How do you define the self? (ritual, soul, creation, hell)

[Isis-Astoroth]

A person is made up of the corporeal, the spirit, and the soul. The spirit being the conciousness, the mind, the astral body, and the soul being that which we take to the next life. That's my thoughts anyway.

[retrorich]

Originally Posted by Engyo

Buddha taught the concept of anatta, or no-self; meaning in simplest terms, that the self is illusory, and impermanent.

I think it's just the opposite: The "self" is everything--the universe, God--because everything exists only in the mind (the "self") of the individual. When the individual dies, the "self" dies, God dies, and the universe ceases to exist.

[anders]

I believe in no soul or anything like it. Engyo and M. Vigil have explained the Buddhist and Daoist views, which rather coincide with mine.

The "divine spark" thing is an expression I associate with Gnosticism (or, perhaps better, Gnosticisms).

Anattâ is indeed the Pali form of Sanskrit Anatman, "not-I", the absence of a permanent and unchanging self or soul. The anatta doctrine attempts to encourage the Buddhist practitioner to detach him/herself from this misplaced clinging to what is mistakenly regarded as his or her Self.

[anders]

Anatta in Japanese is muga, 無我; wuwo (not-I) in Chinese. Several sites, like http://travel.mysic.org/Buddhist_terms_and_concepts, have lists of Buddhist terminology.

[seraphimfire]

I must agree somewhat with MV. The self is the personality, mind, will, emotions and of course intelect.
The "church" has always confused the soul with the spirit. The human being is composed of spirit first, we are spirits! We have a soul or self and we live in these bodies that will die one day and decompose leaving only our spirit and the essense of soul. This is the teachings of the Bible, that we must have a spiritual body made by our relationship with God/Jesus Christ and we will not be without a body after death. This is open to much understanding in the whole process that all mankind will go through in the future ages.
I don't have much time to elaborate and it is not to ethical for me to do so. Carl Jung has written much on the "self" and the problems thereof! I don't agree with him 100% but not much has breen written deeply on the subject so I thought of him first after the Bible.
Seraph

[Mercury]

i define self as a collection of thoughts and memories that is continually evolving. i do not believe there is a soul.

[michel]

I would personally define the 'self' as 'the spirit' (maybe we over complicate things by using too many words?); the spirit is an intangible source of nature that merely 'uses' bodies in each incarnation, until the spirit reaches enlightenment, and a oneness with God.

What a pity we very rarely (there have been cases where people claim to do so) have a connection from the spirit's memory to the mind; I suppose that would be too easy!!

[sondadareas]

Hi to all!


I would define the self as that dynamic entity that continuously creates the ongoing NOW out of the electric pulses which are themselves generated within the brain! These neuronic pulses can be assumed to be triggered by the outside world, OW! (I would like everyone to consider how the desktop PC interacts with the OW!)

The truth is, we only have NOW! For example, we can only worry about the past, now. And we can only think of the future now! Indeed, the science of meditation shows us that the tendency of the mind is to spend the present to think about the past or future.

Now, the NOW. 1st, the PC doesn't have NOW! It's the awareness of events in the immediate past. Example....

I hear the note A for a fraction of a second, then it's gone. I hear the 2nd note, B, WHILE the 1st note is still in my awareness, despite that that I can't hear it. This means my hearing of the 2nd note is integrated with the 1st. Then the 2nd note is gone too, & the 3rd note, C, comes in. Yet, the previous notes are still in my awareness, though I can't hear them! So, the 3rd note is heard too in relation with the past 2 notes.

This is how we hear music! Though the past is gone yet we are aware of it, & the present sensations are always 'integrated' ( I can't find the right word!) with the immediate past.
Is this the 'eternal present' of the mystics? I wouldn;t be surprise if it is.

peace,
sondadareas

[michel]

Originally Posted by sondadareas

Hi to all!


I would define the self as that dynamic entity that continuously creates the ongoing NOW out of the electric pulses which are themselves generated within the brain! These neuronic pulses can be assumed to be triggered by the outside world, OW! (I would like everyone to consider how the desktop PC interacts with the OW!)

The truth is, we only have NOW! For example, we can only worry about the past, now. And we can only think of the future now! Indeed, the science of meditation shows us that the tendency of the mind is to spend the present to think about the past or future.

Now, the NOW. 1st, the PC doesn't have NOW! It's the awareness of events in the immediate past. Example....

I hear the note A for a fraction of a second, then it's gone. I hear the 2nd note, B, WHILE the 1st note is still in my awareness, despite that that I can't hear it. This means my hearing of the 2nd note is integrated with the 1st. Then the 2nd note is gone too, & the 3rd note, C, comes in. Yet, the previous notes are still in my awareness, though I can't hear them! So, the 3rd note is heard too in relation with the past 2 notes.

This is how we hear music! Though the past is gone yet we are aware of it, & the present sensations are always 'integrated' ( I can't find the right word!) with the immediate past.
Is this the 'eternal present' of the mystics? I wouldn;t be surprise if it is.

peace,
sondadareas

I'm not very keen on analogies with P.C's - although I must admit that I have used them in the past. The human 'mechanism' is so incredible that I think that to compare it to a P.C is much like comparing a bicycle to a sports car! I can't ever see a human creating a mechanism that heals itself, that has true sentience, Morals...well, the list goes on ad infinitum.

Part quote ......."This is how we hear music! Though the past is gone yet we are aware of it, & the present sensations are always 'integrated' ( I can't find the right word!) with the immediate past.
Is this the 'eternal present' of the mystics? I wouldn;t be surprise if it is.".......Part quote.
Having gone to the trouble to compare the mind to a P.C, I am surprise that you don't equate our memory to the memory of a P.C - perhaps with eprom, rom and ram - to me, our brains are very much like that. Trouble is, I'm fast running out of ram!!!

[sondadareas]

Michel,

I think I'm beginning to understand! Humans, even the reductionists here in the forums don't like to be compared with the PC! My apology then, to both believers & reductionsts!

I am merely using the PC as THE example of how objects we see around us interacts with one another & more importanly, how an 'intelligent' entity like an animal, a human, or even a PC can even 'acquire knowledge' about the OW, 'outside world.' As I have repeatedly posted here in the forum, OW cannot even exist, from the point of view of the intelligence within the organism or PC! For the PC, binary patterns are merely being triggered within the body of the PC & nothing more. For organisms, on the other hand, neuronal pulses are generated within the body, assumed to be triggered by the OW. But here electric pulses are turned into sensations, unless we deny animals sensations!

In other words I AM TRYING TO AWAKEN OR RE-AWAKEN FROM YOU, BROTHERS & SISTERS, THIS MYSTERY OF EXISTENCE, OF OUR CONSCIOUSNESS. I want you to realize that you yourSELF, with your body/mind, creates your own reality & this personal reality is THE REALITY!

peace ,

sondadareas