what is the self in a nutshell

[Patang]

the self is a bodily mechanism to separate the inner-world from the outer-world sort of speak. the self is what makes you "you", generating a sense of existence apart from the environment around "you". the self consists of imprints and beliefs about reality,  explaining how it works. the self communicates with reality using thoughts and feelings which are generated from those thoughts (internal) and from the body senses (external) and interact with it using the body. fear is the glue holding all "your" imprints and beliefs in a tangible way and allow the self to continuously feels alive. the first step to dismantle the self is to dissolve all "your" fears and question all "your" imprints and beliefs.

Edited February 3, 2018 by Patang

[Ibn Sina]

I agree.

[SOUL]

Nice, yes, the body takes a million 'selfies' a day to paint a mosaic portrait that could be called 'self'.

There is one facet that I would like to add to your description and that is love.

It is love that pulls all of these many 'selfies' into one in us like a unifying embrace even if it is fear that clings onto it in attachment that doesn't want to let it go.

Love will let go though, in love there is freedom and trust, this is how we can tell if we are embracing in love or are gripped in fear.

Are we able to let go?

 

Edited February 4, 2018 by SOUL

[alyra]

i am what defines me. 

 

my environment defines me. I am my environment. 

[Patang]

@SOUL the LOVE issue is a bit tricky. the self uses a conditional love to connect to other beings in reality and it is expressed as a feeling in the body. when the self is dismantled, this type of love is gone along with all other feelings. then, when you accept reality with full surrender, one of the ways to connect with reality is with unconditional love. unconditional love is a non-targeted and a non-attached while conditional love is by definition targeted and attached (it last as long as its conditions are met). letting go is about attachment, not about love. attachments are closely related and caused by fears.

Edited February 4, 2018 by Patang

[SOUL]

@Patang  I agree that there are many ways that love can be expressed ranging from self interest to self less.

Although forgive me for disagreeing on a subtle nuance but there really is no such thing as unconditional love. What you described in accepting, surrender, non-attachment and non targeting are all conditions placed on love with characteristics of selflessness.

So the love that we are expressing can be a mix of both self-interest and selfless as well as it can be a mix of other emotional impulses including fear. Which is why we self inquire to discover the characteristics of  our behaviors so we can express ourselves in a more selfless love if that is our intention.

[Nahm]

@Patang You can experience unconditional love. 

[StephenK]

34 minutes ago, Nahm said:

@Patang You can experience unconditional love. 

Is unconditional love and compassion the same thing, in this context? Genuinely curious.

[Nahm]

@StephenKNo. Compassion involves the illusion of two. 

[StephenK]

Just now, Nahm said:

@StephenKNo. Compassion involves the illusion of two. 

What do the Buddhists mean then when they talk about compassion?

[StephenK]

42 minutes ago, Mighty Mouse said:

Most emotions for people are entirely fear-based, including love and compassion.

When the fear-based paradigm is left behind, fear is left behind, and what remains are appreciation-based emotions such as gratitude, humor, wonder and awe.

These are often sold as love but I see no advantage to using such a loaded and misleading word, only disadvantage, because it is inevitably associated with all the wrong (fear-based) things and they have absolutely nothing in common.

There are other ways in which spirituality is sold as love and there are arguments for using that word, but I find them all equally misleading.

I do have an association with love and compassion as being fear based, since they're grounded in attachment to things that are impermanent (at least that is how I perceive it). I wonder if what you're describing as 'appreciation based emotions' is similar to equanimity as described in Buddhism: The Buddha described a mind filled with equanimity as "abundant, exalted, immeasurable, without hostility and without ill-will."?  

[Sri Ramana Maharshi]

2 hours ago, Mighty Mouse said:

Most emotions for people are entirely fear-based, including love and compassion.

When the fear-based paradigm is left behind, fear is left behind, and what remains are appreciation-based emotions such as gratitude, humor, wonder and awe.

These are often sold as love but I see no advantage to using such a loaded and misleading word, only disadvantage, because it is inevitably associated with all the wrong (fear-based) things and they have absolutely nothing in common.

There are other ways in which spirituality is sold as love and there are arguments for using that word, but I find them all equally misleading.

I tend to agree strongly with this. Love (as Peter Ralston mentioned in an interview) is often used in the West as an enticement to sell things, such as greeting cards. Compassion, as talked about in Buddhist or Vedanta circles can only be arrived at after grasping one's true nature, or realizing Nibbana, after which individuality is seen through as total illusion and the only aspect of Compassion and it's ultimate value could be discribed as Oneness or that we are all in this together. On that basis, aversion can't exist, and there is no reason to compete and promote the self sense at others' expense.

So, I would argue that for the unrealized, Compassion can't exist at all, since it would be deluded and used in a manipulative way, always pointed outward with the intention of getting something from others or winning in some way, no?

[Leo Gura]

@Mighty Mouse You have yet to have an awakening to infinite love.

Try contemplating it: What is love?

It is not an emotion and it has nothing to do with fear.

[Patang]

compassion comes from empathy. conditional love is an emotion (can be conditioned by fear). unconditional (infinite) love is about oneness.

Edited February 5, 2018 by Patang

[Shin]

2 minutes ago, Mighty Mouse said:

Try contemplating "what is pre/trans fallacy".

Did you know you're a lost cause, Leo?

Who's the lost cause:

The one who make a living by releasing free content on how to relieve your suffering 

Or a dude that can't stop arguing with people telling them implicitly that they are stupid ?

 

[MarkusSweden]

@Shin I like Mighty Mouse though(Even though I think Leo is great)  

You gotta give credit to bold statements if it comes from highly evolved beings.

And the Mouse seem to be one of those.. 

Edited February 5, 2018 by MarkusSweden

[StephenK]

30 minutes ago, MarkusSweden said:

@Shin I like Mighty Mouse though(Even though I think Leo is great)  

You gotta give credit to bold statements if it comes from highly evolved beings.

And the Mouse seem to be one of those.. 

Let the 'evolved being' dick-swinging contest continue. Truly a beautiful sight. No sarcasm.  

[MarkusSweden]

2 minutes ago, StephenK said:

Let the 'evolved being' dick-swinging contest continue. Truly a beautiful sight. No sarcasm.  

I agree!

I use to read threads at this forum a year ago. It was a often dull back then, and more of a Leo cult. 

Happy to see sharp and realised people this time around.  

[Leo Gura]

51 minutes ago, Mighty Mouse said:

Did you know you're a lost cause, Leo?

I'll be just fine. No need to save me. But thanks for caring. I guess there's some love in you after all

[Joseph Maynor]

The Self is a conceptualization, not reality.  It’s like one of those illusion pictures where things appear not as they are.  Where an image looks like it’s there but it’s only a projection of the Mind from more mundane phenomenon.  That’s the self.  Reality exists as it always has; what changes are the thoughts we cling to about reality.  We loosen our beliefs.  We don’t conceptually know what reality is.  Practice not knowing.  When it comes to conceptual truth aka belief, it’s best to be agnostic of all of it.  Well, it could be like that, but it also could be like this.  None of that is existential truth, however, and existential truth don’t tell me nothin’ about no separate sense of self.  That’s conceptual truth, not existential truth.  And conceptual truth can only really point to existential truth, it can’t be existential truth.  Now, some conceptual truth resonates better with existential truth than others, but there’s still a key qualitative difference there.  

Edited February 5, 2018 by Joseph Maynor