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

@igm,

Thank you for the explanation of OT, igm.

As for this being off topic...all I can say is they are question about something YOU wrote in this thread! Not sure how they can be off topic if they are questions about what YOU wrote in your own thread?

1 Reply

okay...bump

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Frank Apisa wrote:

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????)

Frank, if I said to you that a holiday in a certain part of Hawaii has been said by a well-respected traveler to be a very enjoyable place. Would you ask the same questions? The Buddha said he was happier letting go of the notion of a truly existent self (along with many thousands of other teachings).

He is just expressing his experience and asking others, if they want to find out if they too may be able to experience a similar happiness, then he will explain the path that he’d taken, if requested by them to do so.

1 Reply

@igm,

Gotta take two elderly aunts food shopping right now...which is an arduous, time consuming task. But I will be back.

I ask you this, igm: Please read what was written in the links below. I will comment on those linked pieces when I get back. Essentially, this is where this facet of the discussion started...and some of the material there seems at odds with what you are saying here.

http://able2know.org/topic/207906-24#post-5258625

http://able2know.org/topic/207906-25#post-5258655

http://able2know.org/topic/207906-25#post-5258655

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Frank Apisa wrote:

Essentially, this is where this facet of the discussion started...and some of the material there seems at odds with what you are saying here.
http://able2know.org/topic/207906-24#post-5258625

http://able2know.org/topic/207906-25#post-5258655

http://able2know.org/topic/207906-25#post-5258655

Frank, it may be at odds or not but I stand by this last reply to you:

igm wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:

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????)

Frank, if I said to you that a holiday in a certain part of Hawaii has been said by a well-respected traveler to be a very enjoyable place. Would you ask the same questions? The Buddha said he was happier letting go of the notion of a truly existent self (along with many thousands of other teachings).

He is just expressing his experience and asking others, if they want to find out if they too may be able to experience a similar happiness, then he will explain the path that he’d taken, if requested by them to do so.

1 Reply

@igm,

(Just called the aunts...they asked for more time to get ready. Further comment on this below, but allows time for a comment on the issue.)

Regarding the links in my last post:

In that first link, igm, you wrote,

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!

Any reasonable reading of the enlarged words has to conclude that you consider “letting go of self” as a universal, absolutely necessary key to finding peace in our lives.

So I questioned it. In the second link, I asked:

Quote:

I do not understand this argument at all.

Why are you supposing "letting go of self" is the key to happiness...or that "not letting go of self" is promoting suffering?

Really, igm, it doesn't seem to follow at all...and your claims that those things are "logically" derived seem gratuitous.

Your response was essentially: Go back and read the entire thread…the answer is somewhere in there.

To which I replied in the third link:

Quote:

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."

At that point, Frank entered the picture in an attempt to "explain" what is meant...but that went nowhere.

ASIDE: After my last post, I called my aunts...and they asked for another 45 minutes to get ready. So I set about this post. When I got ready to post...I saw your new post, igm.

Apparently you are setting aside all this earlier material in favor of:

Quote:

Frank, if I said to you that a holiday in a certain part of Hawaii has been said by a well-respected traveler to be a very enjoyable place. Would you ask the same questions? The Buddha said he was happier letting go of the notion of a truly existent self (along with many thousands of other teachings).

He is just expressing his experience and asking others, if they want to find out if they too may be able to experience a similar happiness, then he will explain the path that he’d taken, if requested by them to do so.

Fine. There are, of course, many people who feel that accepting the teachings of Jesus is the path to a better place.

I have no problem with any of that.

My initial questions were about the universal nature of your phrasing in the posting I questioned, which seems much more consistent with almost everything else you have said in this thread. My feelings are that you definitely think (believe, suppose) that "letting go of self is the key to happiness...and that not letting go of self is promoting suffering...is a universal truth of some sort...and is logically derived. I think it is just a dogmatic proclamation of the Buddha...which Buddhists accept as Catholics accept the trinity or Mary's physical assumption into Heaven.

If you had said what you had to say this new way…this conversation would never have taken place.

I am, of course, extremely interested in whether or not you follow up on one other thing mentioned in your new, latest posting.

Frank, it may be at odds or not but I stand by this last reply to you:

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Frank, I said your initial question was OT (off topic), obviously I'm not going to make sure how I phrase peripheral comments to make the case for those comments in case 'Frank' asks me about them later.

Therefore I 'stand' by this:

igm wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:

Essentially, this is where this facet of the discussion started...and some of the material there seems at odds with what you are saying here.
http://able2know.org/topic/207906-24#post-5258625

http://able2know.org/topic/207906-25#post-5258655

http://able2know.org/topic/207906-25#post-5258655

Frank, it may be at odds or not but I stand by this last reply to you:

igm wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:

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????)

Frank, if I said to you that a holiday in a certain part of Hawaii has been said by a well-respected traveler to be a very enjoyable place. Would you ask the same questions? The Buddha said he was happier letting go of the notion of a truly existent self (along with many thousands of other teachings).

He is just expressing his experience and asking others, if they want to find out if they too may be able to experience a similar happiness, then he will explain the path that he’d taken, if requested by them to do so.

1 Reply

@igm,

Ok. But like a series ending episode which leaves open some interesting possibility or possibilities...

...I am interested in whether you will or will not follow up on the "...or not."

Fact is, whether the new presentation IS or IS NOT at odds with the prior one...could be as significant as who shot JR. Wink

2 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

2 Replies

@igm,

That's not a surprising conclusion by any one person. The real question is, why would others want to become monks to seek happiness?

2 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

I can even understand why someone would want to do that too...Simple is indeed greater in many ways...many more than people realize...

The thing I do not understand about it all is if the purpose is deny the self existence to come to the root understandings of suffering...Then why do we exist as in a form outside of human existence in a realm where form is constantly changing, and suffer until we truly cease to exist as in a 37 million year cycle? Does a Buddhist truly believe that humans are so much evolved around one own self that we would have to basically suffer for 37 million years, rather than just not wanting to exist all together?

In other words, is the desire to want to live really worth suffering for 37 million years? And if that is what we must do once we exist, is the penalty for existing really believable that one would have to suffer for 37 million years? and then not want to exist and suffer anymore? Who could say that it would take themselves that long to deny oneself of this suffering?

I can understand why a Buddhist is interested in finding self-evaluations...And think many more organized religions should emphasize this more than they do...

But there really does not seem to be a point in existence, or suffering, if there is no freedom where one is not suffering and is happy...Such as a Christian notion of Heaven...I get how deep forever is...But I do not think it would better to suffer for 37 million years, than to be happy forever and think that would be suffering...Cause if it is true, who would honestly choose to exist if the ultimate destiny is to suffer till death either way? It seems to me there can only be ultimate happiness at the end that we could never understand...Or there is nothing at all, and our suffering is directly based upon what we do while alive...

And I simply can not understand finding self-evaluations explained in wordless experiences from anything other than a God...because if it is that easy to break the cycle, again why would it take someone 37 million years to set them free? And realize this? I have lived once, and when I die, I wholeheartedly think I will know everything I need too to set me free as in existing forever, or not existing at all...I would not choose to self create again only to suffer more...So the whole notion still points to one life, and an afterlife that exists where everyone is forever happy, and an Omni God who knows all, or nothing at all that is there...It does not make sense to me how there can be Buddhas way, while it is an atheistic-theology...And also even if you are Buddhist and believe in Gods who still suffer...Why would anyone truly want to exist that badly? It seems to me it is because it must be different than suffering...Or it is because the wanting to exist and suffer is so strong that it takes that long...But I can't really say I think anyone out there would want to exist and suffer that badly...if they knew the destiny was to be nothing, or exist but suffer...Not if your an atheist anyways...As an avid believer I can't say once I see the truth that I would keep choosing to exist to suffer just to be...rather than letting myself go...

1 Reply

And I do not think that meditation is the only way to come to these root understandings either...Unless meditation could also mean deep, deep, ponderance...But I would say it would not take more than 5-10 % of total existence that long to realize this...But yet it is said that it can take Buddha 37 million years? How come? Unless it is different than thought, and no one is actually suffering...Or a part of why he suffers and exists and has not broken his cycle, is because he has not come to a root understanding that their is no existence rather than ultimate nothingness...But why would he choose to keep suffering if he does not think that one will ultimately show him an ultimate eternal, happy, existent, self? If it is not already there?

I just do not understand why one would want to suffer that long unless the gift at the end was greater than suffering that long...Is non-existence worth that? Or is an afterlife of nothing suffering worth that? I think it is the latter, anyone can choose not to exist at anytime...If there is an eternal afterlife, there could only be one way to find it, and it would be through a God...

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

That's not a surprising conclusion by any one person. The real question is, why would others want to become monks to seek happiness?

It's about different personalities. Some can be Buddhist laypeople and some need to renounce the world and be a Buddhist monk. In Mahayana Buddhism it is much more common to be a Buddhist layperson. There are Buddhist teachings for both types of personality.

One advantage of being a monk is obviously one is less caught up in the world so one can 'perhaps' understand the deeper teachings more quickly.

In Mahayana a layperson is equal to a monk or nun. They are just different paths.

Also, one can become a monk for a while and then (without any problem) become a layperson.

0 Replies

@joefromchicago,

joefromchicago wrote:

MattDavis wrote:
Hope you don't mistake me for trying.
It's not always about you.

Huh? Thought this was all about self? Laughing

0 Replies

@XXSpadeMasterXX,

I mean no offence XXXS but you have just misunderstood Buddhism. That's fine you aren't and don't want to be a Buddhist... that's perfectly (and obviously)... OK Smile

1 Reply

@XXSpadeMasterXX,

Well said Spade!
I think this gets very well at the tightrope Buddhism must walk to avoid slipping into nihilism.
Purpose!!!
Purpose is important. This is why ethical practice must be central to Buddhist enlightenment.

0 Replies

@igm,

Thanks...but can you point out what I did not understand? We suffer because we want to exist? We stop suffering once we do not exist? We must meditate to discovery why we do not want to exist? Or stop suffering? We must go through the cycle of rebirths till we self discovery this? Meditation reveals a wordless experience as to why we do not want to exist to end our own suffering? And eventually break the cycle of rebirths?

I am saying I understand it all, but can not understand why it would take 37 million years to discover this about myself while still believing there is a self...And can't see a reason why Buddha would continue to exist and suffer if he did not think that one would show him this one day?...Surely the Buddha being reborn many times, and being closer to letting go then me, would not be influenced by me to come back to existence to suffer more? Or I do not understand why he is asking people to show it to him? Hence, his own suffering?

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Frank

I think part of our problem here is the meaning of 'suffering'. This word is generally used as a translation of 'dukkha' in Pali. That is not a very good translation. See below:

No single English word adequately captures the full depth, range, and subtlety of the crucial Pali term dukkha. Over the years, many translations of the word have been used ("stress," "unsatisfactoriness," "suffering," etc.). Each has its own merits in a given context. There is value in not letting oneself get too comfortable with any one particular translation of the word, since the entire thrust of Buddhist practice is the broadening and deepening of one's understanding of dukkha until its roots are finally exposed and eradicated once and for all. One helpful rule of thumb: as soon as you think you've found the single best translation for the word, think again: for no matter how you describe dukkha, it's always deeper, subtler, and more unsatisfactory than that.
The definition

"Birth is dukkha, aging is dukkha, death is dukkha; sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief, & despair are dukkha; association with the unbeloved is dukkha; separation from the loved is dukkha; not getting what is wanted is dukkha. In short, the five clinging-aggregates are dukkha."

2 Replies

@XXSpadeMasterXX,

Maybe just to entertain a hypothetical...
What if the universe is for a long period lifeless, asleep, unaware.
Then the universe begins to develop life. The life starts to interact with it's surroundings. It starts to see itself as separate from the universe. It has to see itself as separate, because this is what distinguishes it (life) from everything else.
The separateness is very useful. You need it. Without it you become lifeless (dead or nihilistic). Perhaps there is, however, a way for the life to realize that it is unique and special, but that it is not inseparable from the rest of the universe. It is intimately joined with the rest of the universe and it could not live without it.
The distinction between that life part of the universe and the non-life part is actually very "fuzzy" there isn't really a place where the non-life part stops and the life part begins.

3 Replies

@IRFRANK,

Quote:

as soon as you think you've found the single best translation for the word, think again:

Then how can anyone think they will come to a root understanding as to why they would want to cease to exist to end their suffering? If the Sanskrit is written in a way to emphasize to keep on going or searching for a higher, noble truth? Than what is previously thought? So you have to keep on going farther to suffer, to cease to exist? Why? Not even Buddha himself can just cease from looking farther to cease to exist if that is the ultimate destiny? Seems that there is a self then...and the reason for rebirth is because trying to find not self or ceasing to exist is not the path of least resistance...

1 Reply

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

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know