← Back to Kinfonet

Is the self real?

There is no question that thought creates the self or the ego for safety and security. We don’t need to discuss it in detail.
The question is has it worked or it has created the opposite in the world. If thought has failed by strengthening the self what is the alternative? That is why K’s teachings are priceless. It shows us the alternative that works. And that is exactly why some of us are here. To learn about the other way of living.

There is a commonality about the structure of a self. It is the form that thought takes. The best description of the form taken is conversational identity activity.

Yes, I stated that clearly. It seems you didn’t read the rest of my post.

This statement is wrong. In my conversation with you I’ve said clearly a number of times that ego, I, self are the same thing. And this is evident just from the meaning of those words, ego means “I” in Latin, self accoding to dictionary means: “a person or thing referred to apart from others” so it’s me again, or you, or them. The problem with self arises because this word has been used in most indian spiritualities to mean a different entity, a higher one, from the ego. They say you can discover your “true self” and so abandon the ego. That is clearly a fallacy. They substitute an entity with another but all entities are illusory. Ego (we) is built through the process of identification and so it’s an identity. The self is just another identity so it has the same nature of the ego.

Yours was a necessary clarification. One needs to distinguish oneself from the interlocutor, so daily life conditions us into the form of a distinct self. And the self, the ego, adores to chat! We can observe it clearly in this forum: how proud we are of our discussions! (:slight_smile:

Conversation has just become syncronised self perpetuation.

Wow! Wonderful definition! (:slight_smile:

Now, to be just a bit slightly serious, your definition reminded me of a book - a fiction book - I read long ago. A man and a woman declared their love to each other, then the man said: “you confim my reality and I confirm yours”. That sentence struck me, it was something intelligent we don’t usually find in fiction.
This is the evidence that we are not sure of our own reality!

Is the self real? And is the world, as seen by the self, real?

“Is the self real? And is the world, as seen by the self, real?”

I have written my views about this issue, just scroll this page up and you’ll find it.
It’s a bit long maybe but if you are interested and don’t get bored you might have a look at it and tell me if that makes sense to you.

Seems to me like a good working definition of the “sense of self”.

It has the same nature, but what makes the ego different from the self is that the self is an identity used on occasion, and the ego is an identity that can’t be dropped.

I don’t understand, could you please give your reasoning or describe how you came to this conclusion.
Also, who is using the self? Who is using the ego? Who is using these identities?

There is no “who”. The self is created by the mind to serve a useful purpose only when needed, and the ego is the self established by overuse. That is, when used constantly rather than occasionally, the mind forgets that it is nothing but thought and is deluded into thinking it is the identity it created for occasional use.

Tricky stuff - If I followed that correctly, it would seem that its all just thought playing tricks on itself.

It seems that way at first, but the mind is not playing tricks on itself. If the mind behaves a certain way often enough or continuously, that behavior becomes the new normal, or default mode. So if you spend more time with other people than alone, you “become” the identity used for that purpose; you forget that your identity is a fabrication.

So the mind is not tricky, its just forgetful?

About thought playing tricks on itself it’s interesting to listen to a video of Bohm about this matter: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=emAeFuwtelQ&list=PL0C3373847C423315&index=48&t=2s

Thought being a mechanical process is not intelligent so it puts itself in a cul de sac…

1 Like

Is the self real ?

Yes - its a form of deception.

1 Like

…and it’s such a hard work to unveil this deception!

I think there is a link between patterns, habits, ego and deception. It’s something I’ve experimented myself in myself and in others. My job consisted in working with motor patterns, i.e. those patterns we learn in our infancy and which allow us to move in a functional way like walking, standing, running, playing a musical instruments and so on.

The nervous systems, at an elementay level, works through patterns. Some are inherited and some are learnt. The problem with motor patterns, for instance the way one walks or stands, is that once this pattern is recorded and used for long time we feel it’s perfectly OK, that it’s natural even when it’s not. This is a deception.

I’ve been trained to recognise unfunctional motor patterns in myself and in others and to replace them with a functional one. This may have a decisive importance with people who suffer from back pain for example.

K. Spoke often of habits and habits are only patterns of the nervous sysem. Again we find a deception because we feel that our habits are natural. As in motor patterns, it requires a deep awareness to discover they are not natural at all.

You can’t imagine how we can be deceived by our nervous system (which works mechanically), I’ve seen people doing absurd things with their bodies and yet when I pointed that out to them they refused or were incapable of seeing they were using their bodies wrongly.

The ego is a bundle of memories, recordings, patterns, habits. The ego IS a habit.