The Self, Does it Exist?

[Limahong]

1 minute ago, Marblehead said:

"Sneaky Petes"

 

 

[Limahong]

1 hour ago, SirYuri said:

Therefore, you are where your attention and interest is.

 

Dear Sir,

 

Into the moment? if so, yes.

 

- LimA

[Wu Ming Jen]

If there is no self then self has to exist. It is naive to think there is no self.

 

so I say their are both, there is the true self and the acquired self. The true self lines up with what some may consider no self or selfless because it does not act for its self separated and independent of the whole. The acquired self is the robber.  

[Limahong]

1 hour ago, SirYuri said:

Because all you are is consciousness.

 

Dear Sir,

 

"You see people as you are not as they are".

 

You think therefore you are => you think people are you => therefore you see people as you are?

 

- LimA

 

[Limahong]

 

I think I am sleepy therefore I sleep. Good night.

 

Edited July 27, 2018 by Limahong
Enhance ...

[ion]

4 hours ago, Limahong said:

 

Characteristics spoken are not the eternalness [of characteristics].

anything said to exist has characteristics. All characteristics are dependent.

 

what are the characteristics of the self, and what are they dependent on?

 

if you say it has no characteristics, than what are you referring to? And furthermore,  if this thing that has no characteristics and no dependencies for existence, than where in reality is it?

 

 

[ion]

4 hours ago, Marblehead said:

100% agreed.  I used to argue this point but I finally realized that my argument had no substance.

 

Either does this post alone withouta counter argument or an example.

 

please please provide an example of  indipendently existing thing, not dependent for its origination and being?

[Marblehead]

4 minutes ago, ion said:

please please provide an example of  indipendently existing thing, not dependent for its origination and being?

There are none.  One gave birth to Two, Two gave Birth to Three, and Three gave birth to the Ten Thousand Things.

 

However,

what caused me to initially argue the concept is that others had stated that I am a part of Hitler and everyone else.  This I do not accept.  Sure, we are of the same source but we each are separate things of the Ten Thousand Things.

 

 

[ion]

4 hours ago, Limahong said:

 

Nature.

 

Nature is not dependent? What we call nature is usually the phenomenon dependant on , physical forms, or a things nature.

 

A things nature would be it's being, because no thing can have an essence or essential nature.

 

Buta thing does not have its own being.

 

the being of a thing is the interplay of conditions. The conditions are not the thing  And the thing is not the conditions.

 

so what do you mean that nature has no conditions or dependencies?

[Stosh]

12 minutes ago, ion said:

Either does this post alone withouta counter argument or an example.

 

please please provide an example of  indipendently existing thing, not dependent for its origination and being?

Anything that can err , or dream.

[ion]

1 minute ago, Stosh said:

Anything that can err , or dream.

anything that can dream exist All of its own self without being dependent on anything?

[Stosh]

13 minutes ago, ion said:

anything that can dream exist All of its own self without being dependent on anything?

To the extent it dreams , it is differentiated , it is not a direct consequence of that which came before , and therefore exists , unlike the drop of water in an endless sea. It is the chair in a black room , the surprise , the Mona Lisa, and my widdle kittys twitching paw. 

[Limahong]

1 hour ago, ion said:

if you say it has no characteristics, than what are you referring to?

 

I am referring to this from dawei -

 

On 6/24/2018 at 8:11 AM, dawei said:

Squares and corners spoken are not the eternalness [of squares and corners]

 

I am not saying 'no' characteristics but 'spoken' characteristics.

 

[doc benway]

On 7/22/2018 at 1:34 PM, rocala said:

Well, is there a self, what is it?

 

Does it matter?

[Limahong]

1 hour ago, ion said:

What we call nature is usually the phenomenon dependant on , physical forms, or a things nature.

 

I am not thinking of what you call is 'nature'.

 

I am thinking of NATURE which is self sustaining with its 'dependent's and 'independent's.

 

 

[Limahong]

3 minutes ago, steve said:

Does it matter?

 

Hi steve,

 

On 'self' - it is good to be selfless.

 

My Granny told me - never be selfish.

 

- LimA

 

[windwalker]

On 7/23/2018 at 1:34 AM, rocala said:

Well, is there a self, what is it?

 

You could always ask the self.

 

The problem of course is asking who. Most are not aware of it directly.

 

There are many approaches that  are said to enable one to do this.  

 

As to what is the self,  only the self can answer. One will know it when it does.

Edited July 27, 2018 by windwalker

[Limahong]

2 hours ago, Marblehead said:

I am a part of Hitler and everyone else.

 

Good morning Dada-da,

 

You have German blood?

 

I am Chinese - so am I part of Lao Tzu?

 

I am not part of everyone else.

 

I am only parts of my parents - their jelly bean/sEEd.

 

Part of me came from my Dad's passion fruits,

 

A great weekend.

 

- LimA

[Marblehead]

I am 100% German.  That doesn't make me any part of Hitler or any Nazis.

 

I am my own Self.

 

I assumed you are Chinese but never felt it necessary to ask.

 

I don't even look to see if new members are guys or gals.

 

Good weekend to you too.

[3bob]

The  Self (per the Upanishads for anyone who cares to read them) is not a thing...thus reasoning or logic about a thing or things does not apply to it.  

[Limahong]

3 minutes ago, Marblehead said:

I am 100% German.  That doesn't make me any part of Hitler or any Nazis.

 

But of course - you did not come from Hilter's passion fruits or those of his cronies

 

7 minutes ago, Marblehead said:

I don't even look to see if new members are guys or gals.

 

No need - we are all inclusively human beings.

[Marblehead]

5 minutes ago, 3bob said:

The  Self (per the Upanishads for anyone who cares to read them) is not a thing...thus reasoning or logic about a thing or things does not apply to it.  

Yes, now we have to indicate Self (upper S) and self (lower s).

 

Doing this, I agree.

 

[Marblehead]

Just now, Limahong said:

No need - we are all inclusively human beings.

Yep, just more individual selfs.

 

[Limahong]

p

29 minutes ago, 3bob said:

The  Self (per the Upanishads for anyone who cares to read them) is not a thing...thus reasoning or logic about a thing or things does not apply to it. 

 

Hi 3bob,

 

Thank you.

 

On 7/23/2018 at 1:34 AM, rocala said:

Well, is there a self, what is it?

 

Hi rocala,

 

What do you think of 3bob's sharing?

 

- LimA

Edited July 27, 2018 by Limahong
Enhance ...

[3bob]

ah, umm..., this is in the Buddhist sub-forum so  terms per that format apply here.

 

if the op wants to move this to the wild-wild west general forum then terms could be bandied about without anyone expecting a Buddhist context or whatever else arises.