Which is Your True Self?

[godnotgod]

It is based on how well I know the various aspects of my persona. They are all actors, in a very real sense, that I trot out depending on the situation. The "real" me is the director who decides which actor gets a given part to play.

So your 'real self' fools others into thinking that your fictional characters are who you really are? (BTW, Robert deRopp, whom you seem to disklike, calls this 'the theater of the selves'.)

Unlike others here, I reject the idea of "no self" or that identity is an illusion....

Tell me: where does this 'identity' come from? is it intrinsically who you really are, or is it acquired?

Tell me: who is it that is rejecting 'no self', and why?

 

[oldbadger]

So your 'real self' fools others into thinking that your fictional characters are who you really are? (BTW, Robert deRopp, whom you seem to disklike, calls this 'the theater of the selves'.

All selves are real selves.

If you take the scenario away from human-to-human involvement, and replace this with, say, human-to-animal involvement then the 'all selves are real selves' proposition becomes more clear, imo.

If I would give two examples, then this might help.

1. 50 years ago I was a wildfowler. Wildfowl are canny creatures and would never let me approach them closely enough (by walking along a sea-wall, etc) to be in range. BUT, if I changed myself, and appeared as if to be working on the land, searching the ground for something, or raking the soil, I could get very close to them. As far as those ducks were concerned, they saw another me, a fake-me, a deception, but it was 'me' all the time.

2. Approaching an aggressive dog can be much safer if you (convincingly) appear as unperturbed and disinterested in it.

These simple examples are no different in human-human interaction, and a person can use scores of different 'selves' to cope with everyday life, just as animals can, by the way. We are everything that we are, in every way, and this can be found in animals as well.

The psycho-pundits probably need to spin this question beyond understanding because that is one of their selves, hoping to prove that they are very very profoundly wise and that we need to keep them in lots of funds, maybe?

And God, while existing in every part of everything, is disinterested in it all anyway...... but then, that's my Deism bouncing around.

 

[godnotgod]

All selves are real selves.

Are they? Do all of these 'selves' have a common source, and if 'yes', what is that source?

 

[atanu]

Tell me: who is it that is rejecting 'no self', and why?

Pray tell us who is imposing the 'no self'? And why?

 

[oldbadger]

Are they? Do all of these 'selves' have a common source, and if 'yes', what is that source?

Ourselves.

 

[crossfire]

Pray tell us who is imposing the 'no self'? And why?

You are creating a self-concept by asking this question, "who?"

 

[godnotgod]

Pray tell us who is imposing the 'no self'? And why?

It's not that no-self is being imposed; it's just that, because the self has been imposed, when there never was a self from the very beginning, a finger must be pointed at the moon. It's a complete fiction, pretending to be 'real'. A total fraud.

 

[godnotgod]

Ourselves.

'Ourselves' is the source of 'our selves'? poppycock!

 

[crossfire]

Brahman is imposing the no-self because the self has been imposed, when there never was a self from the very beginning. It's a complete fiction, pretending to be the 'real' self, a total fraud.

Self/no-self duality? Mu. That's about as useful as the Theism/Atheism duality. Your mileage may vary.

 

[godnotgod]

Self/no-self duality? Mu. That's about as useful as the Theism/Atheism duality. Your mileage may vary.

Try again. I have edited the original post to address that issue, knowing you would be lurking around, LOL., but you posted before my edit.

 

[atanu]

Tell me: who is it that is rejecting 'no self', and why?

Pray tell us who is imposing the 'no self'? And why?

You are creating a self-concept by asking this question, "who?"

Oh no. I merely put a question back. Please refer to the the first quote above.

And then who replied back? There is already a functional self and not a mere concept. To get rid of the notion that the functional self is an independent self a query of 'Who?' has been recommended by teachers.

 

[atanu]

It's not that no-self is being imposed; it's just that, because the self has been imposed, when there never was a self from the very beginning, a finger must be pointed at the moon. It's a complete fiction, pretending to be 'real'. A total fraud.

Poppycock. You have a self that can see the moon and point a finger at it? But others are under delusion that they have a self?

 

[godnotgod]

Poppycock. You have a self that can see the moon point a finger at it? But others are under delusion that they have a self.

Not so. There is no such 'self' that sees the moon; there is only 'seeing moon', without a 'moon-see-er'. Only Brahman is real, and it is therefore Brahman playing itself as a self called 'moon-see-er'. The experience is 'seeing and pointing to the moon'. Why do you wish to add an agent of 'seeing and pointing to the moon'? That is just extra, unnecessary baggage that gets in the way of the experience. "'I' am having an experience": Bull! You ARE the experience.

Remember: the rope (Brahman) appearing as a 'snake' (The Universe) is the only reality; no such 'snake' ever existed from the very beginning. To get caught up in the substantial delusive idea of a 'self' is maya.

 

[crossfire]

It's not that no-self is being imposed; it's just that, because the self has been imposed, when there never was a self from the very beginning, a finger must be pointed at the moon. It's a complete fiction, pretending to be 'real'. A total fraud.

Try again. I have edited the original post to address that issue, knowing you would be lurking around, LOL., but you posted before my edit.

My reply still stands...

Self/no-self duality? Mu. That's about as useful as the Theism/Atheism duality. Your mileage may vary.

...with this caveat: It's useful for getting stuck. It's not useful for getting unstuck.

 

[Willamena]

It's nice that you defend him, or maybe not so good, but the answer 'me' to the question: 'who, or what, is 'me?' says nothing. If it says something to you, what is that something? If you are going to coyly answer with 'me', then we're done. If you want to have a bit more intelligent discussion, then please proceed. Ball in your court. Use it wisely.

I stand by my response, which is that you will never find that needle in the haystack when you've planted the needle elsewhere.

 

[atanu]

... That is just extra, unnecessary baggage that gets in the way of the experience. "'I' am having an experience": Bull! You ARE the experience....

So, you are the experience?

Now all experiences come and go. Do you also come and go?

 

[Thief]

that is a serious possibility

this led to another thread.....

did you catch my op?

 

[oldbadger]

'Ourselves' is the source of 'our selves'? poppycock!

If you feel that you must express yourself thus....

But tell me then......... what is your 'true' self like?

 

[godnotgod]

My reply still stands...

...with this caveat: It's useful for getting stuck. It's not useful for getting unstuck.

There cannot be a duality if self is an illusion. The 'duality' is merely conceptual, not actual.
In the context of the statement by Hui Neng, the Sixth Zen Patriarch:

Bodhi is originally without any tree;
　The bright mirror is also not a stand.
　Originally there is not a single thing —
　So where can the dust alight?

No such 'self' ever existed. It is a mental creation only.

Huineng - Wikipedia

...and in the context of the rope/snake metaphor, there is no duality, since there never was a 'snake'. At all times, the rope (ie The Absolute) is the only true Reality. 'Snake' is an illusion. 'self' is an illusion, 'maya'.

 

[godnotgod]

I stand by my response, which is that you will never find that needle in the haystack when you've planted the needle elsewhere.

There is no such 'needle'. That's the point.

The real question here is: 'Who, or what, is it that is looking'?

hint: "That which you are seeking is causing you to seek"