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

Of that which is front of you at the moment.

That's when the work starts.

Are you a practicing Buddhist?

Thanks IRFrank. I'll take a look at it.

I am .

What does it mean to be a "practicing Buddhist?"

Yes.
Which will depend on whatever "stage" you happen to be in/on at the moment.

Language is dualistic.


I'm just required to wait for others to bring their evidence.



Ordinary people say they live and then they die. Life is existence and death is becoming non-existent according to ‘some’ ordinary people.



To show me both would be to show me existence and non-existence; that is dualistic as it shows both sides of the coin, so-to-speak.



It is for others to say they have an alternative and to show the evidence for it.

It have a practice, including meditation etc. that I do 'every' day. This was given to me by a lineage holding Buddhist Teacher. I attend teachings which are commentaries on the Buddha’s teachings etc. that have unbroken lineages that can be traced back many hundreds of years.

No offense mate...But I agree with Frank Apisa on this one...

If you are claiming that you believe that dualism is just a fiction till one provides you with evidence it is not...The burden is placed squarely upon you to go out and try to find such evidence to test and see if it is a fiction or not...If others do not view perspectives the same ways you do...then they are not obligated to do it to satisfy you, or Buddha or anyone else associated with the Buddhist philosophy...And if every other Buddhist looks at this notion in the same, or similar ways, then it stands to believe that no one will ever find it anyways, because the very ones who find relevance in challenging it to reject or embrace it if proven true are not the ones looking to find it themselves but are just waiting...

Then it seems that Buddhists are willing to wait for something they know will never come...because no one outside of Buddhism would have a reason to try to find evidence to show Buddhists and Buddha, if their own lifestyles, practices, philosophies, views, opinions, beliefs are not centered around the Buddhist philosophy...And if Buddhists are not willing to try to find it but wait for someone else...Why should anyone else try to find this evidence for Buddhists? If they are not a Buddhist themselves...

Or it points to Buddhists knowing it is not just a fiction, but are unwilling to go looking because they know they will find this evidence, and would not wish to embrace it, or alter their own philosophy...

But I personally do not believe the latter is true, but the first one is more accurate...

Example:

If I said to you...go out and show me evidence that Jesus Christ is not God, and I will believe it...Would you, as a Buddhist, go looking for this evidence to show me? Or would you either say to me or think to yourself, it is not my job to provide that proof for him, but it is his Job to find that evidence for himself? Since Jesus is his God, and not mine?

Thanks for asking the pertinent questions Spade.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is the problem IGM, that is faced when someone tries to mount an argument against dualism for the opposite of it. [A rather dualist framing, by the way.]
Or, in other words, to try to argue for non-dualism, to claim that dualism is "just a fiction".

Dualism is not just a "fiction". In Mahayana (your practice I think?) terms dualism is a Upaya, it is needed in order to reach enlightenment at which point you will see the truth of it in different terms.
Non-dualism is actually arguing for the less enlightened view of pre-dualism. The view that we all had prior to gaining awareness of the self.
If you follow down this "non-dualist" intellectual path, I think where you will eventually arrive is a place indistinguishable from nihilism. This will not make an ethical practice very easy or natural.
I suggest, if you haven't already, look into framing a discussion in terms of dualism as opposed to trans-dualism.
To maybe explore the notion that there is a way to reconcile such things as 'self' and 'not self'.

Maybe a good jumping off point is thinking about the extensibility of self.
Which, by the way, is often very much related to some meditative exercises that you might already be familiar with.

See previous
Sorry I meant the second part of the comment to Spade for you.

I'll consider your post and reply when I have. We aren't though saying you 'must' find evidence of the self. Knowing that we won't believe in a truly existing self without proof sometimes makes people come to us trying to prove there is one.

I understand mate...no offense meant...Just the way I see it...And I am interested in your post when you have the time...no rush...G'night Matt! G'night igm!!!

Matt, you misunderstand my position. We don't have a view at all. We rest in the nature that is unelaborated. We do however have ways of refuting all views that dualists put forward. We can still act in the world with loving kindness and compassion to all.

My point in all this (my previous post) is an ethical one.
What are the implications if you dissuade someone from a dualistic view in favor of a less enlightened pre-dualistic view?
This imposes an obstacle in the path of that persons enlightenment.
Additionally, someone with a dualistic view generally behaves more ethically than someone with a pre-dualistic view. The person thus re-illusioned spreads the negative effect out to any and all that they interact with.

That is certainly the non-dualist view.
This is also the view you would have prior to your recognition of self, your pre-dualistic view.

What is the non-dualistic understanding of love?
How do you love without a self?
What is the non-dualistic understanding of kindness?
What does kindness mean if there are no selfs to be kind to?
What is the non-dualistic understanding of compassion?
What does compassion mean when there are no selfs involved?

Simply put it's an unselfish response to those who ask for help. Samsara and Nirvava are the same place. Sentient beings and Buddha's are the same but Buddha's understand their true nature and sentient beings mistake it.