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

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.

The conclusion is that there is no 'truly existent' self, this self is only an imaginary construct of the skandhas

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

Re: Fil Albuquerque (Post 5306400)
You and Frank remind me of a couple of sailors on Columbus's ship who are scared of falling off the edge the earth. You seem to be claiming haven't spotted your self inconsistencies yet...your broken resolutions to yourself...your failures to keep a secret...your internal disputes...your self chastisements (what did I do that for ?) ....your impatient driver mode versus your indignant pedestrian mode....and especially those even more nebulous selves which occupy your dreams ! And was it not a latter day Frank who has produced a written statement on this very forum of his intention never to show his face here again !

Wake up the pair of you and acknowledge such common experiences of fragmentation ! They are quite normal and you merely look foolish if you deny them. You can dispute their significance of course as long as you understand that puts you in a similar intellectual category to the medieval sailor who denies the significance of the horizon never getting closer !

I'm just referencing Buddha and his school of thought. I'm making no truth claims here aside from indicating potential (logically consistent) truths based on conjectures. There is nothing to say Buddha was absolutely correct. But his mental propaganda was brilliant. The phrasing of "Don't believe what I say, don't believe what anyone says, unless it corresponds to your own sense of logic and reasoning" is so effective because it implements cognitive dissonance to help the rest of his material feel more agreeable.

The subconscious course of thought becomes: "I agree with that line. I agree with Buddha. I am a person who agrees with Buddha." This works against negative attitudes one may harbour when resisting Buddhism.

The psychology of belief is a very interesting topic.

So what does that do with the comment earlier of:


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.

This is the structure of that sentence:

Buddha did not say "A", instead Buddha said "B." [expands on concept of "B"]

And as a side note: yes, Buddha could be wrong.

The concepts within Buddhism are logically consistent, so from an epistemological pluralist perspective, I have no qualms utilizing the conjectures as possible truths.

The Buddha did not provide us with a logical argument; he recommended a method (meditation) as a means for achieving, what Fresco referred to as, "experiential understandings" of the fundamental reality of impermanence: the world consists of constantly changing processes rather than fixed things. No need to logically demonstrate this principle--just see its reality. You see it or you don't, somewhat like getting or failing to get a joke. Image trying to prove to someone that a joke is funny.

How does one learn anything without accepting some premise? How can you learn basic arithmetic without accepting the function of basic operations? And accept them as truth to some extent. Do you not have to accept the concept of a number line? Does this faith not lead to an understanding of physical phenoma after some study? If you were in 7th grade algebra and the teacher said that if A =B and B=C then. A= C would you say PROVE IT. What would it take to prove it?

Fragmentation of "self" questions common assumptions of its unity as "a thing". The experiential understanding of the transient nature of "all things" gives rise to usage of the word "illusion" with respect to their assumed observer independent existence.

The Buddha did not provide us with a logical argument; he recommended a method (meditation) as a means for achieving, what Fresco referred to as, "experiential understandings" of the fundamental reality of impermanence: the world consists of constantly changing processes rather than fixed things. No need to logically demonstrate this principle--just see its reality. You see it or you don't, somewhat like getting or failing to get a joke. Image trying to prove to someone that a joke is funny.