The Nature of Self

[Aaron]

Hello folks,

 

I recently read a post in another a thread that touched on the idea of self and it got me to thinking. As I've begun to learn about other philosophies and traditions, the one thing that seems inseparable, regardless of the religion or ideology is the concept of self. Whether you call it the ego, personality, or self-image, most religions seem to realize that the self, that part that is us is instrumental in understanding the underlying nature of reality. And why not? Isn't it true that the self is our vehicle for understanding?

 

But my question, the question that I'd like to answer is this, what is the true self? I understand using the word "true" might stir up a bit of debate, because some would question the notion of there even being a true self, but my use of the word isn't meant to indicate there is a definitive measure by which we can identify the self, but rather that there is an individual self that exists within us all, that cannot be denied or disproved. That, as Shakespeare once said, "I think, therefore I am."

 

If it was only that simple! Then again, maybe it is. One thing that I've learned in the last few years, especially examining Eastern religions is that we attach a great deal of our problems on this notion of self. It is this idea that our personal experience causes us pain that causes many of us to want to eradicate this self in the hopes that it will somehow end suffering. I think that it is our misunderstanding of the nature of self, the true self, that misguides us, that leads us to view the world in this dualistic way, that somehow there must be good and bad, self and no-self, that opposites are separate, rather than interconnected.

 

Of course that is a topic for another discussion, but it still is important to consider, especially since it is the painful experience of being that is instrumental in causing us to misinterpret the true nature of existence. Isn't it true, as Faisal touched on elsewhere, that our self, the ego self, that part that allows us to interact with the world, is constantly trying to understand the present by identifying it with the past? Isn't it true that our experiences in childhood our the road map to how we experience things today?

 

If this is true, then it can be said that our self, that part we identify as us, is not simply who we are today, but who we have been from the very moment we conceived of ourselves. We are as much today the child we were as we are the person we are. Then isn't it just as true that unless we understand who we were, we can't understand who we are? Can't we see the way we react to things in the way we interacted with them in the past?

 

So here lies the question, if we are not simply our selves today, but our selves as we have always been, can we really simply understand ourselves by examining who we are now? And even if we do understand who we were and are, is that enough to truly understand the nature of self, at least the mind-ego-self? Isn't there more to it?

 

Since I was a teenage I've always believed we are made up of three things, the body, mind, and soul. For me the mind is very much the ego self, that part of us that we identify as self, the part that seems to exist within the seat of the mind, the part that examines the world around us and identifies our place within that world, that is the part that I've been discussing. Yet I do believe there are other parts, parts that are just as much our self as this is.

 

The body self is perhaps the most misunderstood of all, because we are under the misguided notion that somehow it is not in our control. Even though we might hold our breath, we at some level believe that we are merely drivers in a vehicle, that much like we drive a car, we can steer it, cause it go where we want, fill it with fuel, but ultimately we have no control over what it is. The notion that we are the vehicle is absurd to us, it's like saying just because we are holding the steering wheel, that somehow we are the car. No! The car is an extension of us, at best, but even that's going overboard. Really we are nothing more than drivers. We can care and maintain the car, use it to take us where we need to go, but ultimately the car is a thing that can give up on us at any moment.

 

When you think about it, it seems to make sense. After all our body grows but we don't make it grow. Our heart beats, but we don't make it beat. It's not like we consciously cause it to beat, if we did, perhaps it would make much more sense to us, but therein lies the lie.

 

We do cause our body to grow, just as we cause our heart to beat. If we get excited doesn't our heart skip a beat. If we suffer too much anxiety wont our hair fall out, our our blood pressure rise? Doesn't this mean that on some level, a level that we aren't even aware of, that we do control these things? Do we really need to be aware of the fact that we cause these things to occur to prove that we make them occur? So if we do actually control these things, doesn't it make sense that we are every bit our actual body? That our body is not a vessel for the mind, but the actual mind? Doesn't it make sense that we are our fingernails, our toes and hair and even our skin? If that's true then can we really see the mind as separate from the body? Doesn't it make more sense that they are one and that it's this notion of individuation, the soul's influence on our desire to understand it's place that causes us to view ourselves as separate.

 

Could it not be the fault of that third part of us, the soul that really causes this malady of misunderstanding in the first place? And doesn't it make sense that it would do this? The soul, of the three, is the most out of place. The soul transcends, even as it coexists. It cannot touch or smell. It cannot reason or understand, rather it carries the weight of existence within it's being, and it's that weight that leads it to feel separate, to somehow equate what we understand as being unreal or at the very least, unsatisfactory.

 

It is the soul that leads us to believe there is more to everything, because it is more, yet it cannot cry out and tell us what it needs, because it has no voice. It cannot poke us, because it has no finger, it cannot lament because it has no conscious, instead it prods the very remote parts of our being, with ethereal tendrils unmeasurable by science. It propels the two to seek what the third cannot seek on its own. It propels the two to reconcile the existence of the third, to answer why it is there and what it is there for, even if it on some level it already knows.

 

If this is true then doesn't it make sense that if we are our mind and body and they are the same that we are just as much our soul and that the soul is the same as well? If this is true then isn't the notion of individuation absurd? It's like saying we are three people instead of one, that we are a body and a mind and a soul, but if that's true, then how can a body, a mind, and a soul exist separately? They can't! The body, mind, and soul are the same, it is only the fact that we are trapped in this mind awareness, this belief that we are passengers that prevents us from relating to all three and understanding that all three are one.

 

My soul is as real as I am. It is the part of me that yearns for something without answer. The part that recognizes something is wrong, even though I don't know why. It is not the unconscious, but very much awakened and watching. It cannot say in words what is wrong, nor logically deduce how to solve the problem, yet it intuitively knows when something is not right and lets us know. The fact that I cannot point it out to you or take it out like a shiny watch and show it to you, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. It would be nice to hold it up to your ear and say, "listen, can you hear it tick?" But then, perhaps you can hear it tick.

 

The weight of the world resides on the soul. That doesn't mean that it is awash in guilt or sorrow, but rather that it is the piece of you that exists within all other things, it is the part of you that connects you to me and me to you. It is the part that exists within the pebbles on the sidewalk and the water at the beach. It is the nature of everything that exists, the piece that allows everything to exist as it does, yet unless it pushes us, we never notice it.

 

This is the true nature of self. The nature that exists within us. We are body-mind-soul. Even though my body and mind do not touch you, my soul does. Even though my body-mind are every bit a part of this universe, what really connects me to you, the part that is undoubtedly you is that part that exists within each of us at the same time. The soul is that part that seeks individuation, not because it believes it's separate, but rather because it knows it's connected and that only by working as individuals can the whole exist as it does.

 

This illusion of self is not a punishment, but a requirement for existence. It is only by understanding our own place within the grand totality of existence that we can do our part within that existence. The soul keeps us going, keeps us seeking, but it never answers us, because the answer is already there. It's there in this moment and the next. It was there the moment we conceived our place in the world.

 

If I made one mistake in this lifetime, it was falling for this notion that self does not exist. That there is a no-self. That idea is not only false, but it is perhaps the most misleading notion of all. We exist as self. The universe is our physical self. Just as the tiny bacteria in our stomach that is necessary for us to digest food is a part of us, we are a part of the universe. Just as the mind is necessary to direct the body, the soul is necessary to direct the mind.

 

We are body-mind-spirit, not a separation of three, but one. If you took away the body, the mind and spirit would not be self, just as if you took away the mind or spirit there would be no self. All three define who we are. In the end we are really all one being, yet we are really separate selves. That is the beauty of it all. I am you, but I am me! There is a totality, but there is also the beauty of individuality. I don't need to be exactly like you, nor you like me. We are all one thing, the universe, but we are parts of that universe as well.

 

Anyways, I probably made this a bit longer than it needed to be, but it was a realization that I wanted to share. I would love to hear your own thoughts. Please remember to be kind and compassionate.

 

Aaron

Edited April 30, 2011 by Twinner

[Marblehead]

Yes Aaron,

 

You made that post much too long for an opening post.

 

Makes it difficult for a reader to respond because there is just so much to respond to.

 

I like the way Lao Tzu and Chuang Tzu handle this question by using "self" as the physical being and how we interact with others and use "Self" to define our inner essence (perhaps spirituality) and our 'true nature'.

 

No, I cannot put a finger on "I" and say this is me.

 

And it is true that part of what I am is how others view me because if those others and I meet they will interact with me according to how they view me.

 

I am. To go further than that is walking on shaky ground.

[Aaron]

Hi Marblehead,

 

I never really thought Lao Tzu or Chuang Tzu addressed the issue of self, rather they addressed the issue of self examination. I know that later Taoist philosophers addressed the issue and that as Taoism began to adopt Buddhist concepts the ego became a major focus in Taoism, but prior to that I think self was not a big topic.

 

With that said, if you could point out the passages from the Tao Teh Ching and Chuang Tzu that address self, I'd greatly appreciate it. I wouldn't mind getting a Taoist perspective on this topic.

 

Aaron

[Simple_Jack]

.

Edited February 5, 2014 by Simple_Jack

[doc benway]

Much can be and has been said about the nature of self. It's all words and words will never be satisfactory.

It's fascinating that the "I" being a self feels compelled to try and use words and thoughts to "understand" what "I" is.

Why can't the self just be what it is and be satisfied with that? I'm not being critical, I'm genuinely interested in what it is that motivates us to engage in this inquiry. I suspect it is a tendency of human thought to not be satisfied with being but rather needing a verbal or ideological equivalent that it can observe. I think this tendency has been extremely effective in our survival and therefore selected for by (shudder) evolutionary progress.

 

This is a core concept of Buddhist and Hindu thought. The Daoists seem to see through this question and recognize it is enough to be the self without having to "understand" what that is. Also, much of Buddhist teaching (especially Chan and Zen traditions) is directed at encouraging the student to be what they are rather than try and understand it in rational terms.

This is addressed often with responses like - can the knife cut itself? can the eye see itself? can the tooth bite itself? can the "I" know itself?

 

I'm not going to bore anyone with what I think it is or what I feel myself to be because my experience is nothing more than that - my experience. It will be nothing more than inadequate words used to try and describe something beyond words and concepts.

 

If you are truly interested in what the self is, an investigation can be undertaken and is very challenging and arduous. Check out Sri Ramana Maharshi and Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj. Also, Jiddu Krishnamurti is a good resource for an examination of self albeit from a very different perspective that is a bit less direct.

 

Good luck with your search.

Edited April 30, 2011 by steve f

[Aaron]

Much can be and has been said about the nature of self. It's all words and words will never be satisfactory.

It's fascinating that the "I" being a self feels compelled to try and use words and thoughts to "understand" what "I" is.

Why can't the self just be what it is and be satisfied with that? I'm not being critical, I'm genuinely interested in what it is that motivates us to engage in this inquiry. I suspect it is a tendency of human thought to not be satisfied with being but rather needing a verbal or ideological equivalent that it can observe. I think this tendency has been extremely effective in our survival and therefore selected for by (shudder) evolutionary progress.

 

This is a core concept of Buddhist and Hindu thought. The Daoists seem to see through this question and recognize it is enough to be the self without having to "understand" what that is. Also, much of Buddhist teaching (especially Chan and Zen traditions) is directed at encouraging the student to be what they are rather than try and understand it in rational terms.

This is addressed often with responses like - can the knife cut itself? can the eye see itself? can the tooth bite itself? can the "I" know itself?

 

I'm not going to bore anyone with what I think it is or what I feel myself to be because my experience is nothing more than that - my experience. It will be nothing more than inadequate words used to try and describe something beyond words and concepts.

 

If you are truly interested in what the self is, an investigation can be undertaken and is very challenging and arduous. Check out Sri Ramana Maharshi and Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj. Also, Jiddu Krishnamurti is a good resource for an examination of self albeit from a very different perspective that is a bit less direct.

 

Good luck with your search.

 

Hello Steve F,

 

I think one of the points I was trying to make is exactly the opposite of the one you're trying to make. There is no no-self. The idea that one should not examine what they are or who they are in relation to the universe is absurd to me. One thing that absolutely baffles me is this repeated attempt by religions to denigrate the self in order to push forth an idea of self that seem satisfactory to said religions. The ego or self is not sinful, rather it is very much what it is.

 

There is nothing wrong with someone attempting to explain what the self is. Buddhism and Zen in particular, seem to be founded on this inherent idea that we are somehow wrong and only by deconstructing what we are can we make ourselves right. My question is why? Honestly I have yet to hear a valid reason for why. There's a lot of moralism and agendas involved in the perception of self, because ultimately how one can influence another's view of self will determine the amount of control they have over them.

 

 

Aaron

 

edit- I should elaborate and explain that I am not responding directly to your argument, but to the basis for which much of your argument is made in regards to Buddhist, Taoist, and Hindu philosophy.

Edited April 30, 2011 by Twinner

[Aaron]

You know, in China, even Lao Tzu, Chuang Tzu, Confucius, Lei Tzu and others are considered being enlightened by "Buddhist" standards.

 

Many of the highest concepts that were brought by Buddhism to China, were already inherent in their culture/existing philosophies.

 

There have been commentaries by some Zen masters on the Tao Te Ching and other classics, in the Sinosphere.

 

For example, Thomas Cleary recently translated a commentary on Lao Tzu's Tao Te Ching by Zen master Takuan Soho of Japan:

 

http://www.amazon.com/Tao-Te-Ching-Teachings-Classic/dp/1590308964

 

 

Hello Jack,

 

One of the points I'm trying to make (and I understand you probably didn't read my post, it was quite lengthy, so you might have missed it,) is that the ego is very much a part of who we are and that the notion that one must be free of ego or destroy the ego in order to achieve enlightenment is not only silly but absolutely wrong. The other point I'm trying to make is that we are connected to each other, not on one level, but multiple levels. We are connected physically, mentally, and spiritually to each other and it is only when we become aware, not just intellectually, but experientially, that we are truly awakened.

 

I mentioned this in my reply to Steve and I'll repeat it here. There is this recurring theme in many religions that the self is somehow sinful and bad and that only by cleansing it, either through absolution or deconstruction can we make it right. My argument and belief is that there is nothing inherently wrong with the self or this notion of separation and individuality, rather it is necessary and natural for us to understand the world in this way. In fact enlightenment, regardless of who it is, does not destroy the ego or self, because it cannot be destroyed, at least not so long as our bodies breathe and we can think. There has never been an enlightened person that has destroyed their ego, it's malarkey. I use the example of the enlightened head monk who argued for money to go to a baseball game, and the other enlightened monk who, upon receiving an important appointment stood up in front of everyone and exclaimed, "I want a wife." Inconsolable he hung himself shortly after.

 

My point is that I could find you story after story like this. As westerners we are under this mistaken notion that enlightenment somehow removes character defects, when it doesn't, in fact it may exacerbate them. Reaching an awakened state or awareness of the nature of the universe, does not mean we've destroyed that part of us that we call the ego, nor does it mean that we have escaped the mortal bondage of emotions, at best it means we can view these things objectively and rationally examine them.

 

Anyways, that's how I feel about it. I don't mean to disrespect anyone's particular beliefs, but I do feel that this is an important topic that many people ignore or misunderstand, hence the reason for my posting of it.

 

 

Aaron

Edited April 30, 2011 by Twinner

[doc benway]

Hello Steve F,

 

I think one of the points I was trying to make is exactly the opposite of the one you're trying to make. There is no no-self. The idea that one should not examine what they are or who they are in relation to the universe is absurd to me. One thing that absolutely baffles me is this repeated attempt by religions to denigrate the self in order to push forth an idea of self that seem satisfactory to said religions. The ego or self is not sinful, rather it is very much what it is.

 

There is nothing wrong with someone attempting to explain what the self is. Buddhism and Zen in particular, seem to be founded on this inherent idea that we are somehow wrong and only by deconstructing what we are can we make ourselves right. My question is why? Honestly I have yet to hear a valid reason for why. There's a lot of moralism and agendas involved in the perception of self, because ultimately how one can influence another's view of self will determine the amount of control they have over them.

 

 

Aaron

 

edit- I should elaborate and explain that I am not responding directly to your argument, but to the basis for which much of your argument is made in regards to Buddhist, Taoist, and Hindu philosophy.

Interesting, I think you are either misunderstanding me or making assumptions that are inaccurate. I never said that one should not examine themselves, nor do the traditions I mentioned. Deep and committed self examination is the only way to know what you are. I'm not pushing any particular view of self and I agree with you that there is nothing sinful about it. It is what it is - certainly. Something to remember is that it is also a source of much suffering - hence the admonition of self-examination. Remember that the Buddha's stimulus to examining self and other was to find the cause of suffering and attempt to relieve it at it's source.

 

I agree that there is nothing wrong with trying to explain what the self is. You are welcome to spend all the time doing that you like. I would assert that your attempts at explanation will never be satisfactory. The self is beyond rational comprehension and verbal or ideological encapsulation. There is no reason to deconstruct the self intellectually but if you examine yourself deeply over time, you will see through the many layers of conditioning and it will all come apart at the seems to reveal the core. In fact, what is an examination of something without some level of deconstruction? Don't we need to see the parts and how they interact and integrate to form the whole?

 

The self that you are referring to is a composite of all of your life experience, conditioning, socialization, education, and emotions, not to mention a genetic expression of previous generations of the same. As you peel that away, layer by layer, you eventually reach the truth that is beyond words and concepts. I genuinely believe that we are taking the same approach. You must deeply examine the self. Look at everything you do and think and feel. Where does it come from? What is it's purpose? Why this particular reaction and not another? That is the way to understand. But to try and put all of that into some coherent explanation or rationalization? Good luck!

[Otis]

Hi Aaron,

 

Thank you for sharing your views on the nature of "self". Although I have some different metaphors for some of what you described, I agree with most of what you wrote.

 

In particular, I like that you emphasize that mind/body/spirit are merely different views of the same organism. Each describes a different part of the blind man's elephant, as it were. Different aspects, but just one elephant.

[Otis]

There is this recurring theme in many religions that the self is somehow sinful and bad and that only by cleansing it, either through absolution or deconstruction can we make it right. My argument and belief is that there is nothing inherently wrong with the self or this notion of separation and individuality, rather it is necessary and natural for us to understand the world in this way. In fact enlightenment, regardless of who it is, does not destroy the ego or self, because it cannot be destroyed, at least not so long as our bodies breathe and we can think.

I agree with you, Aaron about the unfortunate tendency of religion to say: "don't trust your self. Your self is inherently sinful, and only through divine intercession (or lots of practice in our method) can the self be redeemed." In particular, I dislike the concept that inner guidance is inherently wrong, and only external guidance (a method and/or deity) can lead to peace and freedom.

 

I do see the ego as being a neurosis, however, rather than an actual thing. IMO, ego is an illusion of the language parts of the brain, thinking of themselves as the self. This is a neurosis, because there is a lot more to the brain (perhaps what you refer to as the soul), such as inspiration and compassion, that are powerful, but which don't directly speak in words. They present ideas in other forms, but the language-centric parts of the brain often don't listen, because thoughts in language are so compelling and vivid, and crowd out all the rest.

 

That doesn't make the ego "sinful" except in the meaning of "to miss the mark". Since ego is enamored with concepts and with simulacra, it misses much of what is possible and available to the whole organism, should the ego quiet down and be patient.

 

That also doesn't mean that ego needs to be "killed". But I do think there's a great advantage in doubting the stories from the ego, because it is highly conditioned, and thus, warps my view of the immediate. And I think it's worthwhile training the ego to stop taking itself so seriously, and let other (non-language) points of view be heard.

[Aaron]

I agree with you, Aaron about the unfortunate tendency of religion to say: "don't trust your self. Your self is inherently sinful, and only through divine intercession (or lots of practice in our method) can the self be redeemed." In particular, I dislike the concept that inner guidance is inherently wrong, and only external guidance (a method and/or deity) can lead to peace and freedom.

 

I do see the ego as being a neurosis, however, rather than an actual thing. IMO, ego is an illusion of the language parts of the brain, thinking of themselves as the self. This is a neurosis, because there is a lot more to the brain (perhaps what you refer to as the soul), such as inspiration and compassion, that are powerful, but which don't directly speak in words. They present ideas in other forms, but the language-centric parts of the brain often don't listen, because thoughts in language are so compelling and vivid, and crowd out all the rest.

 

That doesn't make the ego "sinful" except in the meaning of "to miss the mark". Since ego is enamored with concepts and with simulacra, it misses much of what is possible and available to the whole organism, should the ego quiet down and be patient.

 

That also doesn't mean that ego needs to be "killed". But I do think there's a great advantage in doubting the stories from the ego, because it is highly conditioned, and thus, warps my view of the immediate. And I think it's worthwhile training the ego to stop taking itself so seriously, and let other (non-language) points of view be heard.

 

 

Hello Otis,

 

I agree with you too. The nature of neurosis resides within the ego, it has to, since the ego is our self interacting with the physical world around us. My belief is that neurosis is a result of our ego evolving unnaturally. If our ego was allowed to become what it is supposed to be without the influences of society, conditioning, or whatever you want to call it, then it would be free of these things. My point is that, no matter how hard we try, we cannot undo to the past. Our egos became what they became and even ultimately understanding our original nature doesn't undo that. This is the reason why Buddhism, Hinduism, Taoism and ultimately all religions and philosophies fail, because they believe by touching that original spark, what we were before we were, that somehow it remove all that we are and it doesn't.

 

The only people that will ever be free of neurosis are those lucky enough to be born and live as they were originally intended. We can achieve that, if we can understand what needs to be done and allow it to be done, at least for our children, but we cannot cure something that is not a disease, but a course of evolution that has had its way. This may seem discouraging, but it shouldn't be. Even though we cannot cure the ego, by understanding our original nature we can begin to act more in line with it. The more we learn to act in line with it, the less those unnatural processes that we have learned can be diminished. The problem is that they can never be completely eliminated, even if one doesn't act upon them. They will arise and we can watch them arise and let them go, but they will always be there, because they exist, not only in our conscious self, but our physical self, the cells within our brain that stores all of our experiences.

 

The ancient Buddhists didn't have the benefit of modern medicine. They had no way of knowing that our memories could not be undone, that our personality and self was written in stone (or brain cells), so for them there was a way to overcome it. There is substantial evidence to support that enlightenment, even at its highest form does not remove suffering, because it does not remove the self. Deconstructing the self only allows us to understand the original nature, not rewrite it.

 

Anyways, I appreciate your comments and I hope life is treating you well.

 

Aaron

Edited April 30, 2011 by Twinner

[Marblehead]

Hi Marblehead,

 

I never really thought Lao Tzu or Chuang Tzu addressed the issue of self, rather they addressed the issue of self examination. I know that later Taoist philosophers addressed the issue and that as Taoism began to adopt Buddhist concepts the ego became a major focus in Taoism, but prior to that I think self was not a big topic.

 

With that said, if you could point out the passages from the Tao Teh Ching and Chuang Tzu that address self, I'd greatly appreciate it. I wouldn't mind getting a Taoist perspective on this topic.

 

Aaron

 

Hi Aaron,

 

Lin Yutang's Chapter 13 is a good example:

 

 

13. Praise and Blame

 

"Favor and disgrace cause one dismay;

What we value and what we fear are within our Self."

 

What does this mean:

"Favor and disgrace cause one dismay?"

Those who receive a favor from above

Are dismayed when they receive it,

And dismayed when they lose it.

 

What does this mean:

"What we value and what we fear are within our self?"

We have fears because we have a self.

When we do not regard that self as Self,

What have we to fear?

 

Therefore he who values the world as his self

May then be entrusted with the government of the world;

And he who loves the world as his self -

The world may then be entrusted to his care.

 

Note the cap "S" in line 11. Lower case "s" is the body and ego, the cap "S" is our inner essence (our true Self).

 

I won't look up anything from Chuang Tzu right now but if you wish to continue this discussion I will do the searches.

[C T]

 

 

I agree with you too. The nature of neurosis resides within the ego, it has to, since the ego is our self interacting with the physical world around us. My belief is that neurosis is a result of our ego evolving unnaturally. If our ego was allowed to become what it is supposed to be without the influences of society, conditioning, or whatever you want to call it, then it would be free of these things. My point is that, no matter how hard we try, we cannot undo to the past. Our egos became what they became and even ultimately understanding our original nature doesn't undo that. This is the reason why Buddhism, Hinduism, Taoism and ultimately all religions and philosophies fail, because they believe by touching that original spark, what we were before we were, that somehow it remove all that we are and it doesn't.

 

The only people that will ever be free of neurosis are those lucky enough to be born and live as they were originally intended. We can achieve that, if we can understand what needs to be done and allow it to be done, at least for our children, but we cannot cure something that is not a disease, but a course of evolution that has had its way. This may seem discouraging, but it shouldn't be. Even though we cannot cure the ego, by understanding our original nature we can begin to act more in line with it. The more we learn to act in line with it, the less those unnatural processes that we have learned can be diminished. The problem is that they can never be completely eliminated, even if one doesn't act upon them. They will arise and we can watch them arise and let them go, but they will always be there, because they exist, not only in our conscious self, but our physical self, the cells within our brain that stores all of our experiences.

 

The ancient Buddhists didn't have the benefit of modern medicine. They had no way of knowing that our memories could not be undone, that our personality and self was written in stone (or brain cells), so for them there was a way to overcome it. There is substantial evidence to support that enlightenment, even at its highest form does not remove suffering, because it does not remove the self. Deconstructing the self only allows us to understand the original nature, not rewrite it.

 

Anyways, I appreciate your comments and I hope life is treating you well.

 

Aaron

Religion does not fail. Failure to understand it for what it is - a tool that can be used for transformation, is the root cause of ignorance surrounding the subject. In short, people fail, not religious systems. Unfortunately, and more often than not, the drivers at the helm of most religions, being of flesh and blood, are also prone to shortcomings. Misguided use of tools, no matter what form they take, be it physical or spiritual, is potentially hazardous.

 

Of course Enlightened beingness does not remove suffering. The fact of the matter is that ultimately all suffering is self-created thru attachments and aversions. One of the fruits of enlightenment is the ability to see clearly, to have deep insights into the nature of things. When things are seen insightfully, there arises a realization that there is indeed suffering, but there is no 'self-existing Self' that suffers. The practice of mindful attention unveils that which masks the fact that suffering, or freedom from it, are both fundamentally empty of independent existence. This does not mean they do not exist, or that they do - it simply points to the fact that how we think, speak and act create the conditions that bring about, or causes the arising of either states.

 

Is it safe to say that within suffering lies the seed of freedom, and within freedom lies the seed of sorrowful enslavement? Often, its the attempts made at trying to avoid one, at the same time trying to grasp after the other that brings about dissatisfaction (or in Sanskrit, a more apt word to apply here is dukkha, which means unsatisfactoriness). Therefore, it can be learned, through meditative introspection and contemplation, that there is neither personal suffering, nor is there personal emancipation. There are thoughts, no thinker. Speech, no speaker. Actions, but no 'one' acting. This 'one' can only come about if there is an independent self, one that depends on nothing to exist.

Edited May 1, 2011 by CowTao

[Aaron]

Hi Aaron,

 

Lin Yutang's Chapter 13 is a good example:

 

 

13. Praise and Blame

 

"Favor and disgrace cause one dismay;

What we value and what we fear are within our Self."

 

What does this mean:

"Favor and disgrace cause one dismay?"

Those who receive a favor from above

Are dismayed when they receive it,

And dismayed when they lose it.

 

What does this mean:

"What we value and what we fear are within our self?"

We have fears because we have a self.

When we do not regard that self as Self,

What have we to fear?

 

Therefore he who values the world as his self

May then be entrusted with the government of the world;

And he who loves the world as his self -

The world may then be entrusted to his care.

 

Note the cap "S" in line 11. Lower case "s" is the body and ego, the cap "S" is our inner essence (our true Self).

 

I won't look up anything from Chuang Tzu right now but if you wish to continue this discussion I will do the searches.

 

I think you might be misinterpreting this chapter. It's not advocating any specific definition of self, but rather that one should care as much about others as he does himself. This chapter really doesn't touch on the idea of self or ego, but rather the idea of compassion and stewardship to the world.

 

Aaron

[Aaron]

Religion does not fail. Failure to understand it for what it is - a tool that can be used for transformation, is the root cause of ignorance surrounding the subject. In short, people fail, not religious systems. Unfortunately, and more often than not, the drivers at the helm of most religions, being of flesh and blood, are also prone to shortcomings. Misguided use of tools, no matter what form they take, be it physical or spiritual, is potentially hazardous.

 

Of course Enlightened beingness does not remove suffering. The fact of the matter is that ultimately all suffering is self-created thru attachments and aversions. One of the fruits of enlightenment is the ability to see clearly, to have deep insights into the nature of things. When things are seen insightfully, there arises a realization that there is indeed suffering, but there is no 'self-existing Self' that suffers. The practice of mindful attention unveils that which masks the fact that suffering, or freedom from it, are both fundamentally empty of independent existence. This does not mean they do not exist, or that they do - it simply points to the fact that how we think, speak and act create the conditions that bring about, or causes the arising of either states.

 

Is it safe to say that within suffering lies the seed of freedom, and within freedom lies the seed of sorrowful enslavement? Often, its the attempts made at trying to avoid one, at the same time trying to grasp after the other that brings about dissatisfaction (or in Sanskrit, a more apt word to apply here is dukkha, which means unsatisfactoriness). Therefore, it can be learned, through meditative introspection and contemplation, that there is neither personal suffering, nor is there personal emancipation. There are thoughts, no thinker. Speech, no speaker. Actions, but no 'one' acting. This 'one' can only come about if there is an independent self, one that depends on nothing to exist.

 

Hello Cowtao,

 

I've read what you've posted, but I wont have time to get back to it til later. Check here for an edit or if it's a lot later, I'll just write another post. I just wanted you to know that this is my own personal opinion. I'm not discouraging people from following a religious tradition, but rather stating my opinion regarding their shortcomings.

 

Aaron

Edited May 1, 2011 by Twinner

[Dagon]

I could tell you, but without the door the key is useless.

 

This is a question that you get to choose at the end of the road. Not everyone's answer is the same, because the door that they took may not be the one you will choose to take.

 

Put this question aside for now.

[Otis]

The nature of neurosis resides within the ego, it has to, since the ego is our self interacting with the physical world around us. My belief is that neurosis is a result of our ego evolving unnaturally. If our ego was allowed to become what it is supposed to be without the influences of society, conditioning, or whatever you want to call it, then it would be free of these things. My point is that, no matter how hard we try, we cannot undo to the past. Our egos became what they became and even ultimately understanding our original nature doesn't undo that. This is the reason why Buddhism, Hinduism, Taoism and ultimately all religions and philosophies fail, because they believe by touching that original spark, what we were before we were, that somehow it remove all that we are and it doesn't.

 

The only people that will ever be free of neurosis are those lucky enough to be born and live as they were originally intended. We can achieve that, if we can understand what needs to be done and allow it to be done, at least for our children, but we cannot cure something that is not a disease, but a course of evolution that has had its way. This may seem discouraging, but it shouldn't be. Even though we cannot cure the ego, by understanding our original nature we can begin to act more in line with it. The more we learn to act in line with it, the less those unnatural processes that we have learned can be diminished. The problem is that they can never be completely eliminated, even if one doesn't act upon them. They will arise and we can watch them arise and let them go, but they will always be there, because they exist, not only in our conscious self, but our physical self, the cells within our brain that stores all of our experiences.

Agreed. Well said.

[Lucky7Strikes]

Hello Otis,

 

I agree with you too. The nature of neurosis resides within the ego, it has to, since the ego is our self interacting with the physical world around us. My belief is that neurosis is a result of our ego evolving unnaturally. If our ego was allowed to become what it is supposed to be without the influences of society, conditioning, or whatever you want to call it, then it would be free of these things. My point is that, no matter how hard we try, we cannot undo to the past. Our egos became what they became and even ultimately understanding our original nature doesn't undo that. This is the reason why Buddhism, Hinduism, Taoism and ultimately all religions and philosophies fail, because they believe by touching that original spark, what we were before we were, that somehow it remove all that we are and it doesn't.

Where is your ego? What is it made of? What is your experience of the "ego"?

 

Buddhism, Hinduism, Taoism are not philosophies, they are practices.

 

Do you remove darkness, or does the light simply spark a new being?

 

The only people that will ever be free of neurosis are those lucky enough to be born and live as they were originally intended. We can achieve that, if we can understand what needs to be done and allow it to be done, at least for our children, but we cannot cure something that is not a disease, but a course of evolution that has had its way. This may seem discouraging, but it shouldn't be. Even though we cannot cure the ego, by understanding our original nature we can begin to act more in line with it. The more we learn to act in line with it, the less those unnatural processes that we have learned can be diminished. The problem is that they can never be completely eliminated, even if one doesn't act upon them. They will arise and we can watch them arise and let them go, but they will always be there, because they exist, not only in our conscious self, but our physical self, the cells within our brain that stores all of our experiences.

These sound like mere textbook ideologies. Have you experienced these things? Where does your sickness in a dream go when you've woken up? Do you now cure it when you are awake?

 

The ancient Buddhists didn't have the benefit of modern medicine. They had no way of knowing that our memories could not be undone, that our personality and self was written in stone (or brain cells), so for them there was a way to overcome it. There is substantial evidence to support that enlightenment, even at its highest form does not remove suffering, because it does not remove the self. Deconstructing the self only allows us to understand the original nature, not rewrite it.

 

Anyways, I appreciate your comments and I hope life is treating you well.

 

Aaron

Written in stone? Then my body must be a stone? What? Remove the self? How do you remove a dream when you have once awakened???

 

I love your ideas, but it's just another form of mind play and logical speculation. Simply see reality as is right at this moment. No need for grand designs of the universe or grandiose interpretations of the self. Simplify it to this moment, like sway your hand in the air.

[Otis]

My favorite way to view ego is as my habits, particularly those of consciousness. Those habits include all my beliefs, which are just a more sophisticated form of conditioned encoding.

 

What each habit does is suggest that there is a right way to do things. I have a habit of walking, which pretends that there is a right way to walk. I have a habit of how loud to speak, in what tone of voice, where my eyes are allowed to wander, what expression should be on my face, how to hold my hands, what posture to stand in, how to sound wise. Each of these encodings suggest (or even dictate) what is right, and by definition, everything else is in the realm of wrong.

 

But there is no right. There is no such thing as right posture, right walking, right tone of voice, etc. Every right is only an encode from the past, whereas reality is what is unfolding right now.

 

This is why I push so hard against certainty, because certainty is the most fixed and dogmatic encode. It is like a muscle spasm, that never lets go. Certainty is the death of freedom, because it makes everything that is not part of the past encode of right into a wrong.

 

IME, my journey is not aiming toward finding the true nature of reality, or the right way of seeing the world. Instead my journey is an ongoing surrender of the need to have such a thing as "true" or "right". These are bugaboos that haunt my mind, and my habits, but have no basis in reality (or none that I can actually confirm). And they only serve to imprison me in my past encodes.

Edited May 1, 2011 by Otis

[Otis]

The only people that will ever be free of neurosis are those lucky enough to be born and live as they were originally intended. We can achieve that, if we can understand what needs to be done and allow it to be done, at least for our children...

This is a very interesting point, and I think deserves its own thread. With our experiences in waking ourselves up, how then do we propose to raise children, in such a way that they remain awake, and they mature without falling (too much) under the spell of delusion and ego?

[Aaron]

I could tell you, but without the door the key is useless.

 

This is a question that you get to choose at the end of the road. Not everyone's answer is the same, because the door that they took may not be the one you will choose to take.

 

Put this question aside for now.

 

 

Hello Dagon,

 

I've chosen the question now and I'm far from the end of the road. Even if I do arrive at the end of the road, the answer is the same, regardless of the door that opens to the destination, simply because the destination is the same. If the answer is different, then it's because you didn't arrive at the same destination as I have.

 

Aaron

[Aaron]

Religion does not fail. Failure to understand it for what it is - a tool that can be used for transformation, is the root cause of ignorance surrounding the subject. In short, people fail, not religious systems. Unfortunately, and more often than not, the drivers at the helm of most religions, being of flesh and blood, are also prone to shortcomings. Misguided use of tools, no matter what form they take, be it physical or spiritual, is potentially hazardous.

 

Of course Enlightened beingness does not remove suffering. The fact of the matter is that ultimately all suffering is self-created thru attachments and aversions. One of the fruits of enlightenment is the ability to see clearly, to have deep insights into the nature of things. When things are seen insightfully, there arises a realization that there is indeed suffering, but there is no 'self-existing Self' that suffers. The practice of mindful attention unveils that which masks the fact that suffering, or freedom from it, are both fundamentally empty of independent existence. This does not mean they do not exist, or that they do - it simply points to the fact that how we think, speak and act create the conditions that bring about, or causes the arising of either states.

 

Is it safe to say that within suffering lies the seed of freedom, and within freedom lies the seed of sorrowful enslavement? Often, its the attempts made at trying to avoid one, at the same time trying to grasp after the other that brings about dissatisfaction (or in Sanskrit, a more apt word to apply here is dukkha, which means unsatisfactoriness). Therefore, it can be learned, through meditative introspection and contemplation, that there is neither personal suffering, nor is there personal emancipation. There are thoughts, no thinker. Speech, no speaker. Actions, but no 'one' acting. This 'one' can only come about if there is an independent self, one that depends on nothing to exist.

 

 

Hello Cowtao,

 

First, religion is an instrument of conditioning. When you use religion to come to a conclusion, then you have already defined the answer. One who practices a specific philosophy will invariably arrive at a preordained conclusion, if they do not deviate from the philosophy laid out before them.

 

Suffering is not the result of attachment, but the result of the ego not achieving what it desires. You cannot give up certain desires without suffering, eating, drinking, and sleeping come to mind. So even with enlightenment you will be hungry, you will be thirsty, and you will need to sleep. Suffering is never eliminated, only diminished or ignored.

 

You are right, when you become enlightened you do see the nature of things, but if your enlightenment stems from a religious practice, invariably you will perceive the nature of things as that religion dictates them. The highest form of enlightenment transcends religious and philosophical ideology and instead understands the nature of things because it comes from the unadulterated experience of the nature of things as they actually are.

 

Lastly, thoughts arise from the physical form and transcend to the ego form. Thoughts are essentially proof of the existence of self, or at least awareness of self. There is someone acting. The illusion of there being no one thinking, or no-self, stems from dissociating from the ego. This dissociation is further proof of the existence of self, because even in no-self, one cannot escape self. If one ceases to depend on anything to exist, then they will starve to death and truly be no-self. In the end the only way to be free of self is to be free of the physical form that houses the ego-self.

 

I know you will not agree with this and you don't have to. Nothing I've said changes anything, I'm just sharing my ideas. If you like them, fine, if not, that's fine too. Peace be with you.

 

Aaron

Edited May 1, 2011 by Twinner

[Aaron]

Hello Lucky,

 

You asked a lot of questions and I'll do my best to answer them.

 

Where is your ego? What is it made of? What is your experience of the "ego"?

 

My ego resides within my body. It is made up of the brain cells within my body. My experience of the ego is exactly that, the things I experience as an ego-self.

 

Buddhism, Hinduism, Taoism are not philosophies, they are practices.

 

Philosophies only become practices when one practices them. So yes they are practices, but before practice they are philosophies.

 

Do you remove darkness, or does the light simply spark a new being?

 

It doesn't matter. Whether there is light or darkness what resides there is still the same. Our fear of darkness does not stem from our fear of the unknown, but rather being alone. If you doubt this, then just consider the fact that the child who cries in the dark is comforted when their mother holds them close. One does not need a spark of light to feel comfort in the darkness, only the knowledge that they are not alone.

 

Another way of looking at it is that darkness is ignorance and light is knowledge. In that sense then you do need knowledge, but it does not spark a new being, but rather it brings the awareness clearly into sight. The fact of the matter is that this awareness was their from the beginning, the light only brings the illusion that it just arrived.

 

These sound like mere textbook ideologies.

 

I would love to read the textbooks that sound like these ideologies if you can point me in that direction.

 

Have you experienced these things?

 

Yes I have. I know this because I have experienced it and contemplated it and when contemplation wasn't enough, allowed it to be. This is not conjecture but rather experience. It's the reason I make the distinction between intellectual enlightenment and experiential enlightenment.

 

Where does your sickness in a dream go when you've woken up? Do you now cure it when you are awake?

 

Sickness in a dream only exists within the ego. When I am asleep I hear a jet plane roaring overhead, but when I awaken I find a fly buzzing at my ear. The Jet plane never existed, only the fly. There is no cure for this, rather you are aware that you were dreaming.

 

I understand that you are using this as a metaphor for self and no-self, the idea that our existence is really just an illusion that is based on the conditioning of our ego. My point is that conditioning does not create an illusionary reality, but rather that the illness comes when one ceases to accept reality because they view it as a sickness.

 

Written in stone? Then my body must be a stone? What? Remove the self? How do you remove a dream when you have once awakened???

 

Written in stone is a metaphor for something that cannot be changed. What I mean to say is that everything we have ever experienced is housed within the cells of the brain. When people undergo brain surgery memories are often triggered when the doctor touches a part of the brain. When this occurs the memory is so vivid, it's as if the person is actually there. This is the problem that arises from this notion that self does not exist, it does exist in very real and physical sense. It exists within the cells of the brain. There is more than enough proof to support this that arguing about it seems fruitless.

 

This is also why I say you cannot remove the self. The only way the self is ever removed is when the body dies, even then the memories will remain, even if they are never used, so long as the body does not deteriorate. (Of course that's a topic for a science fiction forum rather than this one.)

 

I love your ideas, but it's just another form of mind play and logical speculation. Simply see reality as is right at this moment. No need for grand designs of the universe or grandiose interpretations of the self. Simplify it to this moment, like sway your hand in the air.

 

I'm glad you love my ideas, but I think that what I'm advocating is the furthest thing from speculation (aside from the spirit-self which I cannot prove exists, but can be experienced.) My understanding of self stems from my understanding of reality as it is right at this moment. In my opinion what I'm claiming is not grandiose in the least, at least not by Buddhist, Hindu, and Taoist standards, and instead is quite practical and rational. It is an explanation of self that can be supported and understood by nearly anyone that pays attention to what is being shared.

 

You are absolutely right about simplifying it to the moment, but that simplification has it's time and place. This thread isn't about saying, "just accept things as they are," but rather it's about knowing things as they are so that one can truly accept things for what they are.

 

I hope that answers your questions. If you have anymore please feel free to ask. Peace be with you.

 

Aaron

Edited May 1, 2011 by Twinner

[Aaron]

This is a very interesting point, and I think deserves its own thread. With our experiences in waking ourselves up, how then do we propose to raise children, in such a way that they remain awake, and they mature without falling (too much) under the spell of delusion and ego?

 

 

Hello Otis,

 

I think first we better be damn certain we are awake. Second we need to understand the true nature of the ego, which is simply to help us interact with the physical world. Anything else is simply conditioning that is optional. Now keep in mind that certain conditions may seem optional, language for instance, when in fact they aren't. The trick is really not worrying about social and cultural influences so much as ensuring the the true nature of the child is intact, that we do not destroy it for the sake of industry or an interpretation of paradise.

 

Aaron

[Otis]

In my opinion what I'm claiming is not grandiose in the least, at least not by Buddhist, Hindu, and Taoist standards, and instead is quite practical and rational. It is an explanation of self that can be supported and understood by nearly anyone that pays attention to what is being shared.

I agree with this.