Where is the self? How can dualism stand if it's just a fiction?

@fresco,

fresco, could I please have your comments on this extract:

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/nagarjuna/

According to the Madhyamaka view of truth there can be no such thing as ultimate truth, a theory describing how things really are, independent of our interests and conceptual resources employed in describing it. All one is left with is conventional truth, truth which consists in agreement with commonly accepted practices and conventions. These are the truths that are arrived at when viewing the world through our linguistically formed conceptual framework. But we should be wary of denigrating these conventions as a distorting device that incorporates our specific interests and concerns. The very notion of ‘distortion’ presupposes that there is a world untainted by conceptuality out there (even if our minds can never reach it) that is crooked and bent to fit our cognitive grasp. But the very notion of such a ‘way things really are’ is argued by the Mādhyamika to be incoherent. There is no way of investigating the world apart from our linguistic and conceptual practices, if only because these practices generate the notion of the ‘world’ and of the ‘objects’ in it in the first place. To speak of conventional reality as distorted is therefore highly misleading, unless all we want to say is that our way of investigating the world is inextricably bound up with the linguistic and conceptual framework we happen to employ.

1 Reply

This may be a duplicate post my first post isn't showing in my browser.

Fresco could I please have your thoughts on this extract:

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/nagarjuna/

According to the Madhyamaka view of truth there can be no such thing as ultimate truth, a theory describing how things really are, independent of our interests and conceptual resources employed in describing it. All one is left with is conventional truth, truth which consists in agreement with commonly accepted practices and conventions. These are the truths that are arrived at when viewing the world through our linguistically formed conceptual framework. But we should be wary of denigrating these conventions as a distorting device that incorporates our specific interests and concerns. The very notion of ‘distortion’ presupposes that there is a world untainted by conceptuality out there (even if our minds can never reach it) that is crooked and bent to fit our cognitive grasp. But the very notion of such a ‘way things really are’ is argued by the Mādhyamika to be incoherent. There is no way of investigating the world apart from our linguistic and conceptual practices, if only because these practices generate the notion of the ‘world’ and of the ‘objects’ in it in the first place. To speak of conventional reality as distorted is therefore highly misleading, unless all we want to say is that our way of investigating the world is inextricably bound up with the linguistic and conceptual framework we happen to employ.

1 Reply

@igm,

I agree entirely.

And as for the ostensible "logical paradox" this can be deconstruced by a nested systems approach (aka "second order cybernetics") explored by Von Foerster,who was concerned with "the observation of observation". As I have already said on this or some other current thread, theists tend to go for a closed set of nested systems whose highest level is Absolute or Ultimate (aka God), but non-theists are happy with an open or infinite set.

1 Reply

@igm,

Excellent article; thanks for sharing it with us.

Even conventional truth has its problems, because our perceptions can differ by degrees - sometimes poles apart. We need to define what "conventional truth" is, and when and where it applies.

I'm not even sure "conventional reality" exists.

1 Reply

@fresco,

fresco wrote:

I agree entirely.

And as for the ostensible "logical paradox" this can be deconstruced by a nested systems approach (aka "second order cybernetics") explored by Von Foerster,who was concerned with "the observation of observation". As I have already said on this or some other current thread, theists tend to go for a closed set of nested systems whose highest level is Absolute or Ultimate (aka God), but non-theists are happy with an open or infinite set.

Having read your past posts. I thought you'd agree. You have said very similar things in the past.

0 Replies

@dalehileman,

I have to admit I was lazy. I looked up Magillah and it does make much more sense.

1 Reply

@igm,

igm wrote:

You seem to have a very narrow view of Mahayana Buddhism and it doesn’t seem to be a neutral one. The texts are vast and deep and not something one could draw firm conclusions about in the way you seem to have done.

My view may very well be "narrow" with regard to the exact quotations of various and somewhat contradictory texts used in Mahayana teaching.
The view in question is my perception of what your interpretation is of those texts, especially with regard to how you reconcile the contradictions.

You are mistaken if you think that my bias is AGAINST Mahayana Buddhism.
If any bias exists, it would be in favor of it.
My suggestion is that perhaps, as referred to numerous times before, your interpretation is flawed.

I also don't except ANY text as valid based on appeal to authority, whether it be from a Buddhist tradition, a Christian tradition, an animistic tradition,..... yada yada yada.

2 Replies

@MattDavis,

Come on Matt that was not a reply just a fudge. I guess you’re busy.

2 Replies

@MattDavis,

Quote:

I also don't except ANY text as valid based on appeal to authority, whether it be from a Buddhist tradition

One think that appeals to me about Budhism is that is not the case at all. Certainly, some faith is required, but I have the following on a refrigerator magnet:

"Do not believe anything that does not agree with your own reason or common sense no matter who has said it, even if I have said it." Buddha

2 Replies

@IRFRANK,

Quote:

I have to admit I was lazy.

I have to admit even lazier and apologize for not having addressed your query posting #….020

Quote:

I looked up Megillah and it does make much more sense.

Thank you. Maybe I should have explained my viewpoint as apodictical existential pantheist

0 Replies

@igm,

Sorry igm didn't notice your rapid response. Sad

My overall message to you igm:

I have great sympathy for Buddhism in general.
I think we both agree that intellectualizing your way to enlightenment is a very difficult task.
My humble opinion is that it is probably not even too great an idea to try to rationalize that enlightenment to someone who does not have a meditative and ethical practice.
Smile

0 Replies

@igm,

Maybe more succinctly, but by means of analogy--

Meditative practice and especially ethical practice compose the safety net to prevent a regression in the path to enlightenment.

Without the safety net you risk confusion.
Please make sure the safety net is in place prior to teaching regarding enlightenment.

You can lead us to the water. We have to decide to drink it. The water will be safe when filtered through ethical practice and meditation.

0 Replies

@IRFRANK,

IRFrank wrote:

"Do not believe anything that does not agree with your own reason or common sense no matter who has said it, even if I have said it." Buddha

Can't think of anything more to add to that. Thank you Frank. Very Happy

1 Reply

Loving kindness and compassion in action:
Very Happy

http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?v=10152298574915510&set=vb.675225509&type=2&theater

0 Replies

@IRFRANK,

IRFRANK wrote:

Quote:
I also don't except ANY text as valid based on appeal to authority, whether it be from a Buddhist tradition

One think that appeals to me about Budhism is that is not the case at all. Certainly, some faith is required, but I have the following on a refrigerator magnet:

"Do not believe anything that does not agree with your own reason or common sense no matter who has said it, even if I have said it." Buddha

0 Replies

@MattDavis,

Quote:

Re:
Quote:
IRFRANK (Post 5256197)
IRFrank wrote:
"Do not believe anything that does not agree with your own reason or common sense no matter who has said it, even if I have said it." Buddha

Can't think of anything more to add to that. Thank you Frank.

And you two both "believe" that to be correct?

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

And you two both "believe" that to be correct?

I'll post a picture of the magnet.

1 Reply

@IRFRANK,

Quote:

I'll post a picture of the magnet.

LOL. That was funny. Touché !

0 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

We need to define what "conventional truth" is, and when and where it applies.

Are you asking a question ci or are you asking to collaborate on a definition?

cicerone imposter wrote:

I'm not even sure "conventional reality" exists.

I'm not surprised you are unsure if "conventional reality" exists. Perhaps you could give 'your' reasons why you believe it might not?

1 Reply

@joefromchicago,

joefromchicago wrote:

igm wrote:
Language is dualistic.

Are you suggesting that dualism and non-dualism can co-exist?

Can you quote where I've given that impression? It is certainly not from the quote above.

joefromchicago wrote:

What would such evidence consist of?

igm wrote:

I'm just required to wait for others to bring their evidence.

Nope, that's not how it works. If, as you keep insisting, you're open-minded on this subject, then you should already know what kind of evidence would disprove your position.

I don’t think, ‘how it works’ is ‘set in stone’ I prefer to just wait; if no one comes with evidence that’s fine by me. Also, I haven’t got any ‘theories’.

igm wrote:

Ordinary people say they live and then they die. Life is existence and death is becoming non-existent according to ‘some’ ordinary people.

joefromchicago wrote:

Well, the principle of conservation of matter means that no matter is destroyed. Is that what you're saying here?

I believe it is ‘energy’ not ‘matter’ that is referred to as being conserved. I was just describing how people who don’t think deeply or at all, about this subject believe they are born (they become existent), the live (they exist over time), then they die (they cease to exist).

igm wrote:

To show me both would be to show me existence and non-existence; that is dualistic as it shows both sides of the coin, so-to-speak.

joefromchicago wrote:

What would be evidence that something is non-existent?

I don’t know you tell me?

The problem with all these questions by you which are ‘out-of-context’ with my original post is that it is almost impossible for others to follow what the original context was, don’t you agree?

1 Reply

Where is the self? How can dualism stand if it's just a fiction?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know