass us...but it still requires a bridge and banks...

[13:27] herman Bergson: Yet our whole legal system is based on the idea that a person is the same person through time

[13:27] herman Bergson: Well oola...

[13:28] herman Bergson: one approach was that all sensory experiences were part of a permanent spiritual substance...

[13:28] herman Bergson: Maybe the soul

[13:28] herman Bergson: or a dualism like Descartes believed

[13:29] Zanicia: dualism suggests separation again

[13:29] oola Neruda: can you explain what you mean by dualism

[13:29] herman Bergson: yes ZANICIA

[13:30] Zanicia: as in ...running alongside each other

[13:30] herman Bergson: if you take the Cartesian answer, oola, then it means that we are two substances....

[13:30] Zanicia: not part of the whole

[13:30] herman Bergson: a material one....our body and an immaterial one ..our mind

[13:31] herman Bergson: and if you take the idea of reincarnation....

[13:31] Zanicia: I will leave it, personally

[13:31] herman Bergson: or in christianity the idea of resurrection from death.....

[13:32] herman Bergson: such ideas lead to serious questions about WHAT is reincarnation or will resurrect

[13:32] herman Bergson: will it be ME, myself?

[13:32] herman Bergson: But if I am in another body?

[13:33] herman Bergson: and what body....of a boy of 10 or of an old man?

[13:33] Zanicia: anybody else throw in any other thoughts?

[13:34] herman Bergson: You can hear all brains work now ZANICIA :-)

[13:34] .: Beertje :.: i think you don't remember this body when you are in incarnation

[13:34] Zanicia: who says? lol

[13:35] herman Bergson: That already is a fact indeed, Beertje...Nobody ever remembered to be a reincarnation, I think

[13:35] .: Beertje :.: do you remember your first body?

[13:35] herman Bergson: and then time.....

[13:36] herman Bergson: do you reincarnate immediately after you died....or years later?

[13:36] .: Beertje :.: time doesn't exist...it's always 'now'..it can't be yesterday or tomorrow

[13:36] herman Bergson: and WHAT reincarnates?

[13:36] Zanicia: hahahaha

[13:37] .: Beertje :.: what is funny?

[13:37] Zanicia: "what"!!!!

[13:37] herman Bergson smiles

[13:37] .: Beertje :.: ??

[13:37] herman Bergson: indeed ZANICIA ....and it really  puzzles me

[13:37] oola Neruda: it seems as though the mind was implicated in reincarnation... or the soul.... although one might believe it is the atoms turning to dust and returning as a plant or something...

[13:38] herman Bergson: But that last part of your statement poses a problem oola...

[13:38] CONNIE EichelCONNIE Eichel vanishes... "bye all, kisses :)"

[13:38] herman Bergson: if it are atoms....where is the mind

[13:38] Zanicia: Bye Connie

[13:39] herman Bergson: or is the mind not part of reincarnation?

[13:39] Zanicia: That was Buddha's point....the material V the consciousness

[13:39] Zanicia: ....if you think of them as separate

[13:40] herman Bergson: Well...next lecture has to reveal what the Buddha meant by this non-self and yet the fact of reincarnation

[13:40] oola Neruda: is the mind really anything but chemistry?

[13:40] oola Neruda: synapses... transient

[13:40] Zanicia: wow..good point!

[13:40] herman Bergson: We have no answer to that question oola

[13:41] herman Bergson: What we know is that the mind emerges FROM this chemistry of the brain

[13:41] herman Bergson: Let me give you the metaphor John Searle used to explain the mind

[13:42] herman Bergson: It may even apply to the concept of Self

[13:42] herman Bergson: Water in a glas is fluid....

[13:42] herman Bergson: but when you analyze the content of the glass you'll find atoms or molecules....

[13:43] herman Bergson: but you never can pick out a molecule of which you can say...look this is fluid

[13:43] herman Bergson: in other words...

[13:44] herman Bergson: fluidity only can exist when H2O molecules are in a specific condition

[13:44] herman Bergson: same like the chemistry of the brain....

[13:44] herman Bergson: only under specific circumstances a Mind emerges

[13:45] herman Bergson: and that is what the Buddha saw too

[13:45] herman Bergson: But to get back to the mind...

[13:45] Zanicia: That explains most of the residents in my local town!

[13:45] herman Bergson: we have no idea what it is....just that it is

[13:46] herman Bergson: What do you mean by that ZANCIA?

[13:46] Zanicia: so we need specific circumstances, hmm? lol

[13:48] herman Bergson: specific conditions...:-)

[13:48] herman Bergson: So maybe when it freezes there are no residents in your local town ZANICIA ^_^

[13:49] Zanicia: I meant...with some people there is clearly a lack of those specific conditions ever having emerged

[13:49] herman Bergson: Well...next lecture we'll see how this problem is handled in Buddhism...

[13:49] herman Bergson grins

[13:49] herman Bergson: Yes..things like that happen ZANICIA

[13:50] herman Bergson: May I thank you all again for your participation :-)

[13:50] herman Bergson: Next Thursday I'll be here my Self with the next lecture

[13:50] herman Bergson: Class dismissed :-))

[13:51] Zanicia: Thank you Herman, good lecture

[13:52] herman Bergson: thank you

[13:52] .: Beertje :.: thank you Herman ㋡

[13:52] .: Beertje :.: we have a lot to think about again

[13:53] .: Beertje :.: have a goodnight and till thursday

[13:53] herman Bergson: Bye Beertje :-)

[13:53] Zanicia: Bye

[13:54] Zanicia: Good night Herman, xtc and Oola

[13:54] oola Neruda: good night, Zanicia

[13:54] oola Neruda: smiles

[13:55] herman Bergson: Bye ZANICIA:-)