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

@igm,

igm wrote:

Simply put it's an unselfish response to those who ask for help. Samsara and Nirvava are the same place.

The first sentence is reflective of a dualistic understanding of altruism.
Samsara and nirvana are not places.

Quote:

Sentient beings and Buddha's are the same but Buddha's understand their true nature and sentient beings mistake it.

...and you think that this 'true nature' is a refutation of dualism?
-------------------------------------------------------
IRFrank suggested a look at http://www.ptmistlberger.com/the-nature-of-enlightenment.php and I agree with him in the recommendation.
Here is an excerpt (emphasis mine):

Quote:

Enlightenment is not non-dual, as that is yet another category applied by the mind. Nor is it dual. It is neither, beyond both, and nothing. It cannot be seized and catalogued. That does not mean that enlightenment cannot be approached via thought. It certainly can, and it can be described and understood intellectually. The mind, clarified and sharpened, is an important tool for undoing the delusions of the personal self. But the mind only takes us to "99 degrees celsius". It does not take us beyond the boiling point of realization. It ushers us to the door, along with its essential companion known as "passion".

The point I want to impress is that, in such a venue as this, you are choosing to guide others along an intellectual path. This is possible, but you had better be very prepared in your intellectual understanding of the 'true nature' in order to do so.

0 Replies

@igm,

Quote:

Re: MattDavis (Post 5253518)
Matt, you misunderstand my position. We don't have a view at all. We rest in the nature that is unelaborated.

Earlier:

Quote:

The Buddha said that there is no self, ego, Atman, soul (all are synonymous for the purposes of this discussion).

Quote:

(Buddha...is) just saying dualism is a fiction based on the mistaken belief there is a truly existent self.

C'mon, igm. You have specifically agreed with all that.

How can you possibly say you (or the Buddha) do not have a view at all!

If you had, right from the beginning, said: "We do not have a view on this question at all"...none of this discussion would be happening.

YOU MOST ASSUREDLY HAVE A VIEW...and you don't even state it in conditional terms until you are forced to do so.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Does a fish have a view of water ?

1 Reply

@igm,

igm wrote:

Language is dualistic.

Are you suggesting that dualism and non-dualism can co-exist?

igm wrote:

joefromchicago wrote:

What would such evidence consist of?

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

Nope, that's not how it works. If, as you keep insisting, you're open-minded on this subject, then you should already know what kind of evidence would disprove your position. For instance, I'm convinced that the theory of gravity is correct, but if I dropped something and it fell up I'd consider that as evidence against the theory. As Popper might say, a theory that's not disprovable isn't a theory, it's just an assertion.

igm wrote:

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

Well, the principle of conservation of matter means that no matter is destroyed. Is that what you're saying here?

igm wrote:

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.

What would be evidence that something is non-existent?

2 Replies

@igm,

igm wrote:

We do however have ways of refuting all views that dualists put forward.

I have no doubt.

0 Replies

@fresco,

Quote:

Re: Frank Apisa (Post 5253673)
Does a fish have a view of water ?

I do not know.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Can you know ?

1 Reply

@fresco,

Quote:

Can you know ?

I do not know if I can know or not. My guess would be that I cannot...if my guess is of any use to you.

Do you have a point?

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

My point is you have have been drawn into an epistemological infinite regress regarded the nature of "knowing". Unless you adopt Buddhist practices, you have no authority over the Buddhist claim to non-dualistic "knowledge" which amounts to the certainty that self+world are a unified inseparable system constituting what might be called "reality". The fish-water analogy implies that the existence of "fish" is co-extensive with the existence of "water", but the fish is likely to be "oblivious" to that unless we imagine it to be an "intelligent flying fish" which can escape its usual domain. Buddhist transcendence of the domain of "self" might be understood in a similar way, but non-meditators are unlikely to appreciate the nature of "that view of reality".

2 Replies

@fresco,

Quote:

Re: Frank Apisa (Post 5253734)
My point is you have have been drawn into an epistemological infinite regress regarded the nature of "knowing". Unless you adopt Buddhist practices, you have no authority over the Buddhist claim to non-dualistic "knowledge" which amounts to the certainty that self+world are a unified inseparable system constituting what we call "reality". The fish-water analogy implies that the existence of "fish" is co-extensive with the existence of "water", but the fish is likely to be "oblivious" to that unless we imagine it to be an "intelligent flying fish" which can escape its usual domain. Buddhist transcendence of the domain of "self" might be understood in a similar way, but non-meditators are unlikely to appreciate the nature of "that view".

Oh.

So tell me...does a fish have a view of water?

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

It can no more have a view of what we call "water" any more than we can have a view of its sensation of other fish via what we call "electrical field disturbances".

1 Reply

@fresco,

Quote:

Re: Frank Apisa (Post 5253760)
It can no more have a view of what we call "water" any more than we can have a view of its sensation of other fish via what we call "electrical field disturbances".

You seem quite sure of this. Does this mean you are a fish?

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Or are you just guessing again?

2 Replies

@IRFRANK,

Yes, just as prereflective is better than non-reflective. We simply can't function without ego and dualism: they are built into our very grammar (Nietzsche once referred to grammar as the metaphysics of the masses), the way we organize our ordinary thinking, i.e., subject-object and the binary compliments of experience. But that does not mean they are "real" only that they are useful for survival. When Buddhists meditate they usually do it prereflectively, i.e., they see rather than look, they hear rather than listen. Seeing and hearing are expressions of "being" (a verb rather than a noun), while looking and listening are expressions of a willing, choosing, self. It's fine, indeed essential, to look and listen, but these acts rest upon the more fundamental seeing and hearing (a blind and deaf man can neither look nor listen).

0 Replies

@fresco,

Well put. Fresco. Glad to see you back in high gear.

1 Reply

@JLNobody,

The question originally asked was:

Does a fish have a view of water?

There are only three reasonable answers to that question: "Yes", "No", or "I do not know."

I responded, "I do not know."

That was the long answer. The other two are only one word long.

When I asked the identical question of Fresco, his answer (which was not really an answer at all) was:

“It can no more have a view of what we call "water" any more than we can have a view of its sensation of other fish via what we call "electrical field disturbances".”

Thirty-three words…thirty more than the longest reasonable answer…and still the question was no answered.

That, JL, is the way you people operate.

Neither you nor Fresco know what a fish can sense…but neither of you has the strength of character to simply acknowledge that fact. So you type words…apparently because you have a keyboard at your disposal…and then pretend your guesses are information being imparted.

For you to congratulate him on what he has contributed here is absurd. But I doubt you or he will be able to see or to acknowledge that.

So be it.

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Just guessing seems (to me) to be your mantra.
Which is I think not all that different than igm's view of reality.

It seems like your theories of knowledge divide things into two sets:
[things I know] [ "just guesses" ]
With the first set being empty per your view, and the first set having content in igm's view.

I think ultimately you and igm agree with each other that everything you perceive is "just" a guess.
My perception is in disagreement with that dualistic perception, which you both share.

1 Reply

@MattDavis,

Quote:

Re: Frank Apisa (Post 5253780)
Just guessing seems (to me) to be your mantra.
Which is I think not all that different than igm's view of reality.

"I do not know" is often the truthful response to questions asked of me...nothing more.

Quote:

It seems like your theories of knowledge divide things into two sets:
[things I know] [ "just guesses" ]
With the first set being empty.

I do not have a "theory of knowledge."

I am perfectly willing to use "know" in a less rigorous sense of the word...so I can comfortably say, "know" that I am typing the words I am typing at this moment...and I can "know" that I am sitting at a desk in my den.

Quote:

I think ultimately you and igm agree with each other that everything you perceive is "just" a guess.

If you can point out where I made that statement...or where you can infer from anything I have said that I feel that way...do so.

You have my permission to use any of the thousands upon thousands of responses I have made over almost 15 years on the Internet...and in the many op ed pieces I wrote before coming to the Internet.

(I wouldn't waste my time, if I were you, Matt. You will NEVER find anything like that.)

Quote:

I my perception is in disagreement with that dualistic perception that you both share.

I do NOT have a dualistic perception nor am I addicted to naive realism...and if asked whether a dualistic or non-dualistic approach seems more... comfortable...I would (and have several times in the past) say: The non-dualistic.

Anything else?

1 Reply

@joefromchicago,

Joe to igm wrote:

Are you suggesting that dualism and non-dualism can co-exist?

I wish he was. Sad

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Frank wrote:

Anything else?

Sure.
Do you think it is more true that debate is an intellectual combat, or that debate is a method of discourse used to by both parties to explore ideas?

1 Reply

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

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know