I'd rather be reborn

[clw_uk]

You did, when I used the term "experiencer," responded with "Who?"

That isnt denial though is it

Is that not denial of the existence of an experiencer?

If I denied a person then yes, but I didnt say no-self I aimed at not-self

There is a difference

Maybe?

Did you write my posts or did you not?

You seem to lack any healthy degree of skepticism when it comes to the Sutta.

I'm going to go out on a limb here but I'm going to assume I know a lot more about scepticism than you do

Aggripa, Sañjaya Belaṭṭhaputta, Sextus Empricicus, Carneades et al

It's interesting to see you read my mind as well with such childish statements like this "You seem to lack any healthy degree of skepticism when it comes to the Sutta."

Craig - Who are you? Please show who you are?


Being facetious again?

No im asking

Who are you? Please show who you are?

[clw_uk]

Why do you take everything written in a Sutta as a fact without question?

For someone who is trying to be logical, you are failing

How do you know that I suscribe to rebirth, spirits in trees, nagas and devas, all found in the pali canon?

Maybe thats your illogical idea of what Buddhists are

Generalisations are hardly ever accurate

If Buddha told you that there is a flying spaghetti monster made out of jelly beans living and dancing in your eyeball, would you believe him?

No, so where do you stand now

Why do you find it acceptable to evade every question with either "who" "what" "why" or "it's pointless"?

Because as a Buddhist I dont care about materialism, scepticism or jesus lovers

Only Dukkha

[clw_uk]

You also didnt answer why

Why do you want to know "How many spirits are out there, and how/why are they created?"

Why do you want to know what happens to you after death?

Why do you rely on notions of existence or non-existence?

Why do you speculate?

[curiosity]

.

[clw_uk]

Also, if you are a true sceptic ( which you seem to try to be), you should doubt your own position


After all true scepticism is about collapsing in of itself and inducing Ataraxia

[curiosity]

.

[clw_uk]

I see the evasion flows freely from you.

I'll ask again:

If there is no experiencer, then how is Dhamma experienced?

If there is no experiencer, then how is rebirth experienced?

If there is no experiencer, then how is Nirvana experienced?

If there is no experiencer, then who/what is experiencing your frustration? I'm not experiencing it, you (as a separate identity) are.

How do you deny the separateness of experiencers when we are experiencing different things?

Now now babes, lets play fair

I'll scratch your back if you scratch mine


So answer this first

Why do you want to know "How many spirits are out there, and how/why are they created?"

Why do you want to know what happens to you after death?

Why do you rely on notions of existence or non-existence?

Why do you speculate?


and i will then answer


If there is no experiencer, then how is Dhamma experienced?

If there is no experiencer, then how is rebirth experienced?

If there is no experiencer, then how is Nirvana experienced?

If there is no experiencer, then who/what is experiencing your frustration? I'm not experiencing it, you (as a separate identity) are.

How do you deny the separateness of experiencers when we are experiencing different things?


Give and take

[clw_uk]

Also, if you are a true sceptic ( which you seem to try to be), you should doubt your own position


After all true scepticism is about collapsing in of itself and inducing Ataraxia

What is this position that you believe I hold?

I am merely poking holes in yours

I believe that you are sceptical, interested in Buddhism but curious and so you have problems with Buddhist metaphysics (as its generally understood) which I actually respect


Hence all your topic's revolving around self, life after death and metaphysics

Yet I might be wrong

[clw_uk]

I am merely poking holes in yours

Poke away

[curiosity]

.

[clw_uk]

I have already answered:

I am curious and enjoy learning.

Why am I curious about these topics in particular?

They remain unanswered, and aren't readily answerable by physical observation.

Ah so the olive branch was offered and then rejected

IF you are really interested in learning then you would have answered my questions, I would have answered yours and something constructive could have been born

Instead you retreated into nebulous childishness

I am not any more interested in Buddhism

Hmm

than it offers more rational half-explanations about unanswerable questions than do other religions; almost to the point where I wouldn't consider it a religion, but a science, if it weren't so evasive (although still less so than other religions).

Well it depends on how you define "religion"

After all certain forms of Marxism can be considered a religion

Its not evasisve as such, just to the point

A subtle difference, but a difference nether the less

Thus far your only retort has been to evade the holes rather than fill them.

Im afraid that is all you have done

Based on the Sutta's I've read, it seems even Buddha won't be able to patch you back up (he'll just tell you to ignore them in an attempt to save you the stress of having irreparable holes).

In what way?

And please dont duck, its beneath you

[clw_uk]

Once again

Why do you want to know "How many spirits are out there, and how/why are they created?"

Why do you want to know what happens to you after death?

Why do you rely on notions of existence or non-existence?

Why do you speculate?

[clw_uk]

They remain unanswered, and aren't readily answerable by physical observation.

So how would you answer these questions?

[clw_uk]

I am curious and enjoy learning.

Yet you will not engage in rational debate

[curiosity]

.