Religion and Ethics Forum
General Category => General Discussion => Topic started by: Sriram on August 12, 2015, 03:55:01 PM
-
Hi everyone,
The 'real' God is within. Our higher nature or our higher self is the real God.....but we need to journey all over the world to realize that the Truth is at home.
Cheers.
Sriram
-
Yes Bhaiya.
So many here have their own little worlds & really can't see anything else.OK for THEM but when these kind of people start telling the rest of us WE are wrong then....... ::) ??? ;D
-
Hi everyone,
The 'real' God is within. Our higher nature or our higher self is the real God.....but we need to journey all over the world to realize that the Truth is at home.
Cheers.
Sriram
You can twist a girder, with enough force and time, into any shape you want, but it's no longer recognisable as a girder, and no longer functions as one.
You can twist the definition of god, but you just end up talking about something else that's equally ill-defined.
O.
-
Yes but we can talk til the sacred cows come home & it won't make an ounce of difference.
God IS as God IS !!!
-
Hi everyone,
The 'real' God is within. Our higher nature or our higher self is the real God.....but we need to journey all over the world to realize that the Truth is at home.
Cheers.
Sriram
You can twist a girder, with enough force and time, into any shape you want, but it's no longer recognisable as a girder, and no longer functions as one.
You can twist the definition of god, but you just end up talking about something else that's equally ill-defined.
O.
Why do you think it is being 'twisted'?! If you go through all the religions...you'll find the same 'truth' in them all. All other 'definitions' or versions are just means to the real truth. They are the process of self development or growing up.
That's what is meant by the 'journey around the world'.
-
Why do you think it is being 'twisted'?! If you go through all the religions...you'll find the same 'truth' in them all. All other 'definitions' or versions are just means to the real truth. They are the process of self development or growing up.
That's what is meant by the 'journey around the world'.
The concept of 'Our higher nature or our higher self is the real God' occurs in relatively few world religions, Sri, and is a fairly modern concept. Certainly all the major world religions other than perhaps Buddhism look to an external 'being' with whom to relate or merge.
-
Why do you think it is being 'twisted'?! If you go through all the religions...you'll find the same 'truth' in them all. All other 'definitions' or versions are just means to the real truth. They are the process of self development or growing up.
That's what is meant by the 'journey around the world'.
The concept of 'Our higher nature or our higher self is the real God' occurs in relatively few world religions, Sri, and is a fairly modern concept. Certainly all the major world religions other than perhaps Buddhism look to an external 'being' with whom to relate or merge.
What do you mean 'modern' concept? Please read the thread on 'Tat Tvam Asi'. The available Upanishads are from at least 800 BCE, maybe earlier. The Samkhya is an even older philosophy.
Buddha was a 'Hindu' who taught the Samkhya/Vedanta philosophy.....and Buddhism was never meant to be a separate religion.
The idea of the 'God within' is one of the oldest concepts on earth....though the popular idea of an external God is inevitable given the nature of the human mind.
I don't know how many more times I must mention, Gnosticism, Kabbala, Socrates and so on.
(You need to go out a little more....Hope) :)
-
What do you mean 'modern' concept? Please read the thread on 'Tat Tvam Asi'. The available Upanishads are from at least 800 BCE, maybe earlier. The Samkhya is an even older philosophy.
Yet the ultimate aim of a Hindu has always been getting off the cycle of lives, and merging with the Supreme Being - Brahma - an external entity. It isn't about merging with oneself.
I don't know how many more times I must mention, Gnosticism, Kabbala, Socrates and so on.
Which faith system is Socrates thought to have started? ;)
-
What do you mean 'modern' concept? Please read the thread on 'Tat Tvam Asi'. The available Upanishads are from at least 800 BCE, maybe earlier. The Samkhya is an even older philosophy.
Yet the ultimate aim of a Hindu has always been getting off the cycle of lives, and merging with the Supreme Being - Brahma - an external entity. It isn't about merging with oneself.
I don't know how many more times I must mention, Gnosticism, Kabbala, Socrates and so on.
Which faith system is Socrates thought to have started? ;)
The aim of a Hindu is to eliminate the lower nature through repeated births...and thereby realize the Inner Self. The aim is always Self Realization or Samadhi. Read the Upanishads or Yogic texts sometime. Its not about merging with oneself...its about realizing ones true nature.
Socrates taught the idea of 'Know thyself'.....which is Self Realization.
-
Possibly my favourite quote of all time
We shall not cease from exploration, and the end of all our exploring will be to arrive where we started and know the place for the first time.
TS Eliot
-
Possibly my favourite quote of all time
We shall not cease from exploration, and the end of all our exploring will be to arrive where we started and know the place for the first time.
TS Eliot
Yes...Rhiannon. That about sums it up.
The exploring is inevitable and is an important part of the individual development process. After that we see ourselves anew and realize that the Truth lies within ourselves.
Religions facilitate the exploration process besides providing valuable social control mechanisms.
-
Hope,
If you prefer western sources of wisdom...here is a wiki site on 'know thyself'......
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Know_thyself
*************************************************************************
The Ancient Greek aphorism "know thyself" (Greek: γνῶθι σεαυτόν, transliterated: gnōthi seauton; also ... σαυτόν … sauton with the ε contracted), is one of the Delphic maxims and was inscribed in the pronaos (forecourt) of the Temple of Apollo at Delphi according to the Greek periegetic (travelogue) writer Pausanias (10.24.1).
Plato employs the maxim 'Know Thyself' extensively by having the character of Socrates use it to motivate his dialogues. Plato makes it clear that Socrates is referring to a long-established wisdom. Benjamin Jowett's index to his translation of the Dialogues of Plato lists six dialogues which discuss or explore the saying of Delphi: 'know thyself.'
*************************************************************************
There is said to have been an inscription at the Temple of Apollo at Delphi to 'Know Thyself'. The Oracle at Delphi is also believed to have urged people to 'know thyself' for centuries before Socrates and Plato.
-
The aim of a Hindu is to eliminate the lower nature through repeated births...and thereby realize the Inner Self. The aim is always Self Realization or Samadhi. Read the Upanishads or Yogic texts sometime. Its not about merging with oneself...its about realizing ones true nature.
Socrates taught the idea of 'Know thyself'.....which is Self Realization.
Knowing yourself, for better or worse, is merely a reflection on wisdom. It doesn't follow that you will find God in there. A paedophile who realises and comes to accept that he is a paedophile is probably better placed than a paedophile in denial. No woo required.
-
I like my woo.
Incidentally, I was reading something recently about how much stoicism was similar to some aspect of Christianity, particularly in relation to serving others. It also has similarities to much of modern CBT therapy.
-
Dear Torridon,
A reflection on wisdom! Sounds like something Sriram would say, but I fail to see where the woo is.
Searching for or trying to define God is such a futile mission, as a Christian I can relate to what Sriram is trying to say, God is within us, or God like qualities, every Christian I know strives to be more like Jesus.
Where is the woo in trying to be a better person.
Christians are constantly saying, we are made in Gods image, I think this means more than just looking like him/her although I have to confess that I have been likened to one of those young Greek gods, is there a god of bad backs. 8)
Gonnagle.
-
is there a god of bad backs
Bacchus? the God of wine and whisky.
-
Dear ekim,
A temporary god, usually leads to the worship of the god of hangovers >:(
Gonnagle.
-
Hi everyone,
The 'real' God is within. Our higher nature or our higher self is the real God.....but we need to journey all over the world to realize that the Truth is at home.
Cheers.
Sriram
You've got it right at last Sriram, god is within, exactly, and nowhere else.
ippy
-
The aim of a Hindu is to eliminate the lower nature through repeated births...and thereby realize the Inner Self. The aim is always Self Realization or Samadhi. Read the Upanishads or Yogic texts sometime. Its not about merging with oneself...its about realizing ones true nature.
Socrates taught the idea of 'Know thyself'.....which is Self Realization.
Knowing yourself, for better or worse, is merely a reflection on wisdom. It doesn't follow that you will find God in there. A paedophile who realises and comes to accept that he is a paedophile is probably better placed than a paedophile in denial. No woo required.
'Know Thyself' is not quite as simple as merely being aware of your weaknesses.
A paedophile...even if he is aware of his faults ....will not be able to 'know himself'...in the sense in which it is meant in the OP. Our base needs, desires and sense of self importance envelope the Higher self and cover it like dirt on a person.
-
Dear Torridon,
A reflection on wisdom! Sounds like something Sriram would say, but I fail to see where the woo is.
Searching for or trying to define God is such a futile mission, as a Christian I can relate to what Sriram is trying to say, God is within us, or God like qualities, every Christian I know strives to be more like Jesus.
Where is the woo in trying to be a better person.
Christians are constantly saying, we are made in Gods image, I think this means more than just looking like him/her although I have to confess that I have been likened to one of those young Greek gods, is there a god of bad backs. 8)
Gonnagle.
Yes...Gonnagle. The point about Christians trying to be like Jesus is very relevant. That is one way of realizing the higher nature. Everyone eventually should become like Jesus....that's the point. That is the God within.....and that is Self Realization.
-
http://www.youtube.com/?#/watch?v=B9f2BmlDB4w
-
Dear Torridon,
A reflection on wisdom! Sounds like something Sriram would say, but I fail to see where the woo is.
Searching for or trying to define God is such a futile mission, as a Christian I can relate to what Sriram is trying to say, God is within us, or God like qualities, every Christian I know strives to be more like Jesus.
Where is the woo in trying to be a better person.
Christians are constantly saying, we are made in Gods image, I think this means more than just looking like him/her although I have to confess that I have been likened to one of those young Greek gods, is there a god of bad backs. 8)
Gonnagle.
No woo in trying to be a better person. 'God' comes with all manner of woo-baggage though.
-
I have mentioned many times that spirituality is indistinguishable from self development. Trying to become a 'better person' or trying to control the selfish nature are the same thing.
If we all become like Jesus for example, we would all be godlike.
The point is that this 'better nature' already exists within us and is not something we need to take in from outside. Its not about learning to be better....its rather about removing the selfish nature to uncover the 'better nature'.
-
The chorus seems appropriate here
http://www.youtube.com/?#/watch?v=LI8WGX3afDs
-
The aim of a Hindu is to eliminate the lower nature through repeated births...and thereby realize the Inner Self. The aim is always Self Realization or Samadhi. Read the Upanishads or Yogic texts sometime. Its not about merging with oneself...its about realizing ones true nature.
Socrates taught the idea of 'Know thyself'.....which is Self Realization.
Knowing yourself, for better or worse, is merely a reflection on wisdom. It doesn't follow that you will find God in there. A paedophile who realises and comes to accept that he is a paedophile is probably better placed than a paedophile in denial. No woo required.
'Know Thyself' is not quite as simple as merely being aware of your weaknesses....
Yes, the phrase just as importantly speaks to unrealised potential. In the amongst the squalor of a Syrian refugee camp there may well be a child with the potential to become a fine jazz clarinetist. But given her cultural background and lack of opportunity she may well never discover that talent within. The reservoir of unrealised human talent is vast; few among us get to know what we are capable of.
-
I have mentioned many times that spirituality is indistinguishable from self development. Trying to become a 'better person' or trying to control the selfish nature are the same thing.
If we all become like Jesus for example, we would all be godlike.
The point is that this 'better nature' already exists within us and is not something we need to take in from outside. Its not about learning to be better....its rather about removing the selfish nature to uncover the 'better nature'.
For me the selfish nature comes from fear and low self respect, and is learned from infancy. We all have stories that we believe that are handed to us by others - parents, grandparents, siblings, friends, teachers, peers - and usually these stories are negative - we are not good enough in some way. These beliefs manifest in different ways - we might be an over-achiever, a compulsive spender, a people pleaser, a rescuer, an abuser or an abuse victim, a perfectionist, a slob. Self development is about changing those stories and seeing who we really are. Lose the fear of not being good enough and you not only lose the selfishness, but you are better placed to contribute to the wellbeing of others because you are at ease with yourself.
-
I have mentioned many times that spirituality is indistinguishable from self development. Trying to become a 'better person' or trying to control the selfish nature are the same thing.
If we all become like Jesus for example, we would all be godlike.
The point is that this 'better nature' already exists within us and is not something we need to take in from outside. Its not about learning to be better....its rather about removing the selfish nature to uncover the 'better nature'.
For me the selfish nature comes from fear and low self respect, and is learned from infancy. We all have stories that we believe that are handed to us by others - parents, grandparents, siblings, friends, teachers, peers - and usually these stories are negative - we are not good enough in some way. These beliefs manifest in different ways - we might be an over-achiever, a compulsive spender, a people pleaser, a rescuer, an abuser or an abuse victim, a perfectionist, a slob. Self development is about changing those stories and seeing who we really are. Lose the fear of not being good enough and you not only lose the selfishness, but you are better placed to contribute to the wellbeing of others because you are at ease with yourself.
We all need to lighten up. I know I am at peace with myself. For example: I do not have any faults; or perhaps just the one: modesty. ;D
-
Hi everyone,
'Knowing oneself' is such a complex matter that every individual will understand it in his/her own way.
I understand it as becoming aware of the subject that sees and experiences all of life. Through a process of Neti Neti (not this...not this) that was mentioned in the thread on 'Tat Tvam Asi', ... we arrive at the subject that is the final observer.... always observing but never observed.
After all life's experiences, after all sorrow and desires, after all successes and failures, after all duties and responsibilities, after all questions and theories, after all rituals and prayers, after all meditations and mind control...we finally arrive at the centre, the light within....the true Self.
Once we experience that, everything else falls away as an illusion.....only the Self remains. This is what according to me, the 'Know Thyself' refers to.
Cheers.
Sriram
-
Sounds like a fantasy Sriram.
Has anyone has ever arrived anywhere? It's just a dream that there is somewhere to arrive.
-
Re arriving 'home'.... it's about losing all the baggage we have gained throughout life, deprogramming ourselves from all the misinformation and disinformation and stuff that has made us 'slaves to the system'; and once more returning to how we started out.... 'taint easy, but can be achievable.
-
Hi everyone,
Just because I say that the real God is within.....it does not mean that everyone should necessarily understand it that way. Our individualistic mind is such that it always looks externally. Only after a certain stage of self development does the mind automatically become introspective.
So...believing in an external God is natural and inevitable for most people. Imagination, beliefs, mythology etc. are part of this.
Over time, the process of praying and trying to unite with the external God reduces our individualistic mindset and brings out the God within. All the rituals we practice through religion are also important to discipline the ego mind. So...religions and their practices are important for the process of Self Realization to happen.
That is why in Hinduism...even though Self Realization is the fundamental principle and aim of life....any form of worship or ritual is accepted as a useful method of mind control and self discipline. Three major paths to realization are accepted (among others).... Path of wisdom, Path of devotion, Path of service. Anything that works for the individual.
So....nothing wrong in people following their traditional religious practices. They do not in any way conflict with the principle of Self development and Self Realization....in fact, they aid the process.
Cheers.
Sriram
-
Hi everyone,
Just because I say that the real God is within.....it does not mean that everyone should necessarily understand it that way. Our individualistic mind is such that it always looks externally. Only after a certain stage of self development does the mind automatically become introspective.
So...believing in an external God is natural and inevitable for most people. Imagination, beliefs, mythology etc. are part of this.
Over time, the process of praying and trying to unite with the external God reduces our individualistic mindset and brings out the God within. All the rituals we practice through religion are also important to discipline the ego mind. So...religions and their practices are important for the process of Self Realization to happen.
That is why in Hinduism...even though Self Realization is the fundamental principle and aim of life....any form of worship or ritual is accepted as a useful method of mind control and self discipline. Three major paths to realization are accepted (among others).... Path of wisdom, Path of devotion, Path of service. Anything that works for the individual.
So....nothing wrong in people following their traditional religious practices. They do not in any way conflict with the principle of Self development and Self Realization....in fact, they aid the process.
Cheers.
Sriram
Good that Hinduism is tolerant in that respect. Does it recognise as similarly valid more modern secular derivates such as mindfulness practice ?
-
Good that Hinduism is tolerant in that respect. Does it recognise as similarly valid more modern secular derivates such as mindfulness practice ?
What modern derivatives? Mindfiul meditation is a Buddhist practice taught in the Mahasatipatana Sutra...which is derived from the Samatha tradition of Raja Yoga!
Yoga is today literally producing dozens of variants! Even in ancient Hindu traditions...many variants of Yoga and meditations have been produced by different people over the centuries.
Anything that works...as I said. The point is to control the conscious mind and its authority the ego. Nothing sacrosanct about any particular practice.
-
The point about Christians trying to be like Jesus is very relevant. That is one way of realizing the higher nature. Everyone eventually should become like Jesus....that's the point. That is the God within.....and that is Self Realization.
No, it isn't - or at least it isn't what Jesus taught.
-
Dear Hope,
What isn't, I don't see a argument against what Sriram is saying.
In fact what I am seeing from all the major Christian religions is an effort to be more like Hinduism, a open hand of friendship no matter what religion you follow.
I listened to one of your CoE priests, Peter Owen Jones ( the guy who looks like Jesus ) he stated that we must step away from conversion, for me he was saying, be more open to how others come to God.
Gonnagle.
-
I listened to one of your CoE priests, Peter Owen Jones ( the guy who looks like Jesus ) he stated that we must step away from conversion, for me he was saying, be more open to how others come to God.
Yet the problem is that what POJ says doesn't match up with Jesus' own teaching. I tend to take any teaching that doesn't match Jesus' with a pretty sizeable pinch of salt.
-
I listened to one of your CoE priests, Peter Owen Jones ( the guy who looks like Jesus ) he stated that we must step away from conversion, for me he was saying, be more open to how others come to God.
Yet the problem is that what POJ says doesn't match up with Jesus' own teaching. I tend to take any teaching that doesn't match Jesus' with a pretty sizeable pinch of salt.
But you don't know for sure that anything attributed to Jesus has any veracity, especially as it was written down so many years after he died.
-
The point about Christians trying to be like Jesus is very relevant. That is one way of realizing the higher nature. Everyone eventually should become like Jesus....that's the point. That is the God within.....and that is Self Realization.
No, it isn't - or at least it isn't what Jesus taught.
You don't even accept the Gnostic gospels (Nag Hammadi) as the teachings of Jesus. So...if you prefer to hold on to some edited version of Jesus's teachings what can be done?
In any case , people of all religions need to realize that their religion is a product of the culture of a particular community at a particular time. We need to develop an understanding of life based on what is relevant to all people for all time.
-
Dear Hope,
I am the Way the Truth and the Life, no One comes to the Father.....
Yes that is a sticking point for Christians, I can only hope personally, that I am forgiven for not denouncing anyones path to the Father.
Gonnagle.
Gonnagle.
-
Dear ekim,
A temporary god, usually leads to the worship of the god of hangovers >:(
Gonnagle.
.......... Irnbru the Great? :D
-
Hi everyone,
Just because I say that the real God is within.....it does not mean that everyone should necessarily understand it that way. Our individualistic mind is such that it always looks externally. Only after a certain stage of self development does the mind automatically become introspective.
So...believing in an external God is natural and inevitable for most people. Imagination, beliefs, mythology etc. are part of this.
Over time, the process of praying and trying to unite with the external God reduces our individualistic mindset and brings out the God within. All the rituals we practice through religion are also important to discipline the ego mind. So...religions and their practices are important for the process of Self Realization to happen.
That is why in Hinduism...even though Self Realization is the fundamental principle and aim of life....any form of worship or ritual is accepted as a useful method of mind control and self discipline. Three major paths to realization are accepted (among others).... Path of wisdom, Path of devotion, Path of service. Anything that works for the individual.
So....nothing wrong in people following their traditional religious practices. They do not in any way conflict with the principle of Self development and Self Realization....in fact, they aid the process.
Cheers.
Sriram
Good that Hinduism is tolerant in that respect. Does it recognise as similarly valid more modern secular derivates such as mindfulness practice ?
Its not just about being 'tolerant'. Its about the base philosophy that covers all religious practices and traditions and is able to explain life and spirituality in a secular manner relevant to all humans and even non humans.
-
Tolerant is an awful word.
It means I don't REALLY like you but I'll BEAR you for the sake of non-battle !!!!
Acceptance, for me, is a much better word. It means the speaker is aware of others' opinions too & 'respects' that, even if they're not for THEM !! NO?
Certain posters here could do well to draw in their egos & arrogance & they might well calm down inside !?!!?? ;)
Nick
-
Hi everyone,
'Knowing oneself' is such a complex matter that every individual will understand it in his/her own way.
I understand it as becoming aware of the subject that sees and experiences all of life. Through a process of Neti Neti (not this...not this) that was mentioned in the thread on 'Tat Tvam Asi', ... we arrive at the subject that is the final observer.... always observing but never observed.
After all life's experiences, after all sorrow and desires, after all successes and failures, after all duties and responsibilities, after all questions and theories, after all rituals and prayers, after all meditations and mind control...we finally arrive at the centre, the light within....the true Self.
Once we experience that, everything else falls away as an illusion.....only the Self remains. This is what according to me, the 'Know Thyself' refers to.
Cheers.
Sriram
The Self is also an illusion though, in all likelihood
-
Hi everyone,
'Knowing oneself' is such a complex matter that every individual will understand it in his/her own way.
I understand it as becoming aware of the subject that sees and experiences all of life. Through a process of Neti Neti (not this...not this) that was mentioned in the thread on 'Tat Tvam Asi', ... we arrive at the subject that is the final observer.... always observing but never observed.
After all life's experiences, after all sorrow and desires, after all successes and failures, after all duties and responsibilities, after all questions and theories, after all rituals and prayers, after all meditations and mind control...we finally arrive at the centre, the light within....the true Self.
Once we experience that, everything else falls away as an illusion.....only the Self remains. This is what according to me, the 'Know Thyself' refers to.
Cheers.
Sriram
The Self is also an illusion though, in all likelihood
In all probability it will be, once the mind tries to create a concept of it. Part of the problem in discussing the 'Self' is that it frequently gets turned into an object. You can see it happening in Sriram's post : 'we arrive at the subject' ... there is 'we' and there is 'subject' .... 'we arrive at the Centre' 'we experience that'. Even 'know thyself' seems to imply a knower and a self.
-
The self remains an object till we identify with it. After that it becomes the subject. While discussing it, it will naturally be an object.
I am out of town and may not be able to discuss for a couple of days.
-
Re what this thread is all about, have just watched from last night on BBC 4, a really good prog about the Oracle Of Delphi.
And what should be written on the inside as you go in to the very temple itself....????
KNOW THYSELF !!!!
-
The self remains an object till we identify with it. After that it becomes the subject. While discussing it, it will naturally be an object.
That's, like, deep, man ... real deep.
Anybody got any Pringles?
-
Hi everyone,
'Knowing oneself' is such a complex matter that every individual will understand it in his/her own way.
I understand it as becoming aware of the subject that sees and experiences all of life. Through a process of Neti Neti (not this...not this) that was mentioned in the thread on 'Tat Tvam Asi', ... we arrive at the subject that is the final observer.... always observing but never observed.
After all life's experiences, after all sorrow and desires, after all successes and failures, after all duties and responsibilities, after all questions and theories, after all rituals and prayers, after all meditations and mind control...we finally arrive at the centre, the light within....the true Self.
Once we experience that, everything else falls away as an illusion.....only the Self remains. This is what according to me, the 'Know Thyself' refers to.
Cheers.
Sriram
The Self is also an illusion though, in all likelihood
An illusion for whom?!
-
The Self is also an illusion though, in all likelihood
An illusion for whom?!
That's an illustration of how deeply ingrained, how compelling, the illusion is. It is scarcely possible to talk about such things without language that assumes the illusion.
-
The Self is also an illusion though, in all likelihood
An illusion for whom?!
That's an illustration of how deeply ingrained, how compelling, the illusion is. It is scarcely possible to talk about such things without language that assumes the illusion.
So...once again. An illusion for whom?
-
Just saw this thread, and I thought that some Eastern religions actually collapse the distinction between 'within' and 'without', so there is no location. In the famous phrase, there is no up. Advaita seems like this, but then an advaita teacher that I read tends to say that nothing has ever happened! (Tony Parsons, not the novelist). But this is the complete dissolution of familiar landmarks, so not even 'God' makes sense. All a long way from ordinary life, but some people want to go a long way.
Maybe this is a bit like panentheism, not sure.
-
The Self is also an illusion though, in all likelihood
An illusion for whom?!
That's an illustration of how deeply ingrained, how compelling, the illusion is. It is scarcely possible to talk about such things without language that assumes the illusion.
So...once again. An illusion for whom?
And once again, the phrasing of the question presupposes there is a 'person' to be illuded. Which is of course entirely reasonable in daily life. It is near impossible to describe what is meant by 'self' with any sort of clarity or precision and in a way that suits all contexts. If I take, as a working definition, a sense of self to mean a sense of inner singularity, personal continuity, agency and perception, then I would say that there must be an illusory aspect to this in the same way there is an illusory aspect to all conscious experience, in that it is all cerebral fabrication of some form that we implicitly take for real. Thus for example I am looking at my screen right now and I accept unquestioningly that my vision of the screen actually is the screen I am looking at. But of course it is not, my sense of sight is a neurological phenomenon happening at the back of my skull but the experience is so sublimely compelling that I trust that my sight of the screen actually is the screen itself. And suppose I reach out to touch the screen to confirm what my eyesight tells me, my sense of touch is another component of the overall immersive sensory illusion of conscious perception. It feels like my finger is touching the screen, but actually the sensation of touch is something fabricated in brain and cunningly back-projected through some sort of reverse proprioception to make it feels as if it is the finger which is experiencing touching.
The sense of self in particular is a component of the overall fabrication that comes as a package under the umbrella of conscious experience, and to my mind there are telling pointers that illustrate the work that goes on behind the scenes to produce this feeling; for example we often look to disorders as a way to illuminate the nature of 'normality' and we find there are schizophrenics that sometimes lose their sense of self, and for instance, when they move an arm, they have the compelling belief that someone else is moving it, not them. This is a case where the sense of self is compromised or underfunctioning through pathology. Another pointer to the divided inner self is the fact that we experience cognitive dissonance, born of the defacto observation that all mammals in essence have two brains that are joined together by a tiny amount of connective tissue, and in human psychology, this often manifests as a tension between two ways of thinking - one intuitive, directly experiential way, and on the other hand, an abstract, logical way of thinking, which might very crudely be portrayed as underlying the tension in human society between religion and science. Pointers such as these suggest to me at least that much of the work that the brain does in generating conscious experience is to do with the homogenising and calibrating and harmoniously integrating disparate and often warring underlying components into a seemingly single point of focus, perception and volition, and this taken together with the persistence of individual memory over time thanks to faithful cell replication, we have an enormously powerful and compelling sense of self, of individuality, of personhood.
-
The Self is also an illusion though, in all likelihood
An illusion for whom?!
That's an illustration of how deeply ingrained, how compelling, the illusion is. It is scarcely possible to talk about such things without language that assumes the illusion.
So...once again. An illusion for whom?
And once again, the phrasing of the question presupposes there is a 'person' to be illuded. Which is of course entirely reasonable in daily life. It is near impossible to describe what is meant by 'self' with any sort of clarity or precision and in a way that suits all contexts. If I take, as a working definition, a sense of self to mean a sense of inner singularity, personal continuity, agency and perception, then I would say that there must be an illusory aspect to this in the same way there is an illusory aspect to all conscious experience, in that it is all cerebral fabrication of some form that we implicitly take for real. Thus for example I am looking at my screen right now and I accept unquestioningly that my vision of the screen actually is the screen I am looking at. But of course it is not, my sense of sight is a neurological phenomenon happening at the back of my skull but the experience is so sublimely compelling that I trust that my sight of the screen actually is the screen itself. And suppose I reach out to touch the screen to confirm what my eyesight tells me, my sense of touch is another component of the overall immersive sensory illusion of conscious perception. It feels like my finger is touching the screen, but actually the sensation of touch is something fabricated in brain and cunningly back-projected through some sort of reverse proprioception to make it feels as if it is the finger which is experiencing touching.
The sense of self in particular is a component of the overall fabrication that comes as a package under the umbrella of conscious experience, and to my mind there are telling pointers that illustrate the work that goes on behind the scenes to produce this feeling; for example we often look to disorders as a way to illuminate the nature of 'normality' and we find there are schizophrenics that sometimes lose their sense of self, and for instance, when they move an arm, they have the compelling belief that someone else is moving it, not them. This is a case where the sense of self is compromised or underfunctioning through pathology. Another pointer to the divided inner self is the fact that we experience cognitive dissonance, born of the defacto observation that all mammals in essence have two brains that are joined together by a tiny amount of connective tissue, and in human psychology, this often manifests as a tension between two ways of thinking - one intuitive, directly experiential way, and on the other hand, an abstract, logical way of thinking, which might very crudely be portrayed as underlying the tension in human society between religion and science. Pointers such as these suggest to me at least that much of the work that the brain does in generating conscious experience is to do with the homogenising and calibrating and harmoniously integrating disparate and often warring underlying components into a seemingly single point of focus, perception and volition, and this taken together with the persistence of individual memory over time thanks to faithful cell replication, we have an enormously powerful and compelling sense of self, of individuality, of personhood.
This is the confusion which results from using the word 'self'. Sriram has entered into western New Age speak where the terms Higher Self (with a capital 'S') and lower self (small 's') are used. It might have been better if he had used the Hindu words Atman and Ahamkara and explained the difference. What you have elaborated upon is roughly what ahamkara represents, which we might call ego. Sriram is probably talking about Atman, 'that' which is realised when identification with ahamkara ceases and conceptualisation ceases.
-
The Self is also an illusion though, in all likelihood
An illusion for whom?!
That's an illustration of how deeply ingrained, how compelling, the illusion is. It is scarcely possible to talk about such things without language that assumes the illusion.
So...once again. An illusion for whom?
And once again, the phrasing of the question presupposes there is a 'person' to be illuded. Which is of course entirely reasonable in daily life. It is near impossible to describe what is meant by 'self' with any sort of clarity or precision and in a way that suits all contexts. If I take, as a working definition, a sense of self to mean a sense of inner singularity, personal continuity, agency and perception, then I would say that there must be an illusory aspect to this in the same way there is an illusory aspect to all conscious experience, in that it is all cerebral fabrication of some form that we implicitly take for real. Thus for example I am looking at my screen right now and I accept unquestioningly that my vision of the screen actually is the screen I am looking at. But of course it is not, my sense of sight is a neurological phenomenon happening at the back of my skull but the experience is so sublimely compelling that I trust that my sight of the screen actually is the screen itself. And suppose I reach out to touch the screen to confirm what my eyesight tells me, my sense of touch is another component of the overall immersive sensory illusion of conscious perception. It feels like my finger is touching the screen, but actually the sensation of touch is something fabricated in brain and cunningly back-projected through some sort of reverse proprioception to make it feels as if it is the finger which is experiencing touching.
The sense of self in particular is a component of the overall fabrication that comes as a package under the umbrella of conscious experience, and to my mind there are telling pointers that illustrate the work that goes on behind the scenes to produce this feeling; for example we often look to disorders as a way to illuminate the nature of 'normality' and we find there are schizophrenics that sometimes lose their sense of self, and for instance, when they move an arm, they have the compelling belief that someone else is moving it, not them. This is a case where the sense of self is compromised or underfunctioning through pathology. Another pointer to the divided inner self is the fact that we experience cognitive dissonance, born of the defacto observation that all mammals in essence have two brains that are joined together by a tiny amount of connective tissue, and in human psychology, this often manifests as a tension between two ways of thinking - one intuitive, directly experiential way, and on the other hand, an abstract, logical way of thinking, which might very crudely be portrayed as underlying the tension in human society between religion and science. Pointers such as these suggest to me at least that much of the work that the brain does in generating conscious experience is to do with the homogenising and calibrating and harmoniously integrating disparate and often warring underlying components into a seemingly single point of focus, perception and volition, and this taken together with the persistence of individual memory over time thanks to faithful cell replication, we have an enormously powerful and compelling sense of self, of individuality, of personhood.
I am not talking of the sense of individuality that we have. That is the ego and conscious self awareness. Observing oneself is also due to the ego sense.
I am talking about the final observer....beyond self awareness. Even nothingness is experienced by something. That is the Self.
Just as all kinds of experiences generated by the computer always require an observer and user....all illusion and experience in life also require a subject...a Self.
-
This is the confusion which results from using the word 'self'. Sriram has entered into western New Age speak where the terms Higher Self (with a capital 'S') and lower self (small 's') are used. It might have been better if he had used the Hindu words Atman and Ahamkara and explained the difference. What you have elaborated upon is roughly what ahamkara represents, which we might call ego. Sriram is probably talking about Atman, 'that' which is realised when identification with ahamkara ceases and conceptualisation ceases.
Where does new age come into this? The word ..'Self' has been used in all english translations since the 19th century. Please read Vivekananda (talks of little self) or Dr.Radhakrishnan.
Its not about words or language. The word atman (soul) is very appropriately translated as 'Self' because that's what it is. Some westerners might confuse the idea of 'Self' with the idea of 'self awareness'...which is a mistake.
When people say....'I die and my soul goes to heaven'......this is obviously a mistake. Your soul is YOU....it is not some appendage. 'My body dies and I go to heaven' ...is more correct. Identifying ourselves with the atman or soul or spirit is the fundamental point here.
-
And once again, the phrasing of the question presupposes there is a 'person' to be illuded. Which is of course entirely reasonable in daily life. It is near impossible to describe what is meant by 'self' with any sort of clarity or precision and in a way that suits all contexts. If I take, as a working definition, a sense of self to mean a sense of inner singularity, personal continuity, agency and perception, then I would say that there must be an illusory aspect to this in the same way there is an illusory aspect to all conscious experience, in that it is all cerebral fabrication of some form that we implicitly take for real. Thus for example I am looking at my screen right now and I accept unquestioningly that my vision of the screen actually is the screen I am looking at. But of course it is not, my sense of sight is a neurological phenomenon happening at the back of my skull but the experience is so sublimely compelling that I trust that my sight of the screen actually is the screen itself. And suppose I reach out to touch the screen to confirm what my eyesight tells me, my sense of touch is another component of the overall immersive sensory illusion of conscious perception. It feels like my finger is touching the screen, but actually the sensation of touch is something fabricated in brain and cunningly back-projected through some sort of reverse proprioception to make it feels as if it is the finger which is experiencing touching.
The sense of self in particular is a component of the overall fabrication that comes as a package under the umbrella of conscious experience, and to my mind there are telling pointers that illustrate the work that goes on behind the scenes to produce this feeling; for example we often look to disorders as a way to illuminate the nature of 'normality' and we find there are schizophrenics that sometimes lose their sense of self, and for instance, when they move an arm, they have the compelling belief that someone else is moving it, not them. This is a case where the sense of self is compromised or underfunctioning through pathology. Another pointer to the divided inner self is the fact that we experience cognitive dissonance, born of the defacto observation that all mammals in essence have two brains that are joined together by a tiny amount of connective tissue, and in human psychology, this often manifests as a tension between two ways of thinking - one intuitive, directly experiential way, and on the other hand, an abstract, logical way of thinking, which might very crudely be portrayed as underlying the tension in human society between religion and science. Pointers such as these suggest to me at least that much of the work that the brain does in generating conscious experience is to do with the homogenising and calibrating and harmoniously integrating disparate and often warring underlying components into a seemingly single point of focus, perception and volition, and this taken together with the persistence of individual memory over time thanks to faithful cell replication, we have an enormously powerful and compelling sense of self, of individuality, of personhood.
I am not talking of the sense of individuality that we have. That is the ego and conscious self awareness. Observing oneself is also due to the ego sense.
I am talking about the final observer....beyond self awareness. Even nothingness is experienced by something. That is the Self.
Just as all kinds of experiences generated by the computer always require an observer and user....all illusion and experience in life also require a subject...a Self.
I'm not sure what you would mean by 'final observer'; I'd suspect it is your 'final observer' that I would identify as the illusion. Can you identify any characteristics for this final observer, or any evidence that it exists ? Eastern religions as well as western religions have evolved incorporating the intuitive assumption that experience requires an experiencer and there must be something, a person, a soul, a self, inside us who is in receipt of experience and is making purposeful choices. I think all religions and all traditional ways of thought are probably fundamentally and profoundly flawed in this respect because they have all bought into this ubiquitous and compelling cognitive illusion that there is a 'person' inside us, whereas I am unaware of any research that actually validates this intuition. What we have evidence for, is that a sense of self arises in waking higher animals, to a particularly rich form in humans. Claims that go further than that, further than this sense being like all other senses, a cunning neurological phenomenon, require justification.
-
I'm not sure what you would mean by 'final observer'; I'd suspect it is your 'final observer' that I would identify as the illusion. Can you identify any characteristics for this final observer, or any evidence that it exists ? Eastern religions as well as western religions have evolved incorporating the intuitive assumption that experience requires an experiencer and there must be something, a person, a soul, a self, inside us who is in receipt of experience and is making purposeful choices. I think all religions and all traditional ways of thought are probably fundamentally and profoundly flawed in this respect because they have all bought into this ubiquitous and compelling cognitive illusion that there is a 'person' inside us, whereas I am unaware of any research that actually validates this intuition. What we have evidence for, is that a sense of self arises in waking higher animals, to a particularly rich form in humans. Claims that go further than that, further than this sense being like all other senses, a cunning neurological phenomenon, require justification.
I may not be able to explain more than I have done already. But let me try once more.
Take an infant child...just a few days old. Is the child self aware? It can shake its hands and legs , smile, cry etc...but does it know that it exists. No....it doesn't! Self awareness has to be learnt between the age of one and two. Its a 'program' that has to be uploaded as it grows. Self awareness is not automatic from the day of ones birth.
However, even though the infant does not know of its existence...it still exists. There is a consciousness....that exists within the tiny body observing and acting even without self awareness. That is the Self.
Just imagine yourself as a one day infant and you'll know what the Self is.
-
I'm not sure what you would mean by 'final observer'; I'd suspect it is your 'final observer' that I would identify as the illusion. Can you identify any characteristics for this final observer, or any evidence that it exists ? Eastern religions as well as western religions have evolved incorporating the intuitive assumption that experience requires an experiencer and there must be something, a person, a soul, a self, inside us who is in receipt of experience and is making purposeful choices. I think all religions and all traditional ways of thought are probably fundamentally and profoundly flawed in this respect because they have all bought into this ubiquitous and compelling cognitive illusion that there is a 'person' inside us, whereas I am unaware of any research that actually validates this intuition. What we have evidence for, is that a sense of self arises in waking higher animals, to a particularly rich form in humans. Claims that go further than that, further than this sense being like all other senses, a cunning neurological phenomenon, require justification.
I may not be able to explain more than I have done already. But let me try once more.
Take an infant child...just a few days old. Is the child self aware? It can shake its hands and legs , smile, cry etc...but does it know that it exists. No....it doesn't! Self awareness has to be learnt between the age of one and two. Its a 'program' that has to be uploaded as it grows. Self awareness is not automatic from the day of its birth.
However, even though the infant does not know of its existence...it still exists. There is a consciousness....that exists within the tiny body observing and acting even without self awareness. That is the Self.
Yes, a tiny infant, whilst awake, has conscious experience, but is not self aware yet. The same is probably true for the vast majority of creatures outwith humankind. Nothing in that observation however validates the notion of something separate 'inhabiting' the infant's body though as opposed to conscious experience as a neurological phenomenon that arises and disipates in higher brains under hormonal regulation.
-
This is the confusion which results from using the word 'self'. Sriram has entered into western New Age speak where the terms Higher Self (with a capital 'S') and lower self (small 's') are used. It might have been better if he had used the Hindu words Atman and Ahamkara and explained the difference. What you have elaborated upon is roughly what ahamkara represents, which we might call ego. Sriram is probably talking about Atman, 'that' which is realised when identification with ahamkara ceases and conceptualisation ceases.
Where does new age come into this? The word ..'Self' has been used in all english translations since the 19th century. Please read Vivekananda (talks of little self) or Dr.Radhakrishnan.
Its not about words or language. The word atman (soul) is very appropriately translated as 'Self' because that's what it is. Some westerners might confuse the idea of 'Self' with the idea of 'self awareness'...which is a mistake.
When people say....'I die and my soul goes to heaven'......this is obviously a mistake. Your soul is YOU....it is not some appendage. 'My body dies and I go to heaven' ...is more correct. Identifying ourselves with the atman or soul or spirit is the fundamental point here.
Yes that's about the time of the beginnings of New Age speak in the West. During that era, Helena Blavatsky and Annie Besant and her protégé Jiddu Krishnamurti formed the Theosophical Society and the claim was that Krishnamurti was the new Messiah and incarnation of Buddha. Ideas that a New Age was about to blossom started to be introduced and began to gain momentum around the 1960's with an influx of Indian Gurus.
On this site, discussion is very much about words and language which is why there is confusion about the ideas of 'Self', 'self', 'soul' and 'spirit' etc. but good luck with your efforts to convince others.
-
Where does new age come into this? The word ..'Self' has been used in all english translations since the 19th century. Please read Vivekananda (talks of little self) or Dr.Radhakrishnan.
Its not about words or language. The word atman (soul) is very appropriately translated as 'Self' because that's what it is. Some westerners might confuse the idea of 'Self' with the idea of 'self awareness'...which is a mistake.
When people say....'I die and my soul goes to heaven'......this is obviously a mistake. Your soul is YOU....it is not some appendage. 'My body dies and I go to heaven' ...is more correct. Identifying ourselves with the atman or soul or spirit is the fundamental point here.
Yes that's about the time of the beginnings of New Age speak in the West. During that era, Helena Blavatsky and Annie Besant and her protégé Jiddu Krishnamurti formed the Theosophical Society and the claim was that Krishnamurti was the new Messiah and incarnation of Buddha. Ideas that a New Age was about to blossom started to be introduced and began to gain momentum around the 1960's with an influx of Indian Gurus.
On this site, discussion is very much about words and language which is why there is confusion about the ideas of 'Self', 'self', 'soul' and 'spirit' etc. but good luck with your efforts to convince others.
It may be New Age for the west...because it is something new. For us, it is plain old Hinduism.
Vivekananda had nothing to do with theosophy and he was one of the first to speak about Hinduism and Yoga in the west (1893). He talks of the Self. Even Max Muller translations of the Upanishads (1879) contain 'Self'' for Atman.
The problem on here is not with words. Its with regarding mechanisms as an end in themselves. Its the confusion of processes and mechanisms with the cause.
-
I'm not sure what you would mean by 'final observer'; I'd suspect it is your 'final observer' that I would identify as the illusion. Can you identify any characteristics for this final observer, or any evidence that it exists ? Eastern religions as well as western religions have evolved incorporating the intuitive assumption that experience requires an experiencer and there must be something, a person, a soul, a self, inside us who is in receipt of experience and is making purposeful choices. I think all religions and all traditional ways of thought are probably fundamentally and profoundly flawed in this respect because they have all bought into this ubiquitous and compelling cognitive illusion that there is a 'person' inside us, whereas I am unaware of any research that actually validates this intuition. What we have evidence for, is that a sense of self arises in waking higher animals, to a particularly rich form in humans. Claims that go further than that, further than this sense being like all other senses, a cunning neurological phenomenon, require justification.
I may not be able to explain more than I have done already. But let me try once more.
Take an infant child...just a few days old. Is the child self aware? It can shake its hands and legs , smile, cry etc...but does it know that it exists. No....it doesn't! Self awareness has to be learnt between the age of one and two. Its a 'program' that has to be uploaded as it grows. Self awareness is not automatic from the day of its birth.
However, even though the infant does not know of its existence...it still exists. There is a consciousness....that exists within the tiny body observing and acting even without self awareness. That is the Self.
Yes, a tiny infant, whilst awake, has conscious experience, but is not self aware yet. The same is probably true for the vast majority of creatures outwith humankind. Nothing in that observation however validates the notion of something separate 'inhabiting' the infant's body though as opposed to conscious experience as a neurological phenomenon that arises and disipates in higher brains under hormonal regulation.
Since you seem to agree that self awareness is different from basic consciousness...that's a beginning. Self awareness and conscious mind are related. They are connected to the ego sense.
Before these processes start...the baby is already conscious and is able to do lots of basic things. You may try to explain it through brain mechanisms....but that is not enough. Mechanisms do not explain everything. Just as computer mechanisms do not explain our posts and writings.
Another way of looking at the Self is through the 'unconscious' mind.
Even when an infant is not self aware and the conscious mind is not yet 'installed'.....it already has the unconscious mind working full time....storing up memories...preparing responses and so on. The unconscious mind is part of the Self that already exists before the conscious mind.
-
Where does new age come into this? The word ..'Self' has been used in all english translations since the 19th century. Please read Vivekananda (talks of little self) or Dr.Radhakrishnan.
Its not about words or language. The word atman (soul) is very appropriately translated as 'Self' because that's what it is. Some westerners might confuse the idea of 'Self' with the idea of 'self awareness'...which is a mistake.
When people say....'I die and my soul goes to heaven'......this is obviously a mistake. Your soul is YOU....it is not some appendage. 'My body dies and I go to heaven' ...is more correct. Identifying ourselves with the atman or soul or spirit is the fundamental point here.
Yes that's about the time of the beginnings of New Age speak in the West. During that era, Helena Blavatsky and Annie Besant and her protégé Jiddu Krishnamurti formed the Theosophical Society and the claim was that Krishnamurti was the new Messiah and incarnation of Buddha. Ideas that a New Age was about to blossom started to be introduced and began to gain momentum around the 1960's with an influx of Indian Gurus.
On this site, discussion is very much about words and language which is why there is confusion about the ideas of 'Self', 'self', 'soul' and 'spirit' etc. but good luck with your efforts to convince others.
1. It may be New Age for the west...because it is something new. For us, it is plain old Hinduism.
2. Vivekananda had nothing to do with theosophy and he was one of the first to speak about Hinduism and Yoga in the west (1893). He talks of the Self. Even Max Muller translations of the Upanishads (1879) contain 'Self'' for Atman.
3. The problem on here is not with words. Its with regarding mechanisms as an end in themselves. Its the confusion of processes and mechanisms with the cause.
1. Yes, that is why I was suggesting that you kept to Hindu terms and clarified them according to your understanding. As regards 'New Age', I believe it was partly related to a belief that the Kali Yuga was ending and that Kalki was imminent, for some it corresponded to Armageddon and the arrival of Jesus and for others the dawning of the Age of Aquarius and a universal shift and expansion in consciousness. So you can see how relatively quickly things can become confused rather than clear.
2. I wasn't associating Vivekananda with theosophy but if he used 'Self' as a best fit English word for Atman he would no doubt have explained its meaning to an audience that would have had other preconceived ideas.
3. Well, we'll see. Good luck anyway.
-
1. Yes, that is why I was suggesting that you kept to Hindu terms and clarified them according to your understanding. As regards 'New Age', I believe it was partly related to a belief that the Kali Yuga was ending and that Kalki was imminent, for some it corresponded to Armageddon and the arrival of Jesus and for others the dawning of the Age of Aquarius and a universal shift and expansion in consciousness. So you can see how relatively quickly things can become confused rather than clear.
2. I wasn't associating Vivekananda with theosophy but if he used 'Self' as a best fit English word for Atman he would no doubt have explained its meaning to an audience that would have had other preconceived ideas.
3. Well, we'll see. Good luck anyway.
I think I have explained it sufficiently. The more we try to describe the Self and analyse it the more we objectivise it.
The Self is the subject...the final observer...its the 'you'. That's it.
-
I may not be able to explain more than I have done already. But let me try once more.
Take an infant child...just a few days old. Is the child self aware? It can shake its hands and legs , smile, cry etc...but does it know that it exists. No....it doesn't! Self awareness has to be learnt between the age of one and two. Its a 'program' that has to be uploaded as it grows. Self awareness is not automatic from the day of its birth.
However, even though the infant does not know of its existence...it still exists. There is a consciousness....that exists within the tiny body observing and acting even without self awareness. That is the Self.
Yes, a tiny infant, whilst awake, has conscious experience, but is not self aware yet. The same is probably true for the vast majority of creatures outwith humankind. Nothing in that observation however validates the notion of something separate 'inhabiting' the infant's body though as opposed to conscious experience as a neurological phenomenon that arises and disipates in higher brains under hormonal regulation.
Since you seem to agree that self awareness is different from basic consciousness...that's a beginning. Self awareness and conscious mind are related. They are connected to the ego sense.
Before these processes start...the baby is already conscious and is able to do lots of basic things. You may try to explain it through brain mechanisms....but that is not enough. Mechanisms do not explain everything. Just as computer mechanisms do not explain our posts and writings.
Another way of looking at the Self is through the 'unconscious' mind.
Even when an infant is not self aware and the conscious mind is not yet 'installed'.....it already has the unconscious mind working full time....storing up memories...preparing responses and so on. The unconscious mind is part of the Self that already exists before the conscious mind.
Yes, the development of mind and consciousness mirrors brain development thus a baby develops simple consciousness long before it develops the level of sophistication marked by self awareness. If you roll the developmental clock back further you get to a point where there is no viable brain as yet and at this point there is no mind, no consciousness and no 'self'. These things develop over time, and towards the end of life, they often deteriorate over time too.
-
If you role the clock back you come to a point when there is no self awareness....no thoughts....no mind even. But the operating system is still on. And something is making things happen inside the DNA ...and the brain. That is Life.... and that is the Self.
You might be satisfied attributing it to some automatic molecular process....but I find it impossible.
-
If you role the clock back you come to a point when there is no self awareness....no thoughts....no mind even. But the operating system is still on. And something is making things happen inside the DNA ...and the brain. That is life.... and that is the Self.
We already have a word for that - life, the same process by which acorns grow into oak trees. Calling that 'Self' is confusing and misleading as there is no development of any individuality at that point, it is a developmental biological process.
-
Hi everyone,
The 'real' God is within. Our higher nature or our higher self is the real God.....but we need to journey all over the world to realize that the Truth is at home.
Cheers.
Sriram
Bloody hell, a short OP by Sriram!!!
It's called archetypal psychology.
-
If you role the clock back you come to a point when there is no self awareness....no thoughts....no mind even. But the operating system is still on. And something is making things happen inside the DNA ...and the brain. That is life.... and that is the Self.
We already have a word for that - life, the same process by which acorns grow into oak trees. Calling that 'Self' is confusing and misleading as there is no development of any individuality at that point, it is a developmental biological process.
Yes...you have a word...'Life'....but what is it? You are satisfied attributing 'life' to molecular mechanisms and processes. I think of 'life' as a base principle....as an attribute of Consciousness. This is the Self.....what we are fundamentally.
-
If you role the clock back you come to a point when there is no self awareness....no thoughts....no mind even. But the operating system is still on. And something is making things happen inside the DNA ...and the brain. That is life.... and that is the Self.
We already have a word for that - life, the same process by which acorns grow into oak trees. Calling that 'Self' is confusing and misleading as there is no development of any individuality at that point, it is a developmental biological process.
Yes...you have a word...'Life'....but what is it? You are satisfied attributing 'life' to molecular mechanisms and processes. I think of 'life' as a base principle....as an attribute of Consciousness. This is the Self.....what we are fundamentally.
We observe base laws and processes which in themselves have no sentience or intelligence; there is no sentience in the inverse square law for instance. If we take all base laws in combination, complex phenomena such as intelligence and consciousness can arise in extremely rare circumstances. There is probably a principle somewhere (if there isn't, I'll claim it as Torridon's First Law :) ) that states that the degree of intelligence/sentience is proportional to it's spatial/temporal rarity. We could portray this as higher laws emerging from fundamental base laws, or we could say that the higher laws are fundamental and base laws are constituent parts of that, which is your preference. That seems to be taking the rare exception and making that the norm, the yardstick by which all else is measured. That looks like a tendency born of the anthropocentrism and human exceptionalism which have coloured all the world's traditional religions. Hmmm
-
There is probably a principle somewhere (if there isn't, I'll claim it as Torridon's First Law :) ) that states that the degree of intelligence/sentience is proportional to it's spatial/temporal rarity.
I think that's pretty much just standard distribution - in a general distribution, rarer occurrences are more likely to be further apart than more common occurrences.
O.
-
There is probably a principle somewhere (if there isn't, I'll claim it as Torridon's First Law :) ) that states that the degree of intelligence/sentience is proportional to it's spatial/temporal rarity.
I think that's pretty much just standard distribution - in a general distribution, rarer occurrences are more likely to be further apart than more common occurrences.
O.
If there exists a means to calculate complexity across all domains then we could take that tool, calibrate it's scale by measuring the complexity of a human brain, perhaps an ant brain and perhaps a hydrogen atom, we could then use that calibration to extrapolate across the estimated size of the universe to predict the incidence of various forms of life; it would be like a top down version the Drake Equation.
-
There is probably a principle somewhere (if there isn't, I'll claim it as Torridon's First Law :) ) that states that the degree of intelligence/sentience is proportional to it's spatial/temporal rarity.
I think that's pretty much just standard distribution - in a general distribution, rarer occurrences are more likely to be further apart than more common occurrences.
O.
If there exists a means to calculate complexity across all domains then we could take that tool, calibrate it's scale by measuring the complexity of a human brain, perhaps an ant brain and perhaps a hydrogen atom, we could then use that calibration to extrapolate across the estimated size of the universe to predict the incidence of various forms of life; it would be like a top down version the Drake Equation.
And, like the Drake equation, we'd need to find a few dozen examples of life on other planets in order to calibrate the estimates... at which point it wouldn't be redundant exactly, but it would lack some of the impact :)
O.
-
There is a short article in this (or last) weeks New Scientist on the evolution of consciousness for group, as opposed to individual, survival. Reminds me of EO Wilsons work on altruism in social species. It does seem to be something useful that has evolved, not only a random side effect of brain complexity.
-
Hi everyone,
It would also be relevant to compare the idea of the Higher Self and Self Realization.... to the idea of 'Born Again' that some Christians believe in.
Jesus is believed to have said in the NT...... 'Very truly, I tell you, no one can see the kingdom of God without being born from above.' This was taken as being Born Again through baptism and the grace of the Holy Spirit.
Jesus was perhaps referring to changing ones identification from the Lower Self to the Higher Self. That is the way it appears to me.
Cheers.
Sriram
-
I think many christians would take issue with that; the experience of being 'born again' is about transformation following an encounter with the Holy Spirit; the language of being 'reborn' indicating that a completely new person arises replacing forever the original person. It is often claimed that this transformation comes unexpectedly out of the blue, not in response to 'searching', and is fully and only truly explicable in terms of God's grace, ie it is nothing whatsoever to do with self development, self realisation or human worthiness.
-
And THAT's always been the 'problem' with Christianity as seen from other faiths' POV !!! ::)
-
I think many christians would take issue with that; the experience of being 'born again' is about transformation following an encounter with the Holy Spirit; the language of being 'reborn' indicating that a completely new person arises replacing forever the original person. It is often claimed that this transformation comes unexpectedly out of the blue, not in response to 'searching', and is fully and only truly explicable in terms of God's grace, ie it is nothing whatsoever to do with self development, self realisation or human worthiness.
Self Realization is also about transformation. Its about allowing a higher personality to take over from a lower personality. It actually happens at one point or one period in time....but to get to that point it requires constant discipline and faith. There is an actual change of inner personality.
I have written many times on the little story in the Upanishads about two birds. One bird sits quietly on a high branch. The second bird sits on a lower branch eating away at the fruits. The second one suddenly bites into a bitter fruit ...it looks up at the first bird in envy and hops a little closer. It then forgets its bitter experience and gets back to eating the fruits. It again bites into a bitter fruit...looks up at the first bird and hops a little closer. This goes on till finally both the birds merge.
IMO they refer to the same experience.