As per Doug, last qualifications (and third/final post for the day):
> Everybody who's had a chance to think about the topic knows the self is fleeting and transient.
I know. It's called having "no-self" in Buddhism. BTW, if you believe this why have you been disputing me? LOL
> Nonetheless, Brian says: "The self is empty" and therefore not worthy of study.
The self is empty in the Buddhist sense, but eminently worthy of study. In fact meditating on/studying the emptiness of self is a prime source of wisdom for a Buddhist.
BTW, you keep tacking on clauses to my posts and then criticizing me for what you said I said. What compels you to "Westernize" what I post? Do you find it difficult to accept Buddhism as is? Or do you just disagree with Buddhist teachings?
> Sociology is a waste of time, he implies.
No it has its merits, (my comment was more of a joke, but obviously it fell flat), but I do think we should be careful with any discipline to make sure it does not promote the concept of permanent self or encourage attachment.
> Again, one wonders why then politics matters at all either.
Politics matter since they are a tool (when used mindfully) that can end suffering.
> BTW, Brian's also peddling baloney about the attachment of ordinary people to the concept "consume."
Now, Buddhism is baloney? Wow.
> That's a verbal fiction patrician leftists stamp on the backs of commoners, as penalty for commoners not rallying to the wisdom of the stamper.
Actually, it is Buddhism 101. One of the of the first things a Buddhist learns is the danger of attachment and how it leads to suffering. Buddhism is different than most approaches since it emphasizes the individual's responsibility for making existence up -- the co-dependent origination of existence it is called (though naming it is not important; it is how the world runs). Otherwise we would be living in a deterministic, fated world. I'm an optimist -- I believe people can change and can make a difference as long as they free themselves of their attachments.
> Nobody sets out to consume -- to use up products -- on purpose.
Consumption is a by-product of unmindful attachment to desire.
> People are trying to have decent, enjoyable lives by making the best possible choices from within a very tightly limited set of options.
Agreed, but by attaching to desire they severely limit their ability to make the best possible choices.
> Transferring blame for those limits from capitalists onto commoners is a very old, very tired, and very, very politically costly pseudo-radical travesty.
As a Buddhist I believe that a person is responsible for the quality of her existence. If she clings and forms attachments then she will suffer and probably be unable to help others end their suffering; in fact she may even increase it.
There is an I that exists. That I has no-self. This is no pseudo-radical idea, but actually one of the most radical ideas in the world today.
Brian Dauth Queer Buddhist Resister
"A proper school should teach nothing but bookkeeping, agriculture, geometry, dead languages made deader by leaving out all the amusing literature, and the Hebrew Bible as interpreted by men superbly trained to ignore contradictions, men technically called 'Fundamentalists.'" -- Sinclair Lewis