No Self

[naturesflow]

Originally Posted by Bohdiyana

That's true because there is no way for the self to perceive itself. It is the perceiver. Anything you find can't be you. You are that which perceives the found.

But then also I know myself to exist. I am aware of my existence. I can exert my will over this human body and it's mind. Awareness is like the fog though, the closer you get to it the more transparent it becomes.

One writer described looking for yourself like a horse trying to get into it's own saddle.

One question is if you are looking for a self what exactly do you think it is? Something physical? I would say it is not physical. So right there means you cannot perceive it through your 5 senses. So yes you can't find it as an object. It is simply you. Consciousness. Non-physical and ethereal.

Very nice..

When we "think" or "believe" we have found truth, we grasp something as true and real as "right" where as the infinite nature of space being created by us as the perceiver is just us dancing with itself ongoing..

I like what you shared about awareness, a fog that when you move closer to it becomes more transparent.

So if we are all this. We are just creating ourselves clearer and becoming more transparent as all that which we pass through...Our ethereal nature is part of this awareness no doubt.

[running]

Originally Posted by Self

In the recent past I have realized so much about what I call the fabric of life. I can see clearly that we are an expression coming forth from a relative nothingness and returning to that same relative nothingness is a journey that I see as life.



Lately though, I see something else and that is, for this fabric to exist, as I see it, then there cannot be anything about this expression called me that can contain what some call a soul, atman or even a higher self. We simply return to nothingness. Our existence is our being but it ends there.



Furthermore, it follows, to me, that this expression must be hardwired, predisposed to act the way it does and to think the way it does. There is nothing there to act or think. Even the act to ignore ones thoughts, since there is no one to have those thoughts and no one to ignore those thoughts, is basically a hard-wired response from an individual expression which follows its own path back to its source, relative nothingness.



I’m posting this here because what I’m suggesting seems to fall into Buddhism. No self, no souls, etc.



I’d be interested in any comments. Imagine life with no self, no improving, no choice, no afterlife. Who would want that? Are we all avoiding seeing that? Is this what The Buddha saw?



Here's the thing...I hope not! lol



Thanks for listening

what your talking about some call the self. others call no self. but no matter how you characterise it there is always something there to witness it. and one can still be in that experience and live at the same time. over time. whats left after the layers are gone is like what your describing. it just is experienced as things go on. and the depth of that is endless i think. but it is totally common to experience what your describing.

[Gem]

What is generally accepted in Eastern spiritual thought is notions of self, being or not being, are 'views'. This pertains to the knowledge or answer which can be held in the mind takes an 'answer form', but the actuality doesn't arrive at a conclusion in any or either way. This is not to say there isn't knowing, but the difference is, 'knowledge' is formed as a noun and 'knowing' is unformed as a verb. For example, knowledge: I know what I have seen; vs. knowing: I know how to look.

Knowing, therefore, pertains to the constant and ongoing, while knowledge pertains to a drawn conclusion.

To the question, 'self or no-self?' there is no particular answer - because this is knowing, and it isn't knowledge.

[Bohdiyana]

Seems to me no there is no denying I am here or that I exist, the only changeable thing is what am I here as. I am always "being" as something or nothing.

[Ground]

Originally Posted by Gem

What is generally accepted in Eastern spiritual thought is notions of self, being or not being, are 'views'. This pertains to the knowledge or answer which can be held in the mind takes an 'answer form', but the actuality doesn't arrive at a conclusion in any or either way. This is not to say there isn't knowing, but the difference is, 'knowledge' is formed as a noun and 'knowing' is unformed as a verb. For example, knowledge: I know what I have seen; vs. knowing: I know how to look.

Knowing, therefore, pertains to the constant and ongoing, while knowledge pertains to a drawn conclusion.

To the question, 'self or no-self?' there is no particular answer - because this is knowing, and it isn't knowledge.

The latter is your conclusion and therefore knowledge according to your linguistic derivation.

But there is an answer to the question 'self or no-self?':
The question is not appropriate!

The appropriate question is 'what is the mode of existence of self?'
And the answer to this one is: self exists through imputation only which means that it is empty of inherent existence and thus empty of truth.

Stated that way this answer is knowledge. Knowledge that can turn into an ongoing experience ... maybe the latter is what you would associate with 'knowing'.

[Gem]

Originally Posted by Ground

The latter is your conclusion and therefore knowledge according to your linguistic derivation.

But there is an answer to the question 'self or no-self?':
The question is not appropriate!

The appropriate question is 'what is the mode of existence of self?'
And the answer to this one is: self exists through imputation only which means that it is empty of inherent existence and thus empty of truth.

Stated that way this answer is knowledge. Knowledge that can turn into an ongoing experience ... maybe the latter is what you would associate with 'knowing'.

I suffer the disadvantage of having to know on a continuum (which I defined in my previous post as 'knowing'), and I have no formation of knowledge which I can argue as a truth. I'm thus reduced to speaking in meanings and have nothing 'true' which I can say.

[Ground]

Originally Posted by Gem

I suffer the disadvantage of having to know on a continuum (which I defined in my previous post as 'knowing'), and I have no formation of knowledge which I can argue as a truth. I'm thus reduced to speaking in meanings and have nothing 'true' which I can say.

But that is perfectly appropriate since there are no truths at all.

Confusing 'knowledge' with 'truth' may be caused by your use of the term 'knowledge' in the context of ordinary mind.
Also what has been called 'knowledge' here actually may be an expression of certainty but not an expression of knowledge.

What is knowledge then?
Knowledge is a factor accompanying an object of mind that can be transmitted merely through expressing the object verbally.
How that? In that the object expressed can be verified by everbody.
E.g. "If you throw a stone it will sooner or later fall to the ground."
Object expressed: "If you throw a stone it will sooner or later fall to the ground."
Verification then is confirming the appropriateness of the expression through throwing a stone.
So there is not necessarily a sentiment of truth involved. It is just about the appropriateness of verbal expressions.

What is certainty then?
Certainty in contrast is a factor accompanying an object of mind that cannot be transmitted merely through expressing the object verbally.
How that? In that the object expressed can not be verified by everbody.
E.g. (quote from above) "But that is perfectly appropriate since there are no truths at all. "
Object expressed: "But that is perfectly appropriate since there are no truths at all. "
Here the appropriateness of the expression cannot be confirmed by everybody because the accompanying factor is certainty not knowledge.
Again there is not the slightest necessity that a sentiment of truth is involved. The speaker here just is certain that the verbal expression is appropriate.

[Gem]

Originally Posted by Ground

But that is perfectly appropriate since there are no truths at all.

Confusing 'knowledge' with 'truth' may be caused by your use of the term 'knowledge' in the context of ordinary mind.
Also what has been called 'knowledge' here actually may be an expression of certainty but not an expression of knowledge.

What is knowledge then?
Knowledge is a factor accompanying an object of mind that can be transmitted merely through expressing the object verbally.
How that? In that the object expressed can be verified by everbody.
E.g. "If you throw a stone it will sooner or later fall to the ground."
Object expressed: "If you throw a stone it will sooner or later fall to the ground."
Verification then is confirming the appropriateness of the expression through throwing a stone.
So there is not necessarily a sentiment of truth involved. It is just about the appropriateness of verbal expressions.

What is certainty then?
Certainty in contrast is a factor accompanying an object of mind that cannot be transmitted merely through expressing the object verbally.
How that? In that the object expressed can not be verified by everbody.
E.g. (quote from above) "But that is perfectly appropriate since there are no truths at all. "
Object expressed: "But that is perfectly appropriate since there are no truths at all. "
Here the appropriateness of the expression cannot be confirmed by everybody because the accompanying factor is certainty not knowledge.
Again there is not the slightest necessity that a sentiment of truth is involved. The speaker here just is certain that the verbal expression is appropriate.

We can break knowledge into two parts: ontology (what can be known) and epistemology (the way in which we know it), but what it boils down to is understanding the lived experience through symbols, stories and the like. You're talking about empirical knowledge, where experiment confirms the statement (true in that it works). I was involved in social research where knowledge is mostly qualitative, and 'what we know' basically boils down to narratives we hear, how we interpret them, the theoretical frameworks we contextualise them in, the method of raw data analysis, and the way in which we use language to write up the research - depending on who our audience is intended to be. Of course there is a whole process of social sanctioning of knowledge as well which culturally defines the epistemology, so by the time knowledge is produced and can be learned, it has taken several steps sideways from 'the truth', and is understood in various ways by respective individuals. The texts of Buddhism are no different, and of course, people who say they are 'true' are dogmatists who think the way in which they understand it is the only way it can be rightly understood, and they do that because there is a reward - knowledge is power. If you can be the one who sanctions it as 'right', then you get to say what is 'true'. Producing knowledge is done for expressed purpose of influence. It is the exercising of power. I'm completely aware of the 'knowledge game' and the complex set of ethical considerations involved in playing it.

[Ground]

Originally Posted by Gem

... You're talking about empirical knowledge, where experiment confirms the statement (true in that it works). ...

In the context of what I have described as 'knowledge' actually I have been talking about certain linguistic expressions being 'knowledge' in that although they are empty of meaning from the outset they can nevertheless evoke objects of mind that do correspond with the learned conventional conceptual interpretation of sense impressions which are empty of meaning from the outset too.

In the context of social research your verbal/linguistic elaboration may be appropriate but I have not been talking from that perspective.

[Gem]

Originally Posted by Ground

In the context of what I have described as 'knowledge' actually I have been talking about certain linguistic expressions being 'knowledge' in that although they are empty of meaning from the outset they can nevertheless evoke objects of mind that do correspond with the learned conventional conceptual interpretation of sense impressions which are empty of meaning from the outset too.

In the context of social research your verbal/linguistic elaboration may be appropriate but I have not been talking from that perspective.

It's basically correct to say acquired knowledge is not 'truth' in any ultimate sense of that word, but incorrect to say it is empty of meaning. In that the narrative is the way in which we make sense of the lived experience, it is meaningful. The narrative, however, isn't static. For example, the story of the 'atom' has been changing for thousands of years. Each stage of the narrative about atoms has been the way in which people have made sense of existential problems. Of course the story that 'explains the atom' has always had meaning, but has never been inherently true. It's always been a conversation - a discourse regarding 'atoms'. Now we're quite advanced in physics we can't say a fundamental particle 'exists' in any objective sense at all, but none-the-less, we have not only a meaningful narrative about particles (the standard model), but also a narrative which is 'true in that it works'. So, as Niels Bohr put it, physics doesn't concern how nature is; it only concerns what we can say about nature. In short, the conversation is meaningful, and it is continuous and ongoing, but it never reaches that conclusion which we can call 'truth'.