You are blessed to have a self

[Salvijus]

1 minute ago, Sugarcoat said:

You’re saying “you” as in existence itself ? 

That's the only you there is. (Apart from the imaginary one.) 

Edited October 15 by Salvijus

[Sugarcoat]

1 minute ago, Salvijus said:

That's the only you there is. (Apart from the imaginary one.) 

Ok I’m with you there I think

[UnbornTao]

We can postulate that, as babies, experience was operative for us and no sense of self was needed for that. Our memory of ourselves stops short at some point, yet we could see, touch, smell, plus likely felt the body, were aware, etc. So, self was constructed at some point throughout our upbringing, and therefore it arises not prior to experience, but after it.

Edited October 16 by UnbornTao

[Salvijus]

12 minutes ago, UnbornTao said:

As babies, experience was operative without a sense of self. So self comes after that, not the other way around. 

A baby knew he/she exists even without the sense of identity of a baby. That implies some sort of sense of self. 

Edited October 15 by Salvijus

[UnbornTao]

21 minutes ago, Salvijus said:

I'm just saying the self is the only thing you can possibly be. And it's not a construction. It's eternal I AM. 

The I AM is the self. 

I think we are using terms differently. 

I'm proposing that there are two aspects to what you are:

1. Being, which is what you are, prior to and independent of character traits, identity, story, personality and any other activity--your nature
2. Self, which is what you have learned to know as you and have adopted throughout the course of living--an artifice and convenient tool

Edited October 15 by UnbornTao

[Salvijus]

1 minute ago, UnbornTao said:

I think we are using terms differently. 

I'm proposing that there are two aspects to what you are:

1. Being, which is what you are, prior to and independent of character traits, identity, story, personality and any other activity--your nature
2. Self, which is what you have learned to know as you and have adopted throughout the course of living--an artifice and convenient tool

I'm aware of how you're using the terms. 

[Salvijus]

In honesty there is only one thing that you can claim to know in life. That you don't know anything except that you exist. "I exist" is the only thing in the universe that you know to be true undeniably and with perfect certainty. It's knowledge of God itself. And it is forever. 

[UnbornTao]

@Salvijus Then it seems to me you're failing to make that distinction. You think self is what you are.

[Schizophonia]

31 minutes ago, Sugarcoat said:

How? I’ve heard this before , how we can be attached to stress somehow

Unconscious fear of representations of death, like being socially exclude, being physically hurt by someone, develop a disease... (ego)

What you see in others and the world in general is the part of you in denial (mirror) that maintains your current "problematic" persona, so for exemple if you're anorexic you will see "swine" (humans psyche is as brutal as that) everywhere, if you force yourself to be too generous with money you will see "tightwads" everywhere, If you feel stupid and it's refused you'll see idiots everywhere, etcetc.

To give a more personal example, when i was insomniac i play a very "perched" persona (me i'm above everything, i'm flegmatic, blahblahblah...) in total deny about the influence of mirrors on my well being, at this point i saw "hysterical and dedenious people" everywhere and get particularly triggered by that. 

Now i've accepted that theses character were actually mirrors of my ego my insomnia has been cured and lot of compulsive rumination have disappeared ; I accept more now to be ruthless with things that tend to be negative for my self-esteem. 

That's why i've said some time that traumas and bad psychic configurations persists because people are too attached to secondary benefits of their personas pushed, induced by their experience. 

 

Edited October 15 by Schizophonia

[Salvijus]

1 minute ago, UnbornTao said:

@Salvijus Then it seems to me you're failing to make that distinction. You think self is what you are.

No I didn't say learnt identity is what we are. 

[Sugarcoat]

15 minutes ago, UnbornTao said:

As babies, we could postulate that experience was operative for us with no sense of self. So, self has to be constructed and therefore comes after experience, not the other way around. 

What do you mean by “operative “

[Sugarcoat]

6 minutes ago, Schizophonia said:

Unconscious fear of representations of death, like being socially exclude, being physically hurt by someone, develop a disease... (ego)

What you see in others and the world in general is the part of you in denial (mirror) that maintains your current "problematic" persona, so for exemple if you're anorexic you will see "swine" (humans psyche is as brutal as that) everywhere, if you force yourself to be too generous with money you will see "tightwads" everywhere, If you feel stupid and it's refused you'll see idiots everywhere, etcetc.

To give a more personal example, when i was insomniac i play a very "perched" persona (me i'm above everything, i'm flegmatic, blahblahblah...) in total deny about the influence of mirrors on my well being, at this point i saw "hysterical and dedenious people" everywhere and get particularly triggered by that. 

Now i've accepted that theses character were actually mirrors of my ego my insomnia has been cured and lot of compulsive rumination have disappeared ; I accept more now to be ruthless with things that tend to be negative for my self-esteem. 

That's why i've said some time that traumas and bad psychic configurations persists because people are too attached to secondary benefits of their personas pushed, induced by their experience. 

 

Cool thx. I can maybe kinda get what u mean

[Sugarcoat]

Some people speak in terms of how the sense of self is “taught” through for example language by constantly being referred to. I don’t know if I agree with this, would a person isolated on an iland away from society from birth develop a sense of i? I do think so, because the sense of self in my theory seems to be of the human brain. Maybe the identity would be more simple though, but the person would feel like a separate self. I’m not fully sure though 

Edited October 15 by Sugarcoat

[Salvijus]

16 minutes ago, UnbornTao said:

self has to be constructed

Sense of self is the only thing in existence that is not and cannot be constructed. Under false identity the energy of self can take a distorted form and produce a contracted ego sense of self. But the sense of self itself cannot be constructed or deconstructed. It can change its expression only. 

 

[Sugarcoat]

Just now, Salvijus said:

Sense of self is the only thing in existence that is not and cannot be constructed. Under false identity the energy of self can take a distorted form and produce a contracted ego sense of self. But the sense of self itself cannot be constructed or deconstructed. It can change its expression only. 

 

How do you explain these non dualists though that claim the I sense had dropped for them?

[Salvijus]

29 minutes ago, Sugarcoat said:

One could wonder though , if the sense of self disappeared would all the things I wrote still be possible?

Probably not. You couldn't relate to anything. The only reason one can relate to the world is if they have a sense of I. Then they have the sense of other. Then relating becomes possible. 

[Sugarcoat]

1 minute ago, Salvijus said:

Probably not. You couldn't relate to anything. The only reason one can relate to the world is if they have a sense of I. Then they have the sense of other. Then relating becomes possible. 

I think like this too. But at the same time some non dualists claim it’s all the same. Maybe they still have a human ego but without a sense of I somehow, don’t know how that would work

[Salvijus]

12 minutes ago, Sugarcoat said:

How do you explain these non dualists though that claim the I sense had dropped for them?

A big portion of them are deluded af. 

Some had glimpses of samadhi and absorbtion into nothingness where there is no sense of separation. But nobody can function in the world without identity because of what I just wrote above. One needs a sense of self to be able to relate to the sense of other. No relating is possible without duality. 

 

Edited October 15 by Salvijus

[shree]

3 minutes ago, Salvijus said:

A big portion of them are deluded af. 

Some had glimpses of samadhi and absorbtion into nothingness where there is no sense of separation. But nobody can function in the world without identity because of what I just wrote above. One needs a sense of self to be what you able to relate to the sense of other. No relating is possible without duality. 

 

@Salvijus

I understand your point about needing a sense of self to function in the world, but you're limiting how deep non-duality can go. In deeper experiences, the "I" as a separate self can drop, but awareness and functioning still happen without needing to cling to a personal identity.

 

Non-dualists who experience this aren’t necessarily deluded. They have realized a state where separation fades, but they can still act through the body and mind. You can still relate to others without the ego being attached to the idea of a separate "I." Awareness flows through experience naturally, without needing the ego to control it.

 

[Salvijus]

9 minutes ago, Sugarcoat said:

But at the same time some non dualists claim

A genuine one would not claim he/she has no sense of self. A genuine one would say "I have realized my nature to be beyond the ego sense of self." which is a bit different. 

Edited October 15 by Salvijus