In a recent exercise in my small group class, my TA asked us to remain silent for a minute and a half and find and search for what makes us, us. I did my best to drown out my classmates, and the noise, and probed deep into my thoughts. I came up with a discouraging answer as to what makes me, me. It was an endless circle of my attributes, characteristics, and ancestry, and not very satisfying at all. So now I turn to what this class has taught me, at least in the past few months, to find out what self is, and to put it on paper. So now I will use my knowledge gained from the ancient cultures and religions to compare and contrast the idea of self. First I will look at the Hindu and Buddhist religions to see what they thought of the self and its importance. I will continue by comparing their ideas to those of the Hebrews and the Greeks. Finally I will conclude with a discussion of the life suggested by the previous, and my own views of self.
             I believe that after this class I have a decent idea and grasp on the ideas of the Hindu and Buddhist religions. Their idea of self impresses and fascinates me, it gets my mind going. In the Hindu religion we get the first impression that self is not important. It is taught that everyday life and self are illusions and impale religious enlightenment. But at a second glance we see the importance of the deep self, the true way to achieve Brahman. The true self is called Atman, and when this is reached, you have achieved Brahman. You must sacrifice your ego to fulfill your darmha, or purpose in life. So we see the deep true self has the utmost importance in this religion. In Buddhism, we see a different approach. The Buddhist believe that the self is a combination of ever-changing physical and mental forces and energies. The self is also said to be an aggregate, or fits into the five characteristics of the third aspect of Dukkha, or suffering. In essence, the self is a form o
             ...