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

The Buddha can still comprehend what dualism is. He understands why people believe in a truly existent self. But he has yet to hear someone prove it.

The Buddha can function in the world he can use day to day language. But if someone analyses reality and says it’s this or that he remains unconvinced because the analysis always turns out to be erroneous to the Buddha.

Why would the Buddha function in the world as if there is dualism when dualism is an illusion? Why would anyone want to live even a part of their lives in an illusory world?

igm wrote:

Buddhism also teaches that Loving Kindness and Compassion to all is a prerequisite quality to develop and of course meditation.

I'm all for kindness and stuff like that but isn't it OT, doesn't the former somewhat diverge

It might be a bit cloudy but I'm a Buddhist and one of the 'tags' says Buddhism but there are plenty of free-form words from me I believe. I don't think it's too cloudy. If you want to ask me a question or give your views I'm happy to not appear to be 'appealing to authority'. Thanks for your input... hope you can still contribute.

The self seems to me to require three fundamental characteristic, it needs to be: singular, permanent and autonomous. Anyone disagree? What would the individual ‘I’ be if it didn’t have these characteristics?

ok noooow i think i got it.

i already know i'm wrong, but i think i'm thinking the right way.

if we are part of a "collective conscious", for want of a better phrase, the self can reside in the body as the vessel (humunculus?) for a part of the collective whole. the vessel gives us self awareness, thus preserving duality.

if we are individual, the self can reside in the mind, aware of it's body, but separate from it, thus preserving duality.

*edit: i'm getting into this.

so the real question is, are we individuals, or part of a collective whole, on a conscious level? and science is starting to show that, in theory at least, we could be part of a collective conscious.

Why would anyone want to live even a part of their lives in an illusory world?

nothing can exist without the "self". if i don't perceive anything through consciousness, then to me it doesn't exist. *edit: including my mind, spirit, and body, irrespective of if they exist if i exist.

if, as some qm theorises, observation creates the universe (don't ask me how, i'm useless with numbers, but i know its theoretically possible, i grasp the fundamental idea of it), then their must be a perceiver for there to be anything to be perceived. (don't read too much into what i say about qm, my knowledge is very rudimentary, but building. it fascinates me, and i'm just curious about the posible link here. when you add it to some of the "outlandish" counter-theories of human history, and ancient knowledge of how the universe works, and the conspiracies about the pyramids et al. i love it, brilliant to chew on for a bit)...anyway...

i can only experience things from my perspective, so as far as i'm concerned, if i don't exist, nothing exists, including duality and therefore dualism.

NOTHING can stand if self is just a fiction.

i was meant to go to bed aaaaages ago. you lot have kept me up thinking again

night

*edit: science backs up religion eh??? who'd of thunk it?

igm wrote:

It might be a bit cloudy but I'm a Buddhist and one of the 'tags' says Buddhism but there are plenty of free-form words from me I believe. I don't think it's too cloudy. If you want to ask me a question or give your views I'm happy to not appear to be 'appealing to authority'. Thanks for your input... hope you can still contribute.

I didn't mean my comment as a rebuke.
I meant it only to assist in clarity of discussion. My assumption is that the OP was aimed at explore non-duality (a teaching of Buddhism) not to establish that it is in fact a Buddhist teaching. Avoiding an appeal to authority (real or presumed) helps extend the discussion to non-Buddhists, in the same way that avoiding appeals to Bible scripture would aid a Christian in extending a discussion of a Biblical teaching to non-Christians.

Plus it helps avoid the "Do you think that Buddha knew [.....] or what he just guessing." problems that plagued the last discussion.

igm wrote:

The self seems to me to require three fundamental characteristic, it needs to be: singular, permanent and autonomous. Anyone disagree? What would the individual ‘I’ be if it didn’t have these characteristics?

I disagree at least in regards to the "permanent" requirement.
Why would it follow that a "self" must be permanent?
Self seems only to require the awareness of something. Awareness is not established as a requirement of existence (the universe could exist without it). Why then could awareness not arise and then disappear? For instance if awareness arises as a consequence of neuronal interactions only within the brains of apes on a planet near the edge of the galaxy, and then that planet and all those apes are destroyed by nuclear war, the self has also been destroyed.

I just thought this would be a good sight for this thread if anyone is interested...

FBM sent me this link...

https://sites.google.com/site/rahulawhatthebuddha/the-doctrine-of-no-soul

Point taken about the normal view of "I".
But note a critical divergence regarding in views on the "existence" or otherwise of "self".

1. The Buddhist view is that "self" is ultimately an illusion on the basis that reality is non-dualistic.

2. A second esoteric view (represented by Gurdjieff) is that "self" can be established as an independent extant entity on a higher plane of consciousness, but what we normally call "an independent self" is a delusion in the sense that it a somnolent concoction of thoughts and sensations with no autonomy. Furthermore, it is that unawakened self which gets involved in futile intellectual arguments (such as this thread !), whereas the higher self sees futility of trying to communicate with other sleepwalkers.