Anatman and Atman

I have been preparing a little treatise on an introduction to “our actuality” – the fact of our reality (which itself is made of parts including our self or identity, what we experience, consciousness, deeper being) as a projected part of our Whole Being, projected through the brain and spinal cord (or CNS). “Orientation”, of our projected actuality, in space and with our Whole, establishes our representational reality as part of our Whole, Who in turn is a part of Reality (absolute) or the One-and-only-Whole (see elsewhere in this blog). For this Noam Chomsky’s linguistics and history of science and philosophy, as well as various descriptions and thoughts by others on emergent phenomena has been particular considerations for the last month or so.

I was noticing a comment on Daniel Everett’s work (linguist who lived and worked with some South American natives, initially as a missionary and subsequently converted from Christianity), which questions the recent views of language as an innate and universal human property (generative grammar originated by Chomsky). In contrast Everett considers us moulded by culture (and language) and, as Aristotle described, the mind as a blank slate rather than preset. What really took my attention, however, is the Buddhist and Hindu concept of “anatman” that Everett considered most compatible with the notion of the human self.

I take a sidestep from my recent activities and comment here on this and other Sanskrit terms with Orientation and reference to our representational reality (or indirect realism) within which we, as self or identity, identify directly with what we experience of perception and thinking, our sense and notion, as if they are real (naive or direct realism).

Atman and Brahman are Sanskrit terms familiar to many in our cosmopolitan world, even if they are not Hindu. Those that practice Yoga or meditation may have come across the terms in studying some of the philosophy behind the practices. That is how I first learned of the terms in the following phrase : “Atman and Brahman are one”.

Poem Straight up JUn17 (5) 1Atman is translated Self or True Self, and Brahman God. I have come to appreciate the terms and phrase in this way : Atman is the Whole Self Who is of Reality. Brahman is Reality (absolute) or the One-and-only-Whole. Atman, as part of Reality, displaces Reality so that there is no Reality but rest of Reality; Reality is transcendent of Atman but is immanent in (or permeates) Atman, for Atman being part of Reality. And in being part, Atman carries the essence of both His or Her Self and Brahman as the one spirit at His or Her core (Atman’s); the Atman and Brahman are one in spirit.

whole rest partAnatman is translated “non-self”. I consider it the self or identity within our representational reality, which is a part projected through the Central Nervous System of our Whole. Our Whole Self is part-less and transcendent of our part as any whole is of their parts. This is because a part displaces the whole to leave the rest of whole, as indicated in the diagram.

In Hindu tradition Atman is similarly understood to be formless and part-less (ie. whole), whose true nature cannot be perceived. It is said that to comprehend the difference between Anatman and Atman, between our projected part and our Whole, is to become liberated.

There is the famous practice of the self talk “Neti, neti, netior “not this, not this, not this“. The idea of negating Anatman, itself being a negation or non-self (suffix an-), is to realise the supposedly permanent and unchanging Atman.

My recent approach repeats this negation but then refer indirectly to our transcendent Whole thus :
“Not this, not that, not us
Not that, not it, not me.
Everything is a part,
of my part-less Whole Being.”


Of Nothing we exist

Of Nothing we exist –
that Nothing is our Whole
absence in our part,
our part-less Whole.

Of Life we exist –
emergent of time
cosmos and Earth,
transcendent of our part.

Trust, be grateful –
He or She immanent in our part
our business, monies, questions and purposes,
in our being part.

Not this, not that, not us, as self or identity –
our everything is a part
of our part-less Whole Being,
next to other Wholes of Reality.

The self and “What is it to be human?”

A steady new year entry, level with horizon
into the sunrise of the Age of Aquarius;
where we looked up high
was with its dawn light that rises high
(in the early 70’s; the musical ‘Hair’ came out in 1967).

Or is it the setting sun, at the horizon
and dusk’s glow rose high.
Either way , level diaphragm with sun’s light from horizon
square against our vertical, stand through
exponential  wake (exponential curve search in this blog : https://realityhc.wordpress.com/?s=exponential+curve&submit=Search),
new, as always, beggining 002 e (3)
and another end but global.

Let spirit radiate, spill over from core of diaphragm horizontal, rather than blast ahead
and up.

 

————————-

The development of AI (artificial intelligence) has moved the boundary between the subjective and objective in our reality, objectifying so much of our mental functioning that are mechanical or computer-like, though previously thought of as cognitive, creative, communicative (ripe to be “connective”, to love, consume and demand the technologies that augment our reality but also what is augmented; we consummate in our augmentation with technology), clever, curious and human. This encroachment creates a new impetus and interest to the age old question, “What is it to be human?” (Note 2 – AI and our humanity).

Last paragraph of section 3 The subjective aspects of our reality; “Our reality and Reality” orig blgd 16Oct17, re ed June, Dec18

Expanding the bracket above:

The human condition is communicative.
We gawk and talk, are ripe to be “connective”,
to love, consume and demand the technology
that augment our reality, and what is augmented;
we consummate, in our augmentaion with technology.

Also from section 3 The subjective aspects of our reality :

We loose sight of our self like Alice
chasing the back of the Rabbit (through her tunnel),
in trying to experience, the experiencing self.
Rather than risk extinguishing our self,
we must
distinguish instead objective and subjective aspects
of our having-an-experience reality,
and not chase the subjective end of the “apparatus”
in self-referencing; like a dog
after its tail.

I will post the first three sections (to 3 The subjective aspects of our reality) of Our reality and Reality” orig blgd 16Oct17, re ed June, Dec18 next.

Right

Right

It is dangerous to be right in matters on which the established authorities are wrong”

Voltaire


And established culture considers the following true-

I am it”, the self is a definitive entity. (But there are many, different aspects and is a part of its whole).

Nothing to distinguish our reality from Reality and from story and sense.

Nothing to distinguish the world itself from the world we experience.

Nothing to distinguish our realities except in terms of perspective (senses) and points of view (story), rather than as parts of an individual whole being distinct from other wholes in and of Reality)

There is no absolute Reality. Even if there is Reality, we can never know or experience it. (Not directly, can be in relation with as part and in our actuality).

God is a matter of belief and faith. (One and only whole, Reality, Creator and Creation of causality)

Actuality Reality

Belief and disbelief

I woke today to find myself as I usually do, away from my cognitive self deep in the subconscious shadows where I was expressing my disbelief, “there is no God”.

Where there is belief, there is disbelief.

It is enough that we believe but in insisting or asserting there is struggle – good/bad right/wrong true/false yours/mine belief/disbelief. We should let our polarities be part, so there is a whole.

Being of Reality your whole is alive in Reality, forever changing, as Reality does.

Within our reality of conscious experience and self, there is change, development, resolution, and growth of a certainty that involves us and our struggles. It is an integration that occurs in our relation as part with our whole self, who is beyond or transcendent of our part including our belief and disbelief.

 

Genderisation

We are genderised in our self and identity. We consider our self male or female, though we may question this and perhaps choose to change it.

While we identify in our self and our genderisation, we are in fact a part, together with all that we experience of others and the world, of our whole being. And our whole being, who is in and of Reality, is the one who is gendered.

I am hoping this quick examination of our genderisation help clarify two distinctions, between our self and our whole self, and between our reality and Reality. They are considered throughout my work which tries to establish “actuality”, our existence in fact as projection, projected through the CNS (Central Nervous System) by our whole being.

message 02.jpgProjection distinguishes and help define our reality of conscious experience and self witnessed as a projected part of our whole, our self as a projected part within our projected reality, and our whole self as who projects our reality including our self.

Reality itself or absolute Reality is what our whole self is of. Also the one and only whole, our whole being is of Reality, and through him or her we, as self or identity, together with our genderisation, are a part of Reality.

While any whole is beyond or transcendent of its parts, in our actuality, we may be in relation with our transcendent and gendered whole being of Reality as a projected part.

Gendo hc.r

Edit :
Home page (below), Gendo Orientation hc.r https://www.gendohcr.com/
and Exbh 1 (link only) https://www.gendohcr.com/exhb1

GENDO is the source of Takashi Tachibana’s art.

He depicts what comes of
a fundamental approach beyond understanding
towards our “actuality” – our very existence.

“The subjective self together with its reality, is
part of our whole self or whole being, who is of Reality.
Our reality is projected, by our whole,
through the Central Nervous System (brain-spine).”

“Displaced from the whole self in being projected, our projected reality is itself
made of displaced parts that include the self, experience,
the world we experience, the conscious, deeper being and witness,
as we may recognise or be”.

“And we are normally further isolated from our whole being within our projected reality
in being identified in our self and with what we experience”, says Tachibana.

He seeks to show how we exist as part
of a transcendent whole being of absolute Reality
rather than isolated from him or her as we determine, identify with and conclude upon
our self and what we experience of the world and others, as reality.

The depictions represent our “actuality”,
our existence in fact as projection in projected space.
They mean to ease the viewer towards their own actuality and part.
They may be applied to approach one’s own actuality, which implies one’s whole.

Where is our whole?
Not in our part.

“Our whole exists in absolute Reality, beyond or transcendent of our projected reality.
Absolute Reality also pervades or is immanent in our projected part
when we as self approach our actuality and become a part of our whole being,
because our whole is of Reality.”

We may Orientate with this truth of our whole, being of Reality and our part.

Untitled

Our reality and Reality

For reference and background to presentation, of our reality as a part of our whole who is of Reality.

6 page summary of “Orientation” and how to be in relation with our whole being. B001 Our reality and Reality blgd Oct17 re ed Apr18 05
3a 5

2 lots (PDF’s) of depictions to help explore one’s actuality, the existence in fact as projection in space of our reality and its aspects including conscious experience and self .
000 Actuality and the stages of integration 04
B Apr18.output