If We Have No Self...

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 🙂 [/B][/QUOTE]

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."

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 [b]my own. [/B]

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.

[b]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. [/B]

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 ?

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.