Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Atman- n. Self, Soul


According to Buddhist Theory, we have No True Self.


The idea of self is an illusion which creates separation, fear, and greed. The Self is simply composed of the Five Aggregates- Matter, Sensation, Mental Formations, Projection, and Conciousness.


But I have a personal confusion with this...


If we have no True Self, then why do we all have a tendency to be Lonely ?


Why do we have an innate desire to be social ? To have someone Love us ? For companionship ?

"It is like the identity of a river which flows continuously and maintains a semblance of an entity, though not a single drop of yesterday's water remains at the same place today. When a man realizes that he has been changing continuously every moment, he grieves neither for what he has lost nor for what he has not gained."

All things are temporal, including us.

I understand that we are not static...that we continously change form.


However, the theory of No Self also suggests that we experience conciousness...simply conciousness without owning any identity. That we are all One. We are all perspectives of one world, one entity, not scattered beings.


If we are not scattered...if we truly are not separate, then why do we experience loneliness ?

Or is Loneliness simply the result of the imposition of separation and distinction ?

I was thinking about this earlier. From my point of view, the self, or the experience of reality is:

The basic perception of the universe around us on our sensory organs
Our preconscious evaluation and attribution of cause
Our allocation of attention
Our Physical arousal at a reflexive and precognitive level to stimuli
Our conscious interpretation and "story" for what is happening
The belief that this interpretation is true

LOL

I just read the bottom of Kali's post, so to add an answer to my spam;

I do think that we have innate need for social contact. I think it is in our genes, and in many ways our bodies and brains function at a higher efficency when we are social and content.

To make a deeper philosophical point though, even if our concept of the self is an illusion, it is impossible to avoid experiencing the world as the self. Our brains construct reality as if we are an individual because that belief and the behaviour that springs from it has been essential to the survival of all multi-cellular creatures.

I saw Michael Gazzaniga speak at my school, and at the end of the talk someone asked him whether or not there was still a scientific case for dualism. His answer was that, as a scientific concept it was dead, but that all people are by nature dualists. It doesn't matter whether or not we are cells, or temporal souls, or anything else. We don't have a lot of a choice over the way our brain constructs this experience for us, and unfortunately all the crappy emotional stuff that goes with it.

Michael Gazzaniga - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Gazzaniga
Dualism - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dualism

Originally posted by Goddess Kali
I understand that we are not static...that we continously change form.


However, the theory of No Self also suggests that we experience conciousness...simply conciousness without owning any identity. That we are all One. We are all perspectives of one world, one entity, not scattered beings.


If we are not scattered...if we truly are not separate, then why do we experience loneliness ?

Or is Loneliness simply the result of the imposition of separation and distinction ?

Loneliness is a need that is not filled. Attachments lead to suffering, and loneliness is the result of an attachment. Loneliness has nothing to do with self.

edit

Originally posted by Goddess Kali
I was thinking about this earlier. From my point of view, the self, or the experience of reality is:

The basic perception of the universe around us on our sensory organs
Our preconscious evaluation and attribution of cause
Our allocation of attention
Our Physical arousal at a reflexive and precognitive level to stimuli
Our conscious interpretation and "story" for what is happening
The belief that this interpretation is true


I agree. I do not think Self has to be a physical or even spiritual substance to exist. Many people conclude that the mind is nothing more than the realm of nerves responding back and forth with messages and emotions. That does not make it any less valid, for it still exists.


Self existing as Five Aggregates, or in your case Six, does not mean it does not truly exist. The soul may not exist, because if it did, then it would truly make us individual and separate.

But you do not require a soul to have a self.





Originally posted by Goddess Kali
I just read the bottom of Kali's post, so to add an answer to my spam;

I do think that we have innate need for social contact. I think it is in our genes, and in many ways our bodies and brains function at a higher efficency when we are social and content.

Human Beings are considered social creatures, like most mammals are. We need socialization, interaction, and communication.


Babies who are not touched by the human hand in the incubator, usually die.

We all need each other to survive, to be happy. I strongly beleive that.






Originally posted by Goddess Kali
To make a deeper philosophical point though, even if our concept of the self is an illusion, it is impossible to avoid experiencing the world as the self. Our brains construct reality as if we are an individual because that belief and the behaviour that springs from it has been essential to the survival of all multi-cellular creatures.


I also beleive that we can only experience reality the way our Brain inteprets it. To me, the mental existances are just as valid, if not more valid, than the physical ones.






Originally posted by Goddess Kali
I saw Michael Gazzaniga speak at my school, and at the end of the talk someone asked him whether or not there was still a scientific case for dualism. His answer was that, as a scientific concept it was dead, but that all people are by nature dualists. It doesn't matter whether or not we are cells, or temporal souls, or anything else. We don't have a lot of a choice over the way our brain constructs this experience for us, and unfortunately all the crappy emotional stuff that goes with it.


Buddha once said that most of us are free from physical illness, but it is rare when any of us are free from mental illness.

I can certainly vouch that mental suffering is more common (lol)









Originally posted by Goddess Kali
Michael Gazzaniga - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Gazzaniga
Dualism - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dualism


Thanks for your input and your links. They are much appreciated

Goddess Kali does your computer have a self? When its turned on, it seems to be very limited and predictable, but if a computer could be self aware, would it have a self?

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Loneliness is a need that is not filled. Attachments lead to suffering, and loneliness is the result of an attachment. Loneliness has nothing to do with self.


Attachments lead to suffering, but they can also lead to enjoyment. They can lead to either Hell or Heaven. However, attachments are conditions, and conditional happiness is not as strong as unconditional happiness.



I do beleive, however, that Loneliness has all to do with Self. I think loneliness is promoted by the idea and beleif of self.


Loneliness is the result of not having anyone love us, or love us enough to the point where we feel needed, wanted, and content. I beleive that we naturally need interaction and companionship.


I know Buddhism teaches us to free ourselves from suffering by ridding of all attachments and conditions, which is great, but I still love this world.


I know the Passions are the causes of Bliss and Suffering, and are a powerful cycle, but I am by nature a passionate person. I choose to embrace some of my passions, and take the risk of the pain that can come with it, because I do not fear certain emotional pains.


I've been Heartbroken a thousand times....another Heartbreak will not kill me.


I am Buddhist, but it is my tendency to question every religion...even my own.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
"It is like the identity of a river which flows continuously and maintains a semblance of an entity, though not a single drop of yesterday's water remains at the same place today. When a man realizes that he has been changing continuously every moment, he grieves neither for what he has lost nor for what he has not gained." That's a very fufilling quote. Who said it?

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Goddess Kali does your computer have a self?



No. My computer cannot feel or think, only respond.



Originally posted by Shakyamunison
When its turned on, it seems to be very limited and predictable, but if a computer could be self aware, would it have a self?


Artificial Intelligence you mean....


If a robot, android, or computer had feelings, thoughts, opinions, and a free perspective (based on exposure to other perspectives), and could learn...then, yes.


I do not see how a Human Self could be more valid than an Artificial Intelligence that could learn, feel, think, see, and form biases.

Originally posted by Goddess Kali
Attachments lead to suffering, but they can also lead to enjoyment. They can lead to either Hell or Heaven. However, attachments are conditions, and conditional happiness is not as strong as unconditional happiness.



I do beleive, however, that Loneliness has all to do with Self. I think loneliness is promoted by the idea and beleif of self.


Loneliness is the result of not having anyone love us, or love us enough to the point where we feel needed, wanted, and content. I beleive that we naturally need interaction and companionship.


I know Buddhism teaches us to free ourselves from suffering by ridding of all attachments and conditions, which is great, but I still love this world.


I know the Passions are the causes of Bliss and Suffering, and are a powerful cycle, but I am by nature a passionate person. I choose to embrace some of my passions, and take the risk of the pain that can come with it, because I do not fear certain emotional pains.


I've been Heartbroken a thousand times....another Heartbreak will not kill me.


I am Buddhist, but it is my tendency to question every religion...even my own.

Attachments lead to suffering, but without suffering you cannot appreciate happiness. What sets you free is the knowledge of where the suffering comes from.

Love is an attachment and loneliness is the suffering; if you did not have a self, would you not want love?

Originally posted by Goddess Kali
No. My computer cannot feel or think, only respond.






Artificial Intelligence you mean....


If a robot, android, or computer had feelings, thoughts, opinions, and a free perspective (based on exposure to other perspectives), and could learn...then, yes.


I do not see how a Human Self could be more valid than an Artificial Intelligence that could learn, feel, think, see, and form biases.

What would that self be?

Originally posted by Goddess Kali
The idea of self is an illusion...If we have no True Self, then why do we all have a tendency to be Lonely ?
Why do we have an innate desire to be social ? To have someone Love us ? For companionship ?
The self may not be real, but the self-illusion is.

Originally posted by Mindship
The self may not be real, but the self-illusion is.


You one time agreed with me that the mental existances are just as valid, if not more valid, than the physical ones.





Originally posted by Mindship
Attachments lead to suffering, but without suffering you cannot appreciate happiness. What sets you free is the knowledge of where the suffering comes from.


I agree. That is why I choose to embrace some of my attachments, because I feel some of them are worth suffering for. Some people in my life are also worth suffering for (in my perspective)








Originally posted by Mindship
Love is an attachment and loneliness is the suffering; if you did not have a self, would you not want love?




If I did not have a self (or the idea of self), what would Love mean to me ?


Every living thing, human and animal, holds on to the idea of self in regards to the exterior world and others.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
What would that self be?


That self would be a self. I don't know how to further explain it.

Originally posted by Goddess Kali
That self would be a self. I don't know how to further explain it.

Perhaps you are trying to explain something that does not exist.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Perhaps you are trying to explain something that does not exist.



What qualifies as existance for you?


Does existance need to have a physical and untangible root ?

Originally posted by Goddess Kali
What qualifies as existance for you?


Does existance need to have a physical and untangible root ?

I do not know, but I do not think it matters.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I do not know, but I do not think it matters.


Why not ?


How can you claim something does not exist, if you do not know what actual existance is/or is composed of ?

Originally posted by Goddess Kali
You one time agreed with me that the mental existances are just as valid, if not more valid, than the physical ones.
Still do.


Hey, I don't remember saying those things...

Originally posted by Goddess Kali
Why not ?


How can you claim something does not exist, if you do not know what actual existance is/or is composed of ?

It is the attachment to self that causes suffering.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
It is the attachment to self that causes suffering.


I know that, but that wasn't my question....

Originally posted by Goddess Kali
I know that, but that wasn't my question....

What color is red in ditch darkness? An illusion cannot be real, but can seem to be real.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
What color is red in ditch darkness? An illusion cannot be real, but can seem to be real.


So the color red doesn't exist ? Despite it's impact and influence on our nerves, sight, communication, and tastes, it doesn't exist ?


It is safe to argue that the Soul does not exist (according to Buddhist Theory), because of major lack of proof, and desire for self preservation, but according to Buddhist Theory, the self (not soul) is composed of the Five Aggregates.


The Five Aggregates exist. Just because the self is composed of five components, instead of one, does not make it non existant.

Originally posted by Goddess Kali
So the color red doesn't exist ? Despite it's impact and influence on our nerves, sight, communication, and tastes, it doesn't exist ?


It is safe to argue that the Soul does not exist (according to Buddhist Theory), because of major lack of proof, and desire for self preservation, but according to Buddhist Theory, the self (not soul) is composed of the Five Aggregates.


The Five Aggregates exist. Just because the self is composed of five components, instead of one, does not make it non existant.

The color red does exist, but not as we perceive it. Light exists, but our perception is only in our head.

I'm not aware of the Five Aggregates.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
The color red does exist, but not as we perceive it. Light exists, but our perception is only in our head.


So the Self does exist, but not as we percieve it.




Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I'm not aware of the Five Aggregates.


You are unaware of mental formations, matter, sensation, projections, and conciousness ?

Originally posted by Goddess Kali
So the Self does exist, but not as we percieve it.







You are unaware of mental formations, matter, sensation, projections, and conciousness ?

I don't believe that the self exists in the way we all think it does. However, my entity does exist.

I have never studied the Five Aggregates.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I don't believe that the self exists in the way we all think it does. However, my entity does exist.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I have never studied the Five Aggregates.


Now it makes sense....there is a book entitled


"What the Buddha Taught" - by Walpola Rahula


It's very extensive and interesting. He discusses the Five Aggregates that the Self is composed of.

Originally posted by Goddess Kali
Now it makes sense....there is a book entitled


"What the Buddha Taught" - by Walpola Rahula


It's very extensive and interesting. He discusses the Five Aggregates that the Self is composed of.

I have a big list of books to read, so it would be a while.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I have a big list of books to read, so it would be a while.


LOL


or you could look them up online


I didn't know about the Ten Worlds until you introduced me to them.

Buddhism teaches that self is made up of five distinct parts, i.e. feeling, corporeality, consciousness, perception, and mental formations. Since none of these are permanent as they are subject to change, the individual consciousness remains in a state of flux and change throughout one's existence. In order to attain truth and emancipation from suffering, one must detach himself from the illusion of the involvement of self.

Originally posted by Mindship
The self may not be real, but the self-illusion is. Kind of like a lucid dreamer awakening to the reality of the Dream.

Originally posted by debbiejo
Kind of like a lucid dreamer awakening to the reality of the Dream.


thumbup1

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Buddhism teaches that self is made up of five distinct parts, i.e. feeling, corporeality, consciousness, perception, and mental formations. Since none of these are permanent as they are subject to change, the individual consciousness remains in a state of flux and change throughout one's existence. In order to attain truth and emancipation from suffering, one must detach himself from the illusion of the involvement of self.



A very well informed post, you know ur sh*t

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Buddhism teaches that self is made up of five distinct parts, i.e. feeling, corporeality, consciousness, perception, and mental formations. Since none of these are permanent as they are subject to change, the individual consciousness remains in a state of flux and change throughout one's existence. In order to attain truth and emancipation from suffering, one must detach himself from the illusion of the involvement of self.

What form of Buddhism is that teaching from?

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
What form of Buddhism is that teaching from?

What form of Buddhism does not teach this?

Originally posted by lord xyz
That's a very fufilling quote. Who said it?

"The Concept of No-Self" by V. Jayaram.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
What form of Buddhism does not teach this?

I am a Nichiren Buddhist.

Some people divide the self in three, others in five, others in seven. I always got confused with those divisions but they are basically the same thing.

Originally posted by Goddess Kali


Because we have a true self.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Because we have a true self.


How do you define a self ? You mean a soul ?

Originally posted by Goddess Kali
How do you define a self ? Well that is the ultimate question.

I'm going to a seminar today. I'll get back with you. *Puts on thinking cap*

Originally posted by Goddess Kali
How do you define a self ?
The self is a locus of awareness, a process of individual presence, characterized mainly by the principles of attachment (identification) and detachment (disidentification). It's "innate" tendencies are to distance itself from Death Terror and to actualize its full potential, which some might call Godhood.

Problems arise when the ego (the self identifiying with properties of the mental-symbolic domain) sees itself as God rather than a step toward Godhood.

Originally posted by Mindship
...Problems arise when the ego (the self identifiying with properties of the mental-symbolic domain) sees itself as God rather than a step toward Godhood.

How would such a problem manifest its self?

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
How would such a problem manifest its self?
According to the transpersonal model, this is the catch-22 of human existence:

The separate self intuitively, unconsciously senses its full potential as God. However, in order to actualize this potential, the separate self has to "die" the way, eg, the acorn has to "die" to become a mighty oak. But Death Terror prevents the ego from accepting death, indeed, the ego avoids death/death terror at all costs. But at the same time, without "dying," self-development cannot continue on to Godhood.

So, in trying to have its existential cake and eat it too, the ego tries to make itself into God...which, for so many obvious reasons, is a path inevitably doomed to utter and complete failure. But the ego will try, nonetheless, and in the process (as so much of history attests) it will often leave untold death and destruction in its wake.

Originally posted by Mindship
According to the transpersonal model, this is the catch-22 of human existence:

The separate self intuitively, unconsciously senses its full potential as God. However, in order to actualize this potential, the separate self has to "die," the way, eg, the acorn has to "die" to become a mighty oak. But Death Terror prevents the ego from accepting death, indeed, the ego avoids death/death terror at all costs. But at the same time, without "dying" self-development cannot continue on to Godhood.

So, in trying to have its existential cake and eat it too, the ego tries to make itself into God...which, for so many obvious reasons, is a path inevitably doomed to utter and complete failure. But the ego will try, nonetheless, and in the process (as so much of history attests) it will often cause untold death and destruction in its wake.


But the answer is so simple; we are God, but that does not mean much because everything else is God also.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
But the answer is so simple; we are God, but that does not mean much because everything else is God also.
And That is the ultimate irony of the ultimate catch-22 of human existence.

We are programmed from birth to believe we are separate and need But if everyone really knew that we are not alone and that we all are connected then the world would view everyone as "One", and we would lose this separateness and there would be more love. IMO

self for me: at its most basic and fundamental, awareness of one's own existance. so i do believe the self exists. however its basics are not free will/choice or reason, just awareness of it own existance{which in turn is based on its ability to be aware, circular i know} also to a ccertain limited degree awareness of its surrounding which becomes the context to form the idea of AWARENESS.

loneliness for the most part ie either desire or need. but for some situations i believe, it isnt true, it is possible for a man to be completely selfless and yet be lonely, in complete innocence not perverted even by the most basic of instincts. this is because the conciounce/soul was not formed whole, but the very core of our existance was lacking, n this can only be filled with love of another/others or love for another/other, a combination of both actually. with that we can be whole again, complete in ourself. also this hole can be to a great extent filled by becoming one with our origin by truly first knowin, then enderstanding and finally grasping and comprehending and hence becoming one with our origin and also oddly end. however the essential aspect of love of another conciounce and love for another conciounce still remains i believe. unless our origin's conciounce cud in some way be compared to some selfless human.{lol, its sorta like the lifestream in FF7, or gai, the spirit of all things, the place where all life originates and returns to} as i doubt the last percent of becoming whole cud ever be filled by even the origin as i think ud need a soul{or watever it is} who atleast can like u understand the pain of being able to have a conciounce {i think parts of the origin break off gain self awareness and become what we call souls} as opposed to the joy and ease of just NOT being in the sense we see existance to mean{the origin, wud seem to us like non existance}. with the understanding of the origin, and love of and for the other half, u MIGHT become whole.


lol, this is the softer part of me talkin today for some reason.

That is a very interesting perspective Leon, thanks