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

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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?

No. According to the convention used by Ken Wilber, the progression would go pre-dualism, dualism, trans-dualism.

...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...

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?