Video response to 'Sam Harris: The self is an Illusion'
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 29 ต.ค. 2024
- My video response to 'Sam Harris: The self is an Illusion'
(On 'The Big Think')
My own opinions (on why I agree with him).
More about what he is referring to by that statement.
Why it does not mean 'The self does not exist' - an explanation.
What 'realising the self is an illusion' entails.
![[BAEMON NEWS 7] NEW ALBUM COMING IN](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/wtVeAPimOyo/mqdefault.jpg)
![ประสบการณ์ จ้าง Developer ที่ผมจะไม่มีวันลืม [ภาค1]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/bzivN4KDg-k/mqdefault.jpg)
Another way to put it is that we nominalize what is actually a dynamic process. A "relationship" is the process of relating, etc.
We are rather like whirlpools in the river of life… Though for short periods it seems to be distinguishable as a separate event, the water in the whirlpools is just the river itself. The stability of a whirlpool is only temporary. The energy of the river forms living things - a human being, a cat or dog, trees and plants - then what held the whirlpool in place is itself altered, and the water passes on, perhaps to be caught again and turned for a moment into another whirlpool.
- Charlotte Joko Beck, Nothing Special: Living Zen
words freeze the concept in time.
Thanks for this explanation, I've also heard the explanation where if we claim something doesn't exist, it already means we've taken something to exist. For example, if we say "there is no cup here", we already have the notion of a cup that exists. Hence its true that it's difficult to not fall in to the two ends when the whole existence is based on it. Thank you!
do u think nothing exists. it cant me saying "nothing" exists doesn't notion that it does some where else
Yes - I understand and agree.
Without the mental extrapolation / understanding of cups, the statement 'There is no cup here' would be totally meaningless.
Your explanation is PERFECT!! I stumbled across this years ago and now I cannot unsee reality as a conceptual one anymore. It is very freeing but also makes real my personality as an interface instead of a “real” person. Make sense?
Hi Janelle - Yes, that does make sense.
Thank you for your comment.
It's not that anything changes . . . it is just that you realise that the concepts being used don't refer to anything solid, permanent or unchanging through time.
Hi, again! Nice video for sure.
Nothing exists inherently, existing on its own side, frozen permanently in time. The mere fact that everything depends on zillions of other things for existence makes it logically impossible for the "I" to exist inherently. And, as you say, things are constantly in flux, and so nothing - no thought, no object, no person - is permanent; in fact, all things are *always* changing to some degree.
People must understand that the "I" exists in a conventional sense, but not in ultimate reality.
Peace and enlightenment.
Thank you for your comment.
You have spoken my very thoughts and understanding ♥
Be aware however, a mere mental understanding that the 'I' cannot exist inherently is different to an actual experiential realisation of this fact (the emptiness of the self).
A mental understanding that all things are empty is perfectly fine . . . but this can also be realised experientially.
@@buddhistsympathizer1136 Absolutely! Emptiness understood intellectually is very different than knowing it deep in your bones; in fact, emptiness, according to many Buddhist monks, cannot be expressed in words. A monk once was asked, "Can you explain what emptiness ultimately feels like?" His reply: Can you explain what "sweet" tastes like? We just eventually come to know it deep within our selfless selves.
Take good care, friend.
@@didierlason6453 magnifique
“An illusion is something that exists in one way, but appears to exist in another.” -Jay Garfield
8:52 “As Nagasena I am known, great King ... But ... this word 'Nagasena' is just a denomination, a designation, a conceptual term, a current appellation, a mere name. For no real person can here be apprehended." -Milindapañha
The funny thing is that I think most people have already experienced no separate self, and it just wasn’t that big of a deal. If you’ve ever “lost yourself” in a book or a movie, or been “in the flow”, where it seemed like your body was on autopilot and was just doing its thing with no “you” controlling anything, then guess what. That was the experience of no separate self. Congratulations! On the flip side, make a mistake in front of an audience and you’ll quickly become very conscious of your self, i.e., self-conscious. Once you’ve seen that the sense of self comes and goes, it becomes easier and easier to see through the illusion.
This is a fantastic explanation. The example of early humans developing language is a good starting for the self.
Thank you - I agree.
'In the beginning was the word'
'The Tao that can be spoken of is not the eternal Tao'.
I think they're all pointing at roughly the same thing.
All the very best ♥
What does it matter if the body or mind changes? We are the whole of the body and mind. Which includes all it's changing dynamics.
It matters, because we make the incorrect assumption that it does not change - that there is something here that is permanently 'us'.
There isn't! There is no inherent self - None
@Buddhist Sympathizer I assume it does change. If there were no self there would only be thoughts.
Concepts, ideas and beliefs shape our reality. Only a self could differentiate and act on those.
funny how when you go to a buddhist centre,they don't explain things as clearly as you do Chris ,Thanks
Thank you for your kind comment ♥
Thanks for the video, it was very interesting. When you say that the word “I” is just a concept or pointer, what is it pointing to? I think the self is more just pure awareness, When we step outside of language and simply just notice the moment. Why isn’t this the self?
Thanks for your question.
"When you say that the word “I” is just a concept or pointer, what is it pointing to?"
That is the entire focus of the enquiry :)
What do you find?
Did you find 'Pure Awareness'?
Would it be possible that any statement about identity (I am this, this is me etc) is merely mental? Another idea / belief?
Or could the statement point to something that is inherently real (more than merely mental/conceptual / just another belief)?
@@buddhistsympathizer1136 It could actually point to a real self.
@@erastusc4908 What do you mean by 'real'?
If you mean an independent, permanent self then there is no such thing (as is provable by science)
@@buddhistsympathizer1136 Yes I do mean that. How has science proven there is no self?
@@erastusc4908 Perhaps we should begin by clearly stating what is meant by 'there is no self'. What I mean by that phrase is that there is no permanent, solid, independent self. Yet we refer to such a self as if it WERE permanent and independent.
No such self exists. It is an illusion.
Thank you so much. It just got clearer.
Thank you for your message. I wish you well ♥
Great explanation! Thanks
Stop it! My car changes & so does my house! They are real! I dont think of my car as the word car.I use the word car to refer to my car.The self is real.No one thinks they are a word called self.
Wow! The penny has finally dropped! I'm beginning to understand. Thanks, you have succeeded where many have failed.
I appreciate the comment, Luke - Thanks - I wish you well ♥
Hi , may I know if you have any website or blog including these subjects. Thanks.
Hi Majid - Thanks for your question.
No, I only have this TH-cam video channel.
What does a pointer point to? What does the pointer "I" point to?
If the self is only a concept it cannot point to itself a concept, concepts have no such powers. I.e. concepts cannot think or "point".
are you a Buddhist ?
is there a thinker of thoughts ?
Hello Buddhist Sympathizer! Will there by any NEW vids? Your explanations are so clear. You have really aided in my understanding of Buddhist concepts of various topics. I do see that you respond to comments as recently as two days ago so perhaps things are in the works?! Crossing fingers :)
Thank you so much for your reply and your kind praise ♥
Do you have any areas that you are not clear on, or any suggestions on what I could talk about?
Throw some ideas my way . . .
I wish you all the very best ♥
no. by stating the self is an illusion, u mean the self does not exist, and here’s why your explanation does not lead to the self existing (in your view at least)
u say that the self is the “center of experience”. the very “you” that is doing the experiencing, the “you” who has always been experiencing, wherein you are the same “you” you were a moment ago, the “you” now, and the same “you” a moment from now.
i liked your “pointing to the moon” analogy, but all that says is that the concept or idea of “self” exists, not the self itself. in your view, the concept or word “self” doesn’t point to any such thing that has been experiencing all moments since the birth of that person, because there is no “center of experience” as you say.
correct me if i am wrong, but u think there is an experience but no experiencer.
and that’s exactly what it means to say that the self does not exist. “self”, “i”, “experiencer”, they all mean the same thing. Sure, u can claim that the concept of it exists, but if u say that the word or concept refers to something that does not exist, then u are saying that only the idea of it exists, not what is being referred to or “pointed at”.
and to maintain the belief that the self still exists even if the self is an illusion is problematic for many reasons, and here’s why.
for any thing x that may or may not exist, with your logic, it does exist. if the idea of or word “God” exists, and you therefore conclude that “God” exists, that is very misleading. You are only certain that the idea exists, but not God Himself.
I hope you see my point.
...
Also, i think the self DOES exist and is not an illusion.
the word or idea “self” refers or “points” to the very center of experience, or the fundamental YOU, which is experiencing, has experienced, and will continue to experience until you die (maybe). you are the experiencer of the experiences. A phenomena is only an experience when it is experienced by an experiencer.
You are not the experience, you are the experiencer. You are not your thoughts, you are the being thinking them. You are not “awareness”, you are that which is aware.
if “there’s no place in the brain for the self to be hiding” - Sam Harris, then the self must be distinct from the brain, or the very body itself.
the self is that which is immaterial and non-physical, something like the soul. the self is the soul. this characteristic is further strengthened by the existing of freewill, for physical or material things simply do not “choose” and “could not have done otherwise”.
the self is the soul. you are the self, you are a soul.
“You don’t have a soul. You are a soul. You have a body” - C.S. Lewis
✟
Thanks for your comment.
I wish you well ♥
Who or what is it that sees through the illusion?
Great question - Thanks for asking it, Allen.
I address your question on this video -
th-cam.com/video/0dFscbPw5yY/w-d-xo.html
All the best
1.I don't know anyone who confuses the word with the real thing or experience. Orgasm, for a clear example (or chocolate, if you never had an orgasm). 2. Suffering isn't the result of conceptual thinking, but of frustrated desire. Even pre-language babies can suffer: snatch their lollipop and see.
3. The self is made of memories(sometimes inaccurate) of one's perceived history, so in that sense it's real. But your memories aren't what you are: the perceiver that is always NOW, so in that sense what you might think is yourself is an illusion, as are most or all recalled thoughts. 4. There is no free will, period, according to Sam Harris. Our genetic inheritance is conditioned from birth throughout our lives, neither of which we have any control over, and there is no way we can know all the causes of our attitudes and behaviors. Thus we have little actual control of our choices.The absence of free will is not due to just conceptual errors. Please see my FB page and the essay, "Freedom From Resentment", for a clear explanation. I did read and enjoy Sam Harris' Free Will, but it's been a few years.
The error is usually twofold:
1) To assume that the word points to (or indeed IS) an inherently real object or person (in Buddhism 'The finger that points to the moon is not the moon').
Words (concepts) never point to inherently real things.
2) That that object or person is permanent, solid, real, unchanging through time.
The suggestion 'Free will is an illusion' is based on the incorrect belief that there is a solid, permanent, unchanging person that has a quality called 'Free-Will'.
That is not to say that 'there is not free-will' because that would be falling into the same trap i.e. Making the suggestion that there is a solid, permanent, unchanging person WITHOUT a quality called 'Free-will'.
I'm saying - There is no solid, permanent unchanging person . . . to have the quality of free-will . . . or to not have it!
(Hence the statement - There is no inherent self).
Hence why it is referred to more as an Illusion, rather than a blanket 'we do or we do not'.
I go back and forth on this one. Some aspects of the body last your entire life. Even if there are continuously changing processes, there's a permanent sort of blueprint eg DNA, fingerprints, blood types etc that lasts from birth to death.
With respect - No aspect of the body remains unchanged . . . and that includes the DNA and fingerprints.
But you are not using the correct level of analysis for the inquiry.
THINKING about the answer will always give rise to permanency. This inquiry is to point out the illusion of what thought / conceptuality itself is creating.
If the permanent thing you think of as 'YOU' is the DNA or fingerprints, who owns them?
'This is MY DNA'. 'These are my fingerprints'.
Does the DNA own itself?
Does the fingerprints own themselves?
A deeper level of consideration is required.
I wish you all the best ♥
@@buddhistsympathizer1136 maybe its the mind the self the collection of erceptions thinking about its outside avatar like a hand which has dna
@@kami2676 How does 'DNA' appear to you right now?
A) As something you can find/prove? or
B) An idea about what is happening?
@@buddhistsympathizer1136 i do not know all i can say is i see with my sense and logical beahivour and interpret it as a singular collection of things that is dna but i do not know whats the limit from dna and other stuff lets say there is this thing called dna and around it there is particles of water jsut because dna isnt physically connected to water particles does that mean its something else no its simply a deduction which our brain made also when you think of it taht dna doesnt exist if you keep deviding its subatomic partcles it can be divided infnitely therefore there is no such thing as the dna sorry my english is bad i would elbaorte and mkae sense my english is my 6th lagnuage so im bad at it sending love and peace
@@kami2676 The aim of this inquiry is to seperate out what we gain from thinking, and what we can actually find. You cannot 'think your way to an answer' with this inquiry.
Why?
Right now there is a belief that there is a permanent, unchanging, independent self here. One that is not based on thought or belief.
So the inquiry is to find this self.
If, in the search you come up with thoughts and ideas . . . that isn't the self you seek, it's just more thoughts, ideas and beliefs ABOUT one.
Recognise your desire to go into thought and analysis to try to find an answer. Recognise what you are doing.
Why?
Because this inquiry is to show your very need to do this IS the illusion. Every reference to a self is through thought ♥
please explain in more depth please ...Thank you
it’s bs. when he says the self is an illusion, he means that the self does not exist. he is only saying that the idea of or word “self” exists, but it does is not refer to anything that does exist. thats why, he really thinks the self does not exist when he says that the self is an illusion. that’s how illusions work, ffs.
it’s like, if the word or idea “flying spaghetti monster” exists, with his logic, it must exist. but we know, that it is only the concept or idea, not the flying spaghetti monster itself.
peace.
I don't think in language.
Perhaps it could be better expressed as 'via conceptuality'. This would also include imagining.
The world is known through conceptuality and language. Without this, we would not be able to think (or communicate).
A quick question to you . . .
Can you express/describe what you are imagining or thinking about?
Can you always express/describe what you are imagining or thinking about?
What would you use to do this?
Anatta simplified
i don't understand. Animals have no self at all. We are animals as well, so why would we have any self at all ?
the self is a concept not an inherently real thing,can you find a self in your actual experience
@ABHISHEK RAJEEV 19BEN002 your projecting language on to animals
Why people often refer to animals?
Do we see ourselves as having lost connection to nature, and therefore animals as nearest reference being?
Do you see how marvelous a cat can forget the torture of yesterday?
But do you also consider the dog which got tortured by the owner? Because he very well can be conditioned aggressive, ill and depressive.
Perhaps humans have simply increased mental capacity and therefore amplified symptoms become better visible?
And aren’t humans supposed to be more sophisticated than the animal?
Sadly but you do not understand what Sam Harris means with the self is an illusion...
Thanks for your comment ♥