Bullet proof Buddhism. Is there any other philosophy or religion so perfect?

[zan]

If we strictly use the Buddha's explanation and definition about what can be called a self from the Anattalakkhana sutta, and, of course, we should and even must use this definition, as this is Buddhism after all, then Buddhism is the most bullet proof philosophy/religion that I know of. There is no reason to use a different definition or understanding of self, as the Buddha put it perfectly, and his logic is sound (you can't claim to own a house that is someone else's property, you're not allowed to alter, and that you'll be evicted from eventually!), and if someone refuses this definition and/or redefines things or otherwise refuses the Buddha's understanding, no discussion is to be had, because debate where both parties don't agree on what is being debated, nor on how to define terms, is asinine.

That out of the way, here is my main point:

To lose is to win. The Buddha teaches that what we do not control, and what leads to affliction, is not self. For example:

“Bhikkhus, form is nonself. For if, bhikkhus, form were self, this form would not lead to affliction, and it would be possible to have it of form: ‘Let my form be thus; let my form not be thus.’ But because form is nonself, form leads to affliction, and it is not possible to have it of form: ‘Let my form be thus; let my form not be thus.’

“Feeling is nonself…. … Perception is nonself…. Volitional formations are nonself…. Consciousness is nonself. For if, bhikkhus, consciousness were self, this consciousness would not lead to affliction, and it would be possible to have it of consciousness: ‘Let my consciousness be thus; let my consciousness not be thus.’ But because consciousness is nonself, consciousness leads to affliction, and it is not possible to have it of consciousness: ‘Let my consciousness be thus; let my consciousness not be thus.’

-SN 22.59

Thus, if another philosophy, religion, science or otherwise sought to prove that we do have a self, they'd have to demonstrate that we have the ability to say "let my form/feeling/perception/volitional formations/consciousness be thus." and that these things will no longer lead to affliction.

They'd have to demonstrate that you are extremely powerful, essentially. Thus, if one were to lose an argument in this arena, one would win near omnipotence over their life. So, while subjective idealists or the-objective-doesn't-existists would suffer defeat at having to admit an objective world that they cannot control, and gain nothing in their defeat, Buddhists get to say "Great, you've proven I am nearly omnipotent and therefore I can stop all affliction! Thank you so much, what a relief!"

While soul believers and god believers would have to admit a great loss at someone disproving soul or god, and gain nothing, Buddhists get to celebrate if they are defeated.

So, Buddhism is perfect. There is no self, here's how to follow the most perfect thing in the world: the eightfold path to peace. Not self is the perfect antidote and path to the end of suffering. If this is wrong, then even better! Please prove I have a self! I want to be omnipotent! Winning is to accept not self and live in perfect peace on the path to nibbana, losing is to live with near omnipotence.

Are there any other philosophies or religions where

1.) if their position is correct that's a good thing, and

2.) if they're wrong, also good?

I can think of a couple that meet requirement two, but none that meet the former. Are there any others that meet both requirements? Where proving them is good, and disproving them also good?

[Ceisiwr]

Thus, if another philosophy, religion, science or otherwise sought to prove that we do have a self, they'd have to demonstrate that we have the ability to say "let my form/feeling/perception/volitional formations/consciousness be thus." and that these things will no longer lead to affliction.

I don’t think science has anything to say on the self. It seems to be a strictly philosophical question to me.

[zan]

Thus, if another philosophy, religion, science or otherwise sought to prove that we do have a self, they'd have to demonstrate that we have the ability to say "let my form/feeling/perception/volitional formations/consciousness be thus." and that these things will no longer lead to affliction.

I don’t think science has anything to say on the self. It seems to be a strictly philosophical question to me.

Great. I tend to agree. I only included science to satisfy anyone who would see this as a possible avenue of discussion. Would you care to contribute any suggestions as to what philosophies fit the bill of being a good thing if true, and as good or better if disproven?

[Bundokji]

Victory begets enmity; the defeated dwell in pain. Happily the peaceful live, discarding both victory and defeat.

[Ceisiwr]

Thus, if another philosophy, religion, science or otherwise sought to prove that we do have a self, they'd have to demonstrate that we have the ability to say "let my form/feeling/perception/volitional formations/consciousness be thus." and that these things will no longer lead to affliction.

I don’t think science has anything to say on the self. It seems to be a strictly philosophical question to me.

Great. I tend to agree. I only included science to satisfy anyone who would see this as a possible avenue of discussion. Would you care to contribute any suggestions as to what philosophies fit the bill of being a good thing if true, and as good or better if disproven?

I could but any answer I give will be simply due to personal preference, because of vedanā and sañña.

[Ceisiwr]

So, Buddhism is perfect. There is no self, here's how to follow the most perfect thing in the world: the eightfold path to peace. Not self is the perfect antidote and path to the end of suffering. If this is wrong, then even better! Please prove I have a self! I want to be omnipotent! Winning is to accept not self and live in perfect peace on the path to nibbana, losing is to live with near omnipotence.

You seem to have only remembered Eternalism, but self theories fall into two broad camps. You have forgotten Annihilationism.

[cappuccino]

1.) if their position is correct that's a good thing, and

2.) if they're wrong, also good?

‘Does Master Gotama have any position at all?’

‘A “position,” Vaccha, is something a Tathagata has done away with.

What a Tathagata sees is this: “Such is form, such its origination, such its disappearance; such is feeling, such its origination, such its disappearance; such is perception… such are fabrications… such is consciousness, such its origination, such its disappearance.” Because of that, I say, a Tathagata—with the ending, fading, cessation, renunciation, and relinquishment of all construings, all excogitations, all I-making and my-making and obsession with conceit—is, through lack of clinging/sustenance, released.’
— MN 72

[dharmacorps]

If Buddhism is perfect, what is the point in asking this question? By definition it would be a waste of time.

[SarathW]

Perhaps why Buddism is bulletproof compare to a lot of other religions is it teaches the middle way.
However, it is not bulletproof if it was this forum (Dhamma Wheel) will not survive.
Just see the questions people ask about rebirth, Nibbana, etc

[Sam Vara]

They'd have to demonstrate that you are extremely powerful, essentially. Thus, if one were to lose an argument in this arena, one would win near omnipotence over their life. So, while subjective idealists or the-objective-doesn't-existists would suffer defeat at having to admit an objective world that they cannot control, and gain nothing in their defeat, Buddhists get to say "Great, you've proven I am nearly omnipotent and therefore I can stop all affliction! Thank you so much, what a relief!"

While soul believers and god believers would have to admit a great loss at someone disproving soul or god, and gain nothing, Buddhists get to celebrate if they are defeated.

Although I'm pleased that you have come to this understanding because it strengthens faith and makes you happy, the flaw for me is that this refers to a purely intellectual understanding which trades in things like "proof" and "disproof". If I were to be "defeated" in such an argument, I wouldn't celebrate. Somebody far cleverer than me would have merely proven that I can stop all affliction and had to intellectually accept the existence of a soul or God. But that's not cause for celebration if I still experience pain, am troubled by memories, and fear death.

Intellectual coherence of the doctrine may be satisfying - compelling, even - but although that is something, it's not necessarily enough. There are people who have appeared here on DW to say how they completely understand the Dhamma, but who get rattled when challenged. There are people here who would strenuously deny having anything less than a "bullet proof" understanding. But when we look closely their understandings are different. And, more importantly, if argued with, they can turn very nasty indeed and engage in vindictive speech towards others.

Conversely, I know some Thais and Sri Lankans, Buddhists from birth, who seem to have very little use for a "philosophy" which is unchallengeable and withstands argumentation. They don't seem to worry about the cogency of arguments, saying that these are not essential, or will be sorted out later if necessary. Their motivation to practice seems to come from somewhere deeper, and (here's the interesting bit!) they lack that vindictive edge that I referred to above. They are "bullet proof" in an entirely different way. Or, to continue the metaphor, the bullets fired simply pass right through them, and they remain unscathed. The same applies to some of those theists you refer to. I know plenty of Christians who openly admit that much of Christian doctrine (the homoousion of the nicene Creed, and the Trinity, for example) are fascinating but unsolvable mysteries, but something else like their love of God just lifts them above caring about it.

[sphairos]

“Bhikkhus, form is nonself. For if, bhikkhus, form were self, this form would not lead to affliction, and it would be possible to have it of form: ‘Let my form be thus; let my form not be thus.’ But because form is nonself, form leads to affliction, and it is not possible to have it of form: ‘Let my form be thus; let my form not be thus.’

-SN 22.59

Someone would say that it's a very stupid argument: how is "a self" connected to being able to change yourself into anything at will (be thus, not be thus)? It is nonsense. You can be a self and not be able to change anything, command yourself.

What is really perfect about Buddhism and where it is really bullet-proof is no-view. You can't defeat a view of someone who has no views.

[Sam Vara]

“Bhikkhus, form is nonself. For if, bhikkhus, form were self, this form would not lead to affliction, and it would be possible to have it of form: ‘Let my form be thus; let my form not be thus.’ But because form is nonself, form leads to affliction, and it is not possible to have it of form: ‘Let my form be thus; let my form not be thus.’

-SN 22.59

Someone would say that it's a very stupid argument: how is "a self" connected to being able to change yourself at will (be thus, not be thus)?

I thought it was pretty much by definition. That's what he is saying can't exist.

[dicsoncandra]

They'd have to demonstrate that you are extremely powerful, essentially. Thus, if one were to lose an argument in this arena, one would win near omnipotence over their life. So, while subjective idealists or the-objective-doesn't-existists would suffer defeat at having to admit an objective world that they cannot control, and gain nothing in their defeat, Buddhists get to say "Great, you've proven I am nearly omnipotent and therefore I can stop all affliction! Thank you so much, what a relief!"

While soul believers and god believers would have to admit a great loss at someone disproving soul or god, and gain nothing, Buddhists get to celebrate if they are defeated.

Although I'm pleased that you have come to this understanding because it strengthens faith and makes you happy, the flaw for me is that this refers to a purely intellectual understanding which trades in things like "proof" and "disproof". If I were to be "defeated" in such an argument, I wouldn't celebrate. Somebody far cleverer than me would have merely proven that I can stop all affliction and had to intellectually accept the existence of a soul or God. But that's not cause for celebration if I still experience pain, am troubled by memories, and fear death.

Intellectual coherence of the doctrine may be satisfying - compelling, even - but although that is something, it's not necessarily enough. There are people who have appeared here on DW to say how they completely understand the Dhamma, but who get rattled when challenged. There are people here who would strenuously deny having anything less than a "bullet proof" understanding. But when we look closely their understandings are different. And, more importantly, if argued with, they can turn very nasty indeed and engage in vindictive speech towards others.

Conversely, I know some Thais and Sri Lankans, Buddhists from birth, who seem to have very little use for a "philosophy" which is unchallengeable and withstands argumentation. They don't seem to worry about the cogency of arguments, saying that these are not essential, or will be sorted out later if necessary. Their motivation to practice seems to come from somewhere deeper, and (here's the interesting bit!) they lack that vindictive edge that I referred to above. They are "bullet proof" in an entirely different way. Or, to continue the metaphor, the bullets fired simply pass right through them, and they remain unscathed. The same applies to some of those theists you refer to. I know plenty of Christians who openly admit that much of Christian doctrine (the homoousion of the nicene Creed, and the Trinity, for example) are fascinating but unsolvable mysteries, but something else like their love of God just lifts them above caring about it.

Nicely put, Sam! Although I would argue against ignoring blatant fallacies and heavy emphasis on feeling in not-so-rare cases. Also, practically speaking, only a sotapanna or higher would have a bulletproof understanding of the Dhamma so let none of us be complacent and practice!

[sphairos]

“Bhikkhus, form is nonself. For if, bhikkhus, form were self, this form would not lead to affliction, and it would be possible to have it of form: ‘Let my form be thus; let my form not be thus.’ But because form is nonself, form leads to affliction, and it is not possible to have it of form: ‘Let my form be thus; let my form not be thus.’

-SN 22.59

Someone would say that it's a very stupid argument: how is "a self" connected to being able to change yourself at will (be thus, not be thus)?

I thought it was pretty much by definition. That's what he is saying can't exist.

But it is not... And what is likely meant by the Buddha is that form etc. can become anything at will. How is a self capable to transform itself into anything? It is not.

[dicsoncandra]

“Bhikkhus, form is nonself. For if, bhikkhus, form were self, this form would not lead to affliction, and it would be possible to have it of form: ‘Let my form be thus; let my form not be thus.’ But because form is nonself, form leads to affliction, and it is not possible to have it of form: ‘Let my form be thus; let my form not be thus.’

-SN 22.59

Someone would say that it's a very stupid argument: how is "a self" connected to being able to change yourself at will (be thus, not be thus)? It is nonsense. You can be a self and not be able to change anything, command yourself.

What is really perfect about Buddhism and where it is really bullet-proof is no-view. You can't defeat a view of someone who has no views.

I think the arahant is said to have a view beyond training and there might be a good reason why it's put this way. Not having a view is virtually impossible. What is possible, though, is a view that is not appropriated, free from greed, aversion, delusion and one that is aligned with the Dhamma