contrary to popular belief?

[gatito]

Must be past someone's bedtime.

 

Bless.

[gatito]

Well.......it seems like Alf Garnett has left the building.

[gatito]

Maybe he's circumscribed himself????

[3bob]

"Yep, that would be my take on it too I guess. Was hoping maybe 3bob had another facet.

He seems to have gone AWOL." by GrandmasterP.

 

Not AWOL just had to hit the sack after night shift so this self could sleep, yet the Self never sleeps.

 

My original post was also commenting on and or kind of poking at those at this site (thus not only this sub-forum) who seem to think that they are going to get or add something to their self that will result in Self-realization, namely some form of siddhi, some form of knowledge, or some secret exercise, etc. etc. that after they get same then things will fall into place for their-selves; yet the kicker is that such things may be good preparation to be worked through but still it is the Self that chooses the Self, thus not the self that chooses or takes the Self and then holds or keeps "It" to itself.

 

(btw, the Upanishads allude to and or point to the "Self" in about every inspiring and Seer revealed way possible, but even memorizing such wise words backwards, forwards and inside out is not knowing the Self which can only know Itself)

Edited November 14, 2012 by 3bob

[gatito]

Yes 3bob.

 

And chasing the Siddhis is a spiritual dead-end. A "spiritual" materialism - no different from trying to find Happiness in a bigger car, better job, money, relationship, fame etc. etc.

 

Although It has to be seen clearly by the jiva that this is the way that it works.

 

It's useless telling most people that.

[Stosh]

• Aniruddha defines the Jiva, the empirical self, as the self determined by the body, the external sense-organs, mind, intellect, and egoism; the self which is devoid empirical cognition, merit, demerit, and other mental modes is the transcendental Atman.^[10] When the Jiva breaks the shackles of Prakrti it becomes the transcendental self.^[11] Isvara and the jivas are both empirical realities, the former is the ruler and the impeller , and the latter are the ruled the ones who are impelled.^[12]Aadhyaatmik dukkh-haan: freedom from pain, disappointment, etc; arising due to lack of spiritual, metaphysical, mystic knowledge and experience,
  
• Aadhibhautik dukkh-haan: freedom from pain etc; arising by possessing and being attached to various materialistic gains,
  
• Aadhidaivik dukkh-haan: freedom from pain etc; caused by fate or due to reliance on fate,
  

These ones dont seem materialistic to me , they appear the normal goals of spiritual pursuit , but maybe Im missing something.

But if you are referring to shrinking to an atom stuff .... Ok I get the ironic point.- Its very.. sharp.

 

Aniruddha defines the Jiva, the empirical self, as the self determined by the body, the external sense-organs, mind, intellect, and egoism; the self which is devoid empirical cognition, merit, demerit, and other mental modes is the transcendental Atman.^[10] When the Jiva breaks the shackles of Prakrti it becomes the transcendental self.^[11] Isvara and the jivas are both empirical realities, the former is the ruler and the impeller , and the latter are the ruled the ones who are impelled.^[12]

 

^{Did you just say that the empirical self has to recognice the materialistic folly of siddhis to become the trancendental self ?}

^{If so then it appears an ironic view that spiritual practices interfere with ...enlightenment ?}

Edited November 14, 2012 by Stosh

[ChiDragon]

No way, I asked first....

How might one 'circumscribe self?'

 

Self discipline....!!!

[GrandmasterP]

Ah that finger points not just at the moon it also indicates the death of irony.

And maybe thedeath of 'self' too, if we stop; and cease thinking about it.

 

Nice to see you back 3bob and thanks for the reply.

Edited November 15, 2012 by GrandmasterP

[gatito]

<snip>

 

^{Did you just say that the empirical self has to recognice the materialistic folly of siddhis to become the trancendental self ?}

<snip>

 

No.

[gatito]

 

Perhaps this would help?

[Marblehead]

^{If so then it appears an ironic view that spiritual practices interfere with ...enlightenment ?}

Ironic? Yes, I think. But I won't suggest that it is an universal truth.

 

Chuang Tzu was very careful when using the term "the self" and the term "the Self".

 

But then, it is almost a requirement that we see and understand our 'self' before we can ever begin to see and understand our "Self".

 

"I am" isn't quite enough, IMO (I was going to say 'I think'.) I rather like "I am becoming."

[gatito]

Ironic? Yes, I think. But I won't suggest that it is an universal truth.

 

<snip>

 

But then, it is almost a requirement that we see and understand our 'self' before we can ever begin to see and understand our "Self".

 

<snip>

 

You cannot see and understand the Self.

 

The self is merely an idea/concept/thought/feeling.

 

The Self is that which is reading these words - and just for you MH - another word for the Self is the Tao.

 

But if you want to discuss that, I'll come over to the Taoist Forums because there seems to be too much confusion here on the Vedanta Forum already (and we only have the One - whereas the Taoists here have at least three )

[Marblehead]

You cannot see and understand the Self.

 

The self is merely an idea/concept/thought/feeling.

 

The Self is that which is reading these words - and just for you MH - another word for the Self is the Tao.

 

But if you want to discuss that, I'll come over to the Taoist Forums because there seems to be too much confusion here on the Vedanta Forum already (and we only have the One - whereas the Taoists here have at least three )

Hehehe. Same argument I had with Vmarco a while back. And I still disagree with it just as I desagree with the statement that we cannot experience, and then understand to varying degrees, knowing, as in 'seeing', Tao as well as the Self.

 

I use the word "self" as the physical being, all those aspects of "me" that I can put a finger on. The "Self" are those aspects of what is "me" that I cannot put a finger on.

 

Sure, we can take this to the "Taoist Discussions" if you wish. I'll look to see if I can find that thread where we spoke about this concept or if you wish, you can start a thread on it.

 

It should nake for a good discussion Considering I will be talking from an Atheistic point of view that will sometimes sound like I have gone of to La-La land.

[gatito]

Hehehe. Same argument I had with Vmarco a while back. And I still disagree with it just as I desagree with the statement that we cannot experience, and then understand to varying degrees, knowing, as in 'seeing', Tao as well as the Self.

 

I use the word "self" as the physical being, all those aspects of "me" that I can put a finger on. The "Self" are those aspects of what is "me" that I cannot put a finger on.

 

Sure, we can take this to the "Taoist Discussions" if you wish. I'll look to see if I can find that thread where we spoke about this concept or if you wish, you can start a thread on it.

 

It should nake for a good discussion Considering I will be talking from an Atheistic point of view that will sometimes sound like I have gone of to La-La land.

 

Just start with "that which is reading these words" and see if you can describe that, otherwise it becomes very confusing, very quickly.

 

Of course, if you've already made up your mind, you'd be wasting not only your time but my time.

[Marblehead]

Just start with "that which is reading these words" and see if you can describe that, otherwise it becomes very confusing, very quickly.

 

Of course, if you've already made up your mind, you'd be wasting not only your time but my time.

Okay. I found that thread. It is here: http://thetaobums.com/topic/22635-is-anything-truly-ineffable/

 

Yes, "that which is reading these words" is the "self" - the body/brain physical organism. The "Self" will be more difficult to talk about.

[gatito]

<snip>

 

Yes, "that which is reading these words" is the "self" - the body/brain physical organism.

 

<snip>

 

No.

 

That's an idea/concept/belief.

Edited November 15, 2012 by gatito

[Marblehead]

No.

 

That's an idea/concept/belief.

See the other thread for my response.

[gatito]

See the other thread for my response.

 

See the other thread for my comment and my response.

[3bob]

Today I will keep it on the shelf... besides gotta go to work soon.

[Stosh]

Gattito, you said post 18

Self (Atman) is that which is reading these words.

 

wikipedia says this

the self which is devoid empirical cognition, merit, demerit, and other mental modes is the transcendental Atman.

 

 

 

Yes , Its my mistake to ask you what you meant , and if I understood it clearly. I should have asked ...Santa Claus?

 

Nevermind , nothing to see here folks,

[Marblehead]

Nevermind , nothing to see here folks,

But it still can be a good thread.

[gatito]

Gattito, you said post 18

Self (Atman) is that which is reading these words.

 

wikipedia says this

the self which is devoid empirical cognition, merit, demerit, and other mental modes is the transcendental Atman.

 

 

 

Yes , Its my mistake to ask you what you meant , and if I understood it clearly. I should have asked ...Santa Claus?

 

Nevermind , nothing to see here folks,

 

Well Stosh, if it says so in Wikipedia..........LOL

[Apech]

Seems obvious that people mean different things when they use the term 'self'. hence the need for debates like this.

[GrandmasterP]

It's not a debate as such. 'Aired opinions' more like.

No one knows for sure, some have an opinion; more don't give a feck.

Experience still counts for something in Taoism and sure as eggs is eggs most of these young lads pontificating on here now and showing little respect and less sense will be off chasing some fresh fad come spring.

Older, wiser heads such as Guro MH carry on regardless.

[Apech]

It's not a debate as such. 'Aired opinions' more like.

No one knows for sure, some have an opinion; more don't give a feck.

Experience still counts for something in Taoism and sure as eggs is eggs most of these young lads pontificating on here now and showing little respect and less sense will be off chasing some fresh fad come spring.

Older, wiser heads such as Guro MH carry on regardless.

 

Will they be frolicking in the field like young lambs??