Does self exist?

[mauviene]

A recent philosophical concept that is present within many eastern traditions is confusing me to a degree

That is does a self exist...or does labeling something as impermanent as this current consciousness as a self separate awareness from all which composes it and the true nature of no-self or abandonment from identification with illusion?

[simplify]

A recent philosophical concept that is present within many eastern traditions is confusing me to a degree

That is does a self exist...or does labeling something as impermanent as this current consciousness as a self separate awareness from all which composes it and the true nature of no-self or abandonment from identification with illusion?

The only self that exists is actually our false ego......beyond that is pure divine essence. When we identify with our ego, we create separateness from our true essence, that which is part of the I AM consciousness.Everything is impermanent & is subject to constant change, which is why we should never become attached to anything. Attachment binds us from freedom & happiness and can cause us much suffering. All of this is part of the illusory world that we live in, the world of duality which offers us many lessons so that we may transcend this ego identification & get off the wheel of rebirth.

[tracker]

A recent philosophical concept that is present within many eastern traditions is confusing me to a degree

That is does a self exist...or does labeling something as impermanent as this current consciousness as a self separate awareness from all which composes it and the true nature of no-self or abandonment from identification with illusion?


it depends really .

the "New Scientist" magazines recently made an article what self.

from what I can gather a large amount ws about the saying "I think therefor I am" accept instead of it being that , they said instead "I think --- feel --That I am".

also , a large part was based on the concept that our "MIND" and our "consciousness" were indeed separate.

IE
your consciousness ---------has a human attached to it , where --------when you say this , it is the human using the mind to say it ,acknowledging a greater concept -------------of "I" which really is the consciousness that uses the human to move around in.

also

that consciousness , lays half in and half out of the human being thus our consciousness is actually an external thing , something like that we call the soul .

hope this helps .

:cool:

[tortle]

The only self that exists is actually our false ego......beyond that is pure divine essence. When we identify with our ego, we create separateness from our true essence, that which is part of the I AM consciousness.Everything is impermanent & is subject to constant change, which is why we should never become attached to anything. Attachment binds us from freedom & happiness and can cause us much suffering. All of this is part of the illusory world that we live in, the world of duality which offers us many lessons so that we may transcend this ego identification & get off the wheel of rebirth.

I don't like the idea of not having a self. The whole losing your ego thing makes me think of being assimilated into a borg hive-mind. I prefer the idea of having an eternal independent fire within, an eternal self-aware identity that is your own.


I'll quote here 2 lines from a poem by Father Charles Moore:
Spiro, spiral, breathing spin
whirling world from within


I believe that the phrase "I Am that I Am" is a statement of self-reference, and self-awareness. It's like the eternal self-referential nature of the golden mean spiral. (The act of being self-aware of yourself being self-aware of yourself being self-aware of yourself ...repeated infinitely). When your identity is fully self-referential like this, then you become a golden spiral/vortex/tornado (the centering force), and then you are the mover and shaker, maker and creator.

Anyway, these are just some of my feelings, I admit that I could be wrong, but I think it's important to look at this from both sides.

.

[key_]

posted wrong

[mauviene]

The only self that exists is actually our false ego......beyond that is pure divine essence. When we identify with our ego, we create separateness from our true essence, that which is part of the I AM consciousness.Everything is impermanent & is subject to constant change, which is why we should never become attached to anything. Attachment binds us from freedom & happiness and can cause us much suffering. All of this is part of the illusory world that we live in, the world of duality which offers us many lessons so that we may transcend this ego identification & get off the wheel of rebirth.

Yea that resonates with me.

Self or illusion can be considered ego which is simply a construct of mind..but not mind itself, thus making it a ontological fallacy.

[mauviene]

it depends really .

the "New Scientist" magazines recently made an article what self.

from what I can gather a large amount ws about the saying "I think therefor I am" accept instead of it being that , they said instead "I think --- feel --That I am".

also , a large part was based on the concept that our "MIND" and our "consciousness" were indeed separate.

IE
your consciousness ---------has a human attached to it , where --------when you say this , it is the human using the mind to say it ,acknowledging a greater concept -------------of "I" which really is the consciousness that uses the human to move around in.

also

that consciousness , lays half in and half out of the human being thus our consciousness is actually an external thing , something like that we call the soul .

hope this helps .

:cool:

Ya that also sounds good to me. I feel like consciousness which is all and contains all animates these bodies which perceive separation in this limited construct of biological form or robot like contrivance.

Consciousness is indeed separate from the body as proven by many Projectors..though it is still not accepted in academia because many careers would be in ruin if it was..and many scientific models destroyed..(damn..even science is a business now).

But I like that idea of further transcendental bodies until consciousness unites with itself in full and in omniscience and omnipotence after its singular essence has learned about itself to the extent which allows unification once again.

[mauviene]

I don't like the idea of not having a self. The whole losing your ego thing makes me think of being assimilated into a borg hive-mind. I prefer the idea of having an eternal independent fire within, an eternal self-aware identity that is your own.

You have a semi-separate essence that you can label as "you" for practicality. This essence is said to go through rebirth until it learns that it is indeed not separate and but a generation of the one mind or what some call "god" (I use this word lightly because of the negative religious connotations tied with it) or divine intelligence which is you because you and it are of the same substance. So you as the absolute is also me as the absolute since we are both animated by the same eternal divine light or cosmic energy. In reality we are not separate and have no self.."we" our transient essences to experience this divine mind through different frames of reference until "we" finally decide to unify with the divine. (Think of Buddha-hood or Enlightenment in eastern traditions). Or..in the western traditions ascension through the astral realm and its higher counterparts progressing up to the source and the all.

But in fact humans are very hive minded and a society with such a basis would probably flourish better than one who sticks to the illusion of separation..since all action on this plane are either symbiotic or parasitic. (there all a few other classifications which I do not wish to list)

I'll quote here 2 lines from a poem by Father Charles Moore:



I believe that the phrase "I Am that I Am" is a statement of self-reference, and self-awareness. It's like the eternal self-referential nature of the golden mean spiral. (The act of being self-aware of yourself being self-aware of yourself being self-aware of yourself ...repeated infinitely). When your identity is fully self-referential like this, then you become a golden spiral/vortex/tornado (the centering force), and then you are the mover and shaker, maker and creator.

Anyway, these are just some of my feelings, I admit that I could be wrong, but I think it's important to look at this from both sides.



The I AM statement is not referring to a self being (which correlates to a past and a speculated future) but to the fact I as the absolute am all and am contained within all without a self and without form. So when gurus and I Amer's say this they are referring to the eternal formless I which is beyond human conception and has nothing to do with self.

[dhjana]

As for the most important, in terrms of Your post, i think is to define '''self'''. As David sometimes says :... yes everyone knowes that :-D. But... what do we talk about, before we start is, i think, the most important thing to establish, especially concidering something as important and touchy as this...

As long as it's not as easy to recognise as a spam egg, could You please give any definition of Yours - what do You mean by '''self'''?

[mauviene]

As for the most important, in terrms of Your post, i think is to define '''self'''. As David sometimes says :... yes everyone knowes that :-D. But... what do we talk about, before we start is, i think, the most important thing to establish, especially concidering something as important and touchy as this...

As long as it's not as easy to recognise as a spam egg, could You please give any definition of Yours - what do You mean by '''self'''?

What we call our selves which includes memories of the past, expectations of the future, and judgments of the now. This is the self and it is of a parasitic nature for it craves, fears, desires and loathes. This self is an illusion..for in consciousness, feeling, perceptions, emotions, etc, there is no measureability of self...it is a concept within language and has no empirical validity.

It is abstract and limiting..it is a set of words symbolizing the aforementioned.

[dhjana]

...it is a concept within language and has no empirical validity.

It is abstract and limiting..it is a set of words symbolizing the aforementioned.

No validity jet slill - limiting. That sounds quite like some kind of functioning, some kind of influence... If something is concidered a 'concept within language', then it's like any other 'concept within language' - compromised, but still having power, example: You and me using those compromised concepts, counting on achiveing something, eaven if not knowing what it would be. Therefor it can be a tool, by theory, second most powerfool one...

[metacomet]

I don't believe the concept of 'ourself' or 'myself' exists anywhere but these sort of realities.

We come here to inhabit specific bodies and portray personalities and characters we call the self, but when we leave this reality we will return to source consciousness where 'self' is no longer a boundary to our awareness, we become aware of all things as being 'us'.

[mauviene]

No validity jet slill - limiting. That sounds quite like some kind of functioning, some kind of influence... If something is concidered a 'concept within language', then it's like any other 'concept within language' - compromised, but still having power, example: You and me using those compromised concepts, counting on achiveing something, eaven if not knowing what it would be. Therefor it can be a tool, by theory, second most powerfool one...

Like time..it can be a useful concept for the organization of human bodies..but it is mere illusion. Unless of course someone has an argument for the existence of a self.

[dhjana]

Sorry for introducing an idea that could be concidered an argument, as i've no intention of argueing...;)

We 'talk' about it, therefor it exist (even illusion exist, although by it's means we can't percive, for some reason, the truth behind it, however it's existence, as covering the truth, means it's based within the truth). Yes i agree with defining 'self' as an illusion but then again isn't this illusion based on some rules, and if so, then it's true enough for/to anything else based on thoes rules?

[mauviene]

Sorry for introducing an idea that could be concidered an argument, as i've no intention of argueing...;)

We 'talk' about it, therefor it exist (even illusion exist, although by it's means we can't percive, for some reason, the truth behind it, however it's existence, as covering the truth, means it's based within the truth). Yes i agree with defining 'self' as an illusion but then again isn't this illusion based on some rules, and if so, then it's true enough for/to anything else based on thoes rules?


Yes we talk about ourselves, such as our qualities or what we want to do or wish to have. These are all based off of abstraction of what we see our body/personality to be like in reality (which we never actually see...we only perceive what our brain interprets as reality). We usually call this our self. It is only but a quality of thought, a storage of memories and judgments, expectations etc. Again the concept exists..but it is a mere quality of a more definite and empirical aspect of being and that would be thought. You can make rules for labels and conceptions of self. But in reality there is no self..there is consciousness..which includes perception of reality and other sensory faculties, emotions, thoughts ect. Self is a concept that is transitory and not an actual aspect of reality.

[dhjana]

I do not agree with Your argumentation, as to me it's not consequent enough, but i do agree with Your conclusions...

Thanx for conversation :)

[marpat]

If self doesnt exist then people cant really bitch about their rights being taken away from them. If you are nothing then nothing can be taken.

[mauviene]

If self doesnt exist then people cant really bitch about their rights being taken away from them. If you are nothing then nothing can be taken.

If time doesn't exist then people should stop using watches. But wait..time really doesn't exist empirically..it is a device to organize society. Such being the case self remains in the same category. It is an abstraction for social collaboration. The point is is not to identify with your legal name or abstract conception that you call self. Bodies exist..and each of those bodies deserve to express their uniqueness.

[dhjana]

Thou then who hast trials and troubles, rejoice because of them, for in them is Strength, and by their means is a pathway opened unto that Light-
Aleister Crowley, Liber Librae
To read a newspaper is to refrain from reading something worth while. The first discipline of education must therefore be to refuse resolutely to feed the mind with canned chatter. Aleister Crowley.

'Love is the law, love under will'. It's nice to read, or listen, but what is 'love', 'law', 'will'... ? Didn't you know A.C. was a part of the conspiracy...?!

[tortle]

I don't agree with the idea that we return like a drop of water into a sea of consciousness, that would mean we lose our identity and essentially become meaningless.

I believe that we still retain our core independent spirit, and that it is on a journey to observe and experience all levels of existence. I also believe that this core spirit is invulnerable to anything.

[arty2000]

K eep

I t

S imple

S tupendous

no labels...no boundries...no expectations...no what could have been...no should have been...no what ifs

the self doesnt know no...it just is

enjoy your journey:)

[marpat]

'Love is the law, love under will'. It's nice to read, or listen, but what is 'love', 'law', 'will'... ? Didn't you know A.C. was a part of the conspiracy...?!

Did you know that what you claim is crap and nothing but the fantasy of conspiracy theorists

If you cant comprehend things like law, love and will then you have not even started to develop.

[marpat]

If time doesn't exist then people should stop using watches. But wait..time really doesn't exist empirically..it is a device to organize society. Such being the case self remains in the same category. It is an abstraction for social collaboration. The point is is not to identify with your legal name or abstract conception that you call self. Bodies exist..and each of those bodies deserve to express their uniqueness.

But if their existance is illusory then who cares? time does exist in the physcial world. If you walk across a road it takes a specific period, it does not happen instantaneously.

Sounds like a load of escapism to me

[mauviene]

But if their existance is illusory then who cares? time does exist in the physcial world. If you walk across a road it takes a specific period, it does not happen instantaneously.

Sounds like a load of escapism to me

There is no such thing as time for the previous periods are but memories experienced in the present. You create concepts to function with transience. If you hold onto illusions that are transient and identify with their nature you loose understanding..and therefore salvation.


Escapism is hiding from the nature of your actions and of what reality is.

It is not realizing the fallacies of modern culture..and taking a step forward to resolve.

[danster82]

This isnt a recent concept its the most ancient and the message of all the religions and that is that the Self does NOT exist.

Its not you thats reading this its the reading thats reading.

[dhjana]

'No boundries' - love is a boundary as it's diferend then hate or even no emotion at all. No boundary means no boundary, not just within some specific assumptions...

The purest definition of so called 'self' would be 'I AM'. If so, then i agree it's an illusion, but again - isn't illusion an existing efect of delusion...?!

As for nature of delusion called 'time' - how long do you need to reed this...? Meaning of illusion is 'there's something diferent to what i percive', but still there's something to tell me that - so called illusion...

The meaning of journey is that there's something traveling, something, that can percive it self traveling... If there's 'self', 'travel' and 'experience of it all' how can this be considered '''simple''' otherwise then just to a '''simple''' mind...?