A New "Self-Model": Rapid Alternation of "Awareness" and "Awareness of Awareness"

[Wenge Huang]

Is the self a real entity or merely a constructed illusion?

On the basis of empirical materials from Theravada Buddhism and the scientific mechanism behind Buddhist meditation, I develop a new “Self-Model” compared with Metzinger’s Self-Model Theory: the self is just the illusion emerging out of the rapid alternation of “awareness” and “awareness of awareness”.

According to Aldous Huxley and Ajahn Brahm, we have proposed that the nature of vipassana is enhanced awareness induced in meditation, which makes contemplating the five aggregates possible, just like “watching” a slow-motion film.

According to Thanissaro Bhikkhu, Rupert Gethin, Sue Hamilton and Alexander Wynne, different from the traditional mainstream view that the individual person consists of five ever-changing aggregates, the five aggregates should be regarded as descriptions of the individual’s subjective experience. We further argue that the five aggregates should be viewed directly as a stream of moments of awareness or consciousness.

According to P. A. Payutto, when we regard each aggregate as an “awareness” which is the state of being conscious of something, then contemplating the five aggregates would reveal the existence of “awareness of awareness”. For instance, when one feels happy, one knows that one is happy. (Note that feeling happy is not the same as knowing that one feels happy.)

Furthermore, inspired by Ajahn Brahm’s insightful “fruit salad simile” which describes experiences in Theravada Buddhist meditation, we develop a new “Self-Model” by introducing “awareness of awareness” out of the framework of the five aggregates: contemplating the five aggregates would discern that “awareness of awareness” arises a moment after each aggregate and they do not appear simultaneously.

Thus, it is clear that the notion that there is a constant entity always there knowing or experiencing all aggregates just results from the alternation of “awareness” (or “aggregates”) and “awareness of awareness”, something that under ordinary conditions happens very quickly. (That’s like a torch spinning so fast that it looks like a solid ring of fire exists.)

Obviously, this model reveals the principle of “non-self” in Buddhism and demonstrates that mental entity in Western philosophy does not exist simultaneously.

However, this model would lead to the controversies of free will and ethics.

[Wenge Huang]

Is the self a real entity or merely a constructed illusion?

This profound question concerning the nature of the self has been debated across various fields such as philosophy, psychology, and cognitive science for millennia.

In Western thought, this debate is epitomized by Descartes’ renowned “Cogito, ergo sum” contrasted with Hume’s “Bundle Theory.” Similarly, Eastern traditions confront the issue through the Buddhist doctrine of non-self (anatta) versus Advaita Vedanta’s conception of Atman.

Contemporary perspectives in psychology and cognitive science lean toward viewing the self as a dynamic, continuously constructed process rather than a fixed, immutable entity. Yet a central challenge remains: if no stable self exists, how does our subjective sense of identity emerge?

This new model supports and enhances Metzinger’s Self-Model by offering a detailed dynamic process of how selfhood arises and revealing the mechanism of transparency of his Self-Model.

[Age]

Is the self a real entity or merely a constructed illusion?

Define what the word, 'self', means or is referring to, exactly, then 'we' can look into and discuss 'this', further.

On the basis of empirical materials from Theravada Buddhism and the scientific mechanism behind Buddhist meditation, I develop a new “Self-Model” compared with Metzinger’s Self-Model Theory: the self is just the illusion emerging out of the rapid alternation of “awareness” and “awareness of awareness”.

Okay, but is the 'self' word, here, actually meaning and/or actually referring to, exactly?

According to Aldous Huxley and Ajahn Brahm, we have proposed that the nature of vipassana is enhanced awareness induced in meditation, which makes contemplating the five aggregates possible, just like “watching” a slow-motion film.

Okay, but who and/or what is the 'we', here, exactly? And, what and/or who is the 'vispassana', here, exactly, as well?

According to Thanissaro Bhikkhu, Rupert Gethin, Sue Hamilton and Alexander Wynne, different from the traditional mainstream view that the individual person consists of five ever-changing aggregates, the five aggregates should be regarded as descriptions of the individual’s subjective experience. We further argue that the five aggregates should be viewed directly as a stream of moments of awareness or consciousness.

Do you think that it would help others, here, if you said and explained what the so-called 'five aggregates' were, exactly?

According to P. A. Payutto, when we regard each aggregate as an “awareness” which is the state of being conscious of something, then contemplating the five aggregates would reveal the existence of “awareness of awareness”. For instance, when one feels happy, one knows that one is happy. (Note that feeling happy is not the same as knowing that one feels happy.)

But, if the 'self' is NOT a 'real entity', then there could NOT be a 'feeling happy', nor of knowing that 'one feels happy'.

By the way, ALL emotions, or 'internal feelings', just arise, or 'make an appearance', and then 'disappear'. So, is there even 'one' who is 'feeling' 'these feelings'. If yes, then who and/or what is 'that one', exactly?

Furthermore, inspired by Ajahn Brahm’s insightful “fruit salad simile” which describes experiences in Theravada Buddhist meditation, we develop a new “Self-Model” by introducing “awareness of awareness” out of the framework of the five aggregates: contemplating the five aggregates would discern that “awareness of awareness” arises a moment after each aggregate and they do not appear simultaneously.

If there is 'awareness of awareness', then who and/or what, exactly, of each 'awareness'?

By the way, the ACTUAL ANSWER/S, here, are VERY SIMPLE and EASY TO FIND, and KNOW, that is; once you LEARN and GAIN the KNOW-HOW.

Thus, it is clear that the notion that there is a constant entity always there knowing or experiencing all aggregates just results from the alternation of “awareness” (or “aggregates”) and “awareness of awareness”, something that under ordinary conditions happens very quickly.

And, who and what that 'constant entity' is, exactly, is just the EXACT SAME ANSWER TO the QUESTION, 'Who am 'I'?'

Which, by the way, is, and was, found and known in the process of coming to KNOW thySelf.

(That’s like a torch spinning so fast that it looks like a solid ring of fire exists.)

Obviously, this model reveals the principle of “non-self” in Buddhism and demonstrates that mental entity in Western philosophy does not exist simultaneously.

The 'self' that you human beings IMAGINE "yourselves" to be are just ILLUSIONS. However, there is an 'I', of which there is ONLY One, and which is who, and what, is ALL encompassing, ALL knowing, ALL sentient, and ALL powerful. And, this 'I' is just the 'I', in the question, 'Who am 'I', EXACTLY', which you human beings have been LOOKING FOR and WONDERING OVER, hitherto, for some time 'now'.

The Universe, Itself, HAD BEEN evolving towards coming-to-KNOW thy Self, which It eventually ALWAYS WOULD.

However, this model would lead to the controversies of free will and ethics.

But, there is NO ACTUAL 'controversy', here, regarding these two things.

The ABILITY TO CHOOSE, or 'free will', combined with the INSTINCTUAL KNOWING of what IS Right, and Wrong, in Life, leads to living in peace, and harmony, here, on earth, as it is said (to be like) in HEAVEN, and NIRVANA.

[Wenge Huang]

Is the self a real entity or merely a constructed illusion?

Define what the word, 'self', means or is referring to, exactly, then 'we' can look into and discuss 'this', further.

On the basis of empirical materials from Theravada Buddhism and the scientific mechanism behind Buddhist meditation, I develop a new “Self-Model” compared with Metzinger’s Self-Model Theory: the self is just the illusion emerging out of the rapid alternation of “awareness” and “awareness of awareness”.

Okay, but is the 'self' word, here, actually meaning and/or actually referring to, exactly?

According to Aldous Huxley and Ajahn Brahm, we have proposed that the nature of vipassana is enhanced awareness induced in meditation, which makes contemplating the five aggregates possible, just like “watching” a slow-motion film.

Okay, but who and/or what is the 'we', here, exactly? And, what and/or who is the 'vispassana', here, exactly, as well?

According to Thanissaro Bhikkhu, Rupert Gethin, Sue Hamilton and Alexander Wynne, different from the traditional mainstream view that the individual person consists of five ever-changing aggregates, the five aggregates should be regarded as descriptions of the individual’s subjective experience. We further argue that the five aggregates should be viewed directly as a stream of moments of awareness or consciousness.

Do you think that it would help others, here, if you said and explained what the so-called 'five aggregates' were, exactly?

According to P. A. Payutto, when we regard each aggregate as an “awareness” which is the state of being conscious of something, then contemplating the five aggregates would reveal the existence of “awareness of awareness”. For instance, when one feels happy, one knows that one is happy. (Note that feeling happy is not the same as knowing that one feels happy.)

But, if the 'self' is NOT a 'real entity', then there could NOT be a 'feeling happy', nor of knowing that 'one feels happy'.

By the way, ALL emotions, or 'internal feelings', just arise, or 'make an appearance', and then 'disappear'. So, is there even 'one' who is 'feeling' 'these feelings'. If yes, then who and/or what is 'that one', exactly?

Furthermore, inspired by Ajahn Brahm’s insightful “fruit salad simile” which describes experiences in Theravada Buddhist meditation, we develop a new “Self-Model” by introducing “awareness of awareness” out of the framework of the five aggregates: contemplating the five aggregates would discern that “awareness of awareness” arises a moment after each aggregate and they do not appear simultaneously.

If there is 'awareness of awareness', then who and/or what, exactly, of each 'awareness'?

By the way, the ACTUAL ANSWER/S, here, are VERY SIMPLE and EASY TO FIND, and KNOW, that is; once you LEARN and GAIN the KNOW-HOW.

Thus, it is clear that the notion that there is a constant entity always there knowing or experiencing all aggregates just results from the alternation of “awareness” (or “aggregates”) and “awareness of awareness”, something that under ordinary conditions happens very quickly.

And, who and what that 'constant entity' is, exactly, is just the EXACT SAME ANSWER TO the QUESTION, 'Who am 'I'?'

Which, by the way, is, and was, found and known in the process of coming to KNOW thySelf.

(That’s like a torch spinning so fast that it looks like a solid ring of fire exists.)

Obviously, this model reveals the principle of “non-self” in Buddhism and demonstrates that mental entity in Western philosophy does not exist simultaneously.

The 'self' that you human beings IMAGINE "yourselves" to be are just ILLUSIONS. However, there is an 'I', of which there is ONLY One, and which is who, and what, is ALL encompassing, ALL knowing, ALL sentient, and ALL powerful. And, this 'I' is just the 'I', in the question, 'Who am 'I', EXACTLY', which you human beings have been LOOKING FOR and WONDERING OVER, hitherto, for some time 'now'.

The Universe, Itself, HAD BEEN evolving towards coming-to-KNOW thy Self, which It eventually ALWAYS WOULD.

However, this model would lead to the controversies of free will and ethics.

But, there is NO ACTUAL 'controversy', here, regarding these two things.

The ABILITY TO CHOOSE, or 'free will', combined with the INSTINCTUAL KNOWING of what IS Right, and Wrong, in Life, leads to living in peace, and harmony, here, on earth, as it is said (to be like) in HEAVEN, and NIRVANA.

Maybe the full paper or the diagram of this new "self-model" can clarify some misunderstandings and make my ideas more clear:

https://www.academia.edu/128055045/A_Ne ... Awareness_

https://www.academia.edu/127576855/A_Ne ... s_Diagram_

[Age]

Is the self a real entity or merely a constructed illusion?[

This profound question concerning the nature of the self has been debated across various fields such as philosophy, psychology, and cognitive science for millennia.

Just like the question, 'Does God exist, or not?' has been 'debated' for 'some time' also, already. But, like all 'debates', then end up being REALLY rather useless and worthless. And, obviously, until the words, 'self' and 'God', here, are ACTUALLY DEFINED and AGREED WITH and ACCEPTED, then, and ONLY THEN, IF there is A 'self' or A 'God', or NOT, can be WORKED OUT, and DISCOVERED.

The 'self', as in individual human beings 'selves' is a 'constructed illusion', or if 'we' define the word, 'self', in another way, then who and what 'this' is, EXACTLY, is VERY EASY and SIMPLE TO DEFINE. However, there is AN ACTUAL 'Self', which can NOT BE REFUTED, and which IS EXACTLY who AND what God, or what AND who the God word has been REFERRING TO for countless centuries.

In Western thought,

DEFINE and EXPLAIN the EXACT LINE between so-called 'western' and 'some other' thought?

this debate is epitomized by Descartes’ renowned “Cogito, ergo sum” contrasted with Hume’s “Bundle Theory.” Similarly, Eastern traditions confront the issue through the Buddhist doctrine of non-self (anatta) versus Advaita Vedanta’s conception of Atman.

WHO CARES ABOUT ALL OF the BLUNDERS and MISTAKES that PAST human beings HAVE MADE?

Contemporary perspectives in psychology and cognitive science lean toward viewing the self as a dynamic, continuously constructed process rather than a fixed, immutable entity.

The word, 'self', in relation to you human beings perspective is just to the 'person', and the word, 'person', is NOT in relation to the 'human body', or the 'visible matter' because if an arm or a leg is removed, for example, then 'a person' does not become 'less of a person'. So, the word, 'person', and/or 'self', refers to something else, instead. The 'person' and/or 'self' is in relation to the 'personality', or 'psyche', which again is not in relation to the 'visible body', itself, the 'personality' comes from the 'thoughts' and 'emotions', within a body. So, the word, 'self', as in the 'person', "itself", are just the 'invisible thoughts and emotions', within 'visible human bodies'. But, there is NO 'actual self', besides 'thoughts and emotions', as in a 'visible physical thing'.

The 'self', as in 'the thought', 'I am ...', a doctor, a mother, an american, an italian, a jew, a muslim, a materialist, an atheist, or any of these 'other' NON ACTUAL 'things', are just 'concepts', which continually arise, then disappear, and which is WHY 'perspectives in psychology and cognitive sciences' are VERY, VERY SLOWLY leaning towards 'viewing' 'these selves' as a dynamic, and continuously constructed process, rather than a fixed, and immutable entity.

The FIXED and IMMUTABLE Entity is something ELSE, completely. Also known as Mind, Universe, I, S.A.G.E. Spirit, Allah, God, and the Enlightened One.

Yet a central challenge remains: if no stable self exists, how does our subjective sense of identity emerge?

But, there IS A STABLE Eternal Self, which IS Aware AND Conscious of ALL and EVERY thing. This One is just EVERY thing, as the One Everything.

you human 'selves' or 'human beings' just gets CONFLATED WITH the One and ONLY REAL and True Self.

There is ONLY One Self, but MANY, MANY so-called 'human selves', which are just ALL of you MANY 'people', who live and reside WITHIN 'human bodies'.

This new model supports and enhances Metzinger’s Self-Model by offering a detailed dynamic process of how selfhood arises and revealing the mechanism of transparency of his Self-Model.

Are you SURE that 'it' ACTUALLY REVEALS 'that much'?

[Age]

Is the self a real entity or merely a constructed illusion?

Define what the word, 'self', means or is referring to, exactly, then 'we' can look into and discuss 'this', further.

On the basis of empirical materials from Theravada Buddhism and the scientific mechanism behind Buddhist meditation, I develop a new “Self-Model” compared with Metzinger’s Self-Model Theory: the self is just the illusion emerging out of the rapid alternation of “awareness” and “awareness of awareness”.

Okay, but is the 'self' word, here, actually meaning and/or actually referring to, exactly?

According to Aldous Huxley and Ajahn Brahm, we have proposed that the nature of vipassana is enhanced awareness induced in meditation, which makes contemplating the five aggregates possible, just like “watching” a slow-motion film.

Okay, but who and/or what is the 'we', here, exactly? And, what and/or who is the 'vispassana', here, exactly, as well?

According to Thanissaro Bhikkhu, Rupert Gethin, Sue Hamilton and Alexander Wynne, different from the traditional mainstream view that the individual person consists of five ever-changing aggregates, the five aggregates should be regarded as descriptions of the individual’s subjective experience. We further argue that the five aggregates should be viewed directly as a stream of moments of awareness or consciousness.

Do you think that it would help others, here, if you said and explained what the so-called 'five aggregates' were, exactly?

According to P. A. Payutto, when we regard each aggregate as an “awareness” which is the state of being conscious of something, then contemplating the five aggregates would reveal the existence of “awareness of awareness”. For instance, when one feels happy, one knows that one is happy. (Note that feeling happy is not the same as knowing that one feels happy.)

But, if the 'self' is NOT a 'real entity', then there could NOT be a 'feeling happy', nor of knowing that 'one feels happy'.

By the way, ALL emotions, or 'internal feelings', just arise, or 'make an appearance', and then 'disappear'. So, is there even 'one' who is 'feeling' 'these feelings'. If yes, then who and/or what is 'that one', exactly?

Furthermore, inspired by Ajahn Brahm’s insightful “fruit salad simile” which describes experiences in Theravada Buddhist meditation, we develop a new “Self-Model” by introducing “awareness of awareness” out of the framework of the five aggregates: contemplating the five aggregates would discern that “awareness of awareness” arises a moment after each aggregate and they do not appear simultaneously.

If there is 'awareness of awareness', then who and/or what, exactly, of each 'awareness'?

By the way, the ACTUAL ANSWER/S, here, are VERY SIMPLE and EASY TO FIND, and KNOW, that is; once you LEARN and GAIN the KNOW-HOW.

Thus, it is clear that the notion that there is a constant entity always there knowing or experiencing all aggregates just results from the alternation of “awareness” (or “aggregates”) and “awareness of awareness”, something that under ordinary conditions happens very quickly.

And, who and what that 'constant entity' is, exactly, is just the EXACT SAME ANSWER TO the QUESTION, 'Who am 'I'?'

Which, by the way, is, and was, found and known in the process of coming to KNOW thySelf.

(That’s like a torch spinning so fast that it looks like a solid ring of fire exists.)

Obviously, this model reveals the principle of “non-self” in Buddhism and demonstrates that mental entity in Western philosophy does not exist simultaneously.

The 'self' that you human beings IMAGINE "yourselves" to be are just ILLUSIONS. However, there is an 'I', of which there is ONLY One, and which is who, and what, is ALL encompassing, ALL knowing, ALL sentient, and ALL powerful. And, this 'I' is just the 'I', in the question, 'Who am 'I', EXACTLY', which you human beings have been LOOKING FOR and WONDERING OVER, hitherto, for some time 'now'.

The Universe, Itself, HAD BEEN evolving towards coming-to-KNOW thy Self, which It eventually ALWAYS WOULD.

However, this model would lead to the controversies of free will and ethics.

But, there is NO ACTUAL 'controversy', here, regarding these two things.

The ABILITY TO CHOOSE, or 'free will', combined with the INSTINCTUAL KNOWING of what IS Right, and Wrong, in Life, leads to living in peace, and harmony, here, on earth, as it is said (to be like) in HEAVEN, and NIRVANA.

Maybe the full paper or the diagram of this new "self-model" can clarify some misunderstandings and make my ideas more clear:

https://www.academia.edu/128055045/A_Ne ... Awareness_

https://www.academia.edu/127576855/A_Ne ... s_Diagram_

Firstly, what are ANY and/or ALL of the 'misunderstandings', which you think or BELIEVE are here?

Also, how can ANOTHER 'paper' MAKE your OWN ideas MORE CLEAR, EXACTLY?

What are you OWN ideas, EXACTLY, which you think or BELIEVE are NOT CLEAR, here?

By the way I much prefer to just look at 'what IS', which could NEVER be Wrong, Inaccurate, nor Incorrect, instead of 'models' or 'theories', which obviously could be partly or fully Wrong, Inaccurate, and/or Incorrect.

[Wenge Huang]

Define what the word, 'self', means or is referring to, exactly, then 'we' can look into and discuss 'this', further.


Okay, but is the 'self' word, here, actually meaning and/or actually referring to, exactly?


Okay, but who and/or what is the 'we', here, exactly? And, what and/or who is the 'vispassana', here, exactly, as well?


Do you think that it would help others, here, if you said and explained what the so-called 'five aggregates' were, exactly?


But, if the 'self' is NOT a 'real entity', then there could NOT be a 'feeling happy', nor of knowing that 'one feels happy'.

By the way, ALL emotions, or 'internal feelings', just arise, or 'make an appearance', and then 'disappear'. So, is there even 'one' who is 'feeling' 'these feelings'. If yes, then who and/or what is 'that one', exactly?


If there is 'awareness of awareness', then who and/or what, exactly, of each 'awareness'?

By the way, the ACTUAL ANSWER/S, here, are VERY SIMPLE and EASY TO FIND, and KNOW, that is; once you LEARN and GAIN the KNOW-HOW.


And, who and what that 'constant entity' is, exactly, is just the EXACT SAME ANSWER TO the QUESTION, 'Who am 'I'?'

Which, by the way, is, and was, found and known in the process of coming to KNOW thySelf.


The 'self' that you human beings IMAGINE "yourselves" to be are just ILLUSIONS. However, there is an 'I', of which there is ONLY One, and which is who, and what, is ALL encompassing, ALL knowing, ALL sentient, and ALL powerful. And, this 'I' is just the 'I', in the question, 'Who am 'I', EXACTLY', which you human beings have been LOOKING FOR and WONDERING OVER, hitherto, for some time 'now'.

The Universe, Itself, HAD BEEN evolving towards coming-to-KNOW thy Self, which It eventually ALWAYS WOULD.



But, there is NO ACTUAL 'controversy', here, regarding these two things.

The ABILITY TO CHOOSE, or 'free will', combined with the INSTINCTUAL KNOWING of what IS Right, and Wrong, in Life, leads to living in peace, and harmony, here, on earth, as it is said (to be like) in HEAVEN, and NIRVANA.

Maybe the full paper or the diagram of this new "self-model" can clarify some misunderstandings and make my ideas more clear:

https://www.academia.edu/128055045/A_Ne ... Awareness_

https://www.academia.edu/127576855/A_Ne ... s_Diagram_

Firstly, what are ANY and/or ALL of the 'misunderstandings', which you think or BELIEVE are here?

Also, how can ANOTHER 'paper' MAKE your OWN ideas MORE CLEAR, EXACTLY?

What are you OWN ideas, EXACTLY, which you think or BELIEVE are NOT CLEAR, here?

By the way I much prefer to just look at 'what IS', which could NEVER be Wrong, Inaccurate, nor Incorrect, instead of 'models' or 'theories', which obviously could be partly or fully Wrong, Inaccurate, and/or Incorrect.

Please look at the diagram:

https://www.academia.edu/127576855/A_Ne ... s_Diagram_

The self is the illusion emerging out of the rapid alternation of “awareness” and “awareness of awareness”, just like a torch spinning so fast that it looks like a solid ring of fire exists.

[Fairy]

“Is the self a real entity or merely a constructed illusion?”

The self is a real illusory entity.

Illusion doesn’t mean nonexistent, it simply means not this, not that, both, yet neither.

A very cleverly designed synthetic simulated system. That was able to conceptualise itself into a realised, recognisable story.

[Impenitent]

the self is a constructed illusion

the longer the self persists, the more that the self forgets about itself

dust in the wind...

-Imp

[Age]

Maybe the full paper or the diagram of this new "self-model" can clarify some misunderstandings and make my ideas more clear:

https://www.academia.edu/128055045/A_Ne ... Awareness_

https://www.academia.edu/127576855/A_Ne ... s_Diagram_

Firstly, what are ANY and/or ALL of the 'misunderstandings', which you think or BELIEVE are here?

Also, how can ANOTHER 'paper' MAKE your OWN ideas MORE CLEAR, EXACTLY?

What are you OWN ideas, EXACTLY, which you think or BELIEVE are NOT CLEAR, here?

By the way I much prefer to just look at 'what IS', which could NEVER be Wrong, Inaccurate, nor Incorrect, instead of 'models' or 'theories', which obviously could be partly or fully Wrong, Inaccurate, and/or Incorrect.

Please look at the diagram:

https://www.academia.edu/127576855/A_Ne ... s_Diagram_

The self is the illusion emerging out of the rapid alternation of “awareness” and “awareness of awareness”, just like a torch spinning so fast that it looks like a solid ring of fire exists.

Do you, REALLY, not want to discuss ANY thing about ANY thing I MENTIONED and POINTED OUT above, here?

Again, 'it' is just A MODEL, and thus NOT necessarily what is ACTUALLY True, and Right, anyway.

[Walker]

Awareness of no awareness is the source of humility via the awareness that of some things, you have no awareness.“There are more things in Heaven and Earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy.”

If you say you are aware that you have never experienced God, this means that you have never experienced a particular expectation, and an awareness of an expectation you have not experienced is venturing into the absurdity of living in your head, possibly fueled by desire, ambition, appetite, and so on.

[Age]

Awareness of no awareness is the source of humility via the awareness that of some things, you have no awareness.“There are more things in Heaven and Earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy.”

If you say you are aware that you have never experienced God, this means that you have never experienced a particular expectation, and an awareness of an expectation you have not experienced is venturing into the absurdity of living in your head, possibly fueled by desire, ambition, appetite, and so on.

Well if that is what you say you are aware of, then you already know the consequences and/or reasons, right?

[Walker]

Awareness of no awareness is the source of humility via the awareness that of some things, you have no awareness.“There are more things in Heaven and Earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy.”

If you say you are aware that you have never experienced God, this means that you have never experienced a particular expectation, and an awareness of an expectation you have not experienced is venturing into the absurdity of living in your head, possibly fueled by desire, ambition, appetite, and so on.

Well if that is what you say you are aware of, then you already know the consequences and/or reasons, right?

Not always. You may not know there is something to be aware of in any way other than there must be experiences that are different from what you’ve known. You may only be aware that there has to be something more, something you may have even once glimpsed or even imagined.

For example:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iybAMeGV9ys

[Age]

Awareness of no awareness is the source of humility via the awareness that of some things, you have no awareness.“There are more things in Heaven and Earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy.”

If you say you are aware that you have never experienced God, this means that you have never experienced a particular expectation, and an awareness of an expectation you have not experienced is venturing into the absurdity of living in your head, possibly fueled by desire, ambition, appetite, and so on.

Well if that is what you say you are aware of, then you already know the consequences and/or reasons, right?

Not always. You may not know there is something to be aware of in any way other than there must be experiences that are different from what you’ve known. You may only be aware that there has to be something more, something you may have even once glimpsed or even imagined.

For example:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iybAMeGV9ys

This also is very true, you may well NOT know there is some thing, just like you may well ONLY be aware that there HAS TO BE some thing.

[Phil8659]

Is the self a real entity or merely a constructed illusion?

The correlative of real is fake.
So is the self real or a forgery of what? Banana Daiquiri?
Is an illusion a thing or the state of a thing? And what is having the illusion? Banana Daiquiri?

What do you do, pick words at random?
Pure shit.

Ya! I am making a model of myself, but I ran into a problem, the pumps are too small, and the dress needs to be washed again.

Microwave ovens are not for drying your hair.
I bet you piss off a pencil every time you pick one up. You are suppose to think before you make a piece of paper into garbage.
The only people I know who would ask if they were or were not real, have been stoned out of their mind. Elementary Grammar, can you predicate reality of any thing at all?
Or, by fact, can you only name what you experience?
So, if you negate experience, where in the fuck do word enter this none existent door? Gibberish is not, nor has it ever been "new" unless you just fell out of your mother's gravity well.
Why do completely illiterate people go to a Philosophy Forum just to show off that someone tried to educate them and failed?
How about memory, don't you recall ever asking what the name of a thing was? And, if you do, can you recall ever learning a name devoid of association? So, when you ask if a thing is or is not real, what is the fucking definition of the word "real" May as well ask, does existence exist?

Hey, is that thing a reel? Yup, my best one for fly fishing.

Try this, if a thing is "real" then we have "a real" in the singular, or "reals" in the plural. Now we have to stuff and bake them, to get either one sandwich, toasty brown, Or maybe a dozen, badly burnt. And if we start stuffing them with people, well, what kind of sauce would you use? If you are going to speak gibberish, at least try to make it entertaining. Or were you banned from watching cartoons?

So, when a number of people join in your gibberish, I imagine a crowd of driveling zombies with blank expressions on their face. So, are you a Hollywood talent scout for the next D movie?
Reminds me of kindergarten everyone scribbling on the paper.
Hey, go get me a hamburger of a hamburger of a hamburger, only put mustard on the real one.

Ya, he dude. I dropped a lot of acid in the day, however, I was always having flashbacks, to the day before I took it, so I never got around to taking it, cause I could never flashforward.