Which is Your True Self?

[crossfire]

Heh...heh...you see, who, or what, is pinning down the self? It's the old problem of the ego trying to rid itself of itself, when there is no ego to begin with, as it is a complete illusion. The only thing we can do is to stop all mental activity, but even here, the ego tries to do the stopping, making matters worse than ever. Stopping the chatter of the mind can only occur when it is allowed to happen of itself.

Maybe, then, as the Heart Sutra tells us, 'all phenomena, including us, is empty of self-nature'. So if that is the case, and this can actually be experienced, then our true nature lies in that very emptiness, which Zen refers to as 'Sunyata'. So, you see, in this way of looking at the question, there is nothing that can be 'pinned down' that can be called 'the self', because there is no such thing called 'the self'. But something alive and conscious is still present. This can definitely be experienced first-hand. Something, or someone, is present and acting through what you think to be your 'self', but when looked at clearly, one sees that 'self' is a self-created principle, and is non-existent, as the Heart Sutra is saying. What we call 'self' is what we think of as existing in Time and Space, but the direct experience of Sunyata, ie 'Emptiness', is not in Time and Space at all, and so is not held in memory, and has no history. It only lives in this eternal Present Moment. As someone else pointed out a few posts back, we are not a self having an experience; we are none other than that very experience.

Hey, we agree.

We can see this to be the case when the subject/object split is finally merged in the mind; when there is no longer a self looking at itself, since there is no such self to look at, and no self that is looking. There is, IOW, simply and only the act of pure seeing, completely empty of self. Sunyata can neither be created or destroyed; it is The Unborn; The Uncaused; The Conditionless, and so, as Alan Watts put it: 'You are none other than the Indestructible Sunyata'.

The dissolving of subject object split can become an object one can cling to.

What? The Throne? We live in a hierarchical Universe?

No Absolute to be found.

 

[godnotgod]

Hey, we agree.

The dissolving of subject object split can become an object one can cling to.

There is no object to cling to, nor any subject that clings to it.

heh..heh..heh...you clever devil, you! Check this out:

No Absolute to be found.

Ah, but to take the position that 'there are no absolutes', is an absolute itself. Having said that, I think you might agree that there is indeed not only AN absolute, but THE Absolute, and that Absolute is none other than The Universe, because it being Everything that is, there can be no relative 'other' to which it can be compared. And then, transcendent of relative joy and relative suffering, there is Absolute Joy, which has no relative opposite. Do you see this?

"Say! Did you know that THE Buddha was also A buddha?"

 

[crossfire]

There is no object to cling to, nor any subject that clings to it.

heh..heh..heh...you clever devil, you! Check this out:

Ah, but to take the position that 'there are no absolutes', is an absolute itself.

I wrote "No Absolute to be found." If nothing can relate to it, then it can't be found.

Having said that, I think you might agree that there is indeed not only AN absolute, but THE Absolute, and that Absolute is none other than The Universe, because it being Everything that is, there can be no relative 'other' to which it can be compared. And then, transcendent of relative joy and relative suffering, there is Absolute Joy, which has no relative opposite. Do you see this?

No, having no opposite does not consititute 'absolute.' Your mileage may vary.

"Say! Did you know that THE Buddha was also A buddha?"

Buddhas are rare.

 

[godnotgod]

I wrote "No Absolute to be found." If nothing can relate to it, then it can't be found.

No, having no opposite does not constitute 'absolute.'

No? Having no relative 'other' to which it can be compared makes it a singularity in it's own right. The Universe is such an absolute singularity. It is Everything. Therefore, it is The Absolute.

"The Universe is The Absolute, as seen through the glass of Time, Space, and Causation"
Vivekenanda

It cannot be found because it cannot be an object of it's own seeking. The 'seeker' is none other than The Absolute itself. The dissolution of the illusory seeker is what is called Nirvana, the realization of The Absolute.

Buddhas are rare.

The Buddha himself said that all sentient beings are already in possession of Ordinary Mind, and that Ordinary Mind and Buddha Mind are one and the same. Ultimately, everything is Buddha nature. Buddhas are also empty of inherent self-nature. There really is no such thing as a 'buddha'; there is only Buddha nature, which is awakened consciousness. The entire Universe is Buddha nature. A 'Buddha' is simply one who awakens to the fact that he is none other than The Universe itself. Zen is one of the few, if not the only, teaching that sees The Ordinary as none other than The Miraculous. Buddha nature permeates Everything, and is therefore, quite ordinary.

"Before Enlightenment, it is Something Special;
after Enlightenment, it is Nothing Special"

 

[crossfire]

No? Having no relative 'other' to which it can be compared makes it a singularity in it's own right. The Universe is such an absolute singularity. It is Everything. Therefore, it is The Absolute.

"The Universe is The Absolute, as seen through the glass of Time, Space, and Causation"
Vivekenanda

Your mileage may vary

It cannot be found because it cannot be an object of it's own seeking. The 'seeker' is none other than The Absolute itself. The dissolution of the illusory seeker is what is called Nirvana, the realization of The Absolute.

Um, nope.
Nibbana Sutta: Unbinding

The Buddha himself said that all sentient beings are already in possession of Ordinary Mind, and that Ordinary Mind and Buddha Mind are one and the same. Ultimately, everything is Buddha nature. Buddhas are also empty of inherent self-nature. There really is no such thing as a 'buddha'; there is only Buddha nature, which is awakened consciousness. The entire Universe is Buddha nature. A 'Buddha' is simply one who awakens to the fact that he is none other than The Universe itself. Zen is one of the few, if not the only, teaching that sees The Ordinary as none other than The Miraculous. Buddha nature permeates Everything, and is therefore, quite ordinary.

Buddha did refer to himself as the Tathagatha.

"Before Enlightenment, it is Something Special;
after Enlightenment, it is Nothing Special"

Agreed.

 

[Thief]

No, it is not 'self-explanatory'. That's just saying that the self is the self; it doesn't tell us what the self actually IS. Do you see that your 'explanation' is that of the self looking at the self, so that there are now two of you? And what of the third self, which is conscious of the first two? And the fourth, and so on, ad infinitum? It's lunacy, for sure!

I do see.....myself...
I am very introspective

apparently .....you.....do not make such practice

 

[godnotgod]

I do see.....myself...

Then you should have no problem answering: who, or what, is 'I' and 'myself'?

 

[godnotgod]

Your mileage may vary

Is The Universe singular or not?

Um, nope.
Nibbana Sutta: Unbinding

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an09/an09.034.than.html

Saying that the seeker is dissolved away is the same thing as saying: 'If you see the Buddha on the road, kill him!' There is nothing or no one that is 'becoming' anything, because Nirvana already exists. It can only be realized. Nirvana (Nibbana) literally means 'extinguishing', referring to greed, lust, and avarice, the characteristics of the unrealized 'seeker', which is empty of inherent self-nature.

Buddha did refer to himself as the Tathagatha.

.

Yes, but all beings are That; some are realized; others not yet. But all are already enlightened.

 

[crossfire]

Is The Universe singular or not?

I honestly don't know.

Saying that the seeker is dissolved away is the same thing as saying:

'If you see the Buddha on the road, kill him!' There is nothing or no one that is 'becoming' anything, because Nirvana already exists. It can only be realized. Nirvana (Nibbana) literally means 'extinguishing', referring to greed, lust, and avarice, the characteristics of the unrealized 'seeker', which is empty of inherent self-nature.

According to the sutta I posted, Nibbana is beyond all of the jhanas, including the arupa jhanas of infinite space, infinite consciousness, the dimension of nothingness, and the dimension of neither-perception-nor-non-perception. In short, it is the realization of the yin aspect by identifying and clearing out all of the yang aspects. It goes further in other suttas to mention even becoming disenchanted with this. Sure, clearing out the poisons is a huge part of it, but you failed to mention the above key aspects.

I find it strange that you refer to the yang aspects as Maya. (Perhaps I'm mistaken in this?)

Yes, but all beings are That; some are realized; others not yet. But all are already enlightened.

I agree that sentient beings have everthing in place for enlightenment, it is just that many have not consciously recognized it yet.

 

[godnotgod]

I honestly don't know.



According to the sutta I posted, Nibbana is beyond all of the jhanas, including the arupa jhanas of infinite space, infinite consciousness, the dimension of nothingness, and the dimension of neither-perception-nor-non-perception. In short, it is the realization of the yin aspect by identifying and clearing out all of the yang aspects. It goes further in other suttas to mention even becoming disenchanted with this. Sure, clearing out the poisons is a huge part of it, but you failed to mention the above key aspects.

I find it strange that you refer to the yang aspects as Maya. (Perhaps I'm mistaken in this?)




I agree that sentient beings have everthing in place for enlightenment, it is just that many have not consciously recognized it yet.

It goes further than that: all beings are already enlightened. However, the missing key to this is held by the Hindus, and that is that Brahman is playing all the parts of The Universe in a game of Hide and Seek.

Did I say that the yang aspect is maya? I don't recall ever saying that.

I suspect that if the Yang aspects dominate, then poison would ensue. But a balance between yin and yang must always be the case. Yang must always play a part to the Yin energies. Yin keeps Yang in balance, and vice-versa. That balance is ensured via both having a minor opposite aspect within them, ie 'minor yin and minor yang'.

I am using the term 'The Universe' to mean 'Everything' , including all possible multi-verses and intergalactic space. IOW, there is only one Universe. There cannot be two or more universes. Therefore, the one Universe must be The Absolute., as no 'other' universe is possible.

 

[crossfire]

It goes further than that: all beings are already enlightened. However, the missing key to this is held by the Hindus, and that is that Brahman is playing all the parts of The Universe in a game of Hide and Seek.

Did I say that the yang aspect is maya? I don't recall ever saying that.

You did not say that. However, what you refer to as maya seems to correlate to the yang aspect. (See the Neo-Confucian philosopher Zhou Dunyi Taijitu Shuo "Explanianion of the Diagram of the Supreme Ultimate.)

I suspect that if the Yang aspects dominate, then poison would ensue. But a balance between yin and yang must always be the case. Yang must always play a part to the Yin energies. Yin keeps Yang in balance, and vice-versa. That balance is ensured via both having a minor opposite aspect within them, ie 'minor yin and minor yang'.

Think of the Yang as the impermanent active and the Yin as the underlying stillness.

I am using the term 'The Universe' to mean 'Everything' , including all possible multi-verses and intergalactic space. IOW, there is only one Universe. There cannot be two or more universes. Therefore, the one Universe must be The Absolute., as no 'other' universe is possible.

You have Absolute in the definition there--creating a self-referencing loop. It is like saying self is self, which you criticized earlier.

 

[Thief]

Then you should have no problem answering: who, or what, is 'I' and 'myself'?

me

btw....did you not notice?......
when asking the question ......who?
you affirm your belief in .......person

I think that's called a Freudian slip

 

[godnotgod]

You have Absolute in the definition there--creating a self-referencing loop. It is like saying self is self, which you criticized earlier.

I was quoting the Vedantic mystic Vivekenanda:

"The Universe is [none other than] The Absolute, as seen through the glass of Time, Space, and Causation"
[brackets mine]

Is there a problem with this statement?

 

[godnotgod]

me

btw....did you not notice?......
when asking the question ......who?
you affirm your belief in .......person

I think that's called a Freudian slip

How many times must I explain to you that I am using the terms 'I' and 'you' purely as a matter of convention. Clear?

So tell me: who, or what, is 'me'?

When you see a whirlpool in a running stream, is there really something called 'whirlpool' there as a thing? No! There is only whirling water, and no agent of whirling water called 'whirlpool'. In the same manner, there is no 'I' that thinks. (Yes, Descartes was mistaken); there is only 'thinking', without an agent of thought called 'I'. 'I' is simply a self-created principle; an illusion of the mind which takes past images, experiences, titles, etc. and groups them all together, calling them 'self' and 'I', and 'me' and 'mine', where no such elements are to be found.

 

[crossfire]

I was quoting the Vedantic mystic Vivekenanda:

"The Universe is [none other than] The Absolute, as seen through the glass of Time, Space, and Causation"
[brackets mine]

Is there a problem with this statement?

This is the part I was referring to:

I am using the term 'The Universe' to mean 'Everything' , including all possible multi-verses and intergalactic space. IOW, there is only one Universe. There cannot be two or more universes. Therefore, the one Universe must be The Absolute., as no 'other' universe is possible.

Your definition is self-referencial regarding Absolute.

 

[godnotgod]

This is the part I was referring to:

Your definition is self-referencial regarding Absolute.

Not at all. I am not saying that 'The Absolute' is 'The Absolute'; I am saying that The Universe is The Absolute, playing itself as 'The Universe', in response to your assertion that 'there are no absolutes'. If The Universe is Everything that is, then there cannot be some 'other' to limit it. That describes what is absolute.

Think about a great actor. In reality, the character he is playing is actually the actor himself, behind the mask of persona,

"...Swami Vivekananda's statement that the Universe is the Absolute seen through the screen of time, space and causation allows us to get some interesting information, albeit in negative terms, about what he calls the Absolute. Since it is not in time, it cannot be changing. Change takes place only in time. And since it is not in space, it must be undivided, because division and separation occur only in space. And since it is therefore one and undivided, it must also be infinite, since there is no "other" to limit it. Now "changeless," "infinite," and "undivided" are negative statements, but they will suffice. We can trace the physics of our Universe from these three negative statements. If we don't see the Absolute as what it is, we'll see it as something else. If we don't see it as changeless, infinite, and undivided, we'll see it as changing, finite, and divided, since in this case there is no other else. There is no other way to mistake the changeless except as changing. So we see a Universe which is changing all the time, made of minuscule particles, and divided into atoms."

The Equations of Maya

In Hinduism, Brahman is The Absolute, and it is Brahman which is playing itself as 'The Universe' of relative 'things', which is maya. These 'things' are appearances, from the POV of The Absolute. And that is why The Heart Sutra says that all phenomena is empty of self-nature. And that:

'form is emptiness;
emptiness is form'

The problem with the conditioned mind is that it mistakes form for 'things', and as the Buddha made clear in his Law of Dependent Origination, all such 'things' co-arise together as One, and are therefore empty of inherent self-nature.

In the classic rope/snake metaphor, the rope is a metaphor for The Absolute (Brahman), while the 'snake' a metaphor for 'The Universe', which, like the 'snake', is an appearance. From the very beginning, there never was a 'snake'. This also syncs with the Sixth Zen Patriarch:


"Fundamentally no wisdom-tree exists,
Nor the stand of a mirror bright.
Since all is empty from the beginning,
Where can the dust* alight?"

*'Dust' is a Buddhist metaphor for Samsara, the suffering of the world, and so Buddhists will sometimes state that they have 'no attachment to dust'.

 

[crossfire]

Not at all. I am not saying that 'The Absolute' is 'The Absolute'; I am saying that The Universe is The Absolute, playing itself as 'The Universe', in response to your assertion that 'there are no absolutes'. If The Universe is Everything that is, then there cannot be some 'other' to limit it. That describes what is absolute.

Wouldn't "The Big Bang" represent some sort of limit? Also, I did not write, "There are no Absolutes." I wrote, "No Absolute to be found."

 

[dfnj]

Suppose you're an easy going guy offline, but a real perkle-squatting tiger in online debates? Many people would say your perkle-squatting tiger self is your true self coming out, but is that so? How would you determine whether your easy going offline self wasn't your true self coming out but your perkle-squatting tiger self was? Why couldn't it be just the other way around?
On what basis do you decide what is your true self and what isn't?
BONUS QUESTION: Why do so many of us seem to assume that, when a person displays negative behavior, that's their true self -- even if they mostly display positive behavior?
Personally, I think people do have a true self -- in so far as people (and others) often enough recognize when they do something that is characteristic or not characteristic of them. I also think we each of us "contain multitudes" as Walt Whitman expressed it. We each of us have multiple selves that tend to vary with circumstances. And they can be contradictory. In some circumstances, we can be habitually generous. In some circumstances we can be habitually stingy. None of us, so far as I can see, are a consistent and coherent whole. Yet, for all that,
there are still things we now and then do which are not characteristic of us in any sense. Such as when we are stingy in circumstances that we are normally generous in.

The uniqueness of our ego is a lot like sex. None of us invented sex. Sex is just something that is part of what it means to be a human being. What if the same thing is true about death. None us invented death. But more importantly, none of us owns what it means to die. What I mean by this is if you take away your own Ego delusion, everything that you think that is unique to yourself, our brains, our characters, the way we think, the way we love, the way we fear, the way we laugh, is exactly the same in EVERY human being. We did not invent it and we do not own what it means to be a human being.

So in this sense, as long as the human race continues to live and thrive, the very things you hold most dear about who you are as a person, are not going to die with you. When you realize this and accept it, then you realize you do not really die because you are not really alive to begin with. Everyone lives on in everyone else. When your Ego delusion dies and you are born again into a much wider experience of what it means to be a human being.

Since we are all the same person, then maybe you won't be so selfish next time when it comes to sharing with your fellow human being. Because when you share, you are really giving something back to yourself. And helping other people live enthusiastic lives makes this place a lot more fun to live in.

I recently made a post about book on psychology of types. Jungian archetypes are present in every person. Here is description of the book:

The corporate "yes man," the wife-beater, the hot-shot male junior executive and the emotionally distant father are all boys pretending to be men, observe the authors of this liberating guide to self-transformation. Writing within a Jungian framework, they perceive symptoms of "Boycaps per book psychology" all around us--in men's abusive behaviors, passivity and inability to act creatively. To help males become more nurturing and mature, Moore and Gillette identify four archetypes of masculine energies from myth and literature: the Lover, brimming with vitality and sensitivity; the Magician, guider of the processes of inner and outer transformation; the selfless and wise King identified with Adam or primordial man; and the Warrior, whose energies often go awry in destructive activity. Dream analysis, meditation, Jungian "active imagination" and ritual processes are among the tools set forth in a clear, concise map to territories of masculine selfhood.

The thing about archetypes is they are patterns of behavior and thought common in every person. What is really cool about the book is the identification of the shadow archetypes in every man. Ones like the Know-it-all, the High-chair-tyrant, the Dummy, the Weakling-prince, the Sadist, the Masochist, the Addict. But the shadow archetype I like the best is the Shadow-Magician. The Shadow-Magician is a manipulator of people in order to achieve a selfish aim. And if confronted, the Shadow-Magician acts innocent about it. The Shadow-Magician is everywhere!

The Divine-Child archetype is a positive one mentioned in the book and is very interesting. I would say if you are looking for a true Self, it would be when we are accessing the Divine-Child archetype. It is certainly the one where we feel the most connected and content with being.

 

[Thief]

How many times must I explain to you that I am using the terms 'I' and 'you' purely as a matter of convention. Clear?

clear as mud.....
which we are made of
for the sake of forming unique spirit
that we learn all that we can before we die

then we stand before God and heaven

some of us will continue
some of us are convinced there is nothing more

you seem more to nothing

 

[godnotgod]

clear as mud.....
which we are made of
for the sake of forming unique spirit
that we learn all that we can before we die

then we stand before God and heaven

some of us will continue
some of us are convinced there is nothing more

you seem more to nothing

You want to continue with your baggage of the past, which includes your 'learning' along with who you think you are, neither of which will have anything to do with your new life after death. When you die, it's over. The part you played on this earthly plane is no more. Why would you continue the drama in Heaven?

You are temporarily 'unique' in the particular form the mud is shaped into, but the mud itself is formless and universal. The mud is who you really are; the unique mud-form just a temporal fantasy you enjoy for the moment. Clinging to your temporal form will only result in your going to Heaven as a fossil. You will not fit in with the new life you are supposed to be living. Get out of the boat and onto the shore. It's here, now, and not after you die. Then it will be too late.

Nothing you do to 'prepare' yourself will apply to a new life. A new life is just that: something you have never experienced before, and to experience it correctly, you must not have anything in the way to interfere with the experience, like your baggage of Identification and 'learning'.