It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


What I think the Self is.

page: 1

log in


posted on May, 11 2011 @ 02:18 PM
The Self is the horizon of the mind, it is the lifeblood of the thoughts in our mind, and the home where all our thoughts come to rest. Tribal cultures all spring from this Self and return once again. Religious truths are but an attempt at conveying the deeper meaning behind this truth.

The Self is, but few can see it. the Self is not, because it is invisible and immaterial.

The Self is the light of the world, and the light of man, it is the Light of the mind.

The Self is the power behind technology, and the wisdom behind leadership.

The Self is the truth of philosophy and the degrees of knowledge.

see: Upanishads

posted on May, 11 2011 @ 02:30 PM
Do you think in metaphors all the time or what? jeez it was like reading a haiku,

The best interpretation of what the consciousness is, I think. Therefore I am.

posted on May, 11 2011 @ 02:32 PM
reply to post by Seabas1123

No. You are not your thoughts my friend. Disassociate from your thoughts, meditate and explore yourself. The Journey inward is amazing

posted on May, 11 2011 @ 06:10 PM
reply to post by filosophia

Nice. Reading this I was thinking, "He would love reading up on the Upanishads" and then I seen you state at the end, "see upanishads"

You may also be interested in looking into the teachings of Ramana Maharshi if you haven't already.


posted on May, 11 2011 @ 06:20 PM
Try and understand no-self. Much more rewarding. The independent self is the cause of the disease and the illusion.

posted on May, 11 2011 @ 06:25 PM
Here is what you need to know self. LINK Also, this is a great book. Listen to the whole thing here. LINK It doesn't get any better than James Allen.

posted on May, 11 2011 @ 07:36 PM

Originally posted by BillfromCovina
Try and understand no-self. Much more rewarding. The independent self is the cause of the disease and the illusion.

The idea of Self (Atman/Brahma) in Hinduism that filosphia is speaking of, fundamentally has no difference from the idea of no-self (Anatta/Anatman) in Buddhism. Both speak of an interdependency and Oneness of all forms of reality. One calls it God/Self and the other calls it Emptiness. If the Atman is Brahma, then it is no different than Emptiness which negates individual self.

Even a great Lama like the late Anagarika Govinda would point out that the Atman formulation of Hindus as promulgated by Sri Ramana Maharishi (the great Non-Dualist or Advaitist) is simply a different formulation of the Self-same Reality.

At some point in Hinduism, not only ritual but metaphysical concepts had rigidified and in so doing became poor symbols. The Atman had come to be identified with the Jivatman - the individual 'self.' There is also a confusion with Ahamkara - the 'I-sense.' In the West, there has long been serious confusion along parallel lines between soul, spirit and nous as the highest spiritual faculties in human beinghood. In one sense, the Atman-Brahman formula is parallel to the Son-Father formula. The Enlightened One Realizes that Atman and Brahman are One, and that Union is Realized in the human psyche of jivatman, ahamkara, mans (mind). Likewise, the Union of Christ and the Father is Realized by the Christian. 'We' are neither Atman or Christ - both represent the 'Immanent' or 'indwelling' (a Christian term) aspect of GOD, whereas the Brahman or the Father are utterly 'Transcendent' and unknowable by the human psyche except through the mediational effect of the Son's or Atman's Realization.

Buddha's formulation of Anatman (or Anatta in Pali) was intended to undo the fossilized concept of Atman into an eternally enduring individual 'soul' which would transmigrate literally into different humans. The Anatman formulation was intended to restore the Boundless Nature of the Primordial Consciousness called "Self-Effulgent" in the Upanishads and later called Sunyata (Void) or Clear Light in Buddhism. Void is not supposed to mean 'nothing,' like the En Soph (Limitless) of Kabbalism, the Ultimate Reality is 'no thing' - it is beyond limit and beyond definition. Because of these definitions, all attributes, including personal attributes which ascribe personality to Ultimate Reality were not acknowledged. This is why there is no personal GOD in Buddhism. For convention-sake however, the Dalai Lama uses the word GOD when talking to Westerners. Hinduism has the insight to recognize both Saguna Brahman (GOD-with-attributes) and Nirguna Brahman (GOD-without-attributes). Only the latter concept was acknowledged by Buddhism. GOD/Self cannot be 'less-than' personal (impersonal), since human beinghood is personal, but can be thought of as Transpersonal - transcending personality.
edit on 11-5-2011 by LifeIsEnergy because: (no reason given)

top topics


log in