[TineSeign]

Good morning

Many of the discussions (sometimes they look a lot like debates) on BWB and other Buddhist forums revolve around the question of dualism.

By dualism, I mean the idea that the mind exists independently from the brain. ("Dualism" can have other meanings. For this discussion, let's stick with the definition I give here.)

Dualists believe that consciousness might exist independently of the brain, perhaps before birth, through life, or after death. The idea of the soul is a dualist belief, for instance.

Non-dualists believe that consciousness cannot exist without a living brain, and disappear when the brain dies or becomes diseased.

Human beings, if not influenced by modern education and science, are almost always dualists. It's quite natural to believe in a soul for example.

Dualism is incompatible with modern science. Western philosophy used to be dualist, but it turned away from dualism in around the end of the 18th century and never looked back.

The Buddhism that Gautama Buddha taught is clearly dualistic. Hardly surprising. Everyone was a dualist back then.

Today, you can be a Buddhist non-dualist, but removing dualism changes Buddhist doctrine in many ways, obvious and subtle. The Dalai Lama has said on several occasions that he agrees with Western scientists on almost every point, except rebirth. He believes it, they don't. The Dalai Lama is a dualist.

With dualism, awakening is a spiritual phenomenon. Without dualism, awakening is merely a psychological or neurological phenomenon. In that case, the awakened state comes to an end when the brain and body die, and might come to an end when the brain is diseased or injured.

Without dualism, karma and rebirth are hard to justify. Without karma and rebirth, then the goal of practice ends with death, and we only have one lifetime to get it right.

With dualism, human beings can be perfected. Without dualism, human beings cannot be perfected. The brain is a fallible organ, just like the pancreas or stomach.

With dualism, Buddha taught timeless, transcendent truth. Without dualism, Buddha's brain was imperfect, just as all brains are imperfect. Buddha was really wise, compassionate and happy, but might have gotten some details wrong, or left some things out.

Dualist and non-dualistic Buddhists disagree on many points of doctrine, and agree on some. They agree that the bottom line is a remedy for suffering. They agree about the importance of practice, and how to practice. Dualistic and non-dualistic Buddhists often seem to be trying hard to agree-to-disagree. The alternative is a fundamental rift in Buddhism.

Some contemporary Buddhist teachers in the West seem to avoid the question of dualism. For example, I've been listening to dharma talks by Gil Fronsdal lately. As far as I can tell, he just doesn't go there.

Comments on dualism and non-dualism?

Subscribers -- are you a dualist, a non-dualist, undecided, or are you on the don't-ask-don't-tell plan?



Bopshibobshibop