i am looking into the principles of Buddhism and have several questions concerning the concepts of emptiness and "self" or should i say no "self," the middle path of non-action and the objectivity that is the aim and outcome of the aforementioned. i read several passages from the book I AM NOT yesterday. curious as to how this would apply to every day life. what about medial everyday tasks? as far as contemplation and meditation it all makes sense- the concept of erradicating all distractions and abstractions by concentrating on a physiological "emptiness" in order to obtain an objectivity one could not attain otherwise. but as human beings aren't most decisions taken on the bias of a person's subjectivity and unique perspective? does not deciding which "path" to take, in some cases at least- where ethics cannot be a guideline, involve a subjective vs. objective approach? in which case you would need to have a sense of "self," right? for example, take something as medial as, say you are about to move out, if there is not a "self" to dictate preferences such as features you would "want" how do you ultimately decide on a "correct" decision for an apartment, home, whathaveyou? how does the sense of "self" or lack thereof apply? and if this objective "no-self" has no preferences as to such tasks how does he/she function on a daily basis/ decide on crucial issues that do not involve another, but are "personal" and "intimate" to the "individual?" if this individual is such that he/she does not even care about "personal" issues and is in fact "self-less" to this extent- how does/can he/she distinguish him/herself from a pacifist or a turn-the-other-cheek-at-all-times Christian with no opinion of their own?

Buddhism in theory is not innaction, in addition to acheiving your own enlightenment you wish to acheive the enlightenment of all. Actions which lead away from this path would include I'm guessing violence and revenge. This doesn't mean all buddhists are pacifists. Not all christians are pacifists. It does mean however that true buddhists are not blood thirsty. If you wish to have meaningful interaction w/ a god who espouses love you are going to have to unfortunately give up some of your more violent tendencies. Buddhism can also be taken out of a religious context and be viewed as a philosophy. The meditation techniques don't even necessarily have to be performed in a religious sense. If you really want to fight, I'm sure you can find a way to justify it in whatever religion you practice. A book that might help you is "Buddhism Without Beliefs" I can't remember the name of the author, but he talks about Buddhism more as a philosophy than a religion.

thanks for your response. i saw Buddhism Without Beliefs @ the book store the other day. i'll look into it. as for Buddhism, i know that it's a philosophy as well as a religion. in fact i see it more as a philosophy than a religion and apply it's principles more as a logical and enlightening world-view rather than applying any of the more theologically-tinted aspects of it. which is why i was curious as to how the principles themselves would transend/apply to "everyday" life; specifically, i was curious if the concept of no-self or, perhaps better put, a subjective outlook would not in fact be impossible when it came to making small decisions, such as the aforementioned.

as far as i understand, your question is a question of yourself not of buddhism. its a matter of how far are you willing to go for this philosophy. if you wanted to truly embrace the "no-self" philosophy, you wouldn't worry about this everyday occurances. first of all, you wouldn't need to please yourself such as is the case in your example about moving. i think what you're talking about is (i forgot the name of it) some type of idea that a body is most satisfied when it is at rest; not happy, not sad, but indifferent. secondly, i think the question you are ultimately getting at is how would a buddhist live if they were completely indifferent towards life. the answer in my opinion would be that if you look at a true buddhist, they aren't living lavishly and they certainly aren't fat. they would only do what they need to to live i suppose: work and eat-- the rest of the time would be spent meditating. but work for them wouldn't be the same it wouldn't be something they enjoy and it wouldn't be something they dislike they would just do it because they have to to survive, same with eating. if you were really a master of this "no-self" concept then food would not taste good or bad but it would just be nourishment. so thats why i feel like its more of a question of how far are you willing to go. obviously, if you are trying to live in a modern society and merely apply a few buddhist principles to your life to improve it, you will not be willing to give up the same as a monk in a monastery. i guess what im getting at is that a true master of this idea that you're talking about would not care what apartment they are staying in, what clothes they are wearing, what they are eating, whats on tv, what they are doing to get money, but they would only care about finding enlightenment. they would seperate themselves from these things as much as possible to become, like you said, completely objective. for your purposes however, yes, a subjective outlook would always need to be kept for you to make a "living" by modern standards and have happiness.

argh i am trying to make this clear but anyway..

in buddhism you do not desire anything nor do you feel anything. so decisions that you think of as menial are actually non-existant to a buddhist. there is no such thing as deciding whats for lunch, there is only the task of staying alive so that you can continue to meditate.

i hope this helps

peace

My understanding of Buddhism is not that it's a lack of emotion but a freedom from want, or suffering. Emotions which lead towards suffering usually stem from "wanting" or a reliance on the superficial. The enjoyment of a bagel for breakfast is not necessarily un-buddhist, looking forward to eating pizza all day for dinner is. (I'm sure this is entirely innaccurate.) Freedom from emotion or living w/ a lack of emotion is stoicism not Buddhism. The Dalai Lama has a book called the Art of Happines (Yet again that's probably the wrong title.) it explains the precepts of Tibetan Buddhism basic meditation techniques and other stuff. It does not say, live without emotion. As for the self or "emptiness" I don't think it can be explained, I have yet to read an explanation that's made me say "Aaahhh, I get it." It's sort of like when the kid in the Matrix says "There is no spoon." The concept of being your own construct of yourself. I don't have that firm a grasp of it myself. What I would really enjoy would be to study under a Zen master. It intrigues me as a very interesting path.

yeah i realized my explanation was exaggerated; there is an extent to which starving yourself becomes pointless you should follow more of the 'middle path' or whatever..