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

@igm,

It made you happier to deny oneself to realize you are not self? Why would you want someone to show you a dualistic way in order to prove that it exists? If you are happier...Unless you already know that it does, but are happier because you know that in a dualistic way it would lead you to realize that there is a self? And you ultimately want to be not self? And if you ultimately want to be not self, doesn't that mean you really long for a dualistic way? Or a self? Or something more than not existing? IE dualism, or afterlife...?

If this is all true, what steps have you taken to see that self = unhappier? Rather than happier?

0 Replies

@igm,

Quote:

The Buddha says there is no self 'until' someone shows it to him. He is neutral until then and he finds if he stays neutral he is happier than when he sides with the notion of subject/object dualism. So he knows nothing. He remains in that state until someone shows him that there is a self.

So he doesn't take your position in saying that you can't know there isn't a self. He just waits with an open mind for someone to prove it and that position he says brings him happiness.

I have never, ever said you can't know there isn't a self. EVER!

What I did say was:

Quote:

Frankly, I cannot think of any way to KNOW if there is a soul or not. I suspect anyone making an assertion that souls exist or that there are no souls...

...is simply making a guess--a kind of blind guess, at that.

So...if you are taking on the burden of responsibility to provide a foundation for the assertion that there is no soul...I am going to be delighted to hear it and respond to it.

Whatta ya got on that?

I definitely cannot think of a way to KNOW if there is a soul or not...but just because I cannot think of a way doesn't mean someone else can't. Be more careful with paraphrasing what I say, igm.

In any case, if you can think of some way to KNOW that there is a soul...or that there are no souls...please share it with me. As I said, I will consider it and respond to what you say.

But if you think for one second that the Buddha is more open-minded on the question of whether or not there is a soul than I am...you are kidding yourself big time.

You have already asserted that the Buddha TAUGHT that there is no soul (or self or Atman)...so how you are coming to this new assertion that the Buddha is sitting there open minded is incomprehensible. If he truly was open-minded about the issue...he certainly would not have taught that there is no soul.

Jeez.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Sorry Frank you normally so say it but with 'god' instead of 'self' my mistake I'll have to be very careful with my replies. I'm just quoting with different words your oft said agnostic position: to paraphrase you normally say: ‘you can’t say there is a god and you can’t say there isn’t. If I've made a mistake I apologise. It was not intended. I’m saying that Buddha is not saying this but he is saying:

This is still my position:

igm wrote:

The Buddha says there is no self 'until' someone shows it to him. He is neutral until then and he finds if he stays neutral he is happier than when he sides with the notion of subject/object dualism. So he knows nothing. He remains in that state until someone shows him that there is a self.

So he doesn't take your position in saying that you can't know there isn't a self. He just waits with an open mind for someone to prove it and that position he says brings him happiness.

I won't repeat this again Frank. You believe you are right and you are entitled to that opinion. Hold on to it if you wish. I want to hear from others, their thoughts. Show me where the 'self'' is or how dualism is not just an illusion that is useful as it helps with communication but it is yet to be proved to be more than that… I can’t repeat myself again because the quote above has now been said by me three times and that is enough.

I hope you are not trying to derail this topic.. Frank. I’m sure you aren’t this kind of topic can be uncomfortable to some.

2 Replies

@igm,

igm wrote:

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.

To whom would this proof be directed?

1 Reply

@igm,

No way I am trying to derail anything, igm.

I am discussing this with you.

You asked: How can dualism stand if it's just a fiction?

That infers a position.

I would counter with: How can non-dualism stand if it's just a fiction?

Both those questions involve an inferred supposition that is unwarranted. It is a form of the "begging the question fallacy."

Unless you can establish that "dualism" is "just a fiction"...the question could just as easily be asked that other way. And if asked the other way, unless you can establish that "non-dualism" is "just a fiction...neither question makes any sense.

0 Replies

@igm,

As I understand it questions about proving the existence of "self" are as fatuous as proving the existence of "gods". Both clearly have ontological status in the sense of psychological or sociological functionality, and degrees of functionality may be all that can be said of existence.

1. "Self" is a concept somewhat like "mind". It has no specific location . All we can say is that like "mind" an individual human body appears to be necessary for the operation of "self" but not sufficient to account for it, since this concept functions in the social semiosphere, reified by language, and sustained by other concepts such as "relationship with others", "will", "obligation" and so on.

2. But in the sense of Buddhist non-duality which is transcendent of language ( which segments what we call "daily reality" into "things"), clearly individual "bodies" and "selves" have no ontological status, nor does "thought" in terms of "things". The non-dualistic claim is therefore that "self" is an aspect of samsara or roughly "everyday cyclical experience in a time dimension", whereas meditational practice can give a glimpse of nirvana or "holistic non-temporal non-spatial being". It is the re-emergence of "self" back into samsara which describes the meditational experience as one of "non-self". Note that in the selfless state there is no requirement to communicate ....(there are no others !)... nor is there any "time"in which communication can take place.... nor is there any worded thought with which to communicate.

1 Reply

@igm,

For what it's worth, Ig (which might no be much hereabout) dualism suffering from all sorts of contradiction/paradox, is resolved by a sort of unity where nothing is entirely anything while everything is partly something else

Thus Buddha's on the right track

As for soul, it's an abstract concept, like God, and defined as almost everything about yourself except maybe your body

Quote:

They (subject/object) are merely ‘dreamed up by the mind’ concepts we use to communicate

A most interesting observation Ig. Given a scale of abstraction with "concrete" near one end, represented by say a rock, and "transcendent" near the other, say God, almost all the "realities" inbetween represent exactly what you're expressing, a convenience that lets you make everyday distinctions--say mind v body for instance--that would otherwise be almost impossible

Quote:

The absence of dualism, the mere negation of it or the letting go of it is the absolute is ultimate reality.

Another most profound observation, Ig. As apodictical existential pantheist myself however, I'd describe the Ultimate Reality as just Her; that is, the Entire Megillah

Thus dualism itself seems to fall in this category

Quote:

…...so it sounds too forceful.

Not to me

Quote:

I apologise for that

No need, Ig

1 Reply

@igm,

Fresco wrote:

The non-dualistic claim is therefore that "self" is an aspect of samsara or roughly "everyday cyclical experience in a time dimension", whereas meditational practice can give a glimpse of nirvana or "holistic non-temporal non-spatial being". It is the re-emergence of "self" back into samsara which describes the meditational experience as one of "non-self". Note that in the selfless state there is no requirement to communicate ....(there are no others !)... nor is there any "time"in which communication can take place.... nor is there any worded thought with which to communicate.

Thanks for your explanations!! Wink

I would like to discuss things with you more, if you are ever interested...I think you are a very intelligent person...

@img...

I get all of what Fresco said...but this is the thing I do not understand...I do not understand a wordless experience? I remember another Buddhist saying that his views of rebirth, were like having a moment where he just had loss of concentration, or zoning out...Then when he came too, that is the process of rebirth...Do you agree with this?

And the part about a wordless experience...When I have prayed, and reached a very, very, highly spiritual ecstatic state of mind or experience...It was not wordless for me...Rather, I got to the point where I could feel God basically shut the door, and say that is far enough, you can not handle anymore in this life...because I was just thinking on so much of a higher consciousness that I could feel that if I wanted to see anymore, I would have to be with God in Heaven...And when these experiences happen, there is nothing wordless about it...Rather I could use every single word, description, experience, metaphor, simile, perception, explanations, contexts etc...that I possibly knew to sum up those few seconds where I had felt those experiences...And it hits me like a stone when God closes that door...And I can rationalize, conjure, explain, understand, accept everything that was said, done, explained, felt, seen, experienced, seen through visions...etc... in a matter of milliseconds...and everything I seek is explained to me...

I know it is wordless, but I just do not understand that...Is there anything you could say about this experience at all? as in a way to articulate what it feels like before you reach this wordless point?

2 Replies

@XXSpadeMasterXX,

Quote:

...I think you are a very intelligent person...

Why thanks, Spade

Oops, you meant Ig didn't you

Quote:

...I do not understand a wordless experience?

Somewhat OT Spade but raises very interesting issues. Wordlessness puts one in mind of what's these days called "meditation," which when I was a kid meant thinking very hard about something specific; but which now apparently means not thinking at all

2 Replies

@dalehileman,

What did you mean by OT? Over think?

1 Reply

@dalehileman,

From your experiences, BTW were you a Buddhist? Does what I experience sound the same as a W.E. in Buddhism? Or is it completely different? A wordless experience sounds the same thing, but rather you can experience everything, and it can not be summed into words...The way I view my experiences, is that it is so strong of a revelation there is nothing that I did not understand about it, or anything I had asked God to explain, or have him show me, or what he showed me...etc...All in hours of seeking deeper and deeper...And him revealing all the answers and revelations in a matter of milliseconds...

0 Replies

@XXSpadeMasterXX,

Quote:

by OT?

Off Topic

Quote:

…..you a Buddhist?

No, but yes, to only the extent than nothing is entirely……..

Quote:

Does what I experience sound the same as a W.E. in Buddhism?

Golly Spade, don't know, but sounds like it

1 Reply

@dalehileman,

Thank you...Were you a Buddhist? If you were would you care to explain if you think they are similar?....If not, img, please answer that post when you get some time....I would like to hear a Buddhist explain what they could about the point before a wordless experience happens...and I think I can perceive enough about it to know if I think it is similar...

1 Reply

@XXSpadeMasterXX,

Quote:

If you were would you care to explain if you think they are similar?

I wasn't, but what similar to what

If you mean Bud v WE yes, there seems to be a sort of connection

….while I get the feeling you fellas are basically in a sort of agreement, though beating around the semantic bush

I call It She, or if you like, All. You may or may not use words to describe It, and you might or might not call Her God, depending on your concept in the reality of abstraction

0 Replies

@igm,

Returning to OP,

Quote:

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?

My basic problem Ig is lack of philo vocab and unfamiliarity with Bud

Just what is the subject

What is the object

If the subject is self and the object is one's body then of course we're in the realm where nothing is entirely anything while everything is partly something else

As for dualism, who was it that asserted it's correct (can you provide a posting no.) and what did he mean

Ig you have to forgive the Typical Blockhead (me) who takes it all so literally

Quote:

Buddhism also teaches that Loving Kindness and Compassion to all is a prerequisite quality to develop and of course meditation.

I'm all for kindness and stuff like that but isn't it OT, doesn't the former somewhat diverge

As for the latter I presume you mean WE, which I heartily endorse

So if you could summarize the basic question, of course in short sentences and terms familiar to the Average Clod (me), we (or at least me) could get back on track

Otherwise Ig, chat's been a real pleasure

1 Reply

A dialogue in the Sutta-Nipata presents the Buddha responding as follows to an enquiry on competing metaphysical theories. 'Apart from consciousness', he says, 'no divers truths exist. Mere sophistry declares this 'true' and that view 'false'.' A similar notion appears in Nietzsche's Will to Power:

'Judging is our oldest faith; it is our habit of believing this to be true or false, of asserting or denying, our certainty that something is thus and not otherwise, our belief that we really 'know' what is believed to be true in all judgments?'

The products of this 'habit of believing', for both Buddha and Nietzsche, include substance, self, universals, and duration. Both philosophers radically deny the reality of these things in favor of a dynamic, interdependent stream of phenomenon that lacks any objective basis whatsoever. Instead, underneath our perceptions there is only what the Buddhist philosopher Nagarjuna called sunyata, and what Nietzsche referred to as the 'abyss', a void beyond the categories of being and nothing, true and false.

http://www.the-philosopher.co.uk/buddhism.htm

0 Replies

@joefromchicago,

joefromchicago wrote:

igm wrote:
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.

To whom would this proof be directed?

Not sure I understand what you mean but...

The Buddha can still comprehend what dualism is. He understands why people believe in a truly existent self. But he has yet to hear someone prove it. The Buddha can function in the world he can use day to day language. But if someone analyses reality and says it’s this or that he remains unconvinced because the analysis always turns out to be erroneous to the Buddha.

1 Reply

I'd like to thank everyone for their replies. I have some other 'things' going on at the moment. I'll try to answer many of the unique posts. Please discuss with each other also... if you want to, of course. Perhaps check what I asserted on the internet (strictly speaking it's just a couple of questions)… it’s very easy these days.

Still as Sachimo said, ‘We’ve got all the time in the world’. There’s no rush!

0 Replies

@fresco,

fresco wrote:

As I understand it questions about proving the existence of "self" are as fatuous as proving the existence of "gods". Both clearly have ontological status in the sense of psychological or sociological functionality, and degrees of functionality may be all that can be said of existence.

1. "Self" is a concept somewhat like "mind". It has no specific location . All we can say is that like "mind" an individual human body appears to be necessary for the operation of "self" but not sufficient to account for it, since this concept functions in the social semiosphere, reified by language, and sustained by other concepts such as "relationship with others", "will", "obligation" and so on.

2. But in the sense of Buddhist non-duality which is transcendent of language ( which segments what we call "daily reality" into "things"), clearly individual "bodies" and "selves" have no ontological status, nor does "thought" in terms of "things". The non-dualistic claim is therefore that "self" is an aspect of samsara or roughly "everyday cyclical experience in a time dimension", whereas meditational practice can give a glimpse of nirvana or "holistic non-temporal non-spatial being". It is the re-emergence of "self" back into samsara which describes the meditational experience as one of "non-self". Note that in the selfless state there is no requirement to communicate ....(there are no others !)... nor is there any "time"in which communication can take place.... nor is there any worded thought with which to communicate.

Well said! There are no questions so I'll leave it there.

0 Replies

@dalehileman,

Well said! Again, as with the previous poster... no questions so I'll leave it there.

1 Reply

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

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know