A Suggestion For What A SELF Is

[Age]

There is really only One 'Self' in Life.

ALL of the other PRESUMED 'selves' are just PRETENSION people pretending to be some thing that they are NOT.

Hello Age, what do you think about my idea of self as an undivisable part of matter (fundamental particle) ?

I think 'your idea' is 'missing the mark'.

you are also only talking about 'we', in regards to beings, only, within human bodies.

The words, 'human beings', just refers to the people, or beings, within human bodies. To me, you are, EXACTLY, Right and Correct about if a body looses a hand, arm, leg, or eyes, for example, then the 'person' does NOT become 'less', for example. The 'body' has nothing at all in regards to the 'person', or the 'being'. People are inside and/or within 'the human body'. But, to me, 'you', the person, or people, are NOT ANY thing 'visible'. Personalities, like person, people, or beings are 'invisible', and what 'you', people, are, EXACTLY, are just the, invisible, 'thoughts' and 'emotions' within human bodies.

All 'thoughts', which claim to be some things, like "atheists", "theists", or ANY thing else, which 'you' are CLEARLY NOT, is NOT what 'you', NOR 'we', 'selves' REALLY ARE.

To Me, 'you', human beings, are just invisible 'thoughts and emotions' WITHIN visible 'human bodies'. And, the words 'self', or 'selves', (little 's'), or 'i', (little 'i'), refers to 'you', persons, or people, which there are many of, while the word 'Self', (big 'S'), or 'I', (big 'I'), refers to the One and Only One, which is also known by a few other names, like, for example, 'Spirit', 'Allah', 'God', Enlightenment, and/or 'SAGE'.

[K1Barin]

There is really only One 'Self' in Life.

ALL of the other PRESUMED 'selves' are just PRETENSION people pretending to be some thing that they are NOT.

Hello Age, what do you think about my idea of self as an undivisable part of matter (fundamental particle) ?

I think 'your idea' is 'missing the mark'.

you are also only talking about 'we', in regards to beings, only, within human bodies.

The words, 'human beings', just refers to the people, or beings, within human bodies. To me, you are, EXACTLY, Right and Correct about if a body looses a hand, arm, leg, or eyes, for example, then the 'person' does NOT become 'less', for example. The 'body' has nothing at all in regards to the 'person', or the 'being'. People are inside and/or within 'the human body'. But, to me, 'you', the person, or people, are NOT ANY thing 'visible'. Personalities, like person, people, or beings are 'invisible', and what 'you', people, are, EXACTLY, are just the, invisible, 'thoughts' and 'emotions' within human bodies.

When we talk about 'self' we mean a single entity as 'myself'. Thoughts and emotions associated to one person are numerous. Considering all thoughts and emotions in combination as 'self ' would make it 'myselves'! And if you mean a single body that makes all the thoughts and emotions, then that 'self ' is a visible body.

[Age]

Hello Age, what do you think about my idea of self as an undivisable part of matter (fundamental particle) ?

I think 'your idea' is 'missing the mark'.

you are also only talking about 'we', in regards to beings, only, within human bodies.

The words, 'human beings', just refers to the people, or beings, within human bodies. To me, you are, EXACTLY, Right and Correct about if a body looses a hand, arm, leg, or eyes, for example, then the 'person' does NOT become 'less', for example. The 'body' has nothing at all in regards to the 'person', or the 'being'. People are inside and/or within 'the human body'. But, to me, 'you', the person, or people, are NOT ANY thing 'visible'. Personalities, like person, people, or beings are 'invisible', and what 'you', people, are, EXACTLY, are just the, invisible, 'thoughts' and 'emotions' within human bodies.

When we talk about 'self' we mean a single entity as 'myself'.

1. To start with the word 'myself' is an oxymoron and/or self-contradictory. So, as long as that is FULLY REALIZED, then 'we' can move along.

2. When 'you', here, say, 'When 'we' talk about 'self' ...', then as long as you are FULLY AWARE that 'you' are NOT talking FOR 'we', here, then all well and good.

3. When 'I' talk about 'self' 'I' MEAN A 'single entity' AS WELL.

Now, AGAIN, when 'I' talk ABOUT 'self' 'I' am MEANING and REFERRING TO the 'single entity', known as 'person' or 'self', WITHIN A single human body. And, when 'I' talk ABOUT 'Self', (big 'S'), although 'I' am ALSO MEANING and REFERRING TO A 'single entity' it is CERTAINLY NOT 'you' individual persons or selves within human bodies, AT ALL.

Thoughts and emotions associated to one person are numerous.

Here is ANOTHER PRIME example of ANOTHER one who SHOWS ABSOLUTELY NO CURIOSITY NOR INTEREST AT ALL IN even just ATTEMPTING TO UNDERSTAND 'another' or 'another point of view'.

WHO CARES if 'thoughts and emotions' are NUMEROUS?

If you are WANTING TO UNDERSTAND the ACTUAL and IRREFUTABLE Truth of things, here, then your VIEWS and CLAIMS HAVE TO FIT IN, PERFECTLY, WITH the ACTUAL Truth of ALL things. And, what 'this' is, EXACTLY, is the INVISIBLE 'thoughts and feelings' ARE what 'you', people and/or selves, ARE, EXACTLY.

Considering all thoughts and emotions in combination as 'self ' would make it 'myselves'!

What are 'you' even ON ABOUT, here?

ONLY ONE 'thought and emotion' can only exist at ANY given moment.

And, 'you', people, are NOT what the 'thought' is ABOUT, but 'thought', itself.

Now, ONCE AGAIN, if absolutely ANY one would like to have A DISCUSSION, here, INSTEAD OF just TELLING 'me' their OWN ASSUMPTIONS and BELIEFS, and EXPRESS 'them' as though they ARE Facts, then PLEASE let 'us' HAVE A DISCUSSION.

And if you mean a single body that makes all the thoughts and emotions, then that 'self ' is a visible body.

'you', OBVIOUSLY, have NOT YET UNDERSTOOD just about ANY that 'I' have SAID and WROTE, here.

And, 'you' NOT ASKING ANY CLARIFYING QUESTIONS, AT ALL, SHOWS that you are NOT OPEN, NOR even WANTING, TO LEARNING and UNDERSTANDING MORE.

I will suggest that INSTEAD of SAYING and WRITING things like, 'If you mean ...', you SAY and WRITE some thing like, 'When you say 'this' or 'that' what do you ACTUALLY MEAN, EXACTLY?

See, if you DID 'this', then you COULD and WOULD LEARN, and UNDERSTAND, MORE.

My job, here, is to NOT Correct ALL of your Wrong ASSUMPTIONS and BELIEFS.

[Walker]

There is really only One 'Self' in Life.

ALL of the other PRESUMED 'selves' are just PRETENSION people pretending to be some thing that they are NOT.

Hello Age, what do you think about my idea of self as an undivisable part of matter (fundamental particle) ?

I think 'your idea' is 'missing the mark'.

you are also only talking about 'we', in regards to beings, only, within human bodies.

The words, 'human beings', just refers to the people, or beings, within human bodies. To me, you are, EXACTLY, Right and Correct about if a body looses a hand, arm, leg, or eyes, for example, then the 'person' does NOT become 'less', for example. The 'body' has nothing at all in regards to the 'person', or the 'being'. People are inside and/or within 'the human body'. But, to me, 'you', the person, or people, are NOT ANY thing 'visible'. Personalities, like person, people, or beings are 'invisible', and what 'you', people, are, EXACTLY, are just the, invisible, 'thoughts' and 'emotions' within human bodies.

All 'thoughts', which claim to be some things, like "atheists", "theists", or ANY thing else, which 'you' are CLEARLY NOT, is NOT what 'you', NOR 'we', 'selves' REALLY ARE.

To Me, 'you', human beings, are just invisible 'thoughts and emotions' WITHIN visible 'human bodies'. And, the words 'self', or 'selves', (little 's'), or 'i', (little 'i'), refers to 'you', persons, or people, which there are many of, while the word 'Self', (big 'S'), or 'I', (big 'I'), refers to the One and Only One, which is also known by a few other names, like, for example, 'Spirit', 'Allah', 'God', Enlightenment, and/or 'SAGE'.

Sounds like Sri Age. (When belittling abides principles become words.)

As explained by David Godman:

The essence of Sri Ramana’s teachings is conveyed in his frequent assertions that there is a single immanent reality, directly experienced by everyone, which is simultaneously the source, the substance and the real nature of everything that exists. He gave it a number of different names, each one signifying a different aspect of the same indivisible reality. The following classification includes all of his more common synonyms and explains the implications of the various terms used.

The Self: This is the term that he used the most frequently. He defined it by saying that the real Self or real ‘I’ is, contrary to perceptible experience, not an experience of individuality but a non-personal, all-inclusive awareness. It is not to be confused with the individual self which he said was essentially non-existent, being a fabrication of the mind which obscures the true experience of the real Self. He maintained that the real Self is always present and always experienced but he emphasised that one is only consciously aware of it as it really is when the self-limited tendencies of the mind have ceased. Permanent and continuous Self-awareness is known as Self-realization.

Other names for the direct experience of single immanent reality:

Sat-chit-ananda
God
The Heart
Jnana
Turiya and turyatita
Natural State
Real Nature
Silence (A thought-free state of undisturbed peace and total stillness)

[Pistolero]

'Self' is not a thing, but a process.
A process held together by memories.
DNA being a form of memory.
DNA + experiences = identity.

We usually associate self with the lucid part of consciousness, that which is becoming aware of itself.
If we use 'ego' to refer to this lucid part then we can say that 'self' is more than ego.
Ego is but a tip of an iceberg concealed beneath the tides of time.

Past manifest presence, interpreted as appearance.
Self is usually defined as the beginning of life, when sperm fertilizes ovum, beginning the process of individuation.