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

@MattDavis,

MattDavis wrote:

Any guru worth his or her metaphorical salt is not claiming that they have the only path.

Then he wouldn't be much of a guru. It is the rare religion indeed that says to its followers: "ours is but one of many paths to salvation/enlightenment/whatever -- they're pretty much all the same." If it's one of many, why have the religion in the first place? And why would anyone prefer it over the alternatives? That's not just bad theology, it's bad marketing. After all, GM doesn't claim that its cars are "just as good" as Ford's.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Obviously life is not only suffering.

The dogmatic part would be in taking the elimination of suffering to be THE goal.
It would logically follow that if you don't want to suffer, simply end life.
No life. No suffering.

This does contrast with many orthodox Christian views on the problem of suffering. Don't set no suffering as THE goal. View suffering as a means to some other end. From this perspective suffering shapes you to become perfect in the eyes of God.

Most agree suffering is "bad".
How "bad" do we want to make it?

1 Reply

@MattDavis,

I'll get back to you on that, Matt. (Obviously, from my last post, I agree with your first statement.)

I really am interested in what Frank has to say...or igm.

I think the initial premise...is dogma, pure and simple. I think Buddhism is as much a dogmatic entity as any other religion. I think the perceived benefits, of which I am sure there are many, are not unlike mysticism in Christianity.

But I am willing to hear a case that the initial premise derives logically.

1 Reply

@joefromchicago,

joefromchicago wrote:

MattDavis wrote:

Any guru worth his or her metaphorical salt is not claiming that they have the only path.

Then he wouldn't be much of a guru. It is the rare religion indeed that says to its followers: "ours is but one of many paths to salvation/enlightenment/whatever -- they're pretty much all the same." If it's one of many, why have the religion in the first place? And why would anyone prefer it over the alternatives? That's not just bad theology, it's bad marketing. After all, GM doesn't claim that its cars are "just as good" as Ford's.

I was making no claim as to the desirability of the outcome. (ie the end of the path).
I was simply pointing out that if one wants to make a decision regarding a path, look at the outcome of those that have taken various paths.

It is "bad marketing".
Buddhism doesn't market well.
Sex markets well.
Perhaps a religion based on this?

1 Reply

@Thomas,

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.

Thomas wrote:

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"?

Thomas, why does there have to be a 'truly existent' whom? You seem to believe the needs of language equals the need for there to be a truly existent self... why?

You are free to believe whatever you want.. of course but don't argue that you can know there is a truly existent self without also knowing in can't be proved. There is no way that I can see that you can prove its existence. But you are free to 'believe' in its existence, of course.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_marks_of_existence

The Three marks of existence, within Buddhism, are three characteristics (Pali: tilakkhaṇa; Sanskrit: trilakṣaṇa) shared by all sentient beings, namely: impermanence (anicca); suffering or unsatisfactoriness (dukkha); non-self (anattā).

According to Buddhist tradition, a full understanding of these three can bring an end to suffering (dukkha nirodha, 苦滅). The Buddha taught that all beings conditioned by causes (saṅkhāra) are impermanent (anicca) and suffering (dukkhā) while he said not-self (anattā) characterises all dhammas meaning there is no "I" or "mine" in the conditioned as well as the unconditioned (i.e. Nibbāna).[1][2] The central figure of Buddhism, Siddhartha is believed to have achieved Nirvana and awakening after much meditation, thus becoming the Buddha Shakyamuni. With the faculty of wisdom the Buddha directly perceived that all sentient beings (everything in the phenomenology of psychology) is marked by these three characteristics:

2 Replies

@igm,

I might be helpful to have that excerpt rephrased without so much "lingo".

1 Reply

@MattDavis,

MattDavis wrote:

I might be helpful to have that excerpt rephrased without so much "lingo".

I've tried to explain this subject to Frank before... it was like pouring water into a pot with holes in the bottom. That's as much as I can do... at the moment... i.e. cut and paste.

1 Reply

@igm,

igm wrote:

MattDavis wrote:
I might be helpful to have that excerpt rephrased without so much "lingo".

I've tried to explain this subject to Frank before... it was like pouring water into a pot with holes in the bottom. That's as much as I can do... at the moment... i.e. cut and paste.

Not to sound trite, but to extend the metaphor....
Then plug the holes.

0 Replies

@MattDavis,

MattDavis wrote:

I was making no claim as to the desirability of the outcome. (ie the end of the path).

Implicitly, you were. Gurus, after all, aren't usually consulted regarding the best way to the grocery store. "There are many paths, but I usually go left at the corner and then walk four blocks to the A&P." And if the end of the path isn't desirable, then why inquire about the path itself?

MattDavis wrote:

I was simply pointing out that if one wants to make a decision regarding a path, look at the outcome of those that have taken various paths.

That doesn't make any sense. You talked about the claims made by a single guru, but what you really should be talking about are potential acolytes who are comparison shopping among many gurus.

MattDavis wrote:

Buddhism doesn't market well.

Doesn't stop 'em from trying.

1 Reply

@igm,

igm wrote:

You are free to believe whatever you want.. of course but don't argue that you can know there is a truly existent self without also knowing in can't be proved.

I suspect we're quarreling about semantics. Please define your term "truly existent". And please describe the kind of evidence that might conceivably change your mind about our selves being "truly existent".

1 Reply

@joefromchicago,

joefromchicago wrote:

MattDavis wrote:
Buddhism doesn't market well.

Doesn't stop 'em from trying.

Hope you don't mistake me for trying.
Buddhism has as little control over its hypothetical 'acolytes' under the banner of Buddhism.
As Christianity has over its 'acolytes' under the banner of Christianity.

Regardless I wouldn't consider myself carrying either of those banners.
To carry such a banner would be a misrepresentation of either religion, and (I think) a misrepresentation of the basic assumptions under which I operate.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

I agree with Matt. I would not say that Buddhas path is the only way. It makes sense to me and logical. I can't get there by saying A therefore B. It's an observation, not an analysis. I am a systems analyst by profession and I understand logic. I did not gain what understanding I have on the Buddhist path through logic, though I do find it logical. I have learned a great deal through meditation and study. If you feel you don't need that, then fine. I'm not here to convert anyone. Lets leave it at that.

1 Reply

@igm,

Quote:

Re: Frank Apisa (Post 5259010)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_marks_of_existence

The Three marks of existence, within Buddhism, are three characteristics (Pali: tilakkhaṇa; Sanskrit: trilakṣaṇa) shared by all sentient beings, namely: impermanence (anicca); suffering or unsatisfactoriness (dukkha); non-self (anattā).

According to Buddhist tradition, a full understanding of these three can bring an end to suffering (dukkha nirodha, 苦滅). The Buddha taught that all beings conditioned by causes (saṅkhāra) are impermanent (anicca) and suffering (dukkhā) while he said not-self (anattā) characterises all dhammas meaning there is no "I" or "mine" in the conditioned as well as the unconditioned (i.e. Nibbāna).[1][2] The central figure of Buddhism, Siddhartha is believed to have achieved Nirvana and awakening after much meditation, thus becoming the Buddha Shakyamuni. With the faculty of wisdom the Buddha directly perceived that all sentient beings (everything in the phenomenology of psychology) is marked by these three characteristics:

Not really sure if you are just kidding around here or not, igm. Or if you just do not understand that simply stating that something is so...is not valid evidence that it is so.

Quote:

Siddhartha is believed to have achieved Nirvana and awakening after much meditation, thus becoming the Buddha Shakyamuni.

Jesus is "believed" to have risen from the dead...to rise to Heaven to sit at the right hand of the Father.

Doesn't really matter what people "believe." They could be wrong.

Quote:

According to Buddhist tradition, a full understanding of these three can bring an end to suffering (dukkha nirodha, 苦滅). The Buddha taught that all beings conditioned by causes (saṅkhāra) are impermanent (anicca) and suffering (dukkhā) while he said not-self (anattā) characterises all dhammas meaning there is no "I" or "mine" in the conditioned as well as the unconditioned (i.e. Nibbāna).[1][2] The central figure of Buddhism, Siddhartha is believed to have achieved Nirvana and awakening after much meditation, thus becoming the Buddha Shakyamuni. With the faculty of wisdom the Buddha directly perceived that all sentient beings (everything in the phenomenology of psychology) is marked by these three characteristics:

This is all obviously dogma...stuff offered as truth based on NOTHING but the fact that it is being offered.

I still ask how the first item in Frank's list (from which all else he wrote derives) can be considered anything but a dogmatic proclamation...how it can possibly be considered as deriving from logical methodology.

HINT: In both cases...it can't.

That is all I am trying to say.

Believe whatever you want...but if you try to pass it off as "revealed truth" ...you are just going to provoke laughter.

1 Reply

@IRFRANK,

Done. Thanks, Frank.

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Frank Apisa wrote:

I still ask how the first item in Frank's list (from which all else he wrote derives) can be considered anything but a dogmatic proclamation...how it can possibly be considered as deriving from logical methodology.

Just a bit of background reading for you Frank... that's all.

OT you wanted to know from me about the first item on (the other) Frank's list, which is not to do with the subject of my thread!

OK, OT please ask me directly one simple question about (the other) Frank's list and I'll see if I'm able to reply.

1 Reply

@Thomas,

Thomas wrote:

igm wrote:
You are free to believe whatever you want.. of course but don't argue that you can know there is a truly existent self without also knowing in can't be proved.

I suspect we're quarreling about semantics. Please define your term "truly existent". And please describe the kind of evidence that might conceivably change your mind about our selves being "truly existent".

Thomas, 'Truly existent' is a phenomenon with 'independent existence' i.e. not part of a system but distinct from it. Something 'findable' and physically separate.

Show me the self defined by my terms. Or show me how a 'self' can be said to exist in another way.

0 Replies

@MattDavis,

MattDavis wrote:

Hope you don't mistake me for trying.

It's not always about you.

1 Reply

@igm,

Quote:

Quote:
Re: Frank Apisa (Post 5259104)
Frank Apisa wrote:

I still ask how the first item in Frank's list (from which all else he wrote derives) can be considered anything but a dogmatic proclamation...how it can possibly be considered as deriving from logical methodology.

Just a bit of background reading for you Frank... that's all.

OT you wanted to know from me about the first item on (the other) Frank's list, which is not to do with the subject of my thread!

Not sure what "OT" is...but this part of the discussion DOES have something to do with the subject of your thread...and with other comments you have made in the thread.

The beginning of this part of the discussion started when I asked the other Frank about something you said with which he expressed agreement:

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?”

Obviously, if those two essentials are nothing more than dogmatic proclamations...and since they are touted as being the foundation upon which this religion is built...it makes a difference.

Quote:

OK, OT please ask me directly one simple question about (the other) Frank's list and I'll see if I'm able to reply.

Once again, I do not know what (or who) OT is, but I will ask a simple and specific question:

Are the assertions, "letting go of self is the key to happiness"...and "not letting go of self is promoting suffering"...derived via logic...or are gratuitous, unsubstantiated claims apparently meant to support the teachings of the Buddha?

(Obviously if you claim they are logically derived, I will follow up with: HOW????)

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Frank Apisa wrote:

I do not know what (or who) OT is.

http://www.internetslang.com/OT-meaning-definition.asp

What is OT?
OT is "Off Topic"

My topic is about two interrelated questions, one about 'where is the self' and the other about 'dualism'. Neither of these two questions are refereed to in your resent post. Nevertheless I will take a look at your questions and see if I can answer them.

1 Reply

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

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know