Is there a question in OP you are trying to explore?

There is stuff.
There is an assemblage of stuff amongst stuff that is aware of stuff.
There is an assemblage of stuff amongst stuff that is aware of being aware of stuff.

Call the assemblage 'unenlightened' or 'Ennui Elucidator'.
Call being aware of being aware 'being conscious'.

In some ways the self is constructed - my hand is me to the extent I identify with it and not to the extent I don't. But in other ways the self strikes as more fundamental - it is the omnipresent subject that "I" cannot help but drag into every construction. — Ennui Elucidator

I don't think the self is fundamental. The assemblage known as Ennui Elucidator has a sensory feeling connection to 'its hand', whereas unenlightened has a sensory feeling connection to a completely different hand. Likewise, my eyes see from here and your eyes from there, and I know when this stomach wants feeding, but not when that one does.

So it looks like it is an illusion that there is a difference, caused by the limited range of awareness, and weakness of the linguistic and sympathetic connections between us.

Yes. I cannot understand what it is to not be I, but assuming that I could, is conversation/action/etc. imaginable? I am totally OK with the whole non-existence thing, but outside of it being true, does it add anything to our understanding of now? Maybe you can think of it like a functional/pragmatic exploration of the non-self. We (maybe not you) spend so much time exploring the self and world (whatever the metaphysic of those things), but I figure I'd see if anyone had something interesting to say about the alternative. For instance, maybe process metaphysics solves the problem of non-being in a novel way I hadn't considered.

The cat is on the mat (even if it isn't) and we all act as if quite nicely. I'm trying to imagine what it looks like to act as if the cat isn't on the mat (because the cat, the mat, and you do not exist).

So it looks like it is an illusion that there is a difference, caused by the limited range of awareness, and weakness of the linguistic and sympathetic connections between us. — unenlightened

I don't see how this avoids agency. Absolutely, the I that is me has privileged access to the stuff that is me whereas my I lacks such access to the stuff that is you (outside of what I can observe about you or what you disclose to me). Though I can imagine mind reading (or perhaps simply being an I that has access to disparate me stuff), it feels like self-abnegation is about acknowledging that not only does my I not have access to me stuff, but that there is no I to have access to the me stuff or you stuff.

Perhaps I don't really relate to/understand why destruction of individuals leads to expanding awareness/compassion rather than exact same spot we started. Yes, the metaphor of non-self can motivate one to feel a greater connection to the oneness (or interconnectedness), but the metaphysic of existence being an illusion seems to cut deeper than that. I guess I'm concerned that I've missed the point - from challenging abstraction to benign tautology that informs nothing besides bad cocktail conversation. I'm looking for an exit from the treadmill bound for aesthetics and will. Enlighten me unenlightened.

Let's first get some facts out of the way. The doctrine of atman/an-atman that you have mentioned is not particularly codified in the Vedas, albeit with some effort a case can be made of its presence in a more subtle/essential form. But the call/differentiation between self-non-self has has indeed been made throughout history and into our present times.In any case, coming back to the point, the chronology of this doctrine (and no one has refined this to the degree the Indians have) is,

Vedas--> Upanishads--> Vedanta. Essentially, there is almost a 3000 year span between the Vedas and Adi Shankara codifying the Vedanta (the doctrine you are mentioning). There also seem to be significant changes in linguistic & philosophical emphasis. The change is baffling since there is an obvious break in the tradition somewhere. So we put this out of the way and acknowledge the nuances of this transition.

But to see if we can make sense of your questions, which aren't really yours since many are struggling with the same issue in their particular philosophical tadition,

I am totally OK with the whole non-existence thing, but outside of it being true, does it add anything to our understanding of now? — Ennui Elucidator

Here you will have to confront a question, (which is not my question but has to be your question since you are the one inquiring): how can you be "Ok" when you haven't experientially realized the truth or the falsity of self exitence/non-existence? Is your agreement merely intellectual? if it is then you you don't know the nitty gritty of what actually is. In that case your being Ok or not Ok has little meaning. Then the OK is an illusion or a delusion. This sounds reasonable doesn't it/

I cannot understand what it is to not be — Ennui Elucidator

I'm trying to imagine what it looks like to act as if the cat isn't on the mat (because the cat, the mat, and you do not exist) — Ennui Elucidator

This brings us to the problem we all need to consider, can the self abnegate itself? Or is any such abnegation still a continuity of the self, albeit it has gone underground now? Isn't the self now simply imagining it is not there? So where does that leave us? With our imaginations?

Isn't the self now simply imagining it is not there? So where does that leave us? With our imaginations? — skyblack

Non-sarcastically, I appreciate the detour down Hindu history in case my post was mistaken as an appeal to antiquity, tradition, or enlightened interpretation of a particular text. I am not sure that the ancients understood non-existence in quite the same way as I (or maybe we) do, so their language must be invoked carefully in order to avoid bringing too much baggage along. I was merely relating a story of a friend of mine who used one of the upanishad's in his therapeutic practice to positive effect with a patient. Perhaps it was this one:

IV-65. Devoid of all particular the stainless, pure Being is one vast essence - That is held to be the abode of (immutable) existence.

IV-66. Rejecting distinctions like the being of time, the being of instants, the being of entities, be solely devoted to pure Being.

IV-67. Contemplating but one unqualified universal Being, be omnipresent, full, supremely blissful, filling up all space.

IV-68. The pristine inconceivable Status, without beginning and end, that remains at the fringe of universal Being, is causeless.

IV-69. Cognitions dissolve there. It remains beyond the possibility of doubts. A man who reaches That returns to pains no more.

IV-70. It is the cause of all beings; itself has no cause. It is the quintessence of all essences; nothing is more quintessential that It.

IV-71. In that vast mirror of Intelligence, all these perceptions of objects are reflected as the trees on the bank are reflected in the lake.

IV-72. That is the pure un-obscured Truth of the Self; when that is known the mind is tranquillised. Having, through knowledge, won Its essence you become truly free from the fear of samsara.

IV-73. By the application of the remedies mentioned by me for the causes of suffering, that (supreme) status is attained.
— Annapurna-Upanishad

In any event, I am no Hindu (or Vedic) scholar, and outside of a gesturing in that direction, I would be lost if you wanted to have any serious discussion.

Your questions are good, but have answers that cannot be given. I find enlightenment to be a lot like the quintessential example of the no true Scotsman fallacy - anyone who says they are enlightened isn't and identifying someone who is can only be done by those that are. Is my being OK with the non-existence an illusion? Perhaps. I express it as certainly/passionately as I do anything else. The difficulty is not in accepting that they don't exist, but in non-attachment to their non-existence. That they exist is important to me even if I know that they do not. Where would I be if I acted as if nothing existed in the same way that I acted as if things do exist? I cannot say, but I haven't tried and feel pretty committed to not doing so. Sometimes I come closer to moving towards the stillness, but somehow that movement strikes me as self-defeating.

Can the non-self self imagine non-self? Maybe that would have been a better title for the thread, but I was brought up in the cogito context and fights about non-referential indexicals. My assertion that the self strikes me as fundamental was rejected by unenlightened, so there may be some people that think the self can abnegate. Death and the after-life appear to be a response to some group of people's failure of imagination regarding the return to the void.

The answer to some metaphysical questions is found in actions and not in words. So yes, self-abnegation comes across as pretend play of the non-self self imagining what it would be like to not be all the while engaged in a performative contradiction. I am imagining. I am asking. But that is what I am trying to flesh out here - besides the nothingness that comes along with not-being, can we find something in not-being that informs us now? If we can't even act as if we don't exist, what am I searching for when I reach out to touch what is not there?

Much ink has been spilled about the non-self. Why the fuss?

This thread is born from what seems like the triviality of the non-self. It is self-evidently the case (even if that self-evidence takes lots of creative thinking). I see people who express the awe that comes with tasting the non-self, but I lost that feeling long ago. People (more frequently than you'd imagine) try to relate the epiphany of non-self to me, but I'm like, "Yes, and?" So I am asking you all.

I don't see how this avoids agency. Absolutely, the I that is me has privileged access to the stuff that is me whereas my I lacks such access to the stuff that is you (outside of what I can observe about you or what you disclose to me). — Ennui Elucidator

Well you have described the state of affairs; What "I" has access to is identified with, and that 'makes the difference between us. It's not much of a difference - I'm here identified with this body, and you're over there; I have the experience and memories of this body and you of that.

What has dropped out of contention entirely is consciousness. Ask what makes your consciousness separate from mine, we have recourse to the contents of consciousness, what we have access to - awareness and awareness of being aware have left the building, and all we have is distinct privileged access, otherwise we seem to be indistinguishable. But on that basis, I am not the same at night as I am during the day - the experiences are quite different.

Very good.

Let's get something out of the way. The English translation of the minor Upanishad (in contrast to the major Upanishads) seems to be heavily edited and not a literal translation. Simply a point to note (since translations make all the difference) But thanks for sharing.

What we were looking at in the previous post, or rather identifying, is, the word is not the thing, the concept is not the thing, the idea is not the thing.

And if i may correct something you have said, with your permission of course ;-) , it is not the non-self that is imagining the non-self, it is The Self imagining the non-self, as an unverified concept. It has seen the logic behind the doctrine and now wants to latch on to it.

As to the conundrum, it needs to be crystal clear, not intellectually but experientially, the non-self by definition, cannot be objectified and bottled by the self, no matter how hard one tries. So the conundrum that you are pointing at is valid and common. They arise from an unclear or partial intellectual understanding of the subject. The conundrum is:

besides the nothingness that comes along with not-being, can we find something in not-being that informs us now? If we can't even act as if we don't exist, what am I searching for when I reach out to touch what is not there? — Ennui Elucidator

The question about the nature of action originating from "non-being" is a misplaced concern. The correct concern ought to be, have i (the questioner) understood the issue of being/non-being? Have i understood it fully? Chances are if we understand the subject fully the questions/conundrum about action won't even arise. So what is involved in the proper approach to understanding? Several of my threads have touched on it and i see no point in repeating them again.

Can the non-self self imagine non-self? — Ennui Elucidator

I think so. Recall that darkness before your earliest experience of being a self. Recall that moment you fell asleep last night or had ever passed-out drunk / stoned. IMO, that's 'the non-self of (constituting) the self' – its vanishing point, so to speak.

Let's take another brief look at what you have said, this time quoting your paragraphs:

Is my being OK with the non-existence an illusion? Perhaps. I express it as certainly/passionately as I do anything else. The difficulty is not in accepting that they don't exist, but in non-attachment to their non-existence. That they exist is important to me even if I know that they do not. Where would I be if I acted as if nothing existed in the same way that I acted as if things do exist? I cannot say, but I haven't tried and feel pretty committed to not doing so. Sometimes I come closer to moving towards the stillness, but somehow that movement strikes me as self-defeating. — Ennui Elucidator

It seems, the difficulty is not in a theoretical intellectual acceptance of non-existence, but in having non-attachment to our so called existence. This is easily observed in our natural clinging to life, and to all it offers/means. Therefore in order to investigate non-existence, one has to investigate into the nature of death. What it meas to die, and if it possible to die ( i.e.cease to exist) while one is alive.

The underlined parts where you are concerned about acting/action, i have already touched upon in previous post. This is a misplaced concern stemming from incomplete investigation, or as you say, simply "a gesturing in that direction". Sorry, and i think you will agree, but clarity surely needs more than a cursory gesturing.

My assertion that the self strikes me as fundamental was rejected by unenlightened, — Ennui Elucidator

The self' may "strike" as being fundamental, but are we looking for a confirmation to everything that "strikes" us, or inquiring into the truth of the matter? It is definitely comforting to believe in a fundamental self....a privileged place to lean on, or as you say

there I am occupying a seemingly privileged place of focus. The verbs of self-orientation always refer back to me as if there is some thing there doing the verby action — Ennui Elucidator

or, when you say

it is the omnipresent subject that "I" cannot help but drag into every construction. — Ennui Elucidator

Sure. This is not only comforting but also matches our experience. If you accept this then you cannot reject accountability of what is happening in the world, around your vicinity as well as far away. One self will fight another self in every possible way at all possible levels. I think unenlightened is also saying the same thing in his recent post.

My assertion that the self strikes me as fundamental was rejected by unenlightened, — Ennui Elucidator

Well, since you have mentioned Vedanta we can look into what they might say.They may ask, what self is fundamental? Is it the self with name, form, attributes, memory, experiences engaged with the objective world? Or is it the dreamer self n the dream world? Is the objective self of name, form, attributes present in deep sleep? So, a self that comes and goes, rises and sets, is conscious and unconscious, can be manipulated by drugs (medical or recreational), is affected by moods, is affected by the environment, can it be called a fundamental self?

One may point out, keep in mind we aren't even taking into account he frailties of this so called fundamental self in its "waking" hours. Furthermore, if we simply take what "strikes" us to be true, then what are really seeking? A confirmation? One would have thought the lover of wisdom would want to find out what is true per se, irrespective of whether it "strikes" or not. If one is content with what "strikes" to be true, then fine. Problems end. The story ought to end there. Does it?

But that is what I am trying to flesh out here - besides the nothingness that comes along with not-being, can we find something in not-being that informs us now? If we can't even act as if we don't exist, what am I searching for when I reach out to touch what is not there? — Ennui Elucidator

My 2 cents is, one shouldn't be "reaching out" to any belief. Whether it is the belief in a self or the non-self. Staying away from words like "nothingness", "stillness", "enlightened" is best, if one hasn't inquired deeper than a mere cursory gesturing.Otherwise one is simply adding to the bundle of ideas one is already carrying.

Self-abnegation either takes you to new heights (the desire to improve oneself) or it marks the beginning of your descent into the abyss (rejection can be hard to deal with).

Some things can be changed ( :smile: ), others not ( :sad: ).

God, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, courage to change the things I can, and wisdom to know the difference. — Reinhold Niebuhr

I believe self-abnegation is a mild form of Cotard's delusion (check Wikipedia for details). It might also indicate or betray hyperambitiousness (I'm not good enough, the world is not enough, the cosmos itself is hopelessly inadequate).

Do I have a low opinion of my actual self or do I have a high opinion of my potential self?

My assertion that the self strikes me as fundamental was rejected by unenlightened,
— Ennui Elucidator

Well, since you have mentioned Vedanta we can look into what they might say.They may ask, what self is fundamental? — skyblack

Well since you invoke my name, I'll risk one more explanation of my pov. In common with probably most folk and most philosophers, I take awareness to be fundamental, and awareness of awareness be the full flowering. So being aware of the awareness that one fundamentally is, one can easily say what it is.

Well perhaps you can, but I find I can only describe awareness as having the characteristic of emptiness; it is like an empty stage on which experiences of body and environment and others are played out.As soon as there is any dressing up of this emptiness, I am not talking about awareness any more, but what I am aware of - the scenery, not the stage.

The self is one of the players and part of the play or scene, precisely because it is identified as being something/someone. Once that is rejected, it is simply obvious that awareness is everywhere the same emptiness, and we are like bubbles in a foam of life.

This all seems very straightforward and obvious in theory, but one never gets very far with it because one is always trying to explain to folks that think they are actors playing lead roles in a melodrama, that they are just part of the audience. "I don't wish to know that, kindly leave the stage."

You have quoted two people in a seemingly odd way, who are you speaking to?

That is indeed the question! I am talking to myself in another body. :grin:

But in practice, I quoted you quoting Ennui, and commenting in a direct way.

Well since you invoke my name, I'll risk one more explanation of my pov. — unenlightened

We have not spoken before. So who are you explaining your pov to and who "invoked" (a weird choice of word) your name? Why am i being quoted? In what context? Is there something you wish for me to look at or is this some kind of attention seeking gimmick? I am going to ask you again, why was i pinged?

I honestly don't know what your problem is. I'm contributing to the thread topic along with you, and I think we are discussing it together with other people. If I have offended you, I apologise, and I will not quote you in future as it seems to be problematic.

The problem is in context of your response the reason for quoting is not clear. It is also not clear who is being addressed. I Initially asked you who are you speaking to, but you evaded the question with a flippant response. So i had to ask you again. You could simply clarify who is being addressed in that post, or what is the context of the quote. Why make all this so problematic? Or is that your intent?

I quoted what and who I was responding to, which was Ennui and you. Why is that not already clear from my original quoting? Look I don't understand what your problem is, and I'm not going to continue this unless you can explain it. I have apologised for upsetting you and assure you that it was completely unintentional and I still have no idea at what you have taken offence. I can say no more.

Very well. Perhaps you can share, if interested, why are you speaking about the primacy of awareness when OP wants to explore Self-Abnegation. Seems like you are equating self with awareness, is that it?

There is a dynamic between abnegation and affirmation of the self, with what it either identifies with or does not identify with. "My x,y,z," or "not my x,y,z." It's as if nature has endowed us with this binary module, and with it there is "freedom to be or not to be" (Shakespeare). This dynamic also has a complementary aspect in logic/language; so that we can argue over what is and is not (in the material world). There is a Stoic term for this capacity, but for the life of me I cannot remember how to spell it, and am unable to come up with it in google searches. ...Proharies? Here it is: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prohairesis I just had to do a google search of Stoic terms.

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

Thanks.

That's a really useful analysis by the old Greek. So it would be silly to deny that these are my hands and this little cut on my thumb is an irritation for me,that I need to keep clean and no one else need be concerned with at all (except for the purposes of philosophical illustration); whereas the opinions of me had by others are their own business, and I do not need to keep them clean at all, though I might offer them a cloth, as it were, in passing.

Although, in practice, If Putin thinks you're a nazi, or Biden thinks you're a traitor, you might want to be somewhat more concerned.

Yes, it is silly to deny the body is not you. As a monist I think there is always some kind of mind-body connection. Obviously, you can't be realistic and deny that to be your body is to be your self. This is where human existence gets self-referential. As Rand penned, "existence exists," to market a more general affirmation of reality. What came after that idea for me, was that existence has existent attributes, escaping the tautological cycle. From there, all existent "things" have possible predicates, that can be affirmed or denied. As it took some working out, I hope this is percipient for others here.

Let's first get some facts out of the way. — skyblack

:brow:

What's that emoji about?

What's that emoji about? — skyblack

A thousand apologies. — Ranjeet

You have quoted me and your response is an emoji. I am asking what is the emoji about? Is there anything you want to say to me?

It's just that I find your statement interesting - can't say why though! Sorry if you found that offensive. Absit iniuria.

I haven't forgotten about this thread, but then I haven't much to add. I was sitting and moving closer to the stillness when this came along...."Oh Yeah Habibi"

Ask what makes your consciousness separate from mine, we have recourse to the contents of consciousness, what we have access to - awareness and awareness of being aware have left the building, and all we have is distinct privileged access, otherwise we seem to be indistinguishable. — unenlightened

I keep mulling this over. I haven't quite gotten it yet, I think. The non-self that is not-you has privileged access X and the non-self that is not-me has privileged access Y, but are otherwise non-self. This difference in access is... That is where I am lost. On the one hand,the difference between picking your nose and touching your nose is the width of a nostril, but most people find the nostril width to be of significance. I am, however, a general fan of the idea that claiming ownership (or privileged access) to memories is dangerous - after all the memories are but present thoughts arising from who knows what. Whether those memories came from some prior time that my non-self self did something involved in making/observing those memories I cannot say. Perhaps they are nothing more than watching a movie recorded long before I was born or a place I've never been and mistaking the camera's perspective for my own.

its vanishing point, so to speak. — 180 Proof

As usual I want to agree with you. It isn't so much that the experience of anticipatory vanishing followed by the later realization that I have not is rather unlike never having been, but that hanging on to the moment before the moment after doesn't bring the epiphany. Perhaps that is why the black hole analogy is so poignant for some people. That our experience of falling into timelessness happens in time and the essential nature of reaching timelessness is that there is no time in which to have an experience. We always seem to be popping out of the void with no awareness of having actually been in it.

The difference between us and the nothingness and us and the black hole is that the black hole is situated in our experience whereas the nothingness is behind us/pervades us/gives rise to us. Even as we imagine the void, we are the void. The light switch that is "we are something" and "we are nothing" doesn't change the void, but only the illusion that is us. Now the light switch is on "we are nothing" and the unchanged void strikes me exactly as it did before.

Maybe I'm still waiting to go poof as I shout eureka. Maybe I've already gone poof and being nothing is actually identical to being something. Still, I am willing to give up the experience of existence as an I and just let experience happen.

The self is one of the players and part of the play or scene, precisely because it is identified as being something/someone. Once that is rejected, it is simply obvious that awareness is everywhere the same emptiness, and we are like bubbles in a foam of life. — unenlightened

This is an example of part of what I am missing. How does awareness being empty get us to being one of many on an even grander stage?

Perhaps you can share, if interested, why are you speaking about the primacy of awareness when OP wants to explore Self-Abnegation. Seems like you are equating self with awareness, is that it? — skyblack

I'm not sure what your background is, Skyblack (not that it matters particularly), but I'm curious whether you think that there is a self more fundamental than our self that is aware? Are you hinting at Atman or something similar?

I'm not sure what your background is, Skyblack (not that it matters particularly) — Ennui Elucidator

That's right, it doesn't.

but I'm curious whether you think that there is a self more fundamental than our self that is aware? Are you hinting at Atman or something similar? — Ennui Elucidator

I have already said: whether there is something fundamental or not, is of no consequence to us, except as e belief, a concept, to be argued about, accepted or rejected. Therefore, a lover of wisdom puts aside such entertainment, and if serious and interested, starts inquiring into 'what is',