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

@igm,

Quote:

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

My guess would be that you are wrong. I am not looking for a fight at all. I really wish you would get away from the notion that I am picking a fight...for any reason. We are discussing something.

To that end, allow me to you specifically:

Does the Buddha teach that there is no self…as you stated in your very first sentence of this post. Or is that sentence a mistake…an error?

1 Reply

bump

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Frank Apisa wrote:

Does the Buddha teach that there is no self…as you stated in your very first sentence of this post. Or is that sentence a mistake…an error?

igm wrote:

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.

I'm experiencing... Déjà vu.

1 Reply

@igm,

Is your first sentence in this thread a mistake or an error, igm...or is it true?

You do not have to quote anything. Just answer the question.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Frank Apisa wrote:

Is your first sentence in this thread a mistake or an error, igm...or is it true?

You do not have to quote anything. Just answer the question.

Frank, as I've said all along it's 'out of context':

The rest of the OP contains this:

...The Buddha just says OK find it and I'll believe in it; if not then I won’t believe in dualism...

...Absolute truth is the mere absence of the belief in dualism according to the Buddha.

In many following posts including my post to you on page 1 explains my position: The Buddha said there is no self 'unless' you show me a 'truly existent self'.

igm wrote:

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.

I'm experiencing... Déjà vu.

1 Reply

@igm,

The first sentence of your fourth paragraph says:

Quote:

Buddha isn’t saying there is something else, he's just saying dualism is a fiction based on the mistaken belief there is a truly existent self.

So, are you saying that the Buddha is teaching that “belief” in a truly existent self…is a fiction (as the words indicate)…or are you saying that the Buddha is agreeing with me when I say, “I have no idea if there is a self or not?”

And if you can get to it…was your first sentence an error?

C'mon, igm. It's okay. You can acknowledge that you WERE alleging that the Buddha did teach there is no self.

And then we can discuss the implications of the Buddha teaching something that he did not know for sure.

0 Replies

At times I really like this thread, at other times I find it tedious and repetitive.
I think that Frank A. has made his views quite clear, if there is anyone who doesn't understand them at this point... maybe look up the philosophy of fallibilism or see the A2K thread related to this ( I think it is a great concept to be aware of ).
Igm I am very sympathetic to Buddhist teachings, but you really make me frustrated. Would you rather Frank A. became closer to Buddha nature, or that he admits that you or Buddha is right?
Buddhism is supposed to be a method, it is not supposed to be a set of scriptures to beat over the head of the "ignorant".
I enjoy conversing with both of you. I have learned from both of you. Please please please stop this incessant repetition. I don't really care what exactly was said by exactly whom and exactly when.

1 Reply

@MattDavis,

First, I apologize if I misrepresent ones position, or it is not fully accurate...I do not mean any kind of bigotry...I am just giving my own interpretations...because I agree with Matt it is getting repetitive...So I am going to try to give my own interpretations, in the best objective ways I can...no offense meant towards anyone...

Yep...I think they are both just going over each others heads now...The way I see it...Is Igm said that Buddha said there is no self, soul, Anatta...And Igm claimed that Buddha said also if one says they have found one, or it exists then to show it to him, and Buddha will believe it...And that the Buddha (according to Igm) said that he has found out that all other notions turn out to be erroneous...etc...So he remains happier unconvinced...etc...

I think that Frank Apisa is just saying he does not know these things, and is asking Igm how Buddha could know them? And why is it the responsibility of another to provide this proof to Buddha? Or Buddhists? Either if people do not know these answers themselves, Or by evidence of being a Buddhist, by what the Buddha claimed himself, etc...

I think that Igm, is trying to explain how Buddha could know, or what Buddha says he is looking for himself...but can't really explain it himself...because Buddhists are looking for this also...Or they claim they are (no offense meant to anyone, just trying to be objective) And part of the reason why Igm could not really prove anything sufficient for Frank, is because Buddhists ask for proof of this themselves because Buddhists are skeptical themselves in nature...And find their answers by challenging skepticism...Something Frank may not do...(again I apologize, I am just trying to clarify it for both parties)

In a nutshell: I think Frank is directly asking Igm to provide evidence of a self to see evidence of no self...because Frank says he is unsure of both...And I think Igm is trying to provide evidence of a self, while he does not believe there is a self, to show why there is no self...because (Igm believes) there is no self...but them both not seeing that Igm could not do it, because he does not believe there is a self, himself...While Frank claims he is unsure of both...but is looking?...Or trying to prove how no one could know either? And Frank directly questioning the method of Igm to find a self, to find no self...While they both miss it can't be done, because Igm is trying to prove it, to disprove it...for Frank...While Igm does not believe this himself...And is not even how he currently views "self" nor many Buddhists...but neither fully understanding this anymore...because they went too deep...

1 Reply

@XXSpadeMasterXX,

Excellent summary.
This seems very close to my own assessment.

0 Replies

One can't proof read one's own copy and similarly you can't know the perceptions of others when they read your posts.

I believed I was just trying to make my position clear because I believed Frank had misunderstood my position.

But since I'm directing my posts towards the perceptions of others then I fail if they perceive my intent to be other that which I intended.

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

He said Buddha said that, not that that makes it true. Then he opened it to discussion. This thread is over 30 pages of discussion. There have been assertions about Buddhism that you didn't agree with. That's fine. I'm fine with your not 'getting it', or that you think there is nothing to 'get'. If you want to really investigate what Buddhism is about there is a lot of reading available, but you have to have an open mind, which is not the same as gullible. If you're expecting some kind of a revelation I doubt it's here.

0 Replies

@JLNobody,

I love this post. . Thanks.

1 Reply

@IRFRANK,

Yes, Frank, an open mind is essential--and profoundly difficult. It is the subtle state of mind we try to take in zazen meditation. I am convinced that it is not only very difficult to help an individual who wishes to understand Buddhism but also IMPOSSIBLE to help those who resist it. I'm confident, however, that Christian evangelists feel the same way regarding those who are resisting their efforts at conversion. But the difference between them and the Buddhist teachers is that once an individual wants to be converted, to be "saved", as Christians put it, the conversion is completed while that is not so for the Buddhist. What little I have "obtained" of the Buddhist perspective has come after many years of continuous effort. That may just be because of my lack of mystical talent, but when I have had moments of perspectival shifts ("openings" if that is what they were) they were revolutionary for me. But I remain with no theoretical insights to share with others linguistically.

2 Replies

@JLNobody,

I've tried to heed Matt's call to shut the hell up, but if arguments from the other side keep being made, I will not.

Quote:

Yes, Frank, an open mind is essential--and profoundly difficult. It is the subtle state of mind we try to take in zazen meditation. I am convinced that it is not only very difficult to help an individual who wishes to understand Buddhism but also IMPOSSIBLE to help those who resist it. I'm confident, however, that Christian evangelists feel the same way regarding those who are resisting their efforts at conversion. But the difference between them and the Buddhist teachers is that once an individual wants to be converted, to be "saved", as Christians put it, the conversion is completed while that is not so for the Buddhist. What little I have "obtained" of the Buddhist perspective has come after many years of continuous effort. That may just be because of my lack of mystical talent, but when I have had moments of perspectival shifts ("openings" if that is what they were) they were revolutionary for me. But I remain with no theoretical insights to share with others linguistically.

All the above could be true and it would have zero impact on the discussion I was having with igm.

Any reasonable reading of his first several posts indicates that he asserted that the Buddha TAUGHT that there is NO SELF...no soul...and that he (igm) "believes" that there is no such thing as self.

The former is dogma...

...or it is an erroneous rendering of what the Buddha taught.

The latter is acceptance of dogma.

I have never seen the words "That is an erroneous rendering of what the Buddha taught" come from igm.

I have seen some attempts to change the wording a bit...but essentially those changes reduce to: Until such time as someone proves to me that the self exists by actually showing me that it exists...I will "believe" that it doesn't. If it is proven that it does, I will then "believe" that it does."

But that makes no sense, because if it is proven...one doesn't have to "believe" it...one knows it.

That was all I really was discussing, JL. I am delighted anyone has found benefit from Buddhism...just as I am delighted that people find benefit from being Christians or Hindus or atheists.

1 Reply

@JLNobody,

Yes, JL that has been my experience also. Christians would call that faith. But for Buddhists I think it is faith in the teaching, not so much the teacher. And I also agree that it takes much work to get to the point where the epiphanies occur. They cannot be explained very easily. I read a great deal about Buddhism and it appealed to me but I admit I didn't understand much of what I read. Then I read a book, Awakening the Buddha Within, by Lama Surya Das, that made a great deal of sense, probably because it was written by an American who studied for many years in Tibet. It made me decide to join a ganden and the more I meditate and study the more I understand. I think that's an expected process.

And you're right Frank A, that doesn't have anything to do with the original question.

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

I hope you don't really think my call was "to shut the hell up". Sad

I just was getting a little tired of the repetition, and the nested quotes, which seem only to serve an attempt at entrapping each other to "win" some he said/she said sort of points.
I certainly don't want to shut you or anyone else up regarding productive conversation.

1 Reply

@MattDavis,

Quote:

Re: Frank Apisa (Post 5264987)
I hope you don't really think my call was "to shut the hell up".
I just was getting a little tired of the repetition, and the nested quotes, which seem only to serve an attempt at entrapping each other to "win" some he said/she said sort of points.
I certainly don't want to shut you or anyone else up regarding productive conversation.

You are too much a gentleman for that, Matt.

Try to conceive of my remark as an attempt to show the dangers of trying to paraphrase rather than quote. Wink

By the way, I was as tired of it as you...and I am sure igm was also. But the drum kept being beaten...and I came back to comment.

No winners; no losers in these kinds of things. I treat them as I do my frequent encounters with the Jehovah's Witnesses who travel my block so very, very, very often. Some of them know me...and some know of me. They still knock from time to time...but usually only when they are breaking in someone new.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Thanks Frank A. Very Happy

Quote:

They still knock from time to time...but usually only when they are breaking in someone new.

I could see the wisdom in that. Build up some muscles punching a wall. Laughing

0 Replies

In an effort to move conversation forward, and perhaps to get back to Igm's request to discuss more ethical concerns. Very Happy

Does anyone want to discuss how a concept of "will" or "intention" can relate to Buddhism?

1 Reply

@MattDavis,

Intentions occur but, according to Buddhism as I understand it, they are not the acts of a metaphysical agent. I suspect they are more like the Will as described by Schopenhauer (the Will in Nature) and Nietzsche (the Will that is Nature). We are, according to the latter propelled by the Will to Power, a ubuiquitous force that is a property of Reality rather than of ego as implied in the common notion of "will power". Note that both philosophers were open to aspects of Buddhism (by way of N.s Orientalism of Peter Gast and S's reading of the Upanishads).

1 Reply

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

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know