[Opinion] True Self / Daimon / Atman - real or BS

[Magpie]

Is True Self or Greek Daimon or Hindu Atman real? For the sake of simplicity let's connect them through their shared nature and disregard the differences in packaging. If you disagree that they are the same, tell me why.

Buddhism, which strikes me as the most legit esoteric system, doesn't have any of that. Opposite - they have anatta concept. Sure, some Mahayana schools talk about the "inner Buddha", but that can be interpreted as the extra-samsaric element that you can grow into the full awakening. Same as alchemical gold that men have and can use for work - gold is the principle of gold making. And if those Buddhists interpret that inner Buddha as true self, then it is a different discussion.

Why ask such theoretical question? Well, it is of course personal. I had a conversation with someone very knowledgeable and when I mentioned true self they looked at me as if I hit my head too hard. He told me - just be what you want. Made me wonder.

Why the question matters? It changes the process.
1. Dissolve amalgams / ego selves -> 2. Become true self and strive to be "yourself" -> 3. As yourself, pursue godhood

If there is no true self:
1. Dissolve amalgams / ego selves -> 2. Become nothing. "Gold" is extra-samsaric, it doesn't have set characteristic, so you stay pure and you only at most use artificial personas to which you are not attached. -> 3. As "nobody", you continue to refine gold until you reach full awakening.

The whole "be yourself", "be your true self" seems to me like the part of a long gone world, where people had a purpose in everyday life. You are a warrior, priest, farmer, craftsman etc and you strive to be your best self. Arete virtue comes to mind. But that is a concept from a world that was "full of gods", where people felt participation in the higher order. Or at least, less optimistically, they still had a collective memory of that participation and words like arete still existed. Nowadays, we don't even have words like that.

All boils down to - is true self yet another construct means to bind us or is it a legit part of "self" and a necessary step? And if so, then why is Buddhism silent about it?

 

[Morell]

A lot to unpack here. Like your thinking about that.

First of all, before you can wonder if true self is real, you need to know what it is. If you define it and you find something fitting the definition, then it exists. "Just be what you want" is completely valid answer, if you think about it. To be what you really want to be is to be true you. Another thing to take into account: there is not one Buddhism. That is umbrella term for many schools of thought and philosophy, sometimes very various and differing from each other.

Looks like the two processes you pointed out loosely fit LHP and RHP. I do LHP. Both are valid processes, though each one goes in different direction and through different territory and towards kind of different goal, although the same.

No, I cannot agree that it is gone. If anything it is more present than ever before in the history because nowadays you can really choose who you want to be, while in the history it depended on the error or luck of your birth. Today we know more, we understand more... and our potential is different. (although you are not free in every part of the world, being born in some places today is being born to slavery or literal hell)

So to your question I have to answer with question: Why would this kind of Buddhism that seeks getting rid of everything that you are, care about who you truly are?

 

[Magpie]

A lot to unpack here. Like your thinking about that.

First of all, before you can wonder if true self is real, you need to know what it is. If you define it and you find something fitting the definition, then it exists. "Just be what you want" is completely valid answer, if you think about it. To be what you really want to be is to be true you. Another thing to take into account: there is not one Buddhism. That is umbrella term for many schools of thought and philosophy, sometimes very various and differing from each other.

Looks like the two processes you pointed out loosely fit LHP and RHP. I do LHP. Both are valid processes, though each one goes in different direction and through different territory and towards kind of different goal, although the same.

No, I cannot agree that it is gone. If anything it is more present than ever before in the history because nowadays you can really choose who you want to be, while in the history it depended on the error or luck of your birth. Today we know more, we understand more... and our potential is different. (although you are not free in every part of the world, being born in some places today is being born to slavery or literal hell)

So to your question I have to answer with question: Why would this kind of Buddhism that seeks getting rid of everything that you are, care about who you truly are?

I would say both the paths are LHP, no need to differentiate here. The main difference is in 1. you have something set in stone that does the work and in 2. you know there is no "true you". But the final step in both of these I see as a point where there is not "true self" or any self, as it is the point of full awakening - Buddhahood or alchemical redness. You cannot be perfectly awakened and "true self". Just like in Buddha's standoff with Brahma - if you are a god of being, you cannot "not be".

Buddhism I refer to is Pali canon Theravada. Importantly, in this interpretation nirvana is not the final step. You extinguish the flames of samsara, but the final step is full awakening, which I see as the ultimate goal of all LHP. And you are spot on with the question - if you are getting rid of it all, why care who you are (truly or superficially, it doesn't matter). The goal is perfect freedom of manifestation, a complete abstraction to us all I imagine, but in that scenario clinging to any self seems counter productive.

 

[Morell]

Alright. I have a question: Since it seems that you are following Buddhism, are you asking here for reassurance that there is no such thing as the true self?

 

[Magpie]

Alright. I have a question: Since it seems that you are following Buddhism, are you asking here for reassurance that there is no such thing as the true self?

I wouldn't say I follow Buddhism, but I find much of their teaching liberating. Liberating from theory that doesn't serve me. Does not mean that it is useless - I only speak for myself at this point in time.

I am asking for your opinion, kind people of Wizard Forums, which is in itself in conflict with Buddhist contempt for "demon of dialectics", simply to learn from your experience. Whether you experienced true self and benefited from it.

 

[Morell]

I wouldn't say I follow Buddhism, but I find much of their teaching liberating. Liberating from theory that doesn't serve me. Does not mean that it is useless - I only speak for myself at this point in time.

I am asking for your opinion, kind people of Wizard Forums, which is in itself in conflict with Buddhist contempt for "demon of dialectics", simply to learn from your experience. Whether you experienced true self and benefited from it.

Cool! Thanks for clarifying.

Since you are asking, I do think that there is true self, though I have more possibilities what could be meant. The more possible is simply you. YOur consciousness. You are your true self. What else?

The other is connected with HGA or higher self, that seems to be the self too, yet seems independent. There are more definitions of it, but it is something that is part of me and me, yet it is not me, which makes it paradoxical and complex...

 

[Konsciencia]

Is True Self or Greek Daimon or Hindu Atman real? For the sake of simplicity let's connect them through their shared nature and disregard the differences in packaging. If you disagree that they are the same, tell me why.

Buddhism, which strikes me as the most legit esoteric system, doesn't have any of that. Opposite - they have anatta concept. Sure, some Mahayana schools talk about the "inner Buddha", but that can be interpreted as the extra-samsaric element that you can grow into the full awakening. Same as alchemical gold that men have and can use for work - gold is the principle of gold making. And if those Buddhists interpret that inner Buddha as true self, then it is a different discussion.

Why ask such theoretical question? Well, it is of course personal. I had a conversation with someone very knowledgeable and when I mentioned true self they looked at me as if I hit my head too hard. He told me - just be what you want. Made me wonder.

Why the question matters? It changes the process.
1. Dissolve amalgams / ego selves -> 2. Become true self and strive to be "yourself" -> 3. As yourself, pursue godhood

If there is no true self:
1. Dissolve amalgams / ego selves -> 2. Become nothing. "Gold" is extra-samsaric, it doesn't have set characteristic, so you stay pure and you only at most use artificial personas to which you are not attached. -> 3. As "nobody", you continue to refine gold until you reach full awakening.

The whole "be yourself", "be your true self" seems to me like the part of a long gone world, where people had a purpose in everyday life. You are a warrior, priest, farmer, craftsman etc and you strive to be your best self. Arete virtue comes to mind. But that is a concept from a world that was "full of gods", where people felt participation in the higher order. Or at least, less optimistically, they still had a collective memory of that participation and words like arete still existed. Nowadays, we don't even have words like that.

All boils down to - is true self yet another construct means to bind us or is it a legit part of "self" and a necessary step? And if so, then why is Buddhism silent about it?

Based on my own experiences, and what my friend Leo Gura said: we each have our own unique Consciousness. Meaning, that you are your own God head. Each one of us have our own God head. Meaning, Consciousness. However, you are God and there's no separation between you and God, or me. Even though, we have our own Consciousness. You are me, and I am You. It's a very hard concept to swallow, but don't believe me. Verify it for yourself, if that is the case.

 

[Beyond Everything]

There is no true self. One must create the true self. What there is are aspects of the self that are very hard to ordinarily access (and that includes through the standard esoteric/mystic/occult means people have used for centuries). When you tap those aspects, they combine with your conscious self in a holistic manner and completely transform the person into something no longer bound to material reality post-mortem.

btw One can't 'become nothing', except through complete non-existence- death. One can consciously feel they have 'dissolved the ego', but that doesn't mean the other aspects of the self aren't sitting right there, continuing to exist.

The problem here is you're trying to fit things into neat boxes through the use of a primitive symbolic system otherwise known as language.

 

[Magpie]

Cool! Thanks for clarifying.

Since you are asking, I do think that there is true self, though I have more possibilities what could be meant. The more possible is simply you. YOur consciousness. You are your true self. What else?

The other is connected with HGA or higher self, that seems to be the self too, yet seems independent. There are more definitions of it, but it is something that is part of me and me, yet it is not me, which makes it paradoxical and complex...

I believe True Self and HGA may be the same thing. I am not that much into Thelema, but that is the gut feeling I get. I am my true self? I am just a bundle of various currents manifesting through me. I am one guy now, but I was different earlier today, different at work, very different 10 years ago etc. I don't think there is anything true to it. The moments of truth are when consciousness is realised and when it happens, it is all quiet - nothing, like Buddhist anatta. Inner dialogue for the most part feels like script reading. Even if it feels deliberate. A deliberate inner dialogue is playing a vhs tape while "free" inner dialogue feels like watching random tv channel. But it is still only watching. Consciousness is either stillness or it is pure action.

Post automatically merged: Yesterday at 11:09 PM

There is no true self. One must create the true self. What there is are aspects of the self that are very hard to ordinarily access (and that includes through the standard esoteric/mystic/occult means people have used for centuries). When you tap those aspects, they combine with your conscious self in a holistic manner and completely transform the person into something no longer bound to material reality post-mortem.

btw One can't 'become nothing', except through complete non-existence- death. One can consciously feel they have 'dissolved the ego', but that doesn't mean the other aspects of the self aren't sitting right there, continuing to exist.

The problem here is you're trying to fit things into neat boxes through the use of a primitive symbolic system otherwise known as language.

Aaren't we all guilty of that?

Become nothing was not literal. I meant losing attachment to the currents that form the amalgam of ego "self".

Very interesting, so you say we have pieces of self, but not a ready-made "true self" waiting for us... That sounds like alchemy. Purify yourself (dissolve ego), and reach out for inner ingredients, work on them and get the "true self" in the end. So "true self" is synthesized in the process. Correct me if my primitive symbolic system doesn't describe your thought accurately

 

[Beyond Everything]

Aaren't we all guilty of that?

Yeah, of course.

Become nothing was not literal. I meant losing attachment to the currents that form the amalgam of ego "self".

I personally don't deal much with the concept of 'ego' in this context. I think it's a red herring in some ways. A lot of the 'attachments' you're pointing out aren't actually contained in the part of the psyche people label ego. These labels become a hindrance anyway when one starts to work on unspeakable levels of energies.

Very interesting, so you say we have pieces of self, but not a ready-made "true self" waiting for us... That sounds like alchemy. Purify yourself (dissolve ego), and reach out for inner ingredients, work on them and get the "true self" in the end. So "true self" is synthesized in the process. Correct me if my primitive symbolic system doesn't describe your thought accurately

Yeah, there isn't some already perfected self we are reaching towards.

I find the solve et coagula formulation to be inadequate. There are unmapped parts of the self that can drive one to ascension. You could spend a lifetime thinking you're 'purifying the ego' and not tap into them. This is why there's such a miserable 'success' rate over so many centuries in so many systems.

 

[Hermetika]

I think that the true self is the individualized aspect of divinity. When the true self is aligned with the path of spiritual development that this incarnation intends, meaning and purpose are established for the individual, and the path to liberation for this incarnation is acquired. Liberation seems to have a different pathway for each person based on karma and development of the soul. Development of the soul then implies that full illumination and realization of divinity while in physical form is the ultimate liberation point. Oneness, wholeness, and yet duality. Thanks for this thought provoking opinion @Magpie