Quote Originally Posted by Polymirize
see, because of this constant flickering of a collection of processes. Which change, both in function and in terms of the greater collection, I would see that the self definately does not exist. That we're merely applying a label to something which is only a temporary function and that becomes meaningless with the passing of time. It's like taking a picture of the ocean and then naming the individual waves, as if they were landmarks. But you've removed an entire dimension to allow for that understanding...

Doesn't falsify it, it just points out there's a larger picture to be seen, with a different kind of eyes.

The waves analogy is a good one Polymerize. But what I'm getting as is pretty much the same thing you're saying. As I said, it's existent in a non-existent state. The self is indeed illusion and there is definately no permanent, singlular, "I". The reason I'm saying it exists in a sense is because the whole complex process has an effect, and that effect is very real. Much like an ion has no actual physical form, but we know it's there by measuring the wavelength effect around it. The illusion of the ion if you will. And so the same goes for the self with no self ever arising, but the effect created from the illusion becomes very real.... and so we develope an ego to solidify the illusion and verify it as real to make it tangible (or maybe just manageable).
mrdevious Reviewed by mrdevious on . a brief overview of consciousness and "self" Before I begin, I'd just like to state that this is the spirituality forum (*gasp*). Today I came to a certain realization that I need never again argue with any person here, over any belief they hold, even if they try to argue it through what I percieve as faulty logic. If you want the honest truth, I'm really no great crusader for logic or adeism/atheism or whatever. Every day I'm in shitloads of pain, and every day I'm on these forums. When I'm in especially large amounts of pain, I lose Rating: 5