DiscussWorldIssues - Socio-Economic Religion and Political Uncensored Debate - View Single Post - 4 Questions for Matthieu Ricard, Tibetan monk

**Usendyduexy** · 04-15-2011, 05:06 AM

But remember, there is also no conscious experience in deep sleep so of course there is no sense of "I".

Exactly my point.

Naturally the sense of "I" depends on consciousness and in deep sleep, one is unconscious. Yeah, so you can see it depends on something else.

But as long as there is conscious experience, there will be a sense of "I" There is. It helps prevent us from stepping under buses and so on. It's fairly useful.

however one wants to define that sense- either as truly existing or inherently nonexistent. They can tell themselves that the sense is an illusion, but that does not prevent the sense from continuing. I agree 100% There's a good deal of waffle on this topic, that's for sure and no amount of fancy intellectual footwork can change the basics.

The fact that I know a mirage is an illusion doesn't prevent me from seeing, sensing it, and experiencing it all the same. Sure, it may not be water, but it is something. I may never know what is is, but I sense it nonetheless. True. I find that the difference is that a mirage is just a trick of the mind whereas an object does what it's supposed to. Just been my experience. In any case, this whole 'reality is mere illusion' philosophy is just more intellectual speculation.

So is eternal and irrevocable "deep sleep"/unconsciousness the final end of this process of experience for "you" and "I"? Hey where did you get the "eternal and irrevocable" bit from? I only mentioned deep sleep in my example. You ain't dead in deep sleep right?

I guess that Buddhist spirituality conforms exactly with materialist reductionism in this respect- in that the final analysis conscious experience will eventually yield to its own eternal and irrevocable extinction/annihilation. Whoa! Steady on dude. I didn't say that at all. In any case I don't buy that at all. Annihilation is just more speculation, along with eternalism. Both are mere belief or opinion and don't alter the facts. Who gives a fig if some bloke in a robe says 'self is/ is not eternal / is non existent / mere illusion / is whatever???

Do such statements accord with your experience? (rhetorical question)

Namaste

04-15-2011, 05:06 AM	#26
Usendyduexy Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 660 Senior Member	But remember, there is also no conscious experience in deep sleep so of course there is no sense of "I". Exactly my point. Naturally the sense of "I" depends on consciousness and in deep sleep, one is unconscious. Yeah, so you can see it depends on something else. But as long as there is conscious experience, there will be a sense of "I" There is. It helps prevent us from stepping under buses and so on. It's fairly useful. however one wants to define that sense- either as truly existing or inherently nonexistent. They can tell themselves that the sense is an illusion, but that does not prevent the sense from continuing. I agree 100% There's a good deal of waffle on this topic, that's for sure and no amount of fancy intellectual footwork can change the basics. The fact that I know a mirage is an illusion doesn't prevent me from seeing, sensing it, and experiencing it all the same. Sure, it may not be water, but it is something. I may never know what is is, but I sense it nonetheless. True. I find that the difference is that a mirage is just a trick of the mind whereas an object does what it's supposed to. Just been my experience. In any case, this whole 'reality is mere illusion' philosophy is just more intellectual speculation. So is eternal and irrevocable "deep sleep"/unconsciousness the final end of this process of experience for "you" and "I"? Hey where did you get the "eternal and irrevocable" bit from? I only mentioned deep sleep in my example. You ain't dead in deep sleep right? I guess that Buddhist spirituality conforms exactly with materialist reductionism in this respect- in that the final analysis conscious experience will eventually yield to its own eternal and irrevocable extinction/annihilation. Whoa! Steady on dude. I didn't say that at all. In any case I don't buy that at all. Annihilation is just more speculation, along with eternalism. Both are mere belief or opinion and don't alter the facts. Who gives a fig if some bloke in a robe says 'self is/ is not eternal / is non existent / mere illusion / is whatever??? Do such statements accord with your experience? (rhetorical question) Namaste
	Quote