I pose the question, Who are we really? What is it that constitutes an individual? How can we know ourselves? Why are we here? How do we know we exist? There is no right answer but I would like to know what you all think.
I think according to buddhist philosophy. Their is no self because their is no first cause (if you dont know the theory of no first cause states that the string of things that brought us up to this point is infinite and as such can have no begining). And the things that we see in the self do not make up the self so we are here but their is no permanent thing that defines the self.
Interested to see yalls thought.
If someone hit's my car with no intention on hiting my car, if you belived that concept and lived by it, you could not lay blame on that person, nor could you blame the event's that led them to the spot where they hit you, for you would have to trace it back to the first action that resulted in the first reaction. hence the blame of all thing's lay's on the first action that intern created the first reaction. some think big bang, other's say god.
But you presented it in the way , speaking that there is no start or no first action. Here is an example that support's that way of thinking
You use your hand and grab a cup, that would be an action, yet it's realy an reaction from you thinking to grab the cup, so the real action would be you thinking to grab the cup, yet you thinking to grab the cup would still be a reaction created from the action that led you to think to grab the cup with your arm.
So the big bang would have been the first action that started all reaction's and all other action's, so forth and so forth, yet the big bang would still be an reaction created from an action before it, and that action also would only be an reaction from another action before it, so forth and so forth. Same thing can be said with the concept of the point of creation of god, hence the first cause or first action is like an infinite loop.
So this is also what led people back in the past to say god has allway's been, they must have came across the same branch of thought as I to lead them to a point that the first action/cause that started or made all other cause's/action's is infinit, yet they didnt have to word back then to display that concept so of course they used somthing els to display it. Anyways thats another story.
So the begining is an infinit loop of action and reaction's, yet all action's would be reaction's from a action before it (infinitly Looping), as displayed in the example of you grabing a cup, you can allways trace back to find the first action that led you into grabing the cup, yet there will allway's be a point were you would not be able to trace back any farther, which long ago led people to the concept of a creator, that had to make everything for it to be as it is now/then.
But the theory of no first cause states that the string of things that brought us up to this point is infinite and as such can have no begining, dose not explain why the thing's that brought us to this end point is infinite, if they had thought that far into there theory, they would have alterd it to an infinitly looping begining. Based on the example's based off there own function's of there bodie's movement's while interacting with other object's/people.
I like a theorictical fact proven by are intelectual thought's better than a theory ^.^. I hope you found my thoughts of such a concept intresting, for I did like allway's