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 split solipsistic and existential

Solipsistic self sulks within
susceptible to seductions and suggestions.poem 2 2b

While the sensing and seeing self
taps its vectored sceptre’s tip
into an apparent world,
sumptuous with story and certainty
yet mired by a rift in oneself
solipsistic and existential,
against the phenomenal world.

Both self-s are lost, isolated
from their whole being, of Reality (one and only whole)poem 2 2c
who lives, is and does in Reality
while encompassing and projecting
one’s each self-s and their all.

Each self may refer to its whole;
though transcendent,
one’s whole from one’s part,
everything of one’s self and reality
is a part of one’s whole,
next to other wholes in
and of, Reality.

 

One circle (in grey) : represents one’s whole self, whose boundaries, touched by the rest of Reality, are lost in our whole’s transcendence from our part. The circle thus also contains the transcendence (from our part) of Reality and other wholes, which is why there is only one circle. The “circle and flick”, the one within and the four outside of the one circle, indicates the realm of one’s projected part (projected by one’s whole through the CNS or brain and spine).
Phenomenal word : “ … apparent world, though sumptuous with story, ….” ; our phenomenal world or the world we experience and try to understand, is an indication of the real world, projected by our whole through the CNS for our functioning and for judging friend or foe.
Projection : Our reality, including our self, is a part of one’s whole, projected by the whole self through his or her CNS (Central nervous System) or the brain and spinal cord. Projection is the substance of our reality and its components (the conscious, self, experience, deeper being, etc) which occupy certain shapes in particular places, in relation with their whole, in their “actuality” (the existence in fact of our reality as projection).
Self-s : pl. of self. As parts of our whole self, we may acknowledge numerous self-s, of different realms (cognitive, emotive, somatic, dreaming), different states (drugged, exhausted, focused, pressured), different occasions and company, etc.
Solipsistic : where one’s self is the only sense, is thought here to originate from when first becoming conscious within the womb, the state of which remain, carried by our whole in the wake (to the left) of our existential rise to meet the phenomenal world, centred inside out, on the right (as indicated in the diagrams that capture our situation, our projected actuality, from behind).

see recent poems and diagrams for more on the solipsistic and its split against existential –
Our lot
“solipsist”

 

Hard to understand

Not to be understood,
Reality
and the whole we,
me and you as self and identity,
are a part of.

Transcendent beyond our reality
is Reality and our whole,
for us being a part, projected
through the brain and spine
by our whole from Reality.
And within projected reality
displaced into differentiated parts –
the conscious above, deeper being below,
the self to the back of the world placed
predominantly in front according to vision, sound
and the sensitive surfaces for touch.

Even being a part,
our relation with our whole,
is a mystery.

Yet a knack for
we can acquire
for approaching our part
as projection, our actuality,
and for referring to our whole,
yours for you and mine for me.

In being a part of our whole
through our projected actuality,
we are also immanent of Reality.

 

Consider

message 01Consider your relation with your whole.

There is a whole being of Reality, of whom our reality, of conscious experience and self, is a part. As a part displaces its whole, our whole being is transcendent beyond our part, as is Reality, transcendent beyond our whole and our part.

images 001 labelled

Diag. 2 “Our reality of conscious experience and self (witnessed) as a part within our whole.”

Further more, our reality is not just separate as a part from its whole, but “projected” from our whole being, through his or her CNS (Central nervous System). Within our projected part, we are disassociated into more parts that include the conscious, what we experience, the self and deeper being. Finally, within our projected reality of disassociated parts, we identify in our self with what we experience. In this way, we are isolated from our transcendent whole within our reality.

message 02In collapsing the displacement within our reality, we may become a part. As a part we are perfused by our whole, and because our whole is of Reality, the one and only whole is immanent in us. A process of integration ensues in this relation as a part with our whole, for both the part that we are and our whole. Also in our self becoming a part, the immanence of Reality realises in all parts and wholes in Reality.

Our reality and Reality

Final edit 16 Sept 2017

The concept of “projection”

All that we are, as self or identity, and all that we may experience, our reality is “projected” or placed in space, through the Central Nervous System (CNS), by our whole being. The CNS is a part of our whole, as is our reality that is projected through the CNS.

“Actuality” here refers to the existence in fact and in space, of our reality as projection, and as a projected part of our whole. And we’ll look at vision as an example of projection, through the CNS, by our whole being.

Light bouncing off real things in the real world focuses upside down inside at the back of the eyes, stimulates the receptors (cones and rods) there at the retina that converts the focused images into nerve impulses. These travel through the optic nerves and reach the brain where vision is created and placed in space for us to have the experience of vision in a 3-dimensional space.

In similar ways, information from various sense organs of the body, is put together, “through” the CNS (by our whole), to form the outside world part, of our reality. It is an accurate indication of the world, including a “functional” and effective perspective, in our sense of being in the world; we can jump, point and shoot, front up and throw. We are allowed this, our reality where, as self or identity, we seemingly do things, being there in the world, when it is our whole who is in and of Reality, and does things, including the things we think we do.

Our actual “self” and the subjective aspects of our reality.De carte

Neuroscience has established “what we experience” as taking place in the brain. It has become a part of our general understanding and world view. Yet “modern” philosophy had embraced this, as far back as the mid-1600’s, from when there’s a famous diagram of Descartes’ (father of modern philosophy – “I think, there for I am”), of how vision is generated, as outlined above, and eye hand co-ordination.

However, what about the self? How can we be a product of the brain? With our sense of independence, will, and separation from what we experience, are we made by, and secondary to, an organ? What about our consciousness, our life, others, and deeper being? Where do they fit or come from, in the scheme of things?

These are necessary questions about our self and the world that remain unanswered, because we have failed to appreciate being a part of our whole, and of Reality.

I pre-empt my point, that there is no brain without a whole being, whole self or the whole body. We are a part of our whole, “projected” through and not by the CNS.

The self is a problem.

The self is difficult to determine. Sentences that refer to themselves or “self reference” create difficulties in many cases, recognised in philosophy as the “self referencing paradox”. However, the question “What is the self?”, brings the referrential difficulty directly to us, involving our actual self in a problem which I call the “self referencing conundrum” (https://realityhc. wordpress.com/=self +referencing+ conundrum& =Search). It comes of us, as the self or identity, in theapparatus for having an experience”.

Set in this make-up “for having an experience”, it is like a camera trying to take a picture of itself, when we try to experience our self in the usual direct manner of experiencing things. It is impossible to experience our self directly. We cannot bend the “apparatus for having an experience”, to experience, our “having an experience” self !

To help examine our reality, a distinction can be made between the subjective and objective ends of “having an experience”. Objective are those parts “easy” to explain and understand, as produced by the brain (Chalmers 1986, Australian philosopher). Vision (as I out-lined previously) and other experiences according to the senses, belong to this group. Also included are functions of the mind that can be broken down to linear mechanical or computer-like (computational) processes, “easily” attributed to the computer-like brain, such as determining, filing, retrieving and analysing.

The subjective aspects on the other hand, include the self, consciousness, the experience itself (different from what is experienced that is an object of experience), deeper being, and the witness. Their existence and nature are “hard” to explain, as produced by the brain or anything else. In contrast to the “easy” and objective, they have been termed the “hard aspects of conscious experience” by Chalmers. He suggests we consider the subjective aspects as fundamental or irreducible, to help approach them (subjective aspects) differently than the linear reductive way we usually try to grasp and understand things directly in our minds. The development of AI (artificial intelligence) has intensified this boundary, between our computerlike mind (easy and objective) and the conscious self (hard and subjective) i.

i Just when through modernity, we’ve gotten used to the self, we’re loosing it into the technological media. Who’s there, in charge?
T
here is a new impetus to examine subjectivity, with the developments in AI (artificial intelligence) and its encroachment on so much of human activity. And they are actively applied in reality, in drones, un-manned buses, language generation, face recognition. Their moral consequence is “us” the subject, put on the spot. What is it, to be human? Who or what is the true self? Is there free will? Is it a predetermined destiny where we have no choice, but to enact our human programmes? In thus just reacting to our environment, what difference is there from AI?

The self as a part.

We cannot determine our self, when we are the self. And while we do need a different approach to our conscious self, I reject Chalmers categorisation of our subjective aspects as fundamental. Rather, we can understand our reality of conscious self and experience, as a part of our whole being.

Both our self and what we experience, the subjective and the objective aspects of our reality, can then be considered projection. As space, time, matter and gravity was reduced to a more fundamental space-time by Einstein, all aspects of our reality are reduced, to the fundamental of being projected parts of our whole. Not a product of the CNS, but of our whole. Projected through, and not by, the CNS.

In our “actuality”, our existence in fact as projection, we may refer to our whole and be in relation with him or her, as a part.

We cannot be direct however, in approaching our actual self, because we are set within the “apparatus for having an experience” and, in referring to our whole, because he or she is transcendent of or beyond our part.

message 01As a part within our whole, our reality displaces the whole, so that there’s just the “rest of our whole” that surrounds our reality, and our whole is transcendent of our self and experience. Yet as a part of our whole, he or she permeates or is immanent in us. Our whole also, encompasses our part.

Reality, an entirety, and All-Creation.

Furthermore, our whole is a part of Reality, an Entirety that is more than the sum of all wholes and parts. It is the one and only whole, I consider All-Creation-God. Our whole self being (a part) of Reality, means we, as self or identity, are also a part of Reality and immanent of it, in becoming a part of our whole.

images 001 labelled

Diag. 2 “Our reality of conscious experience and self (witnessed) as a part within our whole.”

As a part, we should at least consider our whole. Normally however, we have a strong tendency to be identified, in our self and with what we experience, which isolates us from our whole on the “apparatus for having an experience”.

To be in relation with our whole, we must first approach our “actuality”, the existence of our reality including our self as a projected part. For this we can “turn in” on our self and capture our self in the space we occupy as projection, and “tune in” to our actuality that is immanent of our whole being and Reality.

In our actuality, we can consider and introduce our whole by referring to our sense of his or her mid-line or core. Other ways to refer to our whole include :- the whole is touched by the rest of creation; is present in the present; is alive; must be there (for us to be); is transcendent of us; is in and of Reality; is Nothingness, absent from our projected reality.

In our actuality, we can consider and introduce our whole by referring to our sense of his or her mid-line or core. Other ways to refer to our whole include :- the whole is touched by the rest of creation; is present in the present; is alive; must be there (for us to be); is transcendent of us; is in and of Reality; is Nothingness, absent from our projected reality.

Various ways may be used, to approach our actuality and refer to our whole, to initiate our relation with our whole on different stages and occasions. It is a process of integration for both our projected part and our whole, underpinned by the immanence of Reality, in everything.

I call the approach “Orientation” – in space of our actuality, and with our whole being of Reality. It establishes the fundamental nature of our reality as a projected part, and introduces our transcendent whole being of Reality as the universal basis for our existence and process. The essence of all human endeavours and practices is delivered, and Orientation may also be applied to further them.

Lastly, Orientation may be reduced to words, in a message you can tell your self, and annowncw within your reality. It indirectly refers to your self and your whole self.

Every thing, of you and your reality, is a part of your whole.”

Part of whole

Our actuality is there, as a part.

Immanent in us is Reality, Entirety
one and only whole,
in us as a part of our whole.

Of us transcendent, for a part
must displace its whole.

We manifest, in space.

The “construct” of our reality is installed in space,
filled in with air-bags of different disassociated parts,
we as self or identity squashed between them, in our reality.

Be a part of it all,
as a part of your whole.

Reality, Entirety, the one and only whole, All-Creation-God

message 10a

“Orientation” comes of
1) understanding parts and wholes (mereology),
2) the “actuality” of our self and our reality as a part of our whole, and
3) Reality is Entirety, the one and only whole, and All-Creation-God.

Poem Straight up JUn17 (2cc)Our reality, occupies space. As a part within a geometric piece, set in our human condition, we are held within “projected” structures. Of realms, shapes, levels and layers, all of our self and what we experience, is enmeshed in our projected reality, and manifests within it. It is projected through the CNS (Central Nervous System), by our whole: Projection is fundamental of our – “conscious self and experience witnessed” – reality.

Our whole, has physical form, and other parts including our projected part. He or she is the whole body who is in and of Reality, our whole being alive, and whole self being. As of all wholes, our whole is more than the sum of all his or her parts, including projected, in Reality.

Reality and our part”

Reality is an Entirety,
the one and only whole,
All-Creation-God.

All wholes transcend their parts,
being displaced by parts, but are
immanent in their parts,
encompassing of them all.

All-Creation-God pervades
all parts and wholes, Everything is
in
us and our all also,
by our being a part
of our
individual whole.

Of conscious experience
and self of aspects of things in reality, our reality
is a part of our whole
projected through the CNS,
by our whole.

Poem Straight up JUn17 (5)

Atman and Brahman, is the whole self of Reality and Reality, and also Nothingness and the Way. Within Emptiness, of disassociation in space, we are set linear with what we experience; and we open and extend, different ways in different directions. Our all is within brain-spine (CNS) projection, that is a part of our whole being of Reality. There is more to our reality than what we are conscious of and witness, but beyond our more, or less, our inside and out, is our whole.

But where? Is there a whole? Where is our whole?

message 01

A part displaces its whole, which needs all of its parts together, to be whole. As for a student in a class, surrounded by other students, there is no whole for the part. The “Whole” leaves the “Part” (of necessity) and the “Rest of whole”, transcendent of, or displaced from them both. We can see in Diag. 1, the “Whole” is transcendent of, is immanent in or pervades, and encompasses, the “Part” and the “Rest of whole”.

Diag. 1
“A part displaces its whole, for being a part.”

There is a mereological (study of parts and wholes) “double displacement” in being a part, from both the whole the part belongs to, and the one and only whole that is Reality, (contains all parts and wholes). We may consider this as the basis of creation and emergence, within Reality, of greater and lesser, parts and wholes; things come to be (solipsistic, quantum entangled emergence and probabilistic) displaced from Reality, and manifest as an entity (existential, relativistic or kinetic binding causality and determinism) from parts encompassed by their transcendent whole, transcendent of its parts, in Reality.

Entities of Reality are whole in matter, and of form or nature that is more than the sum of their parts. A tree, Earth, a spoon but also an atom, are all whole entities of substance  and character (nature). A part exists because of its whole, and Reality that a whole entity is of. The quantum field of sub-atomic particles of atoms, culture medium for tissues and cells outside of a living organism, context for “what” we determine of experience in our reality, and the nationality of a person competing in the Olympics, correspond to the “Rest of whole”, “Part” and the “Whole” they are associated with.

Reality is there, transcendent of its partsAs a part, we may be infused by the presence of our whole, but also Reality because our whole is of Reality. In our “part-hood”, is the immanence of Reality in everything, within our reality and beyond it.

As a part, of your whole and Reality :

“Everything of you and what you experience, is a part, of your whole.”

“Immanent in you, is Reality, in you being a part of your whole.”

Everything is a part of Reality; Reality is transcendent of, immanent in, and encompassing of Everything, in our being a part.”