Relativity of awareness in animals (including humans)

[cjmacie]

However, there is a sense in which 'conventional reality' exists independently of our perceptions...

And it is a conventional sense, with the emphasis of there being a (unwritten, unspoken) convention among an assumed and assuming majority that reality basically is the way this supposed majority thinks it is.

...The purpose of an object is just as much a part of the definition of said object as its visual [sensate in general] characteristics.

Yes, the "meaning" we that impute to sensations that the nervous-system concocts together into perceived entities is conditioned by utility, expediency, in service of attraction or aversion felt by the organism in it's ongoing quest for survival and satisfaction.

The way reality is parsed into discreet, individual elements (usually called "objects") does not seem to be a given, and seems to be conditioned by the perceiver's or parser's needs, interests, and concerns.

Also related to the viewpoint repeatedly forwarded by Thanissaro Bhikkhu: that (mundane) awareness is never really "bare" – the conditioned mind is actually actively looking for places to attach its inclinations. Example he uses often: on a "bad-hair" day, so to speak, this or that impinging phenomenon doesn't "cause" my anger; rather the mind is in a mood to be angry, and readily finds (and/or fabricates) opportune situations in which to relish anger.

Mark Twain (paraphrased): "Most of the terrible things that happened to me in my life, didn’t really happen at all." – i.e. were imagined.

[cjmacie]

I... babies have no sense of self until a certain age.

Maybe that co-relates with the idea that infants go through a neural developmental change at about two years, when, for the first time, durable memory function begins to form. Generally, one can't recall anything in their experience from before that time. (Other than maybe "past lives". )

Also in Antonio Damasio's scheme, at that time the "autobiographical self" begins to form, building a web of past memories and future imaginings around the earlier developed "protoself" and "core self" stages, which relate more to basic needs of the organism to recognize and function within it's own boundaries and relate to everything outside them.

[cjmacie]

re: Babies dwell in jhana (or maybe "Buddha nature"), or are just "stupid"?

Augustine (the Christian "Saint") explained, as I recall, that the "innocence" of children has less to do with some moral purity than with powerlessness. "In-nocence": "in" = "not" (as in "intolerable"); "-nocence" = "noxious", from (Latin) "nocēre" to harm, cause death.

Infants are "sweet and innocent" because they can't do much yet – i.e. as in "helpless"; the "sweet" part helps them get what they need. At least up to about the "terrible twos" age when they discover how to be mischievous, "obnoxious", if you will. About two years old, when they get a handle on language (mental ability) and gain the physical abilities to be able to consciously act on their impulses ("latent defilements", aka "Original Sin").

btw: etymologically, the word "infant" appears to mean "non-speaker" – also a sense of incapability.

And another major change, at about age seven – called "the Age of Reason" -- supposedly when a firm sense of "conscience" (con-science - knowing together with) forms. "Age of reason" may not be a commonly known term, but I recall it from Catholic dogma – at that age, when children also undergo the ritual "first Holy Communion", they are for the first time capable of "sin", enter the (straight-and-narrow) "path", so to speak, to either "heaven" or "hell". Prior to that, if they die they go to "Limbo", hanging out there until the "Second Coming"*, when they get to go to heaven.

Maybe there's comparable stuff buried somewhere in the Buddhist abhidhamma traditions; i.e. similar scholastic figuring-out all the details as was occurring in Christian scholasticism at about the same time historically – which is where the notions (above) about developmental changes-of-age were probably worked-out. Compare "how many angels can fit on the head of pin?", or just being "pin-headed".

* This November 8th? or maybe that would be more the coming of the "Anti-Christ" (referring to whichever candidate).

[Maiev]

Augustine (the Christian "Saint") explained, as I recall, that the "innocence" of children has less to do with some moral purity than with powerlessness. "In-nocence": "in" = "not" (as in "intolerable"); "-nocence" = "noxious", from (Latin) "nocēre" to harm, cause death.

Infants are "sweet and innocent" because they can't do much yet – i.e. as in "helpless"; the "sweet" part helps them get what they need. At least up to about the "terrible twos" age when they discover how to be mischievous, "obnoxious", if you will. About two years old, when they get a handle on language (mental ability) and gain the physical abilities to be able to consciously act on their impulses ("latent defilements", aka "Original Sin").

I think that is correct. Many species of small dogs have a mental capacity of 2 year old children but they don't look innocent because they have the ability to bark or bite. Babies too bite and throw toys around from time to time but their evilness manages to float below the radar

[binocular]

binocular,
You are not clearly differentiating between having a self and having a sense of self I think.
You say for example "My point is that taking about the selves of other beings is sometimes a matter of projection and power play"....but then you say "I grew up around animals. It has never occured to me to think of them as not having a sense of self."
If you actually are talking about two different things then I think it would be better to be careful in helping us know that.
chownah

I think at least adult animals have both a self and a sense of self.

The relevance of such topics is that some (many) humans try to justify the mistreatment and killing of animals on account that animals "aren't selves," "don't have souls," or "don't feel."

- - -

Yes, it's an assumption of mine that most of them don't have a sense of self giving that only quite developed animals seem to have one.

According to whose standards of selfhood? Particular human standards of selfhood. Standards like that silly mirror test.

But about been sentient or not, having a sense of self is not related. Babies don't have a sense of self but they still suffer and feel pleasure. Arahants do not have a sense of self but they do suffer or feel pleasure. Suffering and pleasure arise dependent on clinging to the 5 aggregates, not depending on having a sense of self or not.

For example things arise for a baby. Food may not be there for the baby and therefore suffering arises. As buddha said, "there is just suffering that arises with no me in relation to it."

It's not clear whether human babies and adult animals are on the same level of selfhood. I don't think they are.

You are not clearly differentiating between having a self and having a sense of self I think.

I too feel the same way. I don't know weather Binocular is aware that the fundamental idea in buddhism is the fact that a sense of self is an illusion. There are just the 5 aggregates that exist and the sense of self is just a wrong view, an illusion that develops at a point based on clinging. Removal of this wrong view is said to make one become a sotapanna, destined to escape the round of rebirth.

I am well aware of the multitude of conflicting views that various Buddhists hold on this matter.

[binocular]

re: Babies dwell in jhana (or maybe "Buddha nature"), or are just "stupid"?

Augustine (the Christian "Saint") explained, as I recall, that the "innocence" of children has less to do with some moral purity than with powerlessness. "In-nocence": "in" = "not" (as in "intolerable"); "-nocence" = "noxious", from (Latin) "nocēre" to harm, cause death.

I have heard that Kant thought that babibes cried so much because they are angry because they can't use their bodies as they would wish to.
How's that for an alternative explanation?

- - -

I... babies have no sense of self until a certain age.

Maybe that co-relates with the idea that infants go through a neural developmental change at about two years, when, for the first time, durable memory function begins to form. Generally, one can't recall anything in their experience from before that time. (Other than maybe "past lives". )

Also in Antonio Damasio's scheme, at that time the "autobiographical self" begins to form, building a web of past memories and future imaginings around the earlier developed "protoself" and "core self" stages, which relate more to basic needs of the organism to recognize and function within it's own boundaries and relate to everything outside them.

We must bear in mind that our socially-, culturally-specific ideas about selfhood (ie. our ideas about what does it mean to be a person) are formed by adults -- adults who have their adult needs, interests, and concerns, their psychological ego defense mechanisms etc. And these adults then make projections about and onto human babies (and animals). And then human babies internalize those projections, and become adults who continue to make those projections about and onto other babies. This is how a particular proliferations of (sense of) selfhood continue.

IOW, the way a particular person conceives of their self, the way they think about their own existence as a person, is to some (large?) extent socially and culturally conditioned, and it's not some objective given that would be the same regardless of culture.

[Maiev]

IOW, the way a particular person conceives of their self, the way they think about their own existence as a person, is to some (large?) extent socially and culturally conditioned, and it's not some objective given that would be the same regardless of culture.

Oh, you mean like this ? :

Implications of postmodernism
According to postmodernism, the self is a social construction, a creation of language, an objectification of the first-person pronoun 'I'; and, as such the self is a culturally relative, historically conditioned construct.

JP Moreland highlights four implications of postmodernist thought.

First, there is no unity to the self and no enduring ego. Rather, the self is a bundle of social roles and relations that are the expressions of the arbitrary flux of the group. If postmodernism is true, any effort to address issues with one's identity is merely to disown one arbitrary, socially-constructed self while standing in another one.

Second, no free will. Active agency and free action disappear under the postmodern cloud of constructivism. The self is not an active, free agent. The goal of the moral and virtuous life disappears because there is no free and rational agent to undertake it. This has serious implications for normative ethical theories like virtue ethics.

Finally, with its relativisation of truth, postmodernism has contributed to the absolutisation of desire satisfaction. With truth dethroned as a guide for life, the heir to the throne is the absolute importance of satisfying one's desire. Postmodernism helps to prop up this value in the culture by its denial of truth and reason, along with its promulgation of a naive and destructive notion of tolerance.

http://ionsg.blogspot.ro/2013/09/unders ... -self.html

At least this philosophy does not believe in a self. But this philosophy was refuted by the Buddha. Problem with it is that it's self refuting. The idea that "the self is a social construct" can be refuted by "your idea that the self is a social construct is a social constructed idea". This is an anti-reason, anti-logic pshilosophy that is self-refuting. Buddha said that this philosophy, called "philosophical skepticism" at the time is simply pointless, it can not help you find any truths.

Honestly, I have no idea what business a person believing in relativism might have on a forum where issues are debated. If everything is relative, there is no truth, etc. why debate with others on a forum trying to find the truth ? It's also impossible for other people to debate with you if you refuse reason and logic to be you're referee in the debate. Any debate with people not believing in logic and reason is pointless.

I am well aware of the multitude of conflicting views that various Buddhists hold on this matter.

And because you deny the value of reason and logic, how can you even find out witch view is right ? The answer is: you can't.
As for what buddhist believe of the matter, well, buddhist should believe what Buddha believed. That is why they are called buddhist in the first place, right ? It would be strange for a buddhist to believe in one of the 62 wrong views listed by the Buddha: http://studybuddhism.com/en/advanced-st ... rong-views

I have heard that Kant thought that babibes cried so much because they are angry because they can't use their bodies as they would wish to.
How's that for an alternative explanation?

I think they cry because they are angry of not been able to play video games. How is that for an alternative explanation ?

We can come up with a lot of explanations if we throw reason and logic at the garbage, saying everything is a relative social construct. But if we are to speak about babies and animals on grouds of logic, like most posters here have done already, I am sure we can come up with decent conclusion.

[justindesilva]

Here on this post is important that the behaviour and awareness of all beings are based on the subject known as territoriality. The territorial pattern of animals and other beings are found to be based on shelter food and protection. Popular studies are based in this subject on behaviour of bear, elephants and mammals along with dolphins sharks and various breeds.
Here it is found that ferocious animals are found to be non harmful if one does not interfere with them within their territory.
This is a large subject but interesting enough to prove that sense lust greed is not foremost in animal behaviour unlike humans.
Animals even go to the extent of demarcating their territories in methods unique to them.
However love and kindness (Maithri ) is the only quality that can overcome the awareness of ferocious animals.
Lord budda has exhibited this quality. See the taming of Nalagiri elephant.

[Maiev]

Here on this post is important that the behaviour and awareness of all beings are based on the subject known as territoriality. The territorial pattern of animals and other beings are found to be based on shelter food and protection. Popular studies are based in this subject on behaviour of bear, elephants and mammals along with dolphins sharks and various breeds.
Here it is found that ferocious animals are found to be non harmful if one does not interfere with them within their territory.
This is a large subject but interesting enough to prove that sense lust greed is not foremost in animal behaviour unlike humans.
Animals even go to the extent of demarcating their territories in methods unique to them.
However love and kindness (Maithri ) is the only quality that can overcome the awareness of ferocious animals.
Lord budda has exhibited this quality. See the taming of Nalagiri elephant.

This is something I'd like to hear opinions about. The illusion of self has a function, it is a natural development that helps been survive though guarding their territory, fighting with other animals etc.

[chownah]

This is something I'd like to hear opinions about. The illusion of self has a function, it is a natural development that helps been survive though guarding their territory, fighting with other animals etc.

The illusory self gives humans an evolutinary advantage in that it allows them collectively to develop a huge number of different social structures.
chownah

[justindesilva]

This is something I'd like to hear opinions about. The illusion of self has a function, it is a natural development that helps been survive though guarding their territory, fighting with other animals etc.

The illusory self gives humans an evolutinary advantage in that it allows them collectively to develop a huge number of different social structures.
chownah

Please read "mara upasatha sutra" in this context.
It is available in buddasutra.com
The behaviour of humans under lust greed and delusion is well explained with the tussle that the Budda underwent with mara. Tanha Rathi Ranga as three daughters of mara try to hinder the path of Lord budda . It may look poetic but one of the unique explanations of the obstacles in life and death and samsara.
I saw this as an illumination of the territorial nature of beings which keeps the beings suppressed in to a position always tied up to never ending samsara.
Lord budda here shows the emergence out from such a situation by defeating mara or lust greed and delusion as a unit.

[justindesilva]

This is something I'd like to hear opinions about. The illusion of self has a function, it is a natural development that helps been survive though guarding their territory, fighting with other animals etc.

The illusory self gives humans an evolutinary advantage in that it allows them collectively to develop a huge number of different social structures.
chownah

Please read "mara upasatha sutra" in this context.
It is available in buddasutra.com
The behaviour of humans under lust greed and delusion is well explained with the tussle that the Budda underwent with mara. Tanha Rathi Ranga as three daughters of mara try to hinder the path of Lord budda . It may look poetic but one of the unique explanations of the obstacles in life and death and samsara.
I saw this as an illumination of the territorial nature of beings which keeps the beings suppressed in to a position always tied up to never ending samsara.
Lord budda here shows the emergence out from such a situation by defeating mara or lust greed and delusion as a unit.

[cjmacie]

... Arahants do not have a sense of self but they do suffer or feel pleasure. Suffering and pleasure arise dependent on clinging to the 5 aggregates, not depending on having a sense of self or not. ...

Ae you sure about that?

[Maiev]

As far as I know, Buddha suffered from back pains and many arahants committed suicide due to pains cause by illness. As for the second question, I am sure suffering does not arise dependent on a self since a self does not exist, it arises dependent on the 5 impermanent and subject to clinging aggregates. So yes, I am sure about that.

[Coëmgenu]

As far as I know, Buddha suffered from back pains and many arahants committed suicide due to pains cause by illness. As for the second question, I am sure suffering does not arise dependent on a self since a self does not exist, it arises dependent on the 5 impermanent and subject to clinging aggregates. So yes, I am sure about that.

The story of the Buddha's back pain can also be read through a primary hermeneutic of pedagogy, rather than through a historical-materialist hermeneutic. "My back aches, I will rest it." (Paraphrase). This can be considered a summation of the entirety of the Buddha's lifework, the Dhamma: "There exists suffering, there exists cessation of that suffering." Obviously this is just one interpretation of the words though, but I think it is an equally possible interpretation. Everything the Buddha says and does is in the name of the propagation of the Dhamma, so when we read seemingly personal sentiments such as "my back aches", I think it always behooves us to consider the pedagogical function of that "lesson", if everything the Buddha says and does is understood as a "lesson in Dhamma".

The historical-materialist answer to why the Buddha said is back aches, is just that. His back aches.

The pedagogical answer asks why did the Buddha choose to say that? What lesson is being taught through the Buddha's decision to say such a thing, regardless of if his back did indeed actually ache. I advocate for a pedagogical (and sometimes controversially symbollic, I will admit) interpretation to everything that the Buddha says. Everything is a lesson in the Dhamma. This, I think, gives more context to why the Buddha, a perfected being, would choose to say such a thing, which, if divorced from the pedagogical purpose I think it may have, seems like a complaint, or a spontaneously arising unnecessary statement that doesn't really illuminate anything in respect to the function the Buddha chose for himself, that function of teaching the Dhamma, and it just becomes an expression of the Buddha's displeasure, rather than a teaching moment.

When I read that phrase, I hear "This, monks, this is how I will teach you to die a perfect death." Obviously that is only my own mere interpretation in reaction to your statement. I apologize if it was unwarranted, unwanted, or seemed negative. That was not my intent.