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

@igm,

Quote:

I would say actions arise in the enlightened due to the request of the unenlightened for advice on how to transcend the notion of self

That is the non-dualist’s version of the Christians, “If you pray hard enough, GOD will show himself to you.”

The skeptic’s version is: “You can talk yourself into anything you want to.”

Quote:

…and other and then the one who rests in the non-dual state but had formally made the vow to help those trapped by their dualist view, acts.

The problem I have is that I have to try to explain, obviously, using language which is dualistic. But maybe you get my drift. Buddhas have to act when asked due to the coming together of causes and conditions that must give rise to action. Should that not be the case then the enlightened being acts to maintain the causes that will make him/her ready to act… i.e. indirect actions. So eating, sleeping, etc…

This state (Buddhahood) is no different to our reality the difference is that Buddhas are free from viewing it as dualistic. They are happier and their happiness is unconditioned.

I am sure everyone here except the intentionally blind can see the Christian equivalent of this.

Quote:

Of course the reposte would be ‘prove it’.

I wouldn’t.

I would say “Simply show any tiny, unambiguous evidence that any of that stuff is real.”

0 Replies

Non-dualists use the words "the illusion" the way Christians use the words, "GOD" and "heaven."

I am beginning to understand why.

1 Reply

@igm,

igm wrote:

joefromchicago wrote:

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

To help others who want to travel the same path.

That sounds suspiciously like the kid who falls down and then, in response to the laughter of the onlookers, says "I meant to do that."

I'm sure the Buddha was a swell guy who only wanted to help his erring neighbor to the true path of enlightenment, but his basis for concluding that dualism is illusory isn't bolstered by his adherence to dualism in his daily life. More to the point, his position that non-dualism is true unless proven wrong is equally available to the skeptics who hold that dualism is true unless proven wrong. After all, if the Buddha won't be convinced that dualism is true until it is proven, how is he to persuade someone who won't be convinced that non-dualism is true until it is proven?

1 Reply

@joefromchicago,

Quote:

More to the point, his position that non-dualism is true unless proven wrong is equally available to the skeptics who hold that dualism is true unless proven wrong. After all, if the Buddha won't be convinced that dualism is true until it is proven, how is he to persuade someone who won't be convinced that non-dualism is true until it is proven?

I really like what you have to say Joe!...read the bold above, and you may see it like I do that it actually points more toward dualism itself...

0 Replies

@igm,

igm wrote:

So, the question is how do most people believe they themselves are? Without critical examination... many people would 'if pushed' say I was born, I live and I die, therefore I am permanent as long as I'm alive.. It's the same 'me' from birth to death.

Thanks for the clarification.
For me "permanent" does not usually imply a condition that is dependent on life-span. Adding the phrase permanent may be confusing if immortal is not what you mean.

igm wrote:

So when we set out to look for the' self' we look for anything that is within our body/mind that is permanent, singular and autonomous.

Maybe it would be clearer if you asserted that a 'self' is something that is continuous, singular and autonomous.

1 Reply

@fresco,

fresco wrote:

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.

I'll reflect some more on this... it's not the first time I've heard this.. Personally I'm not sure about it... like I said I'll have to think some more about an aspect of point '2'.

0 Replies

@igm,

igm wrote:

Doesn't it follow from what you've said that because Gurdjieff published books using his 'unawaken self', he contradicts your assertion?

I don't believe that he said or implied that Gurdjieff published books while in an 'unawakened' state. Are you presuming that someone in an 'awakened' state is unable to publish books? Even as you have already said ...

Quote:

Buddhas remain to help but they are just free of the dualistic ‘view’ it's not another place...

I think that this actually does point out some flawed reasoning regarding the Mahayana teaching that bodhisattvas (remain or return) from enlightenment as buddhas. It is a confusion of nirvana as some physically other place rather than as a realization of true being. There is no need to postpone enlightenment to help those "here", once enlightened you still remain "here" and would be in a better position to help.

3 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Frank Apisa wrote:

Non-dualists use the words "the illusion" the way Christians use the words, "GOD" and "heaven."

I think is more closely related to the way Christians use the words "evil" and "hell".

1 Reply

@igm,

Perhaps a simpler way of getting my point across is this:

If 'enlightenment' is is causing you to be dis-functional, then maybe you are doing it wrong.

1 Reply

@MattDavis,

Quote:

...flawed reasoning...

Since both "logical argument" and "location" have been superseded (even) in particle physics, it seems odd to evoke those concepts in a discussion of Buddhist claims of transcendence.

Surely the point is that those conclusions about "self" which come from "mindful practices" are experiential, not intellectual. To attempt to account for them in analytic terms is somewhat like trying to account for an appreciation of a piece of music in terms of acoustics.

1 Reply

@MattDavis,

MattDavis wrote:

igm wrote:
So, the question is how do most people believe they themselves are? Without critical examination... many people would 'if pushed' say I was born, I live and I die, therefore I am permanent as long as I'm alive.. It's the same 'me' from birth to death.

Thanks for the clarification.
For me "permanent" does not usually imply a condition that is dependent on life-span. Adding the phrase permanent may be confusing if immortal is not what you mean.

igm wrote:
So when we set out to look for the' self' we look for anything that is within our body/mind that is permanent, singular and autonomous.

Maybe it would be clearer if you asserted that a 'self' is something that is continuous, singular and autonomous.

Doesn't 'continuous have the same problem? Perhaps the term 'permanent' just needs to be qualified as: permanent means in the context of this discussion: the general notion that people have that it's the same person who is born, lives and dies and speculations about what happens after death are not a requirement in this context? So, people generally believe during i.e. ‘this life’, that they are permanent until they die, if they are not influenced by ideas put forward by religion or philosophy.

They of course understand that their bodies change and also their thoughts and emotions etc. but if they are not interested in thinking more deeply they just think or have the feeling that they are permanent until they die.

What do you think? I just want a working basis that will enable people to go through and see if any of these three can be found when one examines phenomena.

1 Reply

@MattDavis,

MattDavis wrote:

igm wrote:
Doesn't it follow from what you've said that because Gurdjieff published books using his 'unawaken self', he contradicts your assertion?

I don't believe that he said or implied that Gurdjieff published books while in an 'unawakened' state. Are you presuming that someone in an 'awakened' state is unable to publish books? Even as you have already said ...

Quote:
Buddhas remain to help but they are just free of the dualistic ‘view’ it's not another place...

I believe fresco implied this in his post on Gurdjieff; I merely pointed out that would be the consequence... later I believe fresco agreed by saying someone after Gurdjieff 'broke ranks'.

Perhaps I posted to you by mistake... but fresco certainly replied!

0 Replies

@MattDavis,

MattDavis wrote:

Perhaps a simpler way of getting my point across is this:

If 'enlightenment' is is causing you to be dis-functional, then maybe you are doing it wrong.

I'm sorry you've lost me... there's not enough in that statement to go on.. is it rhetorical?

1 Reply

@MattDavis,

Quote:

Quote:
Re: Frank Apisa (Post 5248976)
Frank Apisa wrote:

Non-dualists use the words "the illusion" the way Christians use the words, "GOD" and "heaven."

I think is more closely related to the way Christians use the words "evil" and "hell".

I am sure many different words could be used in that comparison. The point I was making was about asserting as TRUTH...what is only a guess.

0 Replies

@fresco,

Perhaps.
If it can be demonstrated that logical operators misbehave (disagree with observation) at a 'gross' level. If it is demonstrated that there is not a domain in which logical operators do behave (agree with observation).
[feel free to substitute the appropriate truth theory criterion that suits your fancy for "disagree with observation"]
- or -
That if such a domain does exist that this situation falls outside of it.

By analogy:
There are domains of phenomena in which Newtonian mechanics axioms behave quite well, even though they are not strictly "true" as evidenced by quantum mechanics and as evidenced by general relativity.

My suggestion is that there may be some objects in which some logical operations are valid.

0 Replies

@igm,

igm wrote:

MattDavis wrote:

Perhaps a simpler way of getting my point across is this:

If 'enlightenment' is is causing you to be dis-functional, then maybe you are doing it wrong.

I'm sorry you've lost me... there's not enough in that statement to go on.. is it rhetorical?

If (according to someone's view) full enlightenment makes one unable to function effectively within samsara (the implication given by presuming one must postpone enlightenment until others are enlightened), then perhaps that view of enlightenment is flawed.
The trend in stages of enlightenment, are that at each subsequent stage one becomes more effective in helping others. Why then presume that at that final stage one becomes ineffective?

1 Reply

So, in our search for the 'self' we have to discount a person's name because it is an arbitrary linguist designation. If we change our name then the 'self' is not changed.

If ordinary people i.e. those who do not wish to take on a particular religion of philosophy believe and would say ‘if pressed’ that they are permanent during this life (although their bodies and mind are constantly changing they remain the essentially the same) and they are singular (they think ‘I am’ not ‘we are’ in relation to themselves) and autonomous (they believe that they can decide free from other conditions to do this or that or not do this or that).Then let’s have a simple look for these attributes these characteristics. There are many other ways to look but these are three of them:
If the self was permanent and the body is impermanent then how could it reside in the body? Also, if it is separate from the body because it is permanent but the body that surrounds it is impermanent; then how could it know or interact with the body?

If it is singular that would make it 'partless' but everything we examine has parts so there is no evidence for 'partless' phenomena. For example every object has directions: north, south, east and west and each of this directions e.g. north has also got directions north, south, east and west etc. ad infinitum. The body is made from countless of parts

We can't find any 'autonomous' phenomena because if a certain set of causes and conditions are present then the effect 'must' arise e.g. if there is a healthy seed and moisture, warmth, light, air and soil and they come together in the correct way for the correct amount of time then there 'will' arise a shoot. So, wherever we look we can't find any phenomena that are autonomous. The body ‘works’ without the need for conscious thought e.g. heartbeat, breathing etc. etc. etc.

If the self requires the characteristics of being permanent, singular and autonomous where is the evidence for this...? No evidence can be found. To rely on a unsubstantiated belief in a truly existent self is unnecessary, and leads to being less happy than if we keep an 'open mind' about this and practice remaining free from the extreme of believing in a truly existent self when there is no evidence for one.

3 Replies

@MattDavis,

MattDavis wrote:

The trend in stages of enlightenment, are that at each subsequent stage one becomes more effective in helping others. Why then presume that at that final stage one becomes ineffective?

I don't. I believe one becomes more effective. Where did I say otherwise? This is not a retort but an - I may have said something I didn't intend... moment :^)

0 Replies

@igm,

Quote:

If the self requires the characteristics of being permanent, singular and autonomous where is the evidence for this...? No evidence can be found. To rely on a unsubstantiated belief in a truly existent self is unnecessary, and leads to being less happy than if we keep an 'open mind' about this and practice remaining free from the extreme of believing in a truly existent self when there is no evidence for one.

I sometimes wonder if you are just pulling our leg with posts like this.

"Naive realism" was the prevalent philosophical stance for ages. It was based on tons of "evidence" that there is "self" and that what you deem to be "the illusion" was not an illusion at all.

Now there are those who come along and claim it IS an illusion, based on no actual unambiguous evidence at all...and fault the other side for basing their position on no evidence.

If this is not a joke...it should be.

And the notion, which you persist in making that somehow you can simply state something and then the responsibility falls on your audience to show that it is incorrect...IS ABSURD. If someone were to do it to you, you would recoil from it as you would from a cobra.

I do not know if the REALITY is what we see and sense...or if all this is an illusion...or is something else that has to date not occurred to anyone.

I suspect you do not know either...just as I suspect that the Jehovah's Witnesses that ring my bell do not know either.

What makes you people think you are the ones who KNOW?

How can you feel comfortable characterizing your proselytization as leading people to the truth...or leading them away from error?

0 Replies

@igm,

igm wrote:

MattDavis wrote:

igm wrote:
So, the question is how do most people believe they themselves are? Without critical examination... many people would 'if pushed' say I was born, I live and I die, therefore I am permanent as long as I'm alive.. It's the same 'me' from birth to death.

Thanks for the clarification.
For me "permanent" does not usually imply a condition that is dependent on life-span. Adding the phrase permanent may be confusing if immortal is not what you mean.

igm wrote:
So when we set out to look for the' self' we look for anything that is within our body/mind that is permanent, singular and autonomous.

Maybe it would be clearer if you asserted that a 'self' is something that is continuous, singular and autonomous.

Doesn't 'continuous have the same problem? Perhaps the term 'permanent' just needs to be qualified as: permanent means in the context of this discussion: the general notion that people have that it's the same person who is born, lives and dies and speculations about what happens after death are not a requirement in this context? So, people generally believe during i.e. ‘this life’, that they are permanent until they die, if they are not influenced by ideas put forward by religion or philosophy.

They of course understand that their bodies change and also their thoughts and emotions etc. but if they are not interested in thinking more deeply they just think or have the feeling that they are permanent until they die.

What do you think? I just want a working basis that will enable people to go through and see if any of these three can be found when one examines phenomena.

I think that you are trying to slip in the term permanent without having to establish it as following naturally from a notion of self.
I think that you are grouping it along with singular and autonomous which do follow from the notion of a self in an effort to imply that permanence also follows naturally.
I am worried that you are perpetuating this confusion so that you can latter imply that an immortal 'self' follows naturally from a notion of a self.

If your future intent is to establish that 'self' is everlasting, I think you need to look more closely into a way of divorcing 'self' from the strictures of time.

1 Reply

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

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know