19
   

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

 
 
IRFRANK
 
  1  
Reply Tue 12 Feb, 2013 08:45 pm
@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
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Tue 12 Feb, 2013 08:54 pm
@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?
MattDavis
 
  1  
Reply Tue 12 Feb, 2013 09:03 pm
@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.
JLNobody
 
  1  
Reply Tue 12 Feb, 2013 11:40 pm
@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
 
igm
 
  1  
Reply Wed 13 Feb, 2013 07:56 am
@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
 
igm
 
  1  
Reply Wed 13 Feb, 2013 08:04 am
@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.
igm
 
  1  
Reply Wed 13 Feb, 2013 08:13 am
@IRFRANK,
Thanks for that... well put!
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Wed 13 Feb, 2013 08:44 am
@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."
dalehileman
 
  1  
Reply Wed 13 Feb, 2013 07:14 pm
@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
 
IRFRANK
 
  1  
Reply Wed 13 Feb, 2013 08:06 pm
@MattDavis,
Thanks again Matt. You gave me a bookmark. The part on the nature of enlightenment communicated my thoughts.
0 Replies
 
IRFRANK
 
  1  
Reply Wed 13 Feb, 2013 08:12 pm
@MattDavis,
Well said, thank you.
0 Replies
 
IRFRANK
 
  3  
Reply Wed 13 Feb, 2013 08:15 pm
@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.
MattDavis
 
  1  
Reply Wed 13 Feb, 2013 10:51 pm
@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.
fresco
 
  3  
Reply Thu 14 Feb, 2013 03:02 am
@IRFRANK,
Smile
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".
igm
 
  1  
Reply Thu 14 Feb, 2013 03:32 am
@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.
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Thu 14 Feb, 2013 07:15 am
@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?
igm
 
  1  
Reply Thu 14 Feb, 2013 08:21 am
@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.
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Thu 14 Feb, 2013 08:48 am
@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?
IRFRANK
 
  1  
Reply Thu 14 Feb, 2013 10:09 am
@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
 
IRFRANK
 
  2  
Reply Thu 14 Feb, 2013 10:12 am
@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'.
 

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 0.05 seconds on 05/30/2024 at 07:07:07