Question: no self?

[Guest guest]

Question for the more experienced:

 

[Please respond to / with substance, not semantics. Of course, if my

meaning is not clear (I doubt it will be!), I will clarify, and may

ask you to do the same. If you can rephrase M from a place of genuine

understanding, that is more valuable to me than your ability to use

and/or clarify his (or his translators') particular words. I may be

using those words differently than they do]

 

What I'm finding in M's writings right now is the statement that since

we *are* conscious, and this consciousness came into being at a

particular point in time, " out of nowhere " , of course we are what it

(we) came out of. But this knowledge comes *because* we have a self

that is conscious (of itself). How does this fit in with the notion

that there is no self? There absolutely (*not* Absolutely) is a self!

I understand that we need not identify with this self over and above

identifying with the Absolute from which we emerge as conscious

beings, but where does this idea that there is *no* self come from?

 

Thanks for your help,

Susanna

[Guest guest]

The " No Self " is what many Buddhists say. I don't know why. Still

many other Buddhists say there is a " Self " Buddha Nature....

 

Self or Being or Amness, " I AM " is what we are in my understanding,

the Christian and Hindu understanding. The idea of a separate self

or ego identity is what must be overcome to some extent in order to

realize the Universal Self or God.

 

If you look at reality as constantly changing, it could be said that

since things are dynamic and not static so they don't have a self or

static identity. If Paul is the body when a baby, and it is

changing, how could it still be Paul when it is old is sort of the

argument I have heard. It actually doesn't make sense to me why it

is so hard to see. We make all this stuff up anyway... Why can't

there be a changing self? Why not define it the way we define it?

The name attached to this person who exists for hopefully a hundred

years or maybe only a few minutes. The label.

 

So then then even if you accept that for a Self to be real it has to

be static and not dynamic then you can get there is a witness that is

changeless (static) that observes phenomena which changes all the

time. This is the Shiva (Witness) and Shakti (Dynamic Phenomenon)

roughly by my very loose philosophical background. BUT....

 

But the problem is this is still dual, and the idea is to get to

defining the " whole " , so then comes in the idea that consciousness

cannot be separate from the object it witnesses. To see a coffee cup

is for consciousness to wrap around the coffee cup and identify

itself with the cup. So, the cup is created when consciousness

recognizes it....

 

But then can consciousness recognize consciousness?

 

This is where there is a big difference I believe in that

consciousness can be self-revelatory. It is both Prakasha and

Vimarsha. So, one can be aware of awareness. This is the Self. I

don't know if the Buddhists buy it... They don't buy into the God

idea either.

 

I am not too smart, and just chalk up everything to God. They say He

is Consciousness, but I maintain we don't know so much and he can be

beyond even consciousness if he wants to be. Realizing our own

Consciousness is about as high as we can get.... except we can also

relate to the infinite which is beyond Consciousness in my opinion by

His Grace.... After all, we have only 6 senses or so...... Maybe God

has a few million, who is to know? But we can know God on a personal

basis within our selves, within our person.

 

I don't want to put God in a box.....

 

Very Mysterious

 

with Sadhana, one becomes aware that everything that he ever sees he

sees from his own perspective only. Through his own Six Senses.

Therefore he can only ever know his own self because everything is

found within his own Self, seen with his own awareness on his own

stage.

 

Now this Self is his own Consciousness... seeing, hearing, feeling,

touching... and all makes a little play on the stage within. The

senses are not connected to external reality really. I see

everything within my own awareness (consciousness). The individual

(Paul) and all the " other people " (My Wife, Boss etc.) within the

play are all wrapped around with only MY consciousness on the stage

of My inner self. So, I am God of my own World. I create it and

live within it.

 

The Self is Consciousness.

The Self is the stage.

The Self is an actor.

The Self is Shiva

Nothing exists that is not Shiva.

 

Don't know if this is the way others see things or not....

 

any comments?

 

Selfishly,

 

Paul

 

voting for self