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

Without knowing for sure I'd say there is no truly existent self and dualism is a fiction. Many in the East would agree and also many in the West have also argued this is the case. Those who disagree would be unable to prove they are correct.

2 Replies

@igm,

Quote:

Without knowing for sure I'd say there is no truly existent self and dualism is a fiction. Many in the East would agree and also many in the West have also argued this is the case. Those who disagree would be unable to prove they are correct.

Didn't realize they would have to!

You people make a blind guess about the nature of REALITY...and you expect others to prove it is not correct.

That is bizarre.

1 Reply

@igm,

The idea of "illusion of self" can start with observation of the "fragmentation of self" as an everyday experience. This mode of observation can clarified by meditational practice. (Those who would deny these observations might start by considering their "self-hood" on waking from a dream). The word "know" is superfluous to those familiar with these observations, and the word "proof" is irrelevant since it refers to a mode of thinking with axioms agreed between a group of "selves" which are ephemerally evoked and sustained by their own inter-dependence..

2 Replies

@fresco,

Quote:

Re: igm (Post 5305487)
The idea of "illusion of self" can start with observation of the "fragmentation of self" as an everyday experience. This mode of observation can clarified by meditational practice. (Those who would deny these observations might start by considering their "self-hood" on waking from a dream). The word "know" is superfluous to those familiar with these observations, and the word "proof" is irrelevant since it refers to a mode of thinking with axioms agreed between a group of "selves" which are ephemerally evoked and sustained by their own inter-dependence..

So does this religion of yours have transubstantiation...and a trinity as part of its dogma...or do you folk just stick with the nonsense in your quoted comment?

Isn't it amazing how immersed we can get into our guesses about REALITY!!!!

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

I have come to the conclusion that the cause of my confidence is having heard, reflected and meditated on the Buddha's Dharma for decades. I cannot expect anyone who has not, to understand my confidence and their skepticism is perfectly reasonable and understandable. The fact that they see it as a religion and in some respects indistinguishable from some of the apparent supernatural beliefs of theism is to be expected also.

Some people have a sense that their view of reality is at odds with the true nature of reality and for some reason when they hear about meditation they have the urge to use that as the path that they hope will resolve this sense of being out of sync with reality. Over the years, for some, the confidence grows and insights begin and then nothing would stop that person from continuing... but others still just 'don't get it' and I don't blame them... why should they?

1 Reply

@igm,

Igm...your guesses about the true nature of REALITY MAY BE correct. I've never suggested otherwise.

Have all the confidence you want in your guesses...for whatever reasons you deem sufficient.

I certainly have no quarrels with people who try meditation (I have tried various forms of it myself)...or with people who find great comfort and significance in it.

I talk to people all the time who have unyielding confidence in what they guess about REALITY (different from yours)...and I understand completely. And I have no quarrels with the comfort they derive from it...and the significance they assign to it.

So I am not sure of what you were sharing here.

2 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Just sayin'... that's all.

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

So you claim to have "tried meditation" do you Frank ! What made you give it up ? Was it affecting your golf ?

0 Replies

@igm,

This may have been covered before in previous replies.

Buddha did not say there is no self, simply that self is part of Maya; an illusion that prevents us from being one with the universe.

The concept of dualism can relate to the idea that, from an existential point of view, we are a string of memories or a nature that resonates with our environments. Our body is a relative thing that may change while our memories and character continue.

Dreams are a perfect example, under this philosophy, of a different "body" one might experience. You are still the same metaphysical construct (intangible within that realm) but your body and manifestations are different.

2 Replies

@RealEyes,

RealEyes wrote:

Buddha did not say there is no self, simply that self is part of Maya; an illusion that prevents us from being one with the universe.

In the perfection of wisdom sutras the Buddha said that the skandhas have 'no characteristics'. He said that 'all' phenomena can be summed up as being the skandhas and all there is, is phenomena. Therefore the self which is by definition a characteristic is not part of the skandhas. The conclusion is that there is no 'truly existent' self, this self is only an imaginary construct of the skandhas... the truly existent self is an illusion.

If you don't recognise the perfection of wisdom sutras as the word of the Buddha or my interpretation of those sutras... that's fine by me.

My interpretation of the Buddha's Dharma is that there is no truly existent self. Many fellow Buddhists would agree with me and some would disagree.

2 Replies

@fresco,

fresco wrote:

The idea of "illusion of self" can start with observation of the "fragmentation of self" as an everyday experience. This mode of observation can clarified by meditational practice. (Those who would deny these observations might start by considering their "self-hood" on waking from a dream). The word "know" is superfluous to those familiar with these observations, and the word "proof" is irrelevant since it refers to a mode of thinking with axioms agreed between a group of "selves" which are ephemerally evoked and sustained by their own inter-dependence..

Its funny how axiomatic looking is your own claim on this...the contradiction is all to glaring...you bring up an explanation against the truth of some other explanations and against truth as a goal at large and yet your own beliefs intend a truth standard...they are presented as what ought to be "right" !
(I am sorry but even with all my good will it just doesn't seam intellectually honest)

2 Replies

@Fil Albuquerque,

It's interesting to see how most (if not all) religions create false ideas about the self.

0 Replies

@Fil Albuquerque,

Either you notice "disunity of self" or you do not. There are well argued psychological reasons involving the maintenance of "self-integrity" why such disunity can remain opaque or is actively denied. Since many of us recognize our contradictory facets it is hardly worth promoting such an observation to the status of "axiom". Nor is it an essential pre-requisite to a meditational dissolution of "self". It is merely one port of entry.

You seem to be stuck with a quest to point out potential contradictions in my "arguments". But the nature of my discourse is hopefully one of the tour guide who highlights salient features of a path through exploration of consciousness, rather than a claim that this is the only path, or that these are the only features. Nobody is obliged to take such a tour which can be disruptive to self preconceptions. In the words of one commentator, "they are content to stay asleep".

2 Replies

@fresco,

No Fresco I has addressing your second half and not the thematic of self per se...just contrasting it with your claim on knowledge and proof, which obviously subjects it to the same critique...

Quote:

The word "know" is superfluous to those familiar with these observations, and the word "proof" is irrelevant since it refers to a mode of thinking with axioms agreed between a group of "selves" which are ephemerally evoked and sustained by their own inter-dependence..

0 Replies

@RealEyes,

Quote:

Re: igm (Post 5247501)
This may have been covered before in previous replies.

Buddha did not say there is no self, simply that self is part of Maya; an illusion that prevents us from being one with the universe.

And there is absolutely no chance whatever that the Buddha could have been wrong about this, because...

.....

.....

?????

1 Reply

@igm,

Quote:

My interpretation of the Buddha's Dharma is that there is no truly existent self. Many fellow Buddhists would agree with me and some would disagree.

Christians might use the Bible or the words of Jesus as an authority for a Christian assertion of that sort.

It is a guess.

1 Reply

@fresco,

SOME TRANSLATIONS OF FRESCO'S COMMENTS:

Quote:

Re: Fil Albuquerque (Post 5306253)
Either you notice "disunity of self" or you do not.

Either you see there is a GOD...or you do not.

Quote:

There are well argued psychological reasons involving the maintenance of "self-integrity" why such disunity can remain opaque or is actively denied. Since many of us recognize our contradictory facets it is hardly worth promoting such an observation to the status of "axiom". Nor is it an essential pre-requisite to a meditational dissolution of "self". It is merely one port of entry.

You seem to be stuck with a quest to point out potential contradictions in my "arguments". But the nature of my discourse is hopefully one of the tour guide who highlights salient features of a path through exploration of consciousness, rather than a claim that this is the only path, or that these are the only features. Nobody is obliged to take such a tour which can be disruptive to self preconceptions. In the words of one commentator, "they are content to stay asleep".

And if you don't see things the way I do...it must be because you are unconscious.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

I specially like how he conveniently misses his own "truth" markers...its appalling !

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

He appears to be an intelligent person...and he certainly can write the way dumb people think smart people write...

...but he completely misses the point that almost all of his assertions are pure guesswork...based on nothing of substance...with the pretense that all of it is totally logical to people who are "not asleep."

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

You know, I would put up with his opinion as long he was careful enough to state it as an opinion, a personnel intuition, JLNobody does that elegantly to an extent, he is humble in his own beliefs...but Fresco even if more articulate sounds lobby all over...if anything he achieves the opposite effect...lets say at least some of his guesses might had some merit (not to my view)...the way he brings it about, full of certainty, followed by a severe attack on logic and truth is just so self inconsistent, that one can't help but fill outraged...

2 Replies

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

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know