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

@Finn dAbuzz,

Finn, I would never say 'you don't have a clue'. That was not my intent. We often don't agree, and that is fine. I read your posts and appreciate your knowledge.

I don't see the Buddha as having The Answer. That's not in the teaching I study. In fact it is described as the path. One possible path, that has proven over a long period of time that it leads to enlightenment. In fact there are several possible Buddhist paths. There is not one Answer.

As far as limitations, there is an answer. It is in the dharma. It just cannot be explained in a thread like this one. There are many opportunities to study that and come to the the answer in that teaching.

0 Replies

@IRFRANK,

You wrote,

Quote:

There is suspect behavior at high levels in Buddhism.

This sentence caught my eye, because I "see" every levels of human organizations guilty of human weaknesses. I think it's the reality no matter how many wish to believe in their god(s), religious practice, or any organization that's supposed to be for the good deeds for and to other humans.

Rather, I believe it's more realistic than to be looking at any organization by its sinners and criminals, but by the individuals who have performed good deeds for many.

All religions attempt to teach morals, but as a group, they have also performed some of the most heinous of crimes against humanity.

So, what is the best course for humanity? Is there a solution?

1 Reply

@IRFRANK,

Quote:

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.

I think that I agree with your views.
I think that it is more true that Buddhism is something that you do, than that Buddhism is something that you believe.

2 Replies

@MattDavis,

MattDavis wrote:

think that it is more true that Buddhism is something that you do, than that Buddhism is something that you believe.

Exactly!

0 Replies

@XXSpadeMasterXX,

XXSpadeMasterXX wrote:

...there would be no need for Buddha himself (the one who claims to find self)

Buddha does not claim to find self.

0 Replies

@MattDavis,

Matt this is how I understand the definition of Mahayana Enlightenment. It’s called the' perfection of wisdom'. It arises when the true nature of reality is realized to be free from all 'elaboration' because reality is realized to be not existent, non-existent, both or something other than existent, non-existent or both.

3 Replies

@IRFRANK,

Thanks for that... well put!

0 Replies

@igm,

Quote:

Re: MattDavis (Post 5251156)
Matt this is how I understand the definition of Mahayana Enlightenment. It’s called the' perfection of wisdom'. It arises when the true nature of reality is realized to be free from all 'elaboration' because reality is realized to be not existent, non-existent, both or something other than existent, non-existent or both.

Is this the Buddhist's way of saying, "Ya gotta have faith"...or is it the Buddhist's way of saying, "Take our word for it?"

The more you "'splain", igm, the more sure I get that Buddhism is belief gone apeshit even more than Christianity.

There is no "nice" way to say any of this...and I apologize if it sounds demeaning, but if you are going to present Buddhist dogma in an Internet forum, some of us feel and obligation to counter it.

That being the case: Catholics make a better case for "transubstantiation" and "the Trinity?" than you folk do with "reality", "self", and "existence."

2 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

Catholics make a better case for "transubstantiation" and "the Trinity?" than you folk do with "reality", "self", and "existence."

Part of the prob, Frank, might concern the language barrier

0 Replies

@MattDavis,

Thanks again Matt. You gave me a bookmark. The part on the nature of enlightenment communicated my thoughts.

0 Replies

@MattDavis,

Well said, thank you.

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

You miss the point Frank. Simplify. Have you tried meditation? You make too much 'noise' to see the point. I don't mean that in a critical way , the key word is too much.

1 Reply

@igm,

igm wrote:

Matt this is how I understand the definition of Mahayana Enlightenment. It’s called the' perfection of wisdom'. It arises when the true nature of reality is realized to be free from all 'elaboration' because reality is realized to be not existent, non-existent, both or something other than existent, non-existent or both.

I don't mean this to sound trite, but I think it needs saying.
There is not much content to such a realization as you describe.

It is basically stating that 'perfection of wisdom' is realizing [______].
Then fill in the blank with any possible scenario for reality.

2 Replies

@IRFRANK,

Suggesting Frank might "meditate" reminds me of a short BBC drama about a travelling optician in the Scottish Highlands who made a pair of glasses for a short-sighted hill farmer. When the farmer put them on he took one look at his wife and immediately handed them back with the words "These are no good".

1 Reply

@MattDavis,

MattDavis wrote:

igm wrote:

Matt this is how I understand the definition of Mahayana Enlightenment. It’s called the' perfection of wisdom'. It arises when the true nature of reality is realized to be free from all 'elaboration' because reality is realized to be not existent, non-existent, both or something other than existent, non-existent or both.

I don't mean this to sound trite, but I think it needs saying.
There is not much content to such a realization as you describe.

It is basically stating that 'perfection of wisdom' is realizing [______].
Then fill in the blank with any possible scenario for reality.

It just means that any dualistic notion of reality is not going to stand up to scrutiny. My words convey the meaning of Nagarjuna's Madyamika Karikrikas or the Buddha's Heart Sutra:

http://www.zen.ie/heartsutra.html

Nargajuna shows how to use philosophical reasoning to go beyond philosophical reasoning by looking at both sides of the coin and seeing that both are 'empty'. One is left with a mind that 'meditates' whether sat on a cushion or in the action of everyday life.

2 Replies

@igm,

igm wrote:

It just means that any dualistic notion of reality is not going to stand up to scrutiny.

What evidence would convince you that dualism is correct?

1 Reply

@joefromchicago,

joefromchicago wrote:

igm wrote:
It just means that any dualistic notion of reality is not going to stand up to scrutiny.

What evidence would convince you that dualism is correct?

Joe here is my reply to you question:

Preamble: In order to communicate with you I have to use dualist language but I don’t have to believe there is evidence for dualism.

Reply: Take the subject of ‘reality’. If someone could show me that phenomena persist over time then I would be convinced that the evidence points to phenomena existing.

If someone could show me that phenomena cease to exist having previously existed then I would be convinced that the evidence points to phenomena being non-existent.

If someone could show me ‘both’ i.e. phenomena existing then becoming non-existent, then I would be convinced that there was evidence of both.

If someone could show me an ‘alternative’, without showing me the evidence that phenomena exist, can become non-existent, or both, then I would be convinced that dualism was correct, without it having to be shown that phenomena, either exist, can become non-existent having existed, or phenomena exist and then become non-existent.

1 Reply

@igm,

igm wrote:

Preamble: In order to communicate with you I have to use dualist language but I don’t have to believe there is evidence for dualism.

Why can't you communicate with me using non-dualist language?

igm wrote:

Reply: Take the subject of ‘reality’. If someone could show me that phenomena persist over time then I would be convinced that the evidence points to phenomena existing.

What would such evidence consist of?

igm wrote:

If someone could show me that phenomena cease to exist having previously existed then I would be convinced that the evidence points to phenomena being non-existent.

How can something be non-existent if it previously existed?

igm wrote:

If someone could show me ‘both’ i.e. phenomena existing then becoming non-existent, then I would be convinced that there was evidence of both.

How would that be evidence for dualism?

igm wrote:

If someone could show me an ‘alternative’, without showing me the evidence that phenomena exist, can become non-existent, or both, then I would be convinced that dualism was correct, without it having to be shown that phenomena, either exist, can become non-existent having existed, or phenomena exist and then become non-existent.

What might that "alternative" be?

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

Quote:

So, what is the best course for humanity? Is there a solution?

It's in our nature to fight, and it appears that no religion has succeeded in quieting that very much. I just hope it never reaches the point of mass destruction.

0 Replies

@igm,

igm

This link explains enlightenment the best I've seen, as least from my understanding. - From Matt's earlier post.

Look for 'The nature of enlightenment' tab.

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'.

2 Replies

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

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know