For my parents, my mom's cancer is actually an afterthought considering the rest of what they are dealing with. Thanks for the concern, Technocracy.

Thanks, Abaco.

I hope it works out ok for you and them.

Death is a part of life. Thanks for the concern. If there is no life after this one, she will have a miserable ending, as most do here on Earth. If there is life after this one, then she has lived a life worthy of it. You had to deal with one of your parents recently as well. This is the bitter part of A = A.

With the worse cancers that is coming through well, unfortunately

Not to intrude, but my understanding of the 'inner self' to be let go of, was the idea or feeling that the 'I' resides in the mind separate from the mind and the physical self. Which gives rise to the idea that there's something more than the body/brain. Some in psychology today term it the 'super ego' and in religion, the soul.

Only by letting go of that concept of 'inner self' can one begin to experience the wholeness/fullness of life. Along with that goes the ideal of experiencing now (life) vs. waiting or expecting better or any existence after death.

Most of the mysticism associated with Buddha comes about from the difficulty of translation and interpretation between Western and Eastern concepts and philosophies.

She won't come through it well, but perhaps she and my dad might be able to live together, instead of across the street, during their final days.

oh j, I am so sorry.

I did not know any details beyond it being pancreatic cancer.

I hope your mother comes through it well JB

RE: "since consciousness exists, why would it be denied?"
It wouldn't and shouldn't.

RE: "If you can deny the inner self-what self is actually doing the denying"
I should have been more explicit. The Buddha taught that spending time considering the afterlife, or the idea of an extra essence that made you you, was a waste of time. The "soul" Buddha was referring to was what religionists consider "the soul" - not consciousness, or a sense of self, but rather the part of you that moves on to the afterlife after your physical body dies. The Buddha basically said, "there is no soul." Or, there is no essence which endures beyond death so don't waste your time focused on that.

When you read stuff about Buddha saying "let go of the ego", that's actually a misrepresentation resulting from bad Judeo-Christian translation. What Buddha said was, there is no God, there is no soul, let it go, and let's get on with living.

RE: "Interesting conversation"
No doubt.

Actually, not true. Jobs' type of pancreatic cancer typically does nothing for at least three years. Only when it metastasizes is his form of pancreatic cancer a serious threat. My mom was diagnosed with the same cancer in October after a serious fall, and the doctors said that they would not start rehab until after she was walking well again. After several months, she has improved some, but might not ever go from skilled nursing to assisted living.

My mom has the same slow growing pancreatic cancer that metastasized and killed Steve Jobs, but I doubt that it will kill her before the umpteenth fall does.

yes :(

"No-self", in a sense, is not about denying the physical self, it's about denying the inner-self - or the idea of the soul. Denying the self, or better stated in context, the soul, frees you to experience life here, on Earth.

In Objectivism since consciousness exists, why would it be denied? If you can deny the inner self-what self is actually doing the denying? another self? I am simply reading what you have provided, I do not claim to know much. but probably I think we are not agreeing on definitions, ie. soul or inner self. I think I read Siddhartha in HS. ultimately, and I'm just going by your description above, I am reminded of Helen Keller. (Rand writes about concept formation using the Miracle Worker in PWNI). Young Keller who was severely limited in her abilities to form concepts was driven by what in order to learn? She certainly could not deny her inside self, at the point she began to gather language. anyway, interesting conversation,

With pancreatic cancer it likely made little difference. Survival rate on that is horrible.

This reminds me of a conversation between you and Robbie about Objectivism. :)

All of what you stated there speaks not to what Buddhism actually is, but rather the misconception. "No-self", in a sense, is not about denying the physical self, it's about denying the inner-self - or the idea of the soul. Denying the self, or better stated in context, the soul, frees you to experience life here, on Earth.

Further, 'The Buddha simply pointed out when the act of conceiving a self is skillful, and when it would be unskillful, and when the act of conceiving "not-self" is skillful, and when it is unskillful. For example, the question "What, when I do it, would lead to my long-term benefit, and what would lead to my long-term harm?" involves skillful perceptions of self and is therefore a very skillful question...' (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anatta). Basically, the Buddha taught rational self-interest.

Or, I'm just trying to tie two completely unrelated things together to suit my purpose. :)

RE: Reincarntaon
'There are two things most people think they know about Buddhism -- that Buddhists believe in reincarnation, and that all Buddhists are vegetarian. These two statements are not true, however. Buddhist teachings on rebirth are considerably different from what most people call "reincarnation."' (http://buddhism.about.com/od/basicbuddhi...)

"... the Buddha did not teach a doctrine of reincarnation. For one thing, he taught there was no soul to transmigrate." from Misunderstanding Buddhism (http://buddhism.about.com/od/basicbuddhi...)

RE: "Rejecting the self"
There are different interpretations to this, but in one sense, it's not that there is no self, but rather that self is not all there is. In another sense, "no-self" is about rejecting the idea of the inner-self, or what religionists refer to as "the soul."

EDIT: Added a sentence for clarity.

jobs regrets that he rejected science in treating his cancer
http://www.forbes.com/sites/alicegwalton...

let's look at the metaphysics and epistemology of Buddhism. It rejects A is A by denying you of a "self"
Epistemologically, it's a form of subjectivism. The way you gain knowledge is based on only an internal examination-which is not an objective examination btw, and rejecting external objective examination (reason and logic). just because there is no deity does not mean there's no mysticism.

there is that reincarnation business. The rejection of self to experience nirvana sounds pretty mystical to me. but I don't know much about Buddhism. Rejecting the concept of self and ego as an illusion is a non-starter for me.

What?!?!
No Das Kapital!??!?!

I've read a couple of books on Jobs and Apple. I never got the impression he was a mystic. He was a Zen Buddhist - which teaches that "awakening comes through one's own direct experience, not through beliefs and dogmas. Buddhism is non-theistic. The Buddha taught that believing in gods was not useful for those seeking to realize enlightenment." (http://buddhism.about.com/od/basicbuddhi...)

Sounds pretty non-mystic to me. What'd I miss?

he vigorously worked in his later years to weaken the patent system, making it harder for the individual inventor to have the same opportunities he and Woz had when they started their business. Rearden respected patents.

Steve Jobs was an interesting mix. Partly mystic, partly consistent with AR values. When it came to running his business, he was a Rearden, but his personal views were not self-consistent.