self-denial

[waechter418]

One cannot change oneself – but one can realize oneself.

The notion of changing oneself is self-denial and most common in Dualism, because of its presumption, that the viewpoints which relate its manifestations, are having different time/space positions. A misconception that leads – due to the counter-dynamics of the (dualistic) R/P fields* – to the assumption that one could be different than one is, and that one state of existence is imperfect and another better – or at least: more advantageous.

There are more perverse ways of self-denial, like the Judaic/Christian concept of Homo being the crown of a creation whose aim it is, that he subjugates its manifestations – and thus himself.

Another currently popular self-denial is the Occidental evolution- and selection dogma; despite that it should lead, according to its own logic, to the realization that every man & woman is what he/she projects/reflects and that therefore no one can be elevated or put down, improve, worsen or otherwise be changed.

The in every R/P system* common (because most simple) manner of self-denial, is the causality concept, according to which a manifestation is either the cause, or the effect of another manifestation. A notion that not only undermines the self-response-ability of Homo, but makes him to a victim as well, even more so, when he tries to find causes for his existence and begins to reason it – and thus himself.

* see "Another view of Consciousness"

[Atla]

One cannot change oneself – but one can realize oneself.
...

You can realize yourself and still totally rewire your thinking (change yourself). These are different issues.
Realizing yourself is quite the change too actually.

[commonsense]

One cannot change oneself – but one can realize oneself.
...

You can realize yourself and still totally rewire your thinking (change yourself). These are different issues.
Realizing yourself is quite the change too actually.

I can change myself from a person who eats meat to a person who does not eat meat.

[waechter418]

One cannot change oneself – but one can realize oneself.
...

You can realize yourself and still totally rewire your thinking (change yourself). These are different issues.
Realizing yourself is quite the change too actually.

i agree, one can change the frameworks that define & confine Oneself - Self is to indicate the core of ones being, comparable to the Atman of Hinduism.

[Immanuel Can]

There are more perverse ways of self-denial, like the Judaic/Christian concept of Homo being the crown of a creation whose aim it is, that he subjugates its manifestations – and thus himself

This isn't what Judaism or Christianity thinks. Neither holds that the purpose of human influence over the natural world is "subjugation," and neither holds that it is a means ("and thus," you say) by which the self is "subjugated" either.

An interesting thing about the self, though. He's a bit of a tyrant. He wants to be pleased now, in the ways he expects, on his own terms. He knows neither love of the world nor love of the neighbour, unless his own interests are met thereby. Yet it's not by accident that we have come to speak of bad people as "selfish" or "self-interested," or "self-satisfied." There's something very morally dubious and socially toxic about the person whose horizon is so low that he/she can see no more than the self. We don't want to be around him, and we don't trust or admire him.

If "self" realization is such an excellent thing, why would that be so?

[Eodnhoj7]

One cannot change oneself – but one can realize oneself.

The notion of changing oneself is self-denial and most common in Dualism, because of its presumption, that the viewpoints which relate its manifestations, are having different time/space positions. A misconception that leads – due to the counter-dynamics of the (dualistic) R/P fields* – to the assumption that one could be different than one is, and that one state of existence is imperfect and another better – or at least: more advantageous.

There are more perverse ways of self-denial, like the Judaic/Christian concept of Homo being the crown of a creation whose aim it is, that he subjugates its manifestations – and thus himself.

Another currently popular self-denial is the Occidental evolution- and selection dogma; despite that it should lead, according to its own logic, to the realization that every man & woman is what he/she projects/reflects and that therefore no one can be elevated or put down, improve, worsen or otherwise be changed.

The in every R/P system* common (because most simple) manner of self-denial, is the causality concept, according to which a manifestation is either the cause, or the effect of another manifestation. A notion that not only undermines the self-response-ability of Homo, but makes him to a victim as well, even more so, when he tries to find causes for his existence and begins to reason it – and thus himself.

* see "Another view of Consciousness"

The self is intrinsically empty.

We sense this intuitively as everyone has a "hole".

We can see this empirically under the nature of atoms which are 99.9999 empty as well as all the senses depending upon the holes and grooves in order to sense.

You cannot change this without it negating itself.

The "self" is just a looping of experiences, thoughts and emotions we assume, as well as the looping of traits (cultural memories assumed and programmed) passed on.

It is just pattern replication pure and simple as a complex variation of one divine mind. What does not change about the self is this loop.

[surreptitious57]

Everything is in a constant state of change and we are no different in that sense
So it is not change that is not possible but the exact opposite of staying the same
Motion is everywhere and in all things and that is a fundamental truth of existence

[waechter418]

The Self in discussion is analogous to Atman.
Acording to "Berclay Centre", Atman is a person’s true self, which is infused with or is entirely coterminous with the universal spirit of Brahman, thus lying beyond the phenomenal, changing reality we perceive. It is vaguely similar to the Western concept of the soul, as each person “possesses” or partakes of the atman, but it differs from a soul in that the atman is not entirely unique to an individual; some Hindus believe that all individual atman are joined to the separate and superior Brahman (the dualistic view), and others believe that each individual atman is Brahman itself (the non-dual view).

Version 2:
One cannot change Oneself – but one can change the frameworks that define & confine Oneself.

[Luxin]

deleted 428

[waechter418]

Sorry, can´t remember where i found (and lost) it

[Luxin]

deleted 428

[Age]

One cannot change oneself – but one can realize oneself.

Have 'you' realized, so called, "oneself"?

If yes, then who and/or what is 'oneself'?

If you do not answer the actual questions asked, then does that mean you can not or will not?

The notion of changing oneself is self-denial and most common in Dualism, because of its presumption, that the viewpoints which relate its manifestations, are having different time/space positions. A misconception that leads – due to the counter-dynamics of the (dualistic) R/P fields* – to the assumption that one could be different than one is, and that one state of existence is imperfect and another better – or at least: more advantageous.

There are more perverse ways of self-denial, like the Judaic/Christian concept of Homo being the crown of a creation whose aim it is, that he subjugates its manifestations – and thus himself.

Another currently popular self-denial is the Occidental evolution- and selection dogma; despite that it should lead, according to its own logic, to the realization that every man & woman is what he/she projects/reflects and that therefore no one can be elevated or put down, improve, worsen or otherwise be changed.

The in every R/P system* common (because most simple) manner of self-denial, is the causality concept, according to which a manifestation is either the cause, or the effect of another manifestation. A notion that not only undermines the self-response-ability of Homo, but makes him to a victim as well, even more so, when he tries to find causes for his existence and begins to reason it – and thus himself.

* see "Another view of Consciousness"

[Age]

There are more perverse ways of self-denial, like the Judaic/Christian concept of Homo being the crown of a creation whose aim it is, that he subjugates its manifestations – and thus himself

This isn't what Judaism or Christianity thinks. Neither holds that the purpose of human influence over the natural world is "subjugation," and neither holds that it is a means ("and thus," you say) by which the self is "subjugated" either.

An interesting thing about the self, though. He's a bit of a tyrant. He wants to be pleased now, in the ways he expects, on his own terms. He knows neither love of the world nor love of the neighbour, unless his own interests are met thereby. Yet it's not by accident that we have come to speak of bad people as "selfish" or "self-interested," or "self-satisfied." There's something very morally dubious and socially toxic about the person whose horizon is so low that he/she can see no more than the self. We don't want to be around him, and we don't trust or admire him.

If "self" realization is such an excellent thing, why would that be so?

Because of what thy True Self actually IS.

[Immanuel Can]

If "self" realization is such an excellent thing, why would that be so?

Because of what thy True Self actually IS.

But is that "True Self" an angel of light or a demon from Hell, or a confused mixture of the two?

For anyone who thinks the "True Self" is all good, it gets a little hard to explain human history.

[Age]

If "self" realization is such an excellent thing, why would that be so?

Because of what thy True Self actually IS.

But is that "True Self" an angel of light or a demon from Hell, or a confused mixture of the two?

None of the above.

For anyone who thinks the "True Self" is all good, it gets a little hard to explain human history.

Well if one thinks or believes that thee 'True Self' is a human being, then you are ABSOLUTELY CORRECT. That one would CERTAINLY have a hard time 'trying to' explain human history.