19
   

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

 
 
Berty McJock
 
  1  
Reply Tue 12 Feb, 2013 04:59 pm
@XXSpadeMasterXX,
Quote:
I think it takes a conscientious perceptibly to know or understand the implications of "self" or "not self" and both.


true, but the Self can still exist without them though can't it? as long as it thinks it exists, it doesn't need to know or understand it.
XXSpadeMasterXX
 
  1  
Reply Tue 12 Feb, 2013 05:11 pm
@Berty McJock,
I disagree, at least in part. I think it can exist, yes. But if the "self" does not understand what "not self" is. Then even the "self" wouldn't be able to grasp the concepts of what "self" is itself. "Self" can not be reliant on "self" itself, because if it was able to, there would be no need for Buddha himself (the one who claims to find self) to ask someone to show him that dualism is not a fiction. Unless he knew there was a reason to find "not self" in finding "self" Or unless "self" is totally reliant on nothing itself but "self" and if this is true, then Buddha's words were paradoxical anyways and would still point to some form of dualism in order to ultimately find "self" in the process of becoming enlightened.

I can only see one understanding "self" if they know what "not self" is and why it would not be beneficial in the long run.
IRFRANK
 
  1  
Reply Tue 12 Feb, 2013 05:14 pm
@fresco,
Thanks fresco. That link was very good.
0 Replies
 
MattDavis
 
  1  
Reply Tue 12 Feb, 2013 05:15 pm
@fresco,
fresco wrote:

Note. According to Krishnamurti, the concept of "goal" is antithetical to a state of "enlightenment". You might re-consider your usage of the word "understand" with respect to that point.

Point taken.
I think I did that in deference to Finn's usage of that terminology in his post.
The post to which your response (that I was responding to) is a response to.
More explicitly http://able2know.org/topic/207906-10#post-5250557.
Nevertheless, an error is an error no matter its origin. I was wrong to perpetuate it.

Would you mind responding to this assessment?:

I don't think that "transcendence to selflessness" is enlightenment,
if what is meant by "selflessness" is a denial of the concept of self.
I believe that it is more enlightened to conceptually transcend the self.
Transcending the self in the sense of having conceptions that transcend the categorizations of "self" and "not self", not in the sense of having conceptions that deny the categorizations, but that incorporate them into a larger framework.
MattDavis
 
  2  
Reply Tue 12 Feb, 2013 05:38 pm
@XXSpadeMasterXX,
Berty McJock wrote:

Quote:
I think it takes a conscientious perceptibly to know or understand the implications of "self" or "not self" and both.

true, but the Self can still exist without them though can't it? as long as it thinks it exists, it doesn't need to know or understand it.


XXSpadeMasterXX wrote:

I disagree, at least in part. I think it can exist, yes. But if the "self" does not understand what "not self" is. Then even the "self" wouldn't be able to grasp the concepts of what "self" is itself. "Self" can not be reliant on "self" itself, because if it was able to, there would be no need for Buddha himself (the one who claims to find self) to ask someone to show him that dualism is not a fiction. Unless he knew there was a reason to find "not self" in finding "self" Or unless "self" is totally reliant on nothing itself but "self" and if this is true, then Buddha's words were paradoxical anyways and would still point to some form of dualism in order to ultimately find "self" in the process of becoming enlightened.

I can only see one understanding "self" if they know what "not self" is and why it would not be beneficial in the long run.


I think that non-dualism is becoming the straw man of this debate about the Buddhist position.
I don't hold that non-dualism is the position of Buddhism.
I think that a better label would be trans-dualism.
Not a denial of 'self'.
Not a denial of 'not self'.
A transcendence of the two.
An incorporation of the two within a larger framework.

In terms of the 'Pre-Trans Fallacy' of Ken Wilber, http://www.ptmistlberger.com/the-pre-trans-fallacy.php
'non-dualism' would be more properly labeled 'pre-dualism'.
Berty McJock
 
  1  
Reply Tue 12 Feb, 2013 05:41 pm
i'm putting my thinking hat on, i may be some time.
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Tue 12 Feb, 2013 05:44 pm
@MattDavis,
Quote:
I think that non-dualism is becoming the straw man of this debate about the Buddhist position.
I don't hold that non-dualism is the position of Buddhism.


What follows is the OP in its entirety. Could you tell us what part of it you disagree with?

Quote:

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.
MattDavis
 
  1  
Reply Tue 12 Feb, 2013 05:46 pm
@Berty McJock,
I don't think you made yourself look stupid!
XXSpadeMasterXX
 
  1  
Reply Tue 12 Feb, 2013 05:48 pm
@MattDavis,
I totally agree with you!! I think that is one of the most valid posts this thread has had...

What did Buddha say about trans-dualism? Did he say it was to be found? Or did he find it? Or if Ken Wilber had, in his own interpretations, Do you think he discovered this by discovering and comparing "dualism" and "non-dualism"?

Non-dualism is pre-dualism? So dualism is post-dualism?
Berty McJock
 
  1  
Reply Tue 12 Feb, 2013 05:49 pm
@MattDavis,
lol i was just being Self-deprecating... DON'T even go there!!! Razz
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Tue 12 Feb, 2013 05:54 pm
@Berty McJock,
The two of you are contributing good stuff on this topic, and I encourage you to "keep it up." I'm sure many of us following this discussion are being provided with information that is both educational and entertaining.

Thanks, guys. No humble juice needed.
0 Replies
 
MattDavis
 
  1  
Reply Tue 12 Feb, 2013 06:03 pm
@IRFRANK,
Great response.
I think you did very well in leaving emotion out of it.

I think a very salient point in it is this:
IRFRANK wrote:
I don't understand quarks, but I think there are scientists who do. And if I wanted to be a scientist and understand that I would study under them.

Just as a certain (and large) amount of background experience has to go into becoming someone becoming qualified to give substantive opinions with regard to quantum mechanics, a certain (and large) amount of background experience may be needed to go into someone becoming qualified to give substantive opinions with regard to a meditative and ethical practice.

As a question to you IRFRANK,
If Buddhism was demonstrated to you to be inaccurate, in the sense that it led to a belief that was inconsistent with your observation of the world,
would that decrease in any way the value that you think Buddhism has?

What I mean to get at by the question is that I think there may be a disagreement between you and Finn as to what Buddhism is or what it is meant to do.
I suspect that Finn is measuring its validity by how well it conforms to empirical evidence and logical reasoning.
While IRFRANK is measuring its validity by how useful (especially in regard to decreasing suffering) it is as a method of being.
MattDavis
 
  1  
Reply Tue 12 Feb, 2013 06:14 pm
@Frank Apisa,
Quote:
What follows is the OP in its entirety. Could you tell us what part of it you disagree with?

There are multiple parts I don't agree with in it.

One particular point is that I disagree with is an implication that "subject" and "object" are notions that will be shown to enlightened persons to be merely illusions.
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Tue 12 Feb, 2013 06:20 pm
@IRFRANK,
At the risk of saying anything more and causing everyone who expressed appreciation for my prior post to realize I don't have a clue, I don't dismiss Buddhism or people who like to call themselves Buddhists (although an insistence upon labeling oneself would seem to be something of a barrier to achieving selflessness).

I think it's a very fine thing for people to consider these matters, but I have a difficult time accepting that any of them can find The Answer confined within the restraints of humanity. If you believe a fair number have and they deserve the title of Buddha, that's fine with me. As you've seemed to point out, caring about what you think I've said about Buddhism and Buddhists, isn't very Buddhist.

Given the sincerity of someone who wants to understand (which tends to imply the ability to understand) the answer "You just don't understand," seems to me to more accurately describe the limitations of the answerer than the questioner.

You may not currently have a clue about Quantum Physics, but if you truly wanted to, I suspect you could achieve a fair level of understanding if exposed to someone who does. (at least to the extent that anyone understands Quantum Physics)








MattDavis
 
  1  
Reply Tue 12 Feb, 2013 06:27 pm
@XXSpadeMasterXX,
XXSpadeMasterXX wrote:

I totally agree with you!! I think that is one of the most valid posts this thread has had...

Why thank you. Smile

Quote:
What did Buddha say about trans-dualism? Did he say it was to be found? Or did he find it?

I don't know what he said about it, and I would contend that no one else does either. I think it would be more useful to know what someone in such an enlightened state (now) would say about it.

Quote:
Or if Ken Wilber had, in his own interpretations, Do you think he discovered this by discovering and comparing "dualism" and "non-dualism"?
Ken Wilber formulated one/some of the lessons he learned from his study/practice of wisdom traditions, into the Pre-Trans Fallacy. He found this linguistic tool to attempt to reteach that lesson to others.

Quote:
Non-dualism is pre-dualism? So dualism is post-dualism?

No. According to the convention used by Ken Wilber, the progression would go pre-dualism, dualism, trans-dualism.
XXSpadeMasterXX
 
  1  
Reply Tue 12 Feb, 2013 06:41 pm
@MattDavis,
Quote:
No. According to the convention used by Ken Wilber, the progression would go pre-dualism, dualism, trans-dualism.

You have already explained 2 of these notions...But please just list all 3 of what he had to say here for easier context if you would be so kind?

I am mainly interested in hearing what his understandings of "dualism" were/are? If it is similar to what others think or thought, or different? Like Pre, and Trans...
MattDavis
 
  1  
Reply Tue 12 Feb, 2013 07:35 pm
@XXSpadeMasterXX,
Spade wrote:
...please just list all 3 of what he had to say here for easier context if you would be so kind?

I will try to do them justice but I think a good resource is the link I provided
http://www.ptmistlberger.com/the-pre-trans-fallacy.php

Pre-dualism (with regard to self): undifferentiated self, not aware that such a thing as 'me' and 'not me' exists, existing in a stage before knowing of 'self'

Dualism (with regard to self): differentiated self, awareness that such things as 'me' and 'not me' exist, existing in a stage that knows of 'self'

Trans-dualism (with regard to self): integrated self, awareness that such things as me and not me take on a different meaning as when viewed from a concept that integrates these notions, existing in a stage that transcends the concept of self.
MattDavis
 
  1  
Reply Tue 12 Feb, 2013 07:46 pm
@XXSpadeMasterXX,
Spade wrote:
I am mainly interested in hearing what his understandings of "dualism" were/are? If it is similar to what others think or thought, or different? Like Pre, and Trans...

Well a case can be made that it matches well with the concepts of pre-conventional, conventional, and post-conventional
Cognitive development, emotional development, moral development.
As evidenced in psychology.
Here is a video:
0 Replies
 
XXSpadeMasterXX
 
  2  
Reply Tue 12 Feb, 2013 07:48 pm
@MattDavis,
Thanks a lot mate! I am gonna look at the link in a few minutes, I have something to do right now....But I am interested in your thinking very much, I am gonna add you as a friend mate! Wink
0 Replies
 
IRFRANK
 
  2  
Reply Tue 12 Feb, 2013 08:37 pm
@MattDavis,
Quote:
If Buddhism was demonstrated to you to be inaccurate, in the sense that it led to a belief that was inconsistent with your observation of the world,
would that decrease in any way the value that you think Buddhism has?


Yes, but it would have to be more than just an example of a Buddhist behaving badly or an example that led to a bad outcome. I am sure those examples exist, but they only demonstrate even Buddhists are human and make mistake. I see poor behavior in people who are in my own ganden that only show we are all learning. There is suspect behavior at high levels in Buddhism. Still the teaching shows us the way to minimize that and improve our own actions.

Your are correct in that I take a more practical view and much of the discussion here is in a philosophical nature, and that is fine. I learn from the philosophical discussions. They give me insight.

Years ago I read about Buddhism a lot and discussed it in places like this one. It appealed to me because the basic message of the 4 basic truths made sense and it did not ask me to believe in any external power. Since then I've joined a Mahayana ganden and my practice and understanding have deepened greatly. The benefits are greater also. I find causing myself problems happens much less often. I think I have a better perspective. My relationship with my wife and family have improved. So in practice I guess you could say it works for me. That doesn't mean I can answer these difficult philosophical questions, and that fact does not indicate to me that the Buddha was wrong.

 

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas
Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus
Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus
Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King
Paradigm shifts - Question by Cyracuz
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.07 seconds on 06/18/2024 at 02:50:39