Do you believe a 'you' exists?

jobeenfitz

Hello Wylo, this is a very interesting thread. I feel a bit out of my depth though. I have read some Ekhart tolle and Anthony De mello. I want to control all the destructive/annoying and constant thinking that goes on in my head, mostly against my will. I think I could be one of the slow ones who takes a long time to get to the stage you and others are at, if in fact there is any stage to reach? I am just begining to look into the links you have posted. Fair play for giving the information and the time it takes. I hope to pick your brains over the next few weeks and months, if thats ok.

roosh

wylo wrote: »

fair enough roosh, ive been talking to you for months at this stage, personally I dont believe you are experiencing no self, I think you had a glimpse and learned alot of literature since, theres only so many times I can read you saying "The issue is..." before I realize you are never ever going to look. I dont care anymore to be honest, and thats the truth.

If you truly believe that what I experienced is the same as your own experience 3 years ago, then so be it. Its a pointless argument at this stage, the thread is about there being no you, and breaking the attachment of self, you are still attached, and theres nothing I will ever say or do to get you to look at this objectively.

Okay, it might be worth clarifying - again - that I amn't claiming to have broken the attachment to self; I haven't claimed to be liberated; I haven't claimed to be enlightened; in fact, I've expressly stated that I haven't attained enlightenment/liberation. What I have done is question whether or not you have attained liberation.

But, it is probably just a matter of communication. Your experience of "liberation" sounds like "realisation" in Buddhist parlance, while what you refer to as the process of "deepening liberation" (the "shedding of beliefs" and "unravelling of thoughts") is probably what would be referred to as "the spiritual path", with the end-state where all thoughts have been unravelled, and beliefs shed being what Buddhists would refer to as "enlightenment".

wylo

roosh wrote: »

Okay, it might be worth clarifying - again - that I amn't claiming to have broken the attachment to self; I haven't claimed to be liberated; I haven't claimed to be enlightened; in fact, I've expressly stated that I haven't attained enlightenment/liberation. What I have done is question whether or not you have attained liberation.

I know you're not claiming to be liberated , you are claiming that your experience is the same as my experience,
3 years ago you had a glimpse, well done, get over it.

roosh

wylo wrote: »

I know you're not claiming to be liberated , you are claiming that your experience is the same as my experience,
3 years ago you had a glimpse, well done, get over it.

again, you are projecting onto me, the preconceptions that exist in your own head, as you go about "deepening [your] liberation" you might come to realise when you are doing this and hopefully be able to refrain from doing it.

as I have said, it is eminently possible that I am wrong, but it certainly seems as though you've mistaken realisation for liberation - bcos someone told you that it was liberation that you experienced - and it seems as though the perception of self that you are attached to has changed, so that you are now identified with the perception of yourself as someone who is liberated from attachment to the self - as ridiculous as that might sound, that is the nature of the beast!

wylo

Thanks for the advice.

roosh

wylo wrote: »

Thanks for the advice.

np

roosh

wylo wrote: »

the thread is about there being no you

OK, so if you can detach from our discussion up to this point, and discuss whether or not "a you" exists, I just wanted to play devils advocate on one point.

You've stated a couple of times that there is no you, but that the body and brain do exist. Now, as we know, the body/brain combo has a tendency to apply labels to things it experiences - body and brain are themselves just labels. If you acknowledge the existence of the body and brain, must you not then acknowledge the existence of a "me", if the body labels itself, and all it's component parts, as "me"?

In that sense a "me" or "a you" does exist; and I dare say that is what a large percentage of people would tell you "me" refers to.

wylo

roosh wrote: »

OK, so if you can detach from our discussion up to this point, and discuss whether or not "a you" exists, I just wanted to play devils advocate on one point.

You've stated a couple of times that there is no you, but that the body and brain do exist. Now, as we know, the body/brain combo has a tendency to apply labels to things it experiences - body and brain are themselves just labels. If you acknowledge the existence of the body and brain, must you not then acknowledge the existence of a "me", if the body labels itself, and all it's component parts, as "me"?

In that sense a "me" or "a you" does exist; and I dare say that is what a large percentage of people would tell you "me" refers to.

Ill post something I wrote recently in my blog that might address what you are talking about.

Basically im saying that what we see cant be the "correct" way of seeing things. Because a different animals has a completely different way of seeing it. So what makes ours more right than an another animals. Like a bat with sonar abilities? How we see things has no reason to be more correct than how a bat sees things.
But im arguing , its still there in some form or other, its just not technically true. The brain is still there is some form, and for us ,i.e. the human, its called "the brain", that squigy thing that our eyes can see when we're looking at pictures of it.
Im saying the self isnt, its nowhere. It doesnt have any form ,it cant be perceived by anything else. This is the difference between a belief of something that doesnt exist. And an interpretation of something that does.
Now if you want to call the self the human body, then go ahead.

Anyway heres what I wrote...

Something that was playing up on me the past few weeks was the argument that I would hear: "You say the self is only a thought, a mind trick, but so is everything, when you look at something it is only a perception in the brain , nothing more. So nothing is real by your logic.".

I struggled with this knot. What do I say to that? They are right. Everything I see is just an interpretation in the brain. This laptop only looks like this because of the way the brain perceives it. A dog would see it differently and take its version of it as reality. So what makes our version the "right" one? Nothing. It is just our version of how we see things. What if there was a human that had a new extra sense, like the ability to see the laptop via sonar, like a bat, would our version become reduntant become this new human is seeing even more of it? In a different way?
These are the questions that played my mind.

But more importantly, where does the self come into all this?

Everything we see with the senses, as far as we know, is there in some form, our brains interpretation of this is what is arguably false/not true. The colours, feelings , size, perception, etc. There probably is no "true" answer to what something is,i.e. what actually IS this laptop. If you really wanted to go deep you could argue that its just mainly empty space. Because thats what a physicist will tell you in terms of the molecular make up of it.

BUT, my point is, none of this means the laptop is not there, in some form or other. The self however IS not there, ever, in any form. Its a complete figment of our imagination. There is no perceptions or versions of it, its just simply not there at all. So , yes , what we see isnt true, in terms of , its only our version of reality, but the self, isnt even real in any shape or form at all.

roosh

wylo wrote: »

Ill post something I wrote recently in my blog that might address what you are talking about.

Basically im saying that what we see cant be the "correct" way of seeing things. Because a different animals has a completely different way of seeing it. So what makes ours more right than an another animals. Like a bat with sonar abilities? How we see things has no reason to be more correct than how a bat sees things.
But im arguing , its still there in some form or other, its just not technically true. The brain is still there is some form, and for us ,i.e. the human, its called "the brain", that squigy thing that our eyes can see when we're looking at pictures of it.
Im saying the self isnt, its nowhere. It doesnt have any form ,it cant be perceived by anything else. This is the difference between a belief of something that doesnt exist. And an interpretation of something that does.
Now if you want to call the self the human body, then go ahead.

Anyway heres what I wrote...

Something that was playing up on me the past few weeks was the argument that I would hear: "You say the self is only a thought, a mind trick, but so is everything, when you look at something it is only a perception in the brain , nothing more. So nothing is real by your logic.".

I struggled with this knot. What do I say to that? They are right. Everything I see is just an interpretation in the brain. This laptop only looks like this because of the way the brain perceives it. A dog would see it differently and take its version of it as reality. So what makes our version the "right" one? Nothing. It is just our version of how we see things. What if there was a human that had a new extra sense, like the ability to see the laptop via sonar, like a bat, would our version become reduntant become this new human is seeing even more of it? In a different way?
These are the questions that played my mind.

But more importantly, where does the self come into all this?

Everything we see with the senses, as far as we know, is there in some form, our brains interpretation of this is what is arguably false/not true. The colours, feelings , size, perception, etc. There probably is no "true" answer to what something is,i.e. what actually IS this laptop. If you really wanted to go deep you could argue that its just mainly empty space. Because thats what a physicist will tell you in terms of the molecular make up of it.

BUT, my point is, none of this means the laptop is not there, in some form or other. The self however IS not there, ever, in any form. Its a complete figment of our imagination. There is no perceptions or versions of it, its just simply not there at all. So , yes , what we see isnt true, in terms of , its only our version of reality, but the self, isnt even real in any shape or form at all.

The nature of existence of the physical world isn't really what I'm trying to get at.

The thing is, it is the belief in the separate, and distinct existence of "a human body" that is the corner stone of what is referred to as "the self"; it is the belief that there is "a body" that is distinct from other bodies that creates the belief in "self" and "other"; subsequent other beliefs are added to that central belief - largely through the process of conditioning.

So, it's not me that is calling the human body "the self", rather, central to the belief in "self" is the belief in the human body. What people generally refer to as "I" is the human body, complete with it's thoughts, beliefs, emotions etc. ; when someone refers to "myself" they don't simply mean the set of beliefs they hold about themselves - that is just one element of it - they also, more concretely, refer to their bodies. So even if all the beliefs they hold about themselves are incorrect, their "self" still exists because the central part of their "self" is their body.

When you say that "you" don't exist, or there is no "self", what you are referring to is the false sense of self i.e. the beliefs that people have about themselves that are not an accurate representation of reality; but strip away all of these beliefs from someone and they - or from their perspective "I" - still exist. Yes, the false sense of "self" does not exist, but they can still maintain what they refer to as "me" still exists, becuase their body is essentially who they are.


The belief in "a human body", however, is equally as erroneous as the belief in "self" - not least because it is central to it.

wylo

Its the false sense of self that creates that feeling you talk of "seperate and distinct", maybe walk before you can run.
Stop making assumptions about what I see or dont see.
Get liberated and see this, whats the point in debating with someone whos only goal is to show me im not liberated,rather than trying to see the truth of something on your own.

You think i refer to the self as all the beliefs people have about themselves. No, the self IS a belief in its own right.
What you are talking about is CBT, cognitive behavioral therapy , where people try and shed beliefs about themselves. CBT is fine but it assumes a self, there is no self.

So when you see that and then other thoughts from the past show up you get to laugh at them because they arent about anyone. This is what happens when beliefs/thoughts dissipate.

I dont have a goal of reaching a grand stage of enlightenment where I have shed all the beliefs about myself. Why? Because there is no self, those thoughts dont hold any strength, they are about nothing, whereas, you think I am trying to fight beliefs about something I think exists.
As the weeks go by the thoughts hold little traction. Does it deepen? Yes. Is the original kick of truly breaking from the attachment of self the cause of that? Yes.

As I said, walk before you can run.
The human body is a part of everything else in the universe. There is no self. Look at that for once in your life, you've been trying for a while, but you just havent looked.

roosh

wylo wrote: »

Its the false sense of self that creates that feeling you talk of "seperate and distinct", maybe walk before you can run.
Stop making assumptions about what I see or dont see.
Get liberated and see this, whats the point in debating with someone whos only goal is to show me im not liberated,rather than trying to see the truth of something on your own.

You think i refer to the self as all the beliefs people have about themselves. No, the self IS a belief in its own right.
What you are talking about is CBT, cognitive behavioral therapy , where people try and shed beliefs about themselves. CBT is fine but it assumes a self, there is no self.

So when you see that and then other thoughts from the past show up you get to laugh at them because they arent about anyone. This is what happens when beliefs/thoughts dissipate.

I dont have a goal of reaching a grand stage of enlightenment where I have shed all the beliefs about myself. Why? Because there is no self, those thoughts dont hold any strength, they are about nothing, whereas, you think I am trying to fight beliefs about something I think exists.
As the weeks go by the thoughts hold little traction. Does it deepen? Yes. Is the original kick of truly breaking from the attachment of self the cause of that? Yes.

As I said, walk before you can run.
The human body is a part of everything else in the universe. There is no self. Look at that for once in your life, you've been trying for a while, but you just havent looked.

OK, so we're back to this again. I'll separate my response into two separate posts (excluding this one), because there are two issues being raised here, and I don't want to drown the baby in the bathwater.

The first I'll label "is there 'a you'" and will address the issue of the existence of "a you"; the second I'll label "'liberated' or not?" and will address the issue of "liberation".

wylo

roosh seriously, no need, we've been going around in circles for months, both of us making the same arguments over and over, its not going to achieve anything so please dont,

If you really want to get in the last word , then fair enough, reply away, I dont care, but if it includes everything you've said before then you wont get a response, because ill only be saying things Ive said before.

roosh

Is there "a you"?

wylo wrote: »

The human body is a part of everything else in the universe. There is no self. Look at that for once in your life, you've been trying for a while, but you just havent looked.

As mentioned, the belief in "a human body" is the keystone of the belief in "self"; if you ask someone if they exist, or if "a you" exists, or if they attempt to answer the question "do 'I' exist?", they will invariably point to their "human body" as proof of their existence.

So if the the human body is a part of everything else in the universe, then "a you", or "self", is part of everything else in the universe, presumably in the same sense as the laptop is part of everything else in the universe. And,

wylo wrote: »

[if] none of this means the laptop is not there, in some form or other.

it equally means that "the self" is there, "in some form or other".

So, if you avow the existence of "a human body" you equally avow the existence of "a you" - even if you choose not to call it "a you" - because that is, afterall, almost entirely what people mean when they say "me", "I", or "myself".

roosh

wylo wrote: »

roosh seriously, no need, we've been going around in circles for months, both of us making the same arguments over and over, its not going to achieve anything so please dont,

If you really want to get in the last word , then fair enough, reply away, I dont care, but if it includes everything you've said before then you wont get a response, because ill only be saying things Ive said before.

just to note, the post above hasn't been said before

Yahew

wylo wrote: »

As I said, walk before you can run.
The human body is a part of everything else in the universe. There is no self. Look at that for once in your life, you've been trying for a while, but you just havent looked.

I've looked in the mirror and there was me. The idea of "self as an illusion" is Eastern mysticism meshed up with ill understood western philosophy and neuro-science. The answer to whether the self exists or not, or is an illusion or not is ( to my mind) fairly simple:

The self is an illusion, but that illusion is the self.

Julian Bagini mentions that the self can be seen like the desktop ( or the hierarchical filesystem to be precise) on a PC. The desktop is an illusion - the file structure is not really like that on the low level disk - but it is also really there, in some much as anything is really there in software. You can interact with it. You can move files around and copy them. You can burrow down into a folder structure. You can fix problems with it, if it is acting pathologically by fixing permissions and registry files.

The true reality needs not to be known by anybody but the designers of low level disk drive software; even at other fairly low levels of software - like a kernel - the interaction the desktop metaphor exists as a software API metaphor.

Which is to say that is it an illusion in hardware, but also there, and it really exists in software.

jobeenfitz

Yahew wrote: »

I've looked in the mirror and there was me. The idea of "self as an illusion" is Eastern mysticism meshed up with ill understood western philosophy and neuro-science. The answer to whether the self exists or not, or is an illusion or not is ( to my mind) fairly simple:

The self is an illusion, but that illusion is the self.

Julian Bagini mentions that the self can be seen like the desktop ( or the hierarchical filesystem to be precise) on a PC. The desktop is an illusion - the file structure is not really like that on the low level disk - but it is also really there, in some much as anything is really there in software. You can interact with it. You can move files around and copy them. You can burrow down into a folder structure. You can fix problems with it, if it is acting pathologically by fixing permissions and registry files.

The true reality needs not to be known by anybody but the designers of low level disk drive software; even at other fairly low levels of software - like a kernel - the interaction the desktop metaphor exists as a software API metaphor.

Which is to say that is it an illusion in hardware, but also there, and it really exists in software.

.

well that simplifies that then!

wylo

Yahew wrote: »

I've looked in the mirror and there was me. The idea of "self as an illusion" is Eastern mysticism meshed up with ill understood western philosophy and neuro-science. The answer to whether the self exists or not, or is an illusion or not is ( to my mind) fairly simple:

The self is an illusion, but that illusion is the self.

Julian Bagini mentions that the self can be seen like the desktop ( or the hierarchical filesystem to be precise) on a PC. The desktop is an illusion - the file structure is not really like that on the low level disk - but it is also really there, in some much as anything is really there in software. You can interact with it. You can move files around and copy them. You can burrow down into a folder structure. You can fix problems with it, if it is acting pathologically by fixing permissions and registry files.

The true reality needs not to be known by anybody but the designers of low level disk drive software; even at other fairly low levels of software - like a kernel - the interaction the desktop metaphor exists as a software API metaphor.

Which is to say that is it an illusion in hardware, but also there, and it really exists in software.

sounds to me that Julian Bagini was trying to look but couldnt face the fact that there is no self there at all and so concluded that the illusion is actually something real.
The illusion of folders on your desktop is alot more necessary than the illusion of self in the mind. If you want to use a computer you need to use that illusion.
If you want to watch TV you need the illusion of the program , its only an illusion , you are not really watching actors inside your television. Just an image of something that happened.
You are not really moving around folders on your computer, just an image of them.
You are not really improving or hating or loving a self, just the image or illusion of one. There is no self in real life. No actual physical self.

So therefore, there is no you at all, ever. So Julian needs to look harder to see this instead of coming up with excuses so he doesnt have to accept there is no self there.

I dont agree with his comparison, because the self isnt stored in the brain in some other form like data on a computer is.

Yahew

wylo wrote: »

Yahew wrote: »

I've looked in the mirror and there was me. The idea of "self as an illusion" is Eastern mysticism meshed up with ill understood western philosophy and neuro-science. The answer to whether the self exists or not, or is an illusion or not is ( to my mind) fairly simple:

The self is an illusion, but that illusion is the self.

Julian Bagini mentions that the self can be seen like the desktop ( or the hierarchical filesystem to be precise) on a PC. The desktop is an illusion - the file structure is not really like that on the low level disk - but it is also really there, in some much as anything is really there in software. You can interact with it. You can move files around and copy them. You can burrow down into a folder structure. You can fix problems with it, if it is acting pathologically by fixing permissions and registry files.

The true reality needs not to be known by anybody but the designers of low level disk drive software; even at other fairly low levels of software - like a kernel - the interaction the desktop metaphor exists as a software API metaphor.

Which is to say that is it an illusion in hardware, but also there, and it really exists in software.

sounds to me that Julian Bagini was trying to look but couldnt face the fact that there is no self there at all and so concluded that the illusion is actually something real.
The illusion of folders on your desktop is alot more necessary than the illusion of self in the mind. If you want to use a computer you need to use that illusion.
If you want to watch TV you need the illusion of the program , its only an illusion , you are not really watching actors inside your television. Just an image of something that happened.
You are not really moving around folders on your computer, just an image of them.
You are not really improving or hating or loving a self, just the image or illusion of one. There is no self in real life. No actual physical self.

So therefore, there is no you at all, ever. So Julian needs to look harder to see this instead of coming up with excuses so he doesnt have to accept there is no self there.

For someone who lacks a self, you take things very personally. the point is simple. The folder structure doesn't exist at the very lowest disk drive layer but it very really exists in software. Even at the low level.

wylo

Yahew wrote: »

For someone who lacks a self, you take things very personally.

the point is simple. The folder structure doesn't exist at the very lowest disk drive layer but it very really exists in software. Even at the low level.

So it is an illusion, the illusion exists, in terms of self, this would be a thought, i.e. the body = computer
self = software = thought (in terms of this argument)

Its about seeing the self as a thought, and the fact that the whole sense of self thing is actually based on nothing more than a thought.

Thats the crackable bit, give it a go!!

Yahew

wylo wrote: »

Yahew wrote: »

For someone who lacks a self, you take things very personally.

the point is simple. The folder structure doesn't exist at the very lowest disk drive layer but it very really exists in software. Even at the low level.

So it is an illusion, the illusion exists, in terms of self, this would be a thought, i.e. the body = computer
self = software = thought (in terms of this argument)

Its about seeing the self as a thought, and the fact that the whole sense of self thing is actually based on nothing more than a thought.

Thats the crackable bit, give it a go!!

Um, I already did. The self is an illusion but the illusion is the self.

There is nothing mystical there no more than a software paradigm which isn't actually reflecting the underlying hardware is mystical. Since the "self" (OS) of a computer isn't just the CPU, or what is stored on disk when the machine is off, but the interaction between the OS and the CPU when the machine is on, the folder structure in software is hierarchical and does exist.

Just because we can't find the self in the brain does not mean it doesn't exist in the interaction between mind and brain, hardware and software

So the self exists, is permanently tied to a brain, and isn't one with the universe.

wylo

we agree, its just a thought, it cant be found in real life.

It doesnt exist.

You keep calling it an illusion but at the same time claim it exists, itd be like me taking a bunch of magic mushrooms, seeing my carpet come alive and talking to me and me making the claim that the talking carpet exists because the illusion of it is there.

Yahew

wylo wrote: »

we agree, its just a thought, it cant be found in real life.

It doesnt exist.

You keep calling it an illusion but at the same time claim it exists, itd be like me taking a bunch of magic mushrooms, seeing my carpet come alive and talking to me and me making the claim that the talking carpet exists because the illusion of it is there.

No it isn't. To understand this you would have to have some kind of ability to understand some minor technical definitions. I pointed out that the software description of the hierarchical file system is not true from the hardware point of view, because it doesnt really exist like that on the hardware. However from an OS point of view, it - the OS - is not just hardware, but software and hardware. From the point of view of the higher level software which interacts with the lower level OS and disk drive the hierarchal folder system does exist, and isn't illusionary.

Since the mind is the software of the brain, it exists at a "layer" running distributed throughout the brains hardware, even though there is no actual place in the brain for the self. Ergo the mind exists. It is a software illusion on hardware, but so is an OS - and if we ever get AI running - so would be the AI be. But were it self aware, it would exist, in the software layer.

to move from that minor techincal point to say that we dont exist at all, or that the self is one with the universe is a mystical non-scientific leap.

snafuk35

Whether I believe 'you' exists or not and whether 'you' does exist or not is utterly irrelevant.

The way I experience reality subjectively is that I do exist and that my reality will be adversely affected if I do not take steps to look after my well being.

wylo

yahew and snakuf35 , ill get back to this, just on a semi burn out from all the arguing in this thread, dont worry ill recover

@Roosh , good to see you cracked it, pm if you want links to facebook pages that may be handy , a sort of post liberation spot to moan and ask questions. Once seen it cant be unseen, that doesnt mean there isnt a path or a bit of turbulence afterwards.

Musiconomist

unenlightened1 wrote: »

Very few species have the idea that 'self' exists. Most of living organisms are living naturally, peacefully without it.

Animals which could have the 'self virus' are listed here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirror_test

Do you think that humans could live peacefully without it? We would be dead if our ancestors didnt have a notion of self and social order.