I am what I am

What are the strongest factors leading to a sense of self? Memories? Will/agency/power? Correspondance between mind and body? I know it results from innumerable factors, but what is the strongest factor for you?

If you believe the self is an illusion, what is your reasoning?

If you believe the self is real, what is your reasoning?

Are there political reasons to assert one way or the other? Social reasons? Who benefits from the belief that there is no such thing as an independent “self” at all? Who benefits from the belief that there is a “self” which is in some way fundamentally independent from its context?

Why is the question important at all? Do you personally benefit from holding one view or another?

Hmmmm… what kind of sense of self?
The sense of being “separated”, somehow?
If so, I think it comes from the awareness I mean the awareness of outside.

The sense of something that continues?
In this case, I think memories play important role.
But again, without awareness, I wouldn’t have the sense that something (self) was somehow already there, before.

Physical sensations give the sense of self in the physical world.
But awareness is required, too.

So, I guess it’s the awareness in conjunction with other things.

I don’t believe, but I feel the core “emptiness” to be more “real”.
So, in comparison, other things pale in the impression of “reality”.

Although it’s purely subjective as a declaration, I think it’s shared by all of us deep in our core.

Anything, including te idea/impression of self, is “real” to me when it bothers me.
When something pegs/pins me down, it is the reality for that moment.

Not much, in my case.

We need to be more specific. Benefit of what?
If you are thinking in social or political context, I don’t think anyone would really benefit from spreading either view on self.
And if someone tied, it won’t work because I don’t think there are enough people interested in thinking about this type of issue.

Probably, it’s important for anyone who cares about identification of self.

My view is somewhat in between.
I guess I benefit from it in the social context because it allow me to interact as if I exist and external world exists, while I do see and keep the view of “virtual/imaginary self and world” when I’m not bothered by anything.

Yes, seperate and continuous.

If awareness provides a sense of self, you’re saying “core emptiness” is something more fundamental than awareness? How so? Is it the belief that this awareness will come to an end? Or is it somehow more immediate or felt than that?

Are you saying that emptiness pins you down? You said previously that that was the most real thing for you.

I mean who aside from you benefits in some - any - way. It’s just a casual thought, possibly without much basis. But the Catholic church used to sell indulgences, which is presumably related to the idea of an eternally persisting and individual self. And the pharmaceutical companies sell lots and lots of drugs, which is presumably related to the idea of people as fundamentally lacking the ability to change utilizing their own minds.

What do you mean by “virtual/imaginary self and world”? I think of virtual worlds as imitations in some way. Are you suggesting that the world you live in is somehow referential - an imitation of something else - a pointer of some sort?

Hmmm…if I gotta choose one, I’d say it’s a rather careless, unexamined identification of my thoughts as ‘me’.

The reasoning process isn’t complicated, but then again, the reasoning part is merely the tip of the iceberg. It’s extremely challenging in the experiential part of the practice:

Q. Who am I?
A. Who’s asking?

What’s ‘real’ mean? Conventionally, right here in this forum? Then yeah, fwiw.

No political benefit.
No social benefit.
No one benefits from maintaining a view that the self exists independently from all other things, because such a view is based on fear and ignorance. It results in anxiety…and, paradoxically, self-estrangement (because that which can be grasped is an objectified, useless thing anyway). So to believe that is like always walking around with a veil over one’s eyes…and that’s the most positive way I can portray it, lol.

(Is this a trick question?)

You and I likely agree that it’s the most important thing of all, so I’ll let non-Buddhists take on this question.

I don’t hold the view either way, or at least I strive not to.

What does “fwiw” stand for?

For what it’s worth.

ah, thanks. I’ll get back to you.

To who?

To you.

Okay…willya do me a favor, look around and let me know when you find me?
:-"

I’ll try and let you know how it goes.

I do not believe my self is real, I know myself is real.( that sounds so much like horribly improper English, is it?) My reasoning is, an illusion has no substance. I have substance or substance keeps smacking me in the mind and so substance against substance has to be real. That and I really deny being an illusion, that so would suck for my ego. :-"

That’s interesting about smacking you in the mind. Do you mean substance in the technical sense? Or in the plain english sense?

Awareness seems to be in between emptiness and existence.
It’s as if awareness happens when (part of) existence resolve and disappear into emptiness, so to say.

And awareness can come and go, as well as it comes in different states (or density and mapping), while emptiness seems to be independent.
For example, I’m not very aware when I sleep.

Sorry, I didn’t write clearly.

Basically, I feel more reality with emptiness, somehow.
However, when things of lesser reality may bother/pull me time to time.
When it happens, it’s as if they pin me down (although it’s more or less the “fixation” of awareness that is generating the impression).
Any dream may seem real when it’s captivating.
So, the sense of reality is the sense of captivation, to me.

I think many business (including the construction of existence) is based on the fixation that creates “tunnel vision” showing the small part as if it’s whole/bigger, and relative things as if it’s absolute.

Christianity sells their products by captivating people with eternal life (self) in heaven, while Buddhism sells their idea with the eternal reincarnation and sufferings.

Lottery sells by captivating people with the possibility of winning while keeping the “probability” less visible.

Maybe we can say it’s attention engineering that moves this world.

As I’ve written above, I think that “fixation” has something to do with the way things are.
Now, when we fix our attention to a part of something and somehow consider that part as a whole, we’ve created a kind of virtual world within something.

I’m not thinking like Matrix movie where people live in virtual reality while their physical body is kept in a tank.
I see that physical reality is already virtual and it’s based on less complicated yet another virtual reality.

Plain english, Smells sensory input, dealings with others. Really umm, what the heck kind of crittur would go to so much trouble just for illusion??? Look around you Thats a crap load of illusion is it not??? I dropped acid once, the hallucenations lacked substance. For a moment or two they seemed real but, they fade quickly. The doves were cool though

Perhaps its because I have had real illusions, that I can see the difference??

I don’t know, I see a lot of critturs going through a hell of a lot of trouble just for illusions. Ever seen the crowds at Disneyworld?

I’m unclear about your differentiation between “real illusions” and its opposite - presumably illusory illusions? Is that a double negative?

Nah: I’ll get back to you.

I don’t know, I see a lot of critturs going through a hell of a lot of trouble just for illusions. Ever seen the crowds at Disneyworld?

I’m unclear about your differentiation between “real illusions” and its opposite - presumably illusory illusions? Is that a double negative?

Nah: I’ll get back to you.
[/quote]
hmm, induced illusions? perhaps? when you hallucenate, on purpose, you know its an illusion. If you hallucenate not on purpose would you know? is that pink elephant real? How about thousands of bugs crawling all around you? Could you know if it was just within your mind or is it occuring without?
Minds screw up, we hallucenate , have illusions…or delusions. Having induced purposely such halucenations. I recall a sort of feel or knowing the difference. Perhaps someone else here that has done such drugs could explain better. Its been quite some time for me. I think injury to the mind would make illusions real.
so since we know there are possible illusions then we must have its opposite as you say. The part that sticks around is real.

But if you only think of your thoughts as “you”, it would be very easy to see that that’s not what “you” are. Are thoughts really the strongest reason to have a sense of self? They just come and go like the wind.

Yes, language can make our contradictory notions of self fairly clear - like “I get in my own way”, etc.

I take that to mean you don’t think the self is real. If it’s not real, is there a basis for why we collectively have the same tendency to think of the self as real? The tendency itself seems to indicate that there must be an underlying real reason for it. Doesn’t it go against our nature to claim the self isn’t real? I mean, hold a hollow ball underwater for a while and let go - it will always rise to the surface. Isn’t that how it is with “the self”?

But you said there was a conventional self taking part in this forum. Surely that is a social benefit? It’s not a trick question.

I agree it’s an important question.

Ok, you’re defining emptiness as lack of existence I think? If this is the case, how could emptiness and existence relate to each other, other than purely theoretically - i.e. conceptually - especially since you’ve characterized emptiness as “independent” of existence? If what you are describing as “emptiness” is independent of existence, how is it that you can feel it as the core of your being?

So emptiness is the opposite of existence (for now; sorry if I’ve misunderstood) - but it’s more real than existence? How could this be? It seems a little perverse.

I agree.

That’s very interesting actually. Seems reasonable to me.

So by virtual world you’re referring to a false understanding of a real world?

“Virtual” to me implies relative to a perceiving subject. By “already virtual”, do you mean to say that there is a perceiving subject prior to or independent of “you”?

Are you defining illusory here as “in your head” as opposed to independently existing? Or are you defining illusion as the quality of being half-fooled. I mean, if you’re completely “fooled” so that you believe something 100%, and nothing contradicts your beliefs - nothing doesn’t fit - does that mean you are in fact not fooled at all? Everything you experience is real? Is illusion versus reality only a valid distinction when there is inconsistency in our experience?