The Self: a Reality or a Concept? Dr. Tony Nader with Dr. Evan Thompson

[@markjohnson543]

Dr. Nader and Dr. Thompson illuminate these asic issues in a brilliant way. Thank you for sharing this talk.

[@umami22]

The most efficient thing we can do is experience and enjoy what resonates best with us, and at least try to understand + educate ourselves on other perspectives! Even “opposing” ideas or beliefs. In the grand scheme of things, everything is connected and truly working together 😉 This is a very refreshing and wonderful conversation 😊

[@ashia_in_bloom]

What an amazing talk! I loved hearing them talk about the Self, so interesting!

[@leilagargouri591]

The Self. The Reality. An exciting and intelligent discussion, philosophical at times. A subject that can be discussed endlessly though the ages to inspire us with new questions that are just as profound and extensive, and we still see the dominant Self reigning like a Monarch . Wonderful session , thank you.

[@aartigandhi962]

excellent interview. thank you both.

[@Ewatson79]

What a great conversation. I ❤️ Dr. Nader.

[@konstantinosipov1037]

so wonderful

[@Lala-ww8cb]

A great conversation Jay gurudev

[@TeresaHarrison-u1b]

Dr. Ralph Nader, are you of Helen Keller abilities? As my colleague Rachel would suggest? Helen Keller being mute, blind, and deaf? Are you above these abilities? Like God? ❤

[@danistall-a8965]

So, if there is no underlying unified self, at a spiritual level, how does one explain the NDE's described in Moody, and Burke's books, which seem supported by extensive data?

[@tapashchatterjee4724]

Enriching /Enlightening / Empowering.......

[@bavingeter423]

I feel like selfhood is pretty self-evident and obvious. It is a process. Think of it as a solar system, you have all these aggregates that are contained within a boundary that is You. These aggregates will find certain patterns of configuration that allow you to perceive the world a certain way, and you can reconfigure them in other ways as well. The changing aspect of the self doesn’t mean that there is no continuity of self, it’s quite the opposite. The continuity is IN the constant flux. When people say they “change” it moreso just means that you realized a different configuration, but you are still you. By growing, and changing, we fulfill selfhood, in the same way that when the flower blooms the “bud” doesn’t dissolve, it is fulfilled.

[@towardstruth2125]

Kindly clarify that the self changes at every level as we go ahead? How can it change??

[@metta1773]

Evan is simply doing intellectual analysis here. To understand these types of things, one needs to develop meditation, and cultivate sharp mindfulness - this enables one to see and understand the arising/ceasing (impermanent) nature of each experienced moment, etc. So, he hasn’t understood concepts like how even the perception of a 'changing self' is also an arising and ceasing perception. These are profound understandings that are beautifully presented in Buddhist teachings.

[@towardstruth2125]

@@metta1773 I understand the self as a observer & the observer do not change. That which changes is not the self. Thank you for your explanation but if you explain more i will be even more thankful.

[@metta1773]

@@towardstruth2125 I follow the spiritual path of Buddhism. It explains how each experienced moment (the five aggregates) happen due to causes. Even us observing mind-states happen due to causes (such as hearing that we need to do this) - it is not a ‘person.’ In the conventional world, it is a person, but when it comes to ultimate reality it is just a mind-state: volition, arising due to causes. We suffer due to clinging to the five aggregates by considering them to be ‘a me/mine.’ I suggest reading the work of Venerable Kaṭukurunde Ñāṇananda (such as his book Nibbāna - The Mind Stilled, freely available on the internet).

[@towardstruth2125]

@@metta1773 Thank you! ❤️🙏🙏❤️

[@leilagargouri591]

Knowledge is the coming together of the three values -Observer - Process of observation - Observed We call that a bit of consciousness Each bit of consciousness modifies the Observer who becomes a new Observer

[@robinaguenkel7534]

👍🇩🇪

[@michalarad1751]

If we didnt have memorry we wouldnt be consciousn. It all begins with memmory. More like.copy paste

[@brianmason2368]

There is a difference between a self and an identity. It might be more accurate to say the psyche, spirit, non-physical entity is the self. 😂The self can create and display an identity. We know this when we look at individuals who through trauma or mental illness, lose their self, if they emerge with a different self, and or original self submerged. The being creates and experiences self and identifies. The belief or idea that the brain creates self, or even a consciouness is ridiculous.

[@Chris-Ian]

What's more ridiculous is using laughing emojis in a desperate attempt to invalide the opinion of a professor just because you don't like it.

[@metta1773]

Evan has not grasped the deeper essence of Buddhism. He does a lot of intellectual analyses as well as information and knowledge-based study, but he hasn’t developed sufficiently sharp mindful awareness, etc., to understand things like the impermanence of each experienced moment, and also to understand things like what the present moment is, etc. - these are all very nicely presented in Buddhist teachings.

[@curtisnowitzky3344]

Have you grasped the deeper essence of Buddhism?

[@tanausu7]

Buddhism doesn’t produce enlightened beings, it produces buddhists, like any other organising principle.

[@metta1773]

@@curtisnowitzky3344 I would say that by learning Buddhism carefully, I have come to realize that it is actually a 'science' - not a material science but a science that carefully and methodically explores the human condition.

[@metta1773]

@@tanausu7 This is because you think of enlightenment as a ‘thing to be achieved’ rather than our human condition that has to be gradually understood through mindfulness and careful contemplation.

[@samwebb3674]

So basically your criticism is he hasn't grasped the deeper essence of Buddhism, but that's not really an argument is it? We could say that about anything, but if we aren't clarifying specifically what someone hasn't "grasped" then these kinds of vague criticisms seem rather uncharitable.