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

@igm,

Matt, one more paragraph was added to my latest post above, a few minutes after the original post.

0 Replies

@JLNobody,

Quote:

Re: igm (Post 5262431)
Frank, you confessed that you do not know the nature of Reality. The buddhist perspective has it that you actually DO. Indeed, you do in the sense that you ARE Reality. You may not know what it is in a universally acceptable THEORETICAL way. But there is no immediate obstacle to your "enlightened" oneness with it. What separates you from it is the mediation of ideas . Moreover, it is misleading to say, as you did, that after much meditation "truths" are revealed. No ideas come to the meditator. At most he or she might be receptive to otherwise unfanthomable ideas. What is received by means of meditation is an openness to experience. Something like attaining an ear for music, but not a theoretical grasp of music theory.

Everything you said here may be absolutely correct.

Unfortunately, everything you said here may be completely incorrect. (Except, perhaps, for your use of the word "the.")

Gotta be something about the air of the sub-continent.....!

Quote:

At most he or she might be receptive to otherwise unfanthomable ideas.

I've always thought..."If only I had been able to spend a few weeks with Einstein...and gotten him to smoke some of that super ganja that I use to get...he probably could have come up with all those pieces he missed staying straight...cause that **** was able to generate otherwise unfathomable ideas!"

Maybe that coulda happened!

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Frank Apisa wrote:

Buddhists already "know" the stuff that is being sold in this thread.

Frank, please read my last post above, which explains 'why' what you have said in the light of that post (two if you count my amendment post)... is incorrect.

1 Reply

@igm,

Quote:

Re: Frank Apisa (Post 5263998)

Quote:
Frank Apisa wrote:

Buddhists already "know" the stuff that is being sold in this thread.

Frank, please read my last post above, which explains 'why' what you have said in the light of that post (two if you count my amendment post)... is incorrect.

Not being a wise-ass here, igm, just pointing out an obvious flaw in what you just suggested.

If I were to confine myself you your last post (or penultimate post) I might actually come up with the notion that I was incorrect.

But that post does not exist in a vacuum. Take a look at what you have written throughout this thread...you will see that I am probably very close to the truth in what I said. You are selling dogma here. Each time you utter a variation on "The Buddha said..." or "The Buddha taught..."...you are selling dogma...which is to say, you are selling guesses about the truth...as the truth.

In any case, the "correct" position may be elusive.

2 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

When I hear you asking me to read that last post for the reasons you did...I essentially hear a Christian admonishing me that my "problem" is that I will just not open up my heart to God...and that if I did, "the truth" would flood my senses.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

igm wrote:

Frank, please read my last post above, which explains 'why' what you have said in the light of that post (two if you count my amendment post)... is incorrect.

Frank Apisa wrote:

If I were to confine myself you your last post (or penultimate post) I might actually come up with the notion that I was incorrect.

Frank, stop there and avoid contradicting yourself. The rest of what you've said in your last post 'in the light of my penultimate post' you've referred to, is a contradiction.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Frank Apisa wrote:

When I hear you asking me to read that last post for the reasons you did...I essentially hear a Christian admonishing me that my "problem" is that I will just not open up my heart to God...and that if I did, "the truth" would flood my senses.

I don't see that perhaps you could point that out to me. It's reproduced below:

igm wrote:

Yes Matt, I take your point... refer to the 'two truths' aspect of the Buddha's teachings. What I should always say is: show me an 'independent phenomenon' or 'thing' or how there could be one? I'll remain open-minded until you show me there is one. This state of mind 'is meditation' and Buddha's engage in conventional truth 'only' when they can help others because their asking pulls one possible conventional answer from the Buddha's meditation so-to-speak. The ultimate truth is the experience of remaining 'without a view' which is defined in Buddhism as 'not' a view in itself but the mere absence of a view.

We do however have a 'conventional' understanding of how you could not show that a phenomenon or a thing could be shown to be 'independent' as far as conventional truth is able to understand such things.

1 Reply

@igm,

Quote:

I don't see that perhaps you could point that out to me. It's reproduced below:

One...I was talking about "you asking me to read that last p0st for the reasons you did"...not about the last post.

And if you truly want to see that you treat the "teachings" of the Buddha the way Christians treat the "teachings" of Jesus...

...stop spending so much time looking at the lyrics. Concentrate on the music.

0 Replies

@igm,

Quote:

Frank, stop there and avoid contradicting yourself. The rest of what you've said in your last post 'in the light of my penultimate post' you've referred to, is a contradiction.

There was no contradiction there, igm. You appear to be getting angry with me because of my disagreements with the dogma of Buddhism.

IF I confined myself to one post of yours...I might actually think I am wrong to suppose you are selling dogma as truth.

But I am not about to confine myself to any one post. I am commenting based on the totality of what I am reading here.

If you see that as a contradiction...nothing I can do to help you.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Frank Apisa wrote:

There was no contradiction there, igm. You appear to be getting angry with me because of my disagreements with the dogma of Buddhism.

I am 'not' in the least bit angry... how could I be... you say things (that's the easy part) but you prove nothing... you just make proclamations like, 'Buddhism is dogma' but then you back that with... nothing whatsoever. These comments of yours are easy to say but you 'never' prove them.

I showed you yesterday a similar thing and you 'apologiesed' today you get up and start 'all' over again... what's that about.. short-term memory problem?

I of course hope you do not have a short-term memory problem.

1 Reply

@igm,

Quote:

Re: Frank Apisa (Post 5264039)

Quote:
Frank Apisa wrote:

There was no contradiction there, igm. You appear to be getting angry with me because of my disagreements with the dogma of Buddhism.

I am 'not' in the least bit angry... how could I be... you say things (that's the easy part) but you prove nothing... you just make proclamations like, 'Buddhism is dogma' but then you back that with... nothing whatsoever. These comments of yours are easy to say but you 'never' prove them.

I showed you yesterday a similar thing and you 'apologiesed' today you get up and start 'all' over again... what's that about.. short-term memory problem?

I of course hope you do not have a short-term memory problem.

Actually, I do have a short term memory problem...but I do not think it is in play here. If you are asking me to apologize each time you take offense to me pointing out the validity of some of the assertions you are making...then you are simply out of line.

Anyway...look at the title of this thread...and read your first posts in it, igm.

You most assuredly are asserting the Buddha's teachings...and the Buddha, for instance, claims there is no self.

Then you suggest that there is a burden of proof on those of us who question that...to produce any evidence of "self"...or the default assumption must be "there is no self. Forgetting for a second that you discount anything produced as possible evidence of self...there is no burden of proof on those of us questioning the validity of the assertion "there is no self." That burden falls on you. And the fact that "you" are addressing "me" is evidence (not proof) of self.

And the notion that the default position must be "then there is no self" is gratuituous...self serving.

I think you are disturbed with the arguments against the dogmatic proclamations of Buddhism...and I think that is driving your thinking right now.

Let's get back to the basics of this thread:

Is there a "self?"

My response would be: "I do not know...and I suspect that we humans may not be able to actually answer that question, because it goes to the question of the Ultimate REALITY."

What is the Buddha's answer, igm?

What is your answer if it differs from the Buddha's?

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

igm wrote:

I of course hope you do not have a short-term memory problem.

Frank Apisa wrote:

Actually, I do have a short term memory problem...but I do not think it is in play here.

Unfortunately, that explains why each day you start anew and I have to repeat the same responses again Sad

How can I put my point across today and then tomorrow you've forgotten it?

Frank Apisa wrote:

Let's get back to the basics of this thread:

Is there a "self?"

My response would be: "I do not know...and I suspect that we humans may not be able to actually answer that question, because it goes to the question of the Ultimate REALITY."

What is the Buddha's answer, igm?

What is your answer if it differs from the Buddha's?

If you don't know there is a 'self' then the Buddha would agree with you; he also doesn't know if there is a self. But you act as if you do believe there is a self so there is a contradiction in your actions. The Buddha would also act with others as if there was a self but he would not 'believe' there was a self until someone proved it to him, his actions would 'only' be in order to help others, not for some 'self' benefit.

Buddhists who are attempting to emulate the Buddha would train to do the same thing.

1 Reply

@igm,

Quote:

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:
igm wrote:

I of course hope you do not have a short-term memory problem.

Frank Apisa wrote:

Actually, I do have a short term memory problem...but I do not think it is in play here.

Unfortunately that explains why each day you start anew and I have to repeat the same responses again.

How can I put my point across today and then tomorrow you've forgotten it?

That is flat-out rude on your part, igm. When my short-term memory problems are in play...I know it. They are not here. For you to make that statement is beneath what I expect of you.

Quote:

If you don't know there is a 'self' then the Buddha would agree with you; he also doesn't know if there is a self.

The opening line of this thread…written by you…is:

Quote:

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

How can you now assert that the Buddha would agree with me that he does not know?

Quote:

But you act as if you do believe there is a self so there is a contradiction in you actions.

I have stated unequivocally that I do not know if there is a self or not. Several times! More than several times!

I have also stated emphatically that I do NOT do believing of any kind…on several occasions. (For the regulars, that was irony!)

For you to assert that the Buddha would agree that we do not know—in light of that first sentence of yours…and then to assert that I act as if I believe there is a self…is absurd. I don't really know how to respond to that.

Quote:

The Buddha would also act with others as if there was a self but he would not 'believe' there was a self until someone proved it to him, his actions would 'only' be in order to help others, not for some 'self' benefit.

We all act as if there is a self...and others out there. If you don't, you'd probably be confined in an institution in the interests of protecting yourself and others around you. No big deal there.

Quote:

Buddhists who are attempting to emulate the Buddha would train to do the same thing.

And some would treat "the teachings of the Buddha" like Christians do the teachings of Jesus.

What is why we are having this discussion.

Anyone following this discussion who is not chiming in at this point...ought to get into gear!

2 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

Anyone following this discussion who is not chiming in at this point...ought to get into gear!

I'll take the bait. I don't see the point though. You've decided that Buddhism is dogma. So be it. From your point that may be your perception. Certainly there is dogma to some extent, but neither Buddha nor Buddhism asks anyone to just accept anything as a truth without your own personal analysis. I've avoided Christianity most of my life because I just couldn't accept 'Because the Bible says so'. I could see that the Bible was written by men hundreds of years after the fact. I don't want to get into a discussion about the Bible here, I am just pointing out that I see studying Buddhism as a transfer of knowledge, not dogma. As stated earlier, Buddha said, "Do not accept anything just because I said it." As a Buddhist group we often challenge assertions in order to further understand. I've never heard the final analysis as 'Because Buddha said so.' I think igm started this thread in order to discuss such an issue. He never said that something is true simply because Buddha says so. At least that's my impression. I've learned a great deal about what makes me do the things I do and I believe that that knowledge has made me a better person. My personal experience is that Buddhists tend to be much more open minded than the average person. Buddhism contains a couple thousand years of knowledge and thought and to pass it off as 'dogma' is a bit naive. That's my opinion anyway. You're entitled to your own.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Frank Apisa wrote:

We all act as if there is a self...and others out there. If you don't, you'd probably be confined in an institution in the interests of protecting yourself and others around you. No big deal there.

If you just want to pick a fight... I'm not your man.

igm wrote:

If you don't know there is a 'self' then the Buddha would agree with you; he also doesn't know if there is a self. But you act as if you do believe there is a self so there is a contradiction in your actions. The Buddha would also act with others as if there was a self but he would not 'believe' there was a self until someone proved it to him, his actions would 'only' be in order to help others, not for some 'self' benefit.

Buddhists who are attempting to emulate the Buddha would train to do the same thing.

You're just not listening.

1 Reply

@IRFRANK,

Thank you, Frank. You always are reasonable in your replies.

A question, if I may:

You wrote:

Quote:

I think igm started this thread in order to discuss such an issue. He never said that something is true simply because Buddha says so. At least that's my impression.

Since the title of this thread almost infers that there is no self…and since the very first sentence was, “The Buddha said that there is no self, ego, Atman, soul (all are synonymous for the purposes of this discussion).”…and since igm has regularly suggested that unless someone can come up with a "self" for examination, the default position has to be "there is no self"...

…I fail to see how you see the thread more as a discussion about an unknown rather than a challenge to others to prove that there is a self…with “there is no self” being the (erroneous in my opinion) the default position.

Would you discuss this a bit?

2 Replies

@igm,

Quote:

If you just want to pick a fight... I'm not your man.

I'm not trying to pick a fight. I'm trying to have a discussion.

Quote:

You're just not listening.

Oh, I am listening, igm.

One thing I am not hearing though, is a response to:

Quote:

Quote:
Quote:
If you don't know there is a 'self' then the Buddha would agree with you; he also doesn't know if there is a self.

The opening line of this thread…written by you…is:

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

How can you now assert that the Buddha would agree with me that he does not know?

How about responding to that?

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Frank, I think that the task of the buddhist meditator is not to demonstrate--either to himself or to others--that there is no self. it's primarily to study the nature of that sensation that we have of "me". When we examine the sensations we take to be our center, we eventually come to realize it is nothing like a homunculus (a being within) that "occupies" our body. It is quite different, but that's for each of us to see for ourselves, not something to have described for us by other "enlightened beings" (I prefer the term liberated persons, freed from the central delusion of the ego-self).

2 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

This was my 'first full reply' to you on page 1; there were a couple of posts to you explaining trivial things before that. You kept 'ignoring' the content of my reply and continued to quote part of the OP 'out of context'.

Eventually I said having replied 'three' times with no response but just the 'out of context' part of the 'OP' repeated again and again that you seemed 'disruptive'.

My reply to you 'way back at the start' shows that I answered your current questions on page 1:

igm wrote:

I'd prefer if you just said 'self' it has less connotations. I'm talking about the notion of 'me', 'myself', I and the counterpart 'other'. How we think of ourselves and the world day-to-day. I'm here and all that is not me is 'other'. So that kind of dualistic thinking.

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.

You still seem to me to be picking a fight just for the sake of your entertainment. I might be wrong.

1 Reply

@JLNobody,

Quote:

Re: Frank Apisa (Post 5264118)
Frank, I think that the task of the buddhist meditator is not to demonstrate--either to himself or to others--that there is no self. it's primarily to study the nature of that sensation that we have of "me". When we examine the sensations we take to be our center, we eventually come to realize it is nothing like a homunculus (a being within) that "occupies" our body. It is quite different, but that's for each of us to see for ourselves, not something to have described for us by other "enlightened beings" (I prefer the term liberated persons, freed from the central delusion of the ego-self).

All that could be, JL.

But take a look at the title of this thread...and the first post by igm.

In fact, if you look at most of the first several pages of igm's posts...you will see that he was asserting (that the Buddha says) THERE IS NO SELF OR SOUL.

Right from the very first, I acknowledged that I did not know if there is a self...or a here and now. All of this MAY BE an illusion.

That is not where igm has been coming from.

Even when he mitigates his original contention (which he still has not addressed)...he suggests that a default of "no self" is appropriate...unless someone else provides evidence of "self."

Well here I am. I MAY BE evidence of self. If you are there...YOU MAY BE evidence of self. If igm is there...he MAY BE evidence of self.

What seems to happen is igm simply ignores all this and says that no evidence of self has been submitted...and therefore the default holds--namely, that there is no self.

That is what we are discussing.

0 Replies

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

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know