What Am I - What Are You?

A place for anything that doesn't fit into the existing forums
User avatar
Webwanderer
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 6850
Joined: Fri May 12, 2006 12:03 am

Re: What Am I - What Are You?

Post by Webwanderer » Wed Dec 08, 2010 11:01 pm

karmarider wrote:You = ego
No, it does not. 'You' can never be ego. Ego is a framework of thought believed to represent one's self. It's not a true you, or me, or I. It is not a living being. At best it is a structured identification or a conceptual lens. It is a disservice to refer to it like it was real just to point out that it's not. Ego does not qualify as a 'you'. It is a point of view born of the physical human environment and experience. When we speak to another in the context of awakening, it serves best to speak to the being, the awareness, to that which perceives through the ego identification, and to that that is capable of perceiving beyond it. Why speak to a mind structure when you know there is a essential being present.

If a mannequin had a built in speaker and microphone, and someone behind the curtain were speaking to you through it, would you talk to the appearance made of plastic, or to the actual live being who addressed you? Would you constantly tell the mannequin it wasn't real? Or would you tell the speaker that you knew he wasn't the form he spoke through? The reality is the mannequin and the ego both do exist. They just don't exist in the way as does a live being that perceives through them. They exist as shells, or tools, or vehicles through which conscious being may experience life in physical terms. Okay, experiencing life through the mannequin may be a bit much, but it's true for the ego and body.

When the clearer members of this forum, and the Tolle's of the world, speak to those interested in the nature of awakening, they speak not to an ego, but to the being that exists beyond the ego structure. It's why so many have responded to Tolle's pointing. He stirs their essential nature to see beyond the egoic identification. Tolle does not deny the existence of you. He merely points out that it's not what you 'think' it is.

WW

User avatar
Sighclone
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 6391
Joined: Wed Feb 13, 2008 6:22 pm

Re: What Am I - What Are You?

Post by Sighclone » Wed Dec 08, 2010 11:06 pm

Wow. I guess I thought Eckhart covered all this in the first few pages of PON. He parsed the sentence "I can't live with myself any longer." And discovered that there were two of these entities, "myself" and "I." And it struck him that "maybe only one of them is real." Later he goes on to say that the ego is the "false self created by unconscious identification with the mind." False things are not real. The ego is simply a collection of behaviors, memories and habits definable as a kind of identity by most people, and discussed at great length in many books. The radical assertion of nonduality is that the "self" it constitutes is false, artificial and unfortunately self-perpetuating. And that realization of the true Self is possible as a conscious experience.

The experience, discovery and assertion of the falsity of the egoic self is elemental to awakening; I certainly thought that was understood, at least conceptually, by every one of the fine posting members in this thread.

I do know that none of this has anything to do with the attitudes, styles or behaviors of members on this or any other forum...in this universe or any other...

Andy
A person is not a thing or a process, but an opening through which the universe manifests. - Martin Heidegger
There is not past, no future; everything flows in an eternal present. - James Joyce

karmarider
Posts: 2141
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2009 8:00 pm
Location: Florida
Contact:

Re: What Am I - What Are You?

Post by karmarider » Wed Dec 08, 2010 11:17 pm

Webwanderer wrote:
karmarider wrote:You = ego
No, it does not. 'You' can never be ego.
Right. But most people think that they are the ego.
Webwanderer wrote:When the clearer members of this forum, and the Tolle's of the world, speak to those interested in the nature of awakening, they speak not to an ego, but to the being that exists beyond the ego structure. It's why so many have responded to Tolle's pointing. He stirs their essential nature to see beyond the egoic identification. Tolle does not deny the existence of you. He merely points out that it's not what you 'think' it is.

WW
Aside from the implication that anyone who dares to disagree with this cannot be part of the club of clearer members of this forum, I completely agree with this, and the inquiry is completely consistent with this.

Which makes me both a member of the clearer club and not a member of it. Like Shrodinger's cat. That's fun. :D

The inquiry is to see that you are not what you think you are.
Last edited by karmarider on Wed Dec 08, 2010 11:34 pm, edited 1 time in total.

karmarider
Posts: 2141
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2009 8:00 pm
Location: Florida
Contact:

Re: What Am I - What Are You?

Post by karmarider » Wed Dec 08, 2010 11:23 pm

Sighclone wrote:Wow. I guess I thought Eckhart covered all this in the first few pages of PON. He parsed the sentence "I can't live with myself any longer." And discovered that there were two of these entities, "myself" and "I." And it struck him that "maybe only one of them is real." Later he goes on to say that the ego is the "false self created by unconscious identification with the mind." False things are not real. The ego is simply a collection of behaviors, memories and habits definable as a kind of identity by most people, and discussed at great length in many books. The radical assertion of nonduality is that the "self" it constitutes is false, artificial and unfortunately self-perpetuating. And that realization of the true Self is possible as a conscious experience.
That's exactly it.
Sighclone wrote:The experience, discovery and assertion of the falsity of the egoic self is elemental to awakening;
You've captured the whole thing in those few words.
Sighclone wrote:...I certainly thought that was understood, at least conceptually, by every one of the fine posting members in this thread.
I think it is.

The seeming disagreement is with the pronoun you, and whether it refers to Being or to the false self. Most people are identified with the false self, so it's conventionally correct to say you don't exist. The night that Eckhart had his recognition, I'm sure he wasn't worried about the semantics or the completeness of his conceptual understanding.

And the inquiry worked fine for me. I was never confused about it. The confusion only comes about if you think about it conceptually.

Maybe some people would feel better if the inquiry were worded: What you think you are does not exist.

But that dillutes the inquiry.

Sighclone wrote:I do know that none of this has anything to do with the attitudes, styles or behaviors of members on this or any other forum...in this universe or any other...

Andy
Well, the association of the inquiry with the RT'ers colors it for some people. I can understand that. And I also say to put that aside.

Ralph
Posts: 596
Joined: Fri Dec 25, 2009 12:08 am

Re: What Am I - What Are You?

Post by Ralph » Thu Dec 09, 2010 12:04 am

Wow .... so much talk about an "I" that doesn't exist. :wink:

User avatar
Webwanderer
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 6850
Joined: Fri May 12, 2006 12:03 am

Re: What Am I - What Are You?

Post by Webwanderer » Thu Dec 09, 2010 12:49 am

The following is a quote from a near death experiencer who goes by the handle "Starshine".
Death is a transformation, a changed state of being. Like ice becoming water or rain becoming snow, you are changed. The body remains here where it was built to be and the self of you becomes a being of another kind, but still your own self. I feel it is like shedding an out grown skin, coming out of a cocoon or hatching out of an egg. It's a new birth as a new type of being. You no longer belong here, you belong with others like you and they wait to greet you.
This is not uncommon in the description of those who have glanced at the sense of being that lives beyond the physical form. The existence of a recognizable self endures. This is the same you that exists even in ego, albeit filtered through concepts of identity while misperceiving one's true nature.

WW

enigma
Posts: 1067
Joined: Fri Aug 21, 2009 4:51 am

Re: What Am I - What Are You?

Post by enigma » Thu Dec 09, 2010 2:19 am

erbeeflower wrote:i have tried out the enquiry when i eventually understood what is meant by it (i think :? ) My attempt to point to that which i am goes something like this.... the day i was born i was that which i am.47 years later that which i am remains. If you strip away every experience, there i am. Peace.
But Peace was never born.

karmarider
Posts: 2141
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2009 8:00 pm
Location: Florida
Contact:

Re: What Am I - What Are You?

Post by karmarider » Thu Dec 09, 2010 2:34 am

Webwanderer wrote:The following is a quote from a near death experiencer who goes by the handle "Starshine".
Death is a transformation, a changed state of being. Like ice becoming water or rain becoming snow, you are changed. The body remains here where it was built to be and the self of you becomes a being of another kind, but still your own self. I feel it is like shedding an out grown skin, coming out of a cocoon or hatching out of an egg. It's a new birth as a new type of being. You no longer belong here, you belong with others like you and they wait to greet you.
This is not uncommon in the description of those who have glanced at the sense of being that lives beyond the physical form. The existence of a recognizable self endures. This is the same you that exists even in ego, albeit filtered through concepts of identity while misperceiving one's true nature.

WW
I'm not disputing that you really really want "you" to refer to Being. I use it that way too.

But it's perfectly fine to use it to mean the false sense of I. That's pretty common.

And, also, I want Pluto to be a planet again, in case you want to argue about that too.
Last edited by karmarider on Thu Dec 09, 2010 2:40 am, edited 2 times in total.

enigma
Posts: 1067
Joined: Fri Aug 21, 2009 4:51 am

Re: What Am I - What Are You?

Post by enigma » Thu Dec 09, 2010 2:37 am

It's true that "There is no you", or perhaps more commonly "There is no me", is not an RT exclusive. I think everyone who follows non-dual teachings goes through a stage where they have at least a partial realization that the ego is false or that they can't really locate a personal 'me', and end up talking about it a lot until the focus goes deeper. Some of us used to joke about people running down the street waving their arms screaming "There is no me!"

Maybe at one stage such bluntness is called for since there is great resistance to this noticing. I often see folks looking desperately (and unconsciously) for ways to avoid it by declaring 'I am Oneness and that includes me' or 'I am God' or various creative ways of proving volition, free will and choice. I prefer to say ego is what you think you are and it's just a thought structure, which seems more better clearerer. The fact that 'I exist' is obvious to anyone who isn't over-thinking it, so I would say any worthwhile pointer shouldn't imply that this may not be so.

karmarider
Posts: 2141
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2009 8:00 pm
Location: Florida
Contact:

Re: What Am I - What Are You?

Post by karmarider » Thu Dec 09, 2010 2:43 am

I was with you till the last sentence. I would say a worthwhile pointer makes you look.

There is existence. There is no me.

That's a worthwhile pointer, right?

That's how the "you don't exist" is used. If the terminology is not perfect, that's okay, because the arrangement of words does make people look. It's more compelling than "there is no me." That's not a bad thing, right?

enigma
Posts: 1067
Joined: Fri Aug 21, 2009 4:51 am

Re: What Am I - What Are You?

Post by enigma » Thu Dec 09, 2010 3:39 am

karmarider wrote:I was with you till the last sentence. I would say a worthwhile pointer makes you look.

There is existence. There is no me.

That's a worthwhile pointer, right?

That's how the "you don't exist" is used. If the terminology is not perfect, that's okay, because the arrangement of words does make people look. It's more compelling than "there is no me." That's not a bad thing, right?
Yeah, I'd say "There is existence. There is no me' is a pretty good pointer. "You don't exist"?....not as good in general, but what I was trying to say is I don't have a big ole issue with it. (Unless of course it's a Barry Long teaching. Hehe.)

karmarider
Posts: 2141
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2009 8:00 pm
Location: Florida
Contact:

Re: What Am I - What Are You?

Post by karmarider » Thu Dec 09, 2010 6:20 am

enigma wrote: (Unless of course it's a Barry Long teaching. Hehe.)
That's yesterday's argument. We're onto why Pluto isn't a planet. Or is. :)

Plorel
Posts: 254
Joined: Sat Dec 06, 2008 1:59 pm

Re: What Am I - What Are You?

Post by Plorel » Thu Dec 09, 2010 11:50 am

The discussion comes down to the question, 'what is the point of inquiery', does it not? If inquiery induces an radically honest, deep and relentless looking for the truth until it is known beyond all concepts, does the syntax and semantic matter? While some types of inquieries may (conceptually) point to the truth more accurately, what is the point if to the particular someone who uses it, the inquiery are just dead words?

The power a certain question has for someone can directly be felt in one's being, can it not? The phrasing may be beautiful, the truth expressed accurate, but if the question doesn't impact on a deep level, what value has it? On the other hand, a bluntly put, inaccurate question the leads to a deep looking makes all the difference, does it not?

And so if the familiy-father asks himself a thousand times "who am I" and it doesn't stir a thing, he may ask himself ones "what is the meaning of my well-build life in the face of death" and immediatly, naturally, a deep looking follows. In the end all types of inquiery, underdone correctly, must and will lead to the same place anyway. So it doesn't matter where I start as long as I do, does it?
Who am I without my story?

erbeeflower
Posts: 183
Joined: Sat Dec 26, 2009 10:53 pm
Location: eastbourne east sussex england

Re: What Am I - What Are You?

Post by erbeeflower » Thu Dec 09, 2010 12:18 pm

enigma wrote:
erbeeflower wrote:i have tried out the enquiry when i eventually understood what is meant by it (i think :? ) My attempt to point to that which i am goes something like this.... the day i was born i was that which i am.47 years later that which i am remains. If you strip away every experience, there i am. Peace.
But Peace was never born.

:lol: peace man :lol:
I'm still enjoying thinking and exploring too much to get stuck here :-)

erbeeflower
Posts: 183
Joined: Sat Dec 26, 2009 10:53 pm
Location: eastbourne east sussex england

Re: What Am I - What Are You?

Post by erbeeflower » Thu Dec 09, 2010 12:40 pm

http://eckhart-tolle-forum.inner-growth ... =10&t=8313

I've started another thread, what can we agree on ?
I'm still enjoying thinking and exploring too much to get stuck here :-)

Post Reply