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

@igm,

igm...you have made the assertion in many forms...and in numerous posts.

Each time I keep hoping you will follow up with some evidence that in fact
"letting go of self" is the key to happiness...and that "not letting go of self" is promoting suffering?

I have been following the thread as closely as I can...but I have never seen anything that remotely looks like evidence that any of that is fact...and it seems to be a gratuitous assertion aimed at making the Buddha right.

I can see of no way to further assert that either of those two positions are derived "logically."

NOTE TO THE OTHERS HERE: If any of you truly accept that the two positions mentioned above are "logically derived"...please at least post to say so. I'm not asking anyone to actually attempt to explain it to me...but I'd like to know how many people here THINK the two assertions are "logically derived."

0 Replies

@igm,

So the mind (self) is solar powered? Just kidding, sort of.

0 Replies

@igm,

Quote:

The Buddha wasn't trying to be a 'logician' he was trying to alleviate suffering and promote happiness... letting go of the notion of a self is 'enough'; there is no need to go on and on from there. He uses logic and reason to take him as far as his reason for using it requires.

How else are we going to find 'some' peace in our lives. Questions are endless, answers are temporary and unsatisfactory in the end... apart from the ones that help with practical day to day living and getting along with folks!

Right, and he also gave us a path to attain that state. Precepts.

1 Reply

@igm,

igm wrote:

Joe, why didn't you show me why there 'is' a truly existent self?

It's not incumbent upon me to do so. Furthermore, you don't know what evidence would establish the existence of the self, so any attempt to prove its existence would be nothing more than a wild goose chase.

igm wrote:

Also, people who may know very little about Buddhism 'may' get a clearer picture of 'at least' what it isn't.

I'm sure there are a lot of things that Buddhism isn't. For instance, it isn't a floor cleaner or a dessert topping. How does that provide a clearer picture of Buddhism?

1 Reply

@IRFRANK,

Quote:

Quote:
Re: igm (Post 5258625)
Quote:
The Buddha wasn't trying to be a 'logician' he was trying to alleviate suffering and promote happiness... letting go of the notion of a self is 'enough'; there is no need to go on and on from there. He uses logic and reason to take him as far as his reason for using it requires.

How else are we going to find 'some' peace in our lives. Questions are endless, answers are temporary and unsatisfactory in the end... apart from the ones that help with practical day to day living and getting along with folks!

Right, and he also gave us a path to attain that state. Precepts.

Since you seem to be agreeing with igm, Frank...let me ask you specifically.

The assertions: "Letting go of self is the key to happiness"...and "not letting go of self is promoting suffering"...are either derived through logic...or are gratuitous, unsubstantiated claims apparently meant to support the teachings of the Buddha.

Do you see any argument or evidence to make those statements “logically derived?”

1 Reply

@joefromchicago,

joefromchicago wrote:

Because that's the way the interwebs work. [...] In the law, the burden of proof is on the party that needs to prove some element of his/her case in order to prevail. On the internet, the burden of proof is on anybody who has a better argument.

That makes sense. Thanks for the explanation!

1 Reply

@Thomas,

Quote:

Quote:
Re: joefromchicago (Post 5258623)
joefromchicago wrote:
Because that's the way the interwebs work. [...] In the law, the burden of proof is on the party that needs to prove some element of his/her case in order to prevail. On the internet, the burden of proof is on anybody who has a better argument.

That makes sense....

Apparently not to igm.

0 Replies

@igm,

igm wrote:

Point one: how can I know 'your' experience, it's yours not mine?

And if you read what I wrote, you will find that I offered my experience as a reason I believe in the self. For that purpose, it's perfectly sufficient evidence.

igm wrote:

Point two: how can you know the experience of 'others' if 'others' can't know 'your' experience?

Being a critical rationalist, I don't claim to know that any positive empirical proposition is true in the mathematical sense. After all, there is no such thing as a mathematical proof in the empirical world. I can only observe that a proposition is empirically refutable and has not been empirically refuted. The existence of the self is one such proposition.

igm wrote:

Point three: must the 'alternative' be that the self is a delusion and why? The self could be a 'fiction' created to allow language and/or thought to function but doesn't have any true independent existence.

It's awfully convenient that you retreat into the passive voice here. "A fiction created" --- by whom? "To allow language and thought" --- to whom? What are the antecedents of your verbs "created" and "allow"?

2 Replies

@Thomas,

REMINDER TO SELF...IF THERE IS ONE:

Never argue with Thomas. He will bring a howitzer to a fist fight.

2 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Thanks. I take that as a compliment. Smile

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

Since you seem to be agreeing with igm, Frank...let me ask you specifically.

The assertions: "Letting go of self is the key to happiness"...and "not letting go of self is promoting suffering"...are either derived through logic...or are gratuitous, unsubstantiated claims apparently meant to support the teachings of the Buddha.

Do you see any argument or evidence to make those statements “logically derived?”

Yes, I do agree with IGM here and maybe I understand what he is saying because I have studied Buddhism. Part of the problem here is defining 'self'. We have gone around that quite a bit and we each have a different understanding of what that means. I'm not sure we can reach agreement.

IGM's basic assertion is based upon Buddha's 'Four Basic Truths', I think.

1. Life is suffering. Not physical suffering, buy that life is a struggle. Can we accept that? That there is much unhappiness.

2. We cause that suffering ourselves. By our actions, our thoughts.

3. We don't have to do that. We can alleviate our suffering by avoiding harmful thoughts and actions. This may be the major point of disagreement.

4. The way to avoid causing that suffering is to practice the dharma. Buddha's teachings.

My experience and understanding lead me to believe the first two truths are evident. You may come to different conclusions, especially for #2.

#3 follows, if #2 is true.

#4 takes a willingness to learn the Buddhist path to know whether or not it is true. I have spent some time learning this and I believe it is true. You may or may not agree. Just as in any religion, that is up to each of us. You are entitled to your own belief. I choose to believe in it because it does not require me to believe in any supernatural entity. It is a teaching of personal behavior and thought. And it makes sense to me.

So, I think what IGM is alluding to is that the 'self' is the part of the mind that leads us into samsara, or dealing with life by causing Karma, good and bad. What Buddha is saying is that he determined a way to stop that. Instead of Just Do It. It's Just Don't Do It.

1 Reply

@Lola,

Sounds as if we agree, Lola.

0 Replies

@IRFRANK,

Thank you for your response, Frank. You put a lot of work into the response and I appreciate it...even though some of what follows may seem like I am whisking it off. I promise I am not. I am trying very hard to understand where you (and igm) are coming from.

My question dealt with how the two statements could be derived “logically.”

In order for your “explanation” to work, we would have to logically establish your first “truth” or premise. (Everything else seems dependent in large part on that first item.)

“Life is suffering.”

Maybe it is because my life is in such good shape, but the very notion that “life is suffering” (which is a part of Christian dogma also) seems more an example of pessimism (the glass is half empty) rather than a derivative of logic. It is a pessimistic perspective which I do not share at all. So I question whether it is valid.

Logic does not teach us anything new. A = B and B = C…therefore A = C is not a revelation. In most respects, logic merely determines the validity (or invalidity) of an argument. I do not see how we establish the validity of this first, and essential, ingredient of your explanation.

Buddha may have stated that “life is suffering” (no matter how defined)…but I cannot see how that is arrived at logically. It seems like nothing more than dogma to me...and, once again "to me", it seems like errant dogma.

If you can address this, I’d appreciate it. I’d like to go on to the rest of your comments, but his is paramount…and since it is at the beginning of your explanation, I’d like you to go deeper.

Why do you see it as logically consistent...rather than merely a precept of sorts in the dogma upon which Buddhism is built.

If you prefer not to take the time…no problem. In any case, I am NOT in any way interested in Buddhist dogma...just as I am not interested in Christian dogma. If dogma were worth anything to me, I’d create my own.

1 Reply

@Falco,

Yes what I was getting at by the first part of my response is connected somewhat to the distinction between delusion and illusion. From the materialist model of the self under discussion. The only thing separating a 'self' which believes itself to be distinct from the outside world, and a 'self' which believes it to be all things, is the connection to the outside world (ie the senses).
Without senses it would not be delusional to think that you are everything.
With the senses however it would be illusional to think this.
For real world examples we might look at sensory deprivation tanks.
These often create similar experiences. Out of body experiences. Spiritual awakenings etc.

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Well, I consider it more than dogma, but if that is your perception, so be it. I guess you are already enlightened and don't need the Buddha's teaching. I am happy for you. I am not meaning to be disrespectful. Your argument just seems a bit trite.

You don't agree life is suffering? Do you ever cause yourself or others problems? Do you not agree that life can be a struggle? Maybe this question has more to do with the definition of suffering. Let's define it as 'unhappiness'. The term is not absolute. Your are not either completely suffering or completely devoid of suffering. Enlightenment would be devoid of suffering. Completely in the moment with no attachments.

Do you ever 'suffer' because you don't have everything you want? Do you suffer because you missed the last 4 foot putt? Do you want a new putter?

You know, at one point I was in a similar state that I think you are in, not understanding what the basic point is. I read a book called 'Awakening the Buddha Within'. I got to the middle and there were three words that showed me what the main idea was. They were "This is it." What is right in front of us is all that we have. The present. Our mind is consumed with worrying about the future and angry about the past. Desiring 'things' that we don't have. This state clouds us from seeing the present. That is part of what suffering entails.

So if your live is devoid of suffering, I am very happy for you.

1 Reply

@joefromchicago,

In my humble opinion (usually not so humble but I try Wink

),
Any guru worth his or her metaphorical salt is not claiming that they have the only path.
They will simply claim:
"This is the path I took. If you want to be where I am, then I will try to explain how I got here."

3 Replies

@IRFRANK,

Frank, let me answer a couple of your questions (or respond to your comment) and then I am going to ask you about something you simply did not touch on…the “logic” question.

Quote:

Well, I consider it more than dogma, but if that is your perception, so be it. I guess you are already enlightened and don't need the Buddha's teaching. I am happy for you. I am not meaning to be disrespectful. Your argument just seems a bit trite.

You don't agree life is suffering? Do you ever cause yourself or others problems? Do you not agree that life can be a struggle? Maybe this question has more to do with the definition of suffering. Let's define it as 'unhappiness'. The term is not absolute. Your are not either completely suffering or completely devoid of suffering. Enlightenment would be devoid of suffering. Completely in the moment with no attachments.

I certainly am not saying that there are not difficulties. I went through a bout of cancer, for instance...and almost died. I have my share of disappointment and set-backs. But to suggest that "life is suffering" is a pessimistic perspective and nothing else.

I certainly have plenty of enjoyments and periods of happiness and joy--and I expect you do too, but I sure would not use that as a reason to suggest that "life is happiness and joy"...and I suspect you wouldn't either.

I am wondering about the "life is suffering."

Quote:

Do you ever 'suffer' because you don't have everything you want? Do you suffer because you missed the last 4 foot putt? Do you want a new putter?

"NO" to questions one and three..."YES!" to two.

Quote:

You know, at one point I was in a similar state that I think you are in, not understanding what the basic point is.

That is insulting...both to you and to me.

Quote:

I read a book called 'Awakening the Buddha Within'. I got to the middle and there were three words that showed me what the main idea was. They were "This is it." What is right in front of us is all that we have. The present. Our mind is consumed with worrying about the future and angry about the past. Desiring 'things' that we don't have. This state clouds us from seeing the present. That is part of what suffering entails.

There are people who have had similar "awakenings" in Christianity and other religions. I am not looking to travel the road to Damascus.

In any case, I've gone the "consciousness expansion" route...and I live in the here and now. I understand "be here now"...and it is part of my life. I acknowledge that I appear to be the source of most of my happiness and sadness....I acknowledge that at different times, I am my best friend and my worst enemy.

I focus on happiness and contentment...and do what I can to mitigate the unhappiness, sadness, and conflict. I am happy to say I am very successful in this.

Quote:

So if your live is devoid of suffering, I am very happy for you.

I suspect no life is devoid of suffering. If you are handling any that comes your way...I am happy for you.

NOW...question, if I may: How is “life is suffering”…which is the linchpin of the rest of your earlier posting…arrived at through logic.

I only see it as dogma. I cannot see a way to arrive at it logically. I want to see how you see it otherwise…if you are willing to share that information.

2 Replies

@MattDavis,

Sounds reasonable from "every" angle. Mr. Green

0 Replies

@MattDavis,

Quote:

In my humble opinion (usually not so humble but I try ),
Any guru worth his or her metaphorical salt is not claiming that they have the only path.
They will simply claim:
"This is the path I took. If you want to be where I am, then I will try to explain how I got here."

Spectacular.

I hope I was at least partially on that path in my last reply to Frank.

0 Replies

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

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know