True Self-No Self

[earl]

Am reading Richard Moss' new book, "The Mandala of Being" and ran across 1 of his statements that to me sums up so much in such a simple phrase:
"...if you can conceive of yourself-anything whatsoever about who you are or are not-it can't be your true self."

To me this statement is really at the crux of most spiritual paths including Buddhism. Sure, Buddhism constantly teaches there is no self "true" or not, but essentially a "self" is merely a collection of what we conceive we are-or are not. Earl

[Eclectic Mystic]

Why stop there? Why not just abandon the use of language then entirely?

[earl]

The sounds of silence. earl

[seattlegal]

Originally Posted by earl

The sounds of silence. earl

The tao that can be taoed is not the true tao, the name that can be named is not the enduring and unchanging name....

[Paladin]

When the child was a child,
..it was the time of these questions:
Why am I me, and why not you?
Why am I here, and why not there?
When did time begin and where does space end?
Isn't life under the sun just a dream?
Isn't what I see, hear and smell only the
..illusion of a world before the world?
Does evil actually exist?
And are there people who are really evil?
How can it be that I, who am I,
..did not exist before I came to be?
And that someday the one who I am
..will no longer be the one who I am?






From Song Of Childhood by Peter Handke

[Snoopy]

Originally Posted by Eclectic Mystic

Why stop there? Why not just abandon the use of language then entirely?

Reality, the truth, is not something abstract. For this reason it cannot be grasped with words. In the words of an ancient Buddhist metaphor, ideas, theories, and explanations are fingers pointing at the distant moon. They are not, and can never be, the moon itself. Our pointing fingers do not touch the moon, just as our ideas do not touch reality. But they can act as a guide. Where then, is the moon at which these fingers point, and why can we not easily see it for ourselves? Buddhism says that it is in front of us here and now. The philosopher, Ludwig Wittgenstein, put it succinctly when he said, “'The place I really have to get to is a place I must already be at now.'”

- Michael Luetchford.

s.

[cyberpi]

My house is more like me than your house is. My computer is more like me than your computer is. My vehicle is more like me than your vehicle is. My words are more like me than your words are. If you look at me then you can only see the house, the computer, the vehicle... or the words... and what I do with them. That does not mean that I am a house, a computer, or a vehicle, or mere words. My own flesh is a house, a computer, a vehicle, and words in motion. However if I wish to see myself then looking honestly at my house, my computer, my vehicle, and my words... is a requirement.

If I wish to see myself then looking honestly at my house, my computer, my vehicle, and my words... is a requirement.

If I wish to see myself then looking honestly at my house, my computer, my vehicle, and my words... is a requirement.

Again, and again, and again. Not because I am a house, computer, vehicle, or words. Because I am partly the one that used and moved them.

[earl]

And what is the shape, color, size, location in space-time, etc. of that which beholds all of that? earl

[Eclectic Mystic]

Originally Posted by Snoopy

Reality, the truth, is not something abstract. For this reason it cannot be grasped with words. In the words of an ancient Buddhist metaphor, ideas, theories, and explanations are fingers pointing at the distant moon. They are not, and can never be, the moon itself.
s.

I get it.



That's the whole point of my post; isn't this common sense to begin with? Why are people so fascinated with this as though it were some kind of discovery? While all these points are true, there is no sense in a becoming memorized deer in headlights. Know it and get on!

[Iacchus]

Originally Posted by earl

"...if you can conceive of yourself-anything whatsoever about who you are or are not-it can't be your true self."

So, "we" are all figments of our own imagination then? I don't agree. This would only be true to the extent that when we died, there was no soul. Whereas our sense of self is our soul, and without it, we would have no point of reference. In which case we may as well feign to be God, because we wouldn't know better.

[earl]

Hi Iacchus. No, we're not figments of our imagination but who we think we are probably is. earl

[Tao_Equus]

We are fond of navel gazing. Much of our life is masturbatory. All simple survival mechanisms. When they are outward they usually also can be found to have a self interest at root. Again it is hard for it to be otherwise. There is only self while we live and breathe. Even the love for our very own children is in large part selfish animal instinct, survival of the genes. How else could it be?

tao

[wil]

So if we can contemplate observing the observer we are not that either?

[seattlegal]

Wouldn't that make the term "pull yourself together, man" totally meaningless?

[earl]

Originally Posted by wil

So if we can contemplate observing the observer we are not that either?

Earl


Tao, as to "navel gazing," if something seems pretty "hard-wired" into humanity, it must serve an evolutionary imperative. Certainly, the impulse to wonder/explore seems such, whether it is to explore continents, galaxies, or the inner landscape. If the type of "navel gazing" we do serves us to move beyond everyday ego restrictions to a more universally inclusive pan-compassionate embrace of all life and more importantly via that attitude move us to take concrete steps on behalf of the welfare of "all sentient beings" as the Buddhists like to call it, then perhaps the trend toward more contemplative living is serving a real evolutionary imperative. earl