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

Forums: Philosophy, Buddhism, Dualism, Buddha, Identity
Email this Topic • Print this Page

The Buddha said that there is no self, ego, Atman, soul (all are synonymous for the purposes of this discussion).

If one can't show there is a self then that removes the subject from subject/object dualism. So unless one can show there is a self then how is one going to show that dualism is correct? The self must either be in the body, mind, both or some other location. If not then one cannot assert a self or dualism because if you don't have self then you can't have other.

They (subject/object) are merely ‘dreamed up by the mind’ concepts we use to communicate; that’s fine but the self is just a useful fiction, as is dualism. If you can’t find a truly existing self then the other side of the coin 'other' is also not found because the concepts depend on one another.

Buddha isn’t saying there is something else, he's just saying dualism is a fiction based on the mistaken belief there is a truly existent self. When we look for it the self cannot be found. The absence of dualism, the mere negation of it or the letting go of it is the absolute is ultimate reality. So it’s not something it’s the absence of mistaken views based on the subject/object dualism that cannot be proved.

The burden of proof is with anyone who says there is a truly existing self. The Buddha just says OK find it and I'll believe in it; if not then I won’t believe in dualism.

Abosolute truth is the mere absence of the belief in dualism according to the Buddha.

Please discuss, I’ve just taken and edited this from a post in another topic so it sounds too forceful. I apologise for that.

Buddhism also teaches that Loving Kindness and Compassion to all is a prerequisite quality to develop and of course meditation.

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 19 • Views: 60,871 • Replies: 1,181

@igm,

Glad to have this opportunity to discuss this with you, igm.

The Buddha says there is no soul.

I am not saying there is a soul...and I am not saying there is no soul.

I have no idea if there is or is not a soul

But the Buddha says there is no soul...so it seems to me the burden of proof for establishing that there is are no souls falls on the Buddha...or on you, if you want to assume it.

Frankly, I cannot think of any way to KNOW if there is a soul or not. I suspect anyone making an assertion that souls exist or that there are no souls...

...are simply making a guess.

So...if you are taking on the burden of responsibility to provide a foundation for the assertion that there is no soul...I am going to be delighted to hear it and respond to it.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

The title says 'self' Frank not 'soul'. We are talking about subject/object dualism not about the soul in this context.

The Buddha is just saying show me a 'self' and I'll believe in it, if not then I can't believe in dualism.

2 Replies

@igm,

If there is no self/ego/soul/atman...Why would you have to reject it, to find absolute or ultimate reality?

The struggle to "let go" of ones own self to break the cycle = dualism....

How can the self not be found, if it takes one to let go of it to find the absolute? (That there is no self...) How can dualism not exist, if it is the process in which one finds self to be non-existent?

1 Reply

@igm,

Quote:

The title says 'self' Frank not 'soul'. We are talking about subject/object dualism not about the soul in this context.

Your first sentence reads:

Quote:

The Buddha said that there is no self, ego, Atman, soul (all are synonymous for the purposes of this discussion).

Did you mean that or not?

Quote:

The Buddha is just saying show me a 'self' and I'll believe in it, if not then I can't believe in dualism.

I could not care less what he "believes in. "

Apparently he guesses there is no soul.

Fine...I have no problem with that.

And apparently you guess he is correct.

Fine...I have no problem with that.

My comment still applies:

But the Buddha says there is no soul...so it seems to me the burden of proof for establishing that there is are no souls falls on the Buddha...or on you, if you want to assume it.

Frankly, I cannot think of any way to KNOW if there is a soul or not. I suspect anyone making an assertion that souls exist or that there are no souls...

...are simply making a guess.

So...if you are taking on the burden of responsibility to provide a foundation for the assertion that there is no soul...I am going to be delighted to hear it and respond to it.

1 Reply

A part of the problem with this thread, igm, can best be illustrated by paraphrasing a part of your title.

Consider this:

How can non-dualism stand if it's just a fiction?

Does that open any doors for you?

0 Replies

@igm,

If there is no ego/self/soul/Atman...who do you think the 14th reincarnation of Buddha-Kulaks-ah-dish-lama is again?

(or the Dalai Lama)

0 Replies

@XXSpadeMasterXX,

XXSpadeMasterXX wrote:

If there is no self/ego/soul/atman...Why would you have to reject it, to find absolute or ultimate reality?

The struggle to "let go" of ones own self to break the cycle = dualism....

How can the self not be found, if it takes one to let go of it to find the absolute? (That there is no self...) How can dualism not exist, if it is the process in which one finds self to be non-existent?

The Buddha is asking those that believe in the self to find it and he will believe in it but if not then he will remain without that belief and without the belief in dualism. So, the Buddha is not actively doing anything he’s just asking those that belief in a self to show it to him.

The Buddha said I teach only two things: suffering and how to put an end to it.

1 Reply

@igm,

How could he ask people to find it, and he will believe? Unless he already knows that it is there and has found it himself? If he has not found it himself, and says it can not be found...How would anyone be able to find it for him? and show it to him? And if they did find it, but he has not found it himself as it does not exist, how would it be possible for one to show him to believe it? Unless the reason why his reincarnation exists is because one has shown him that it is already there? And he knows that it is? How could one show it to the Buddha, if he has found that it is not there and that is how he is not self? How would anyone show the Buddha (himself), if the process for Buddha and everyone is not self?

Who can show oneself, something that is not self? Who can show not self to oneself? If not a form of dualism?

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

I'd prefer if you just said 'self' it has less connotations. I'm talking about the notion of 'me', 'myself', I and the counterpart 'other'. How we think of ourselves and the world day-to-day. I'm here and all that is not me is 'other'. So that kind of dualistic thinking.

The Buddha says there is no self 'until' someone shows it to him. He is neutral until then and he finds if he stays neutral he is happier than when he sides with the notion of subject/object dualism. So he knows nothing. He remains in that state until someone shows him that there is a self.

So he doesn't take your position in saying that you can't know there isn't a self. He just waits with an open mind for someone to prove it and that position he says brings him happiness.

2 Replies

@igm,

Quote:

So he doesn't take your position in saying that you can't know there isn't a self. He just waits with an open mind for someone to prove it and that position he says brings him happiness.

What is the way or ways he says that he will know it was brought to him?

0 Replies

@XXSpadeMasterXX,

Perhaps my next post to Frank might help. I'm not attacking you just asking you to show me what you believe and I'll believe it, but you actually have to show me it.

The Buddha is doing the same things. He just waits with an open mind... and that make him happy. Maybe that's why some people like Buddha statues they just look like their sitting and waiting but at peace with everything.

2 Replies

@igm,

Let's take this one part at a time, igm.

Quote:

Re: Frank Apisa (Post 5247522)
I'd prefer if you just said 'self' it has less connotations.

You went out of your way in your very first sentence to say that soul, ego, self, Atman...were synonymous for the purposes of this discussion.

In my first post, I chose one and used it...and now you are trying to change what I used.

Why are you changing that already?

Further, you are asserting now that one has less connotations than the other, why did you SPECIFICALLY state that for the purposes of this discussion...they are synonymous.

I'm just trying to figure out if I am discussing this issue with someone who is being real...or just playing some kind of let's-see-if-I-can-control-you game.

Are you trying to control me?

1 Reply

@igm,

Re: XXSpadeMasterXX (Post 5247532)
Perhaps my next post to Frank might help. I'm not attacking you just asking you to show me what you believe and I'll believe it, but you actually have to show me it.

The Buddha is doing the same things. He just waits with an open mind... and that make him happy. Maybe that's why some people like Buddha statues they just look like their(sic) sitting and waiting but at peace with everything.

QUESTION: This is about non-dualism, right? And you are asking about "self", correct?

Just wanna be sure.

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Frank Apisa wrote:

Let's take this one part at a time, igm.

Quote:
Re: Frank Apisa (Post 5247522)
I'd prefer if you just said 'self' it has less connotations.

You went out of your way in your very first sentence to say that soul, ego, self, Atman...were synonymous for the purposes of this discussion.

In my first post, I chose one and used it...and now you are trying to change what I used.

Why are you changing that already?

Please use what ever one you wish. I'd prefer 'self' but you use what makes you feel confortable.

1 Reply

@igm,

Quote:

Please use what ever one you wish. I'd prefer 'self' but you use what makes you feel confortable.

Thanks. I much prefer "soul"...since I am almost certain we will never agree on what you mean by "self"...which was the reason for my last post with all the enlarged words.

Anyway:

The Buddha says there is no soul.

I am NOT saying there is a soul...and I am not saying there is no soul.

I have no idea if there is or is not a soul

But the Buddha says there is no soul...so it seems to me the burden of proof for establishing that there is are no souls falls on the Buddha...or on you, if you want to assume it.

Frankly, I cannot think of any way to KNOW if there is a soul or not. I suspect anyone making an assertion that souls exist or that there are no souls...

...is simply making a guess--a kind of blind guess, at that.

So...if you are taking on the burden of responsibility to provide a foundation for the assertion that there is no soul...I am going to be delighted to hear it and respond to it.

Whatta ya got on that?

3 Replies

@igm,

Quote:

The Buddha is doing the same things. He just waits with an open mind... and that make him happy. Maybe that's why some people like Buddha statues they just look like their sitting and waiting but at peace with everything.

How could you know that the Buddha is happy? If you have said, he, you, and others are waiting for something he has not found but is looking for? Is it possible he is not looking for it? And that is why he is happy? Is it possible he knows he would have to endure dualism in order to find oneself? In order to find no self? And he does not wish to do this because he knows he does not want to be no self? Because he is oneself somewhere already? Because he has endured dualism? And that is why he is happy?

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

igm wrote:

The Buddha says there is no self 'until' someone shows it to him. He is neutral until then and he finds if he stays neutral he is happier than when he sides with the notion of subject/object dualism. So he knows nothing. He remains in that state until someone shows him that there is a self.

So he doesn't take your position in saying that you can't know there isn't a self. He just waits with an open mind for someone to prove it and that position he says brings him happiness.

2 Replies

@igm,

If he is happier, how does anyone know he is looking for it? Is it possible he knows he can find it himself, but does not wish to do so? Because he will not be happy being no self? But rather likes being oneself? Because he has found a dualistic way? And does not wish to be no self?

0 Replies

@XXSpadeMasterXX,

We aren't waiting as such. If someone wants to say there is a self then we'll ask them to prove it; if not then fine. We remain open minded and that makes me happy, so from my point of view I believe the Buddha because I tried it and it made me happier.

3 Replies

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

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know