What Is the Self?

[blackout]

WillamenaQuote:
Originally Posted by autonomous1one1
Greetings. Still pondering. If you are still with me, would you care to say any more about "in duality and non-dual oneness"?
Best for you,
a..1

Like what?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Willamena
Like what?

They go together like a horse and carriage? If so, which one is the horse?

Originally Posted by Willamena
More like "me... and my shadow..."

Which one is you?

wow. :cover:

 

[Willamena]

Which one is you?

Both.

 

[doppelganger]

Both.

:rainbow1:

 

[blackout]

Both.

You go girl!

 

[autonomous1one1]

ho, ho. You guys (dopp and Willamena) will have me chuckling in my sleep again tonight. But actually, that 'me and my shadow' is kinda interesting as is your original statement Willamena:

.. "I am" equally in duality and non-dual oneness.....

As evidenced in this thread, there seems to be great variation in the way the 'self' is conceptualized and the 'self-identity' is realized. There are concepts that might be described as a centered unit that relates as a whole in finitude with the rest of the 'world' (the self in the self-world structure) and there are those that include an infinite that transcends the finite. Or maybe, Willamena, you were saying in your original post that the self is 'me' or 'I am' regardless of what that is.

In some of my other posts the pointer terms 'self' and 'True Self' are used to indicate the normally conceived finite self on the one hand and the Self after realization of union with God on the other hand. (Perhaps these are akin to your duality and non-dual oneness?) The former finite self-identity as conceptualized changes and grows primarily through love; it can also shrink through hate and separation imo. In this regard the most rapid growth is through love of God whereby love is compounded through God's love for all. The finite self-identity can grow (with help) to realize the union and that 'it' really was not what it thought all along. This 'True Self' and self-identity (related to the New Being used in other posts) is unchanging. As Zenzero has noted elsewhere, actually it is not proper to say one realizes union with God because that implies two and violates the oneness. The more appropriate expression is the Infinite (or God) reunites with the Infinite through human consciousness. This is just an opinion, but these kinds of view have led to many interpretations of the 'self.'

 

[Willamena]

Everyone's going to understand it in a unique way, and choose words that are meaningful to them, but may not mean the same thing to others. I latched onto "self and non-dual oneness" mentioned in this thread by yourself(?) or others, as it suits, but tomorrow I may find more appropriate terms. It's as good as any (though personally I prefer more graphic metaphor).

For instance, the phrase "an infinite that transcends the finite" is not one I would choose, but I figure I know what is meant by it. "The Self after realization of (unity)..." has a nice ring. "Non-dual oneness" isn't a phrase I would have chosen were it not used earlier.

Or maybe, Willamena, you were saying in your original post that the self is 'me' or 'I am' regardless of what that is.

Yes.

 

[autonomous1one1]

Everyone's going to understand it in a unique way, and choose words that are meaningful to them, but may not mean the same thing to others. I latched onto "self and non-dual oneness" mentioned in this thread by yourself(?) or others, as it suits, but tomorrow I may find more appropriate terms. It's as good as any (though personally I prefer more graphic metaphor).

For instance, the phrase "an infinite that transcends the finite" is not one I would choose, but I figure I know what is meant by it. "The Self after realization of (unity)..." has a nice ring. "Non-dual oneness" isn't a phrase I would have chosen were it not used earlier.

Or maybe, Willamena, you were saying in your original post that the self is 'me' or 'I am' regardless of what that is.

Yes.

Understood.

 

[Rolling_Stone]

In Christianity, Islam, and some forms of Judaism, the self often gets elevated to the status of an eternal soul. While in Buddhism and Hinduism, the self is just as frequently seen as illusionary.

I see it as both.

So how do you define the self? What precisely is the self?

Relationship

Is the self the same as consciousness?

Yes and no.

When you think of yourself do you think of your conscious awareness as yourself?

Yes and no

Is the self something beyond consciousness? Does it transcend what you can be consciously aware of?

Yes and no

Is the self transitory or permanent? Is it ever changing, or is their something essential about it that never changes?

Both

What relationship is there, if any, between the self and such things as greed, lust, gluttony, etc.? Is the self naturally grasping? Does it naturally tend to aggrandize itself?

It's relationship.

Can the self be transcended?

Yes and no

Is the self in some sense a cause of suffering?

Yes and no

If so, in what sense is that?

It's all in the relationship.

:takeabow:

 

[Willamena]

Yes and no.

:rainbow1:

 

[autonomous1one1]

I see it as both.

Relationship
Yes and no.
Yes and no
Yes and no
Both
It's relationship.
Yes and no
Yes and no
It's all in the relationship.

:takeabow:

_____

 

[Guitar's Cry]

The Self is a spectrum of definitions created by observation--which, as Rolling Stone mentioned, is a relationship. The observers are both the entity that uses "I" and the other entities observing the "I."

The "I"s are the universe experiencing different parts of itself, it appears.

Edit: The Self is also a matrix from which patterns are perceived, creating reality.

 

[Paraprakrti]

While in Buddhism and Hinduism, the self is just as frequently seen as illusionary.

Buddhism, yes. Hinduism, not so much.

There is a general category of philosophers within Hinduism who, as a response to the Buddha's philosophy, began promoting the monist view of the individual ultimately being homogenous with Brahman. That group aside, there are Vedic verses that explain the eternity of the individual. According to some schools of Vedic thought, the ability to merge with Brahman is real, but it is not the final dwelling place. Because we are eternally individuals, at some point we fall back down from this dormant state of being merged with Brahman. So the highest ideal is to penetrate the impersonal Brahman, which is the Brahmajyoti effulgence of the Supreme Personality of Godhead. And then one dwells in that eternal, spiritual realm where the Supreme Person resides.

Now, that said, what we generally think of as self in this material world is false. We are not these bodies. Consequently, we are not the likes or dislikes associated with these bodies. We are not our gender identity. We are not the color of our skin. Much of our personality is painted over by false ego, or the ego that identifies self with the material body. Yet, the basic mental and emotional qualities we experience here are indicative of our eternal nature. It is just that currently we mistakenly focus these mental and emotional qualities on temporary objects, which are inferior to our eternal nature.