What Am I - What Are You?

A place for anything that doesn't fit into the existing forums

Re: What Am I - What Are You?

Postby gen6 » Mon Nov 08, 2010 3:08 pm

Yeah, sorry, did misinterpret that. Please delete post.
Last edited by gen6 on Tue Nov 09, 2010 1:04 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Live as if nothing and everything matters at the same time.
User avatar
gen6
 
Posts: 380
Joined: Mon Jan 11, 2010 4:22 pm
Location: Europe

Re: What Am I - What Are You?

Postby Marcel Franke » Mon Nov 08, 2010 3:33 pm

Andy:
> Ego means accepting and nourishing a false self.

> ego means a false self created by unconscious identification with the mind

> I think the source of that sense of self varies depending on conditioning and spiritual development.

I think there is no false to be found, only the idea of false.
What is not in consciousness, is only there as an idea.
(An idea in consciousness.)
The only development I can see, is that there is no development.

What is left is mystery.
However, in this mystery, development might be a helpfull entry-point.
Last edited by Marcel Franke on Mon Nov 08, 2010 3:51 pm, edited 1 time in total.
---ooOoo---
User avatar
Marcel Franke
 
Posts: 655
Joined: Fri Nov 21, 2008 3:28 pm

Re: What Am I - What Are You?

Postby Sighclone » Mon Nov 08, 2010 3:47 pm

Note: Gen6 did not understand that my congratulations were for success in solving mental problems.

This is the final discussion in this thread of this subject.

We are diverted from the original topic. In the Rules, please note that we do not discuss the Rules or decisions of the Moderators. This forum is not a democracy.

Let's talk about "What Am I...."

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
User avatar
Sighclone
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 6182
Joined: Wed Feb 13, 2008 6:22 pm

Re: What Am I - What Are You?

Postby Sighclone » Mon Nov 08, 2010 3:51 pm

I think there is no false to be found, only the idea of false.


The Self is. Realizing that fully reduces any other "sense of self" to detritus. Including ego, superego or whatever. Anything short of Self is therefore incomplete and ..."false."

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
User avatar
Sighclone
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 6182
Joined: Wed Feb 13, 2008 6:22 pm

Re: What Am I - What Are You?

Postby Marcel Franke » Mon Nov 08, 2010 4:07 pm

> The Self is. Realizing that fully reduces any other "sense of self" to detritus.

Then, this realization can only be a timeless, causeless, incomprehensible discontinuity.

Or, to put it mild: it-s ok, nothing is your fault, nothing to do, nothing to stop, your already now and here.
No need to run after something called "Realization".
Self already is.
Running after Realization, is also Self.
---ooOoo---
User avatar
Marcel Franke
 
Posts: 655
Joined: Fri Nov 21, 2008 3:28 pm

Re: What Am I - What Are You?

Postby Ananda » Mon Nov 08, 2010 4:26 pm

Hello gen6,

Glad to hear you've overcome some troubles recently and are well.

However if we do not accept these certain things,ideas, to be true, then this theory just disappears. These certain things and ideas, in this theory easily fall into the category of assumptions, isn't that right? If it's not right, can you test them or show some evidence or show that they are not just assumptions, somehow?


As far as theory relating to concepts goes then of course it can be disregarded depending on how you define certain concepts. As garuda pointed out, everyone has their own definitions for certain words and ideas, so it is initially problematic when we try to make models with those words. However, as I said earlier, concepts always refer to something that is not a concept, and therefore they can be tested for validity.

If you say that you don't accept my use of a concept because you have a different definition, then that's fine (we'd have to come to a middle ground). But if you say that you don't accept my use of a concept because you don't think it refers to anything that is true, then you'd have to show and explain how it isn't true (rather than just resigning with that statement). You can certainly test everything that I say through your own direct experience, my words are just there to create a logical framework for it. You yourself have previously stated that you've had direct experience (with regards to the Self etc), so applying a framework such as my own to help explain it is perfectly sound and reasonable.

I'm not sure if my explanations could adequately be called 'assumptions', since they do after all confirm to both direct experience and logic/reasoning. It is something that works and is sound, even if not proven 100% (one would have to be omniscient to do this), it's time tested and well accounted for by many people right down to the old sages of the Upanishads, so as far as 'theory' goes, it does work within the context we are discussing (ie spirituality etc).

Alright, so is awareness a substance? From the other things you say I understand it's not, or may be I lack knowledge in English, which is probably the case here.
What do you mean by the substance, which is awareness?


I use 'substance' in a technical sense. Substance means the essential part of anything, the real 'material' if you like. I contrast that with 'form' which is the appearance or conditional modification (change) within the substance itself. So what i'm saying is that the 'form' which is non-different from it's essence, or substance (awareness) is the appearance of the universe.

for you, awareness, the one you believe in, is an idea that cannot be defined anyhow, we can say what it's not but we cannot say what it is. It's an idea, generated by your mind, an idea that cannot be defined.


Please understand here, I don't 'believe' in awareness, nor even an idea of awareness. The word 'awareness' refers to something that is not an idea, and as I have previously demonstrated is logically self-evident and also proven through direct experience. It cannot be accurately defined as an idea because it's not an idea, nor any object arrived at through a means of knowledge (such as sense perception and intellect etc), that it does exist, however, is self-evident, as it is the witness, or subject, to which all objects are evident.

Actually, you are right, that's why I don't believe this 100%, but your theory can also be taken as an assumption since there's no way that we test this or we cannot have any evidence, am I not right?


It can be tested through logical reasoning, self-enquiry and direct experience of the Self. I can present to you the logical reasoning, but I can't give you self-enquiry or a direct experience of the Self- that's where your effort comes in and will confirm the reasoning I've used.

but I can say the same thing about your theory and it is still valid, isn't it? Or is there any evidence for this theory?


If something is illogical then it is much less likely to be true than something that is logical. The combination of direct experience with sound logic is reasonable enough to give my explanation merit. Again, the evidence that confirms what I say beyond theorizing comes from one's own experience, be it through meditation, samadhi, negation of objects or other practices.

It's possible that, awareness is individual but it's absolutely the same with everybody. But why do you have to identify it with the mind? I cannot just connect these two. If we accept that they are both in the brain, why do we have to identify the one with the other


Splitting up awareness into parts and/or placing it inside the body presents numerous problems and isn't logical. The result of doing this is usually identification with the body and/or mind. An analogy for this is an iron ball surrounded by fire- the iron ball becomes consumed with fire due to its proximity with it, and for those who lack discernment they may then conflate the iron ball with the fire, or the fire with the iron ball- thus confusing the attributes of the one and superimposing them with the other. In the analogy, the iron ball represents the body, the fire awareness. When you say 'I just cannot connect these two' then I'd suggest that you have a discernment about awareness that many, if not most, simply don't have. It's exceedingly common, even normal, to equate awareness (the subject) with its content (objects). I'll repost a paragraph from my previous post just to reiterate again the point i'm making;

If it is agreed upon that there are multiple awareness, how could it ever be known? If the subject is known as awareness, then where is there ever a second subject? There is no other subject which appears to the first subject- only objects. If it is agreed 'yes there are two' then to whom is this agreement made? a body? a mind? When adressing 'another' subject what is being adressed? It is always falsely adressing a body, a mind, an object. There is absolutely nothing at all in the universe apart from the subject that can be called 'another subject', it is impossible.

Multiplicity of awareness is a lot like saying there are multiple spaces. Space as we know it 'inside' or 'outside' is defined by the presence of objects within it. If there is a pot, someone might say 'there is space inside the pot, and outside of the pot, therefore there are two spaces, pot space and outside pot space'. But this is fallacious, because really the nature of space is unchanged by the presence or absence of objects, it is one, homogenous. There is not really two spaces , just the one, in which the object partakes of. In the same way, there is only one awareness, but due to the multiplicity of bodies in it we associate one 'part' of awareness with one body, and another 'part' to another body. The principle is basically the same; we conflate the multiplicity and presence of objects with the non-dual and homogenous (partless) nature of the subject.


Even agreeing that there is an individual awareness inside each brain cannot possibly be proven, and poses more problems than it solves. It's very reasonable to suggest that the reflection of awareness in the mind as 'I' is reflected in all bodies equally- and not the product of multiple sources of awareness. An analogy is the reflection of the sun in various puddles of water- the sun is one, but appears to be multiple due to the presence of multiple puddles which reflect it. In the same way, awareness is one, but appears to be multiple due to the presence of multiple bodies (and intellects) reflecting it.

I can't find anything wrong with the ideas of doership and I am different from this, I am not you, you are not me , what's wrong with that?


It is conflating an object (body) with the subject (awareness).

it doesn't bring any negativism and lead towards any negative action or thought


Well, it does. As I posted previously;

By identifying the Self as the body we claim ownership of every action, of every reaction, of every thought and feeling. We try to control the experience, desire is the result, disappointment is the result, clinging to experiences and anticipation of future ones is the result, greed is the result, hatred of (perceived) others is the result, a feeling of lack is the result, self-image is the result, misery is the result. This whole cycle of results is the inherent suffering in egoic existence


It's just a fact. You are not me, I am not you, I know this as a fact


What does 'I' refer to in the statement? The body? The mind? It can only be referring to an object here, since it is objects which are distinct and different from other objects. You've confused yourself with objects that you experience therefore your statement seems factual and perfectly sound to you. It does not refer to yourself as you actually are, ie awareness, because awareness has no disctintions or separateness within it. So I put it that you haven't adequately inquired into this individuality you think is factual, otherwise you'd know that your statement is false due to reasoning and experience of yourself as formless, non-dual awareness. Your statement is only factual if it (falsely) equates the Self with some object, therefore it is true according to ignorance, but not true according to Self-knowledge.

What means bodily identification?


It means conflating the subject, or Self, with the body. Getting them mixed up due to lack of inquiry.


I personally do not know a single person and I am sure that no person on this planet will ever say that he/she is his body?


:lol: Well, this is demonstrably false. First of all, when you say ' no person on this planet' you are already indirectly implying that the Self is synonymous with the body, because it is the body that is on this planet, bound by space -and made distinct from other bodies. You also say 'he/she', again equating the sex of the body with the subject itself, though I know this is a linguistic convention so it can be overlooked.

Do you know such a person?


I don't know any other subject, any other Self, but I do know there are billions of bodies, which are often referred to as 'person'. :)

Do you think that when I say - I am fat, I am thin, I am clever this equals bodily identification?


Yes, of course it does- even if it is not asserted directly (ie I am my body). Fatness and thinness are incidental attributes of the body- the subject is never fat, only the object (body) is fat, and it also can become thin- the subject never changes, therefore the statement 'I am fat' or 'I am thin' is falsely superimposing incidental attributes of an object onto the subject itself. Furthermore 'I am clever' refers to the intellect or the mental capacity of the brain, it has no bearing or weight on the subject (awareness) at all, as stupidity and cleverness are also incidental attributes, being changeful and not representing the subject in any way. This is extremely common and is the basis for all discrimination against race, gender, sexual orientation, appearance and the insatiable appetite for looking younger and dreading old age and death.

See;

the limitations we impose upon it (awareness) are due to conflating and superimposing the body and its attributes (such as sense perception etc) onto it- which is fallacious because the body and its attributes, including the mind, are all objects of knowledge to awareness itself, not the other way around.


The subject (awareness) does not age or undergo change. It is distinct in nature from the attributes of the body and therefore can not be considered equal to or possesive of the body nor its defects- it is pure and without parts, consisting of a homogenous nature only, there is really nothing like awareness at all- nothing comparable or equatable with it.

Ego is a product of ignorance, only if we apply your theory, if we apply another theory, Ego is not a product of ignorance.


It is demonstrably a product of ignorance, as I have already showed. You can ignore my 'theory' or apply another, but the logic doesn't go away so you still have to deal with that or incorporate it somehow.

Things are really not so over simplified as you describe them:


I know, but an explanation deserves to be as simple and clear as possible. :)

Not everybody tries to control experience, the results are many, not only negative, all these results.....I


Of course, I can only generalize, the results are also positive- but the excessive roller coaster of positive and negative is itself characteristic of the samsara of egoic existence.

have you personally experienced all of this exactly the way you describe it ?


Oh, certainly. Perhaps not in the same order, but every body experiences all of those things at some point or other - it's 'normal'. :D

How did you come up with these conclusions?


Experience, Self-enquiry, reasoning etc.

I think that this formula cannot describe completely - feeling of lack, greed, hatred of others etc.


Of course not, it's not meant to be a complete description, I was just elucidating for you.

According to your theory and beliefs I have to be suffering somehow in some way. I am stepping over many lines that should cause suffering according to you. I have many beliefs that according to your theory should put me in the suffering zone. However, I'm not suffering or at least I'm not consciously aware of my suffering.


Everybody suffers at some point, it's just a fact of life. From the poorest to the richest, weakest to the strongest. Suffering is unbiased in that way. Sure, some suffer more than others, some suffer all of the time, others suffer hardly ever, but suffering nevertheless always comes about. You might have suffered in the distant past, or recently, but now not be suffering; or you might not have suffered at all in your life, but you will in the future. Suffering is not characteristicly dramatic, it is subtle, it comes in many forms, from constant anxiety, to depression, grief, loss, emotional extremes, trauma etc. Moreover, you don't need to be currently suffering in order to limit yourself or be restricted from a deeper happiness, just holding false views can act as a cloud covering the sun; one's potential and freedom is infinitely greater than what it is normally considered to be.

Everything is pretty fine with me and I do feel very content and happy


That's great to hear :)

Moreover I do experience what you experience at least from what I saw in your posts, how you describe everything, I'm the same way but I have different beliefs.


Our experience is the same, therefore, along with the accounts of others, there is veracity in the experience. The way in which we interpret that experience is varied, but the experience itself is the same, the same thing is going on there. As I've noted in your posts I still think that you have some views that have gone unquestioned and require further investigation.

My case has to be a very special one...It's just very contradictory...Do you think you can come up with some explanation for this ?


Well, I said earlier that you might be doubting for doubt's sake - and not for any constructive purpose. However, from what you've said now I think perhaps you are holding onto two very different views, or trying to reconcile your experiences with an explanation that might be faulty or illogical, so I think you should investigate for yourself about that. I'm not sure to what degree your direct experiences have given you any lasting insight or realization, as you do seem to accept a priori the assumption of individuality, and base your conclusions from that- which leads one to wonder whether you've ignored the implications of your experiences or just tried to rationalize them away.

I think you should have a very close look at the views and ideas you feel secure with, and then test them against your Self-enquiry, to see if they both match up and see what's really reasonable.

:)
User avatar
Ananda
 
Posts: 949
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 10:35 am
Location: Manchester, England

Re: What Am I - What Are You?

Postby karmarider » Mon Nov 08, 2010 5:11 pm

Wow, all of this interesting (actually it isn't) but what does it have to do with awakening? What does it have to do with "What Am I - What Are You?"?

If you already have beliefs and theories, even if they are spiritual and beautiful and validating and impressive and symmetric, then can there ever be honest inquiry?

The only way to answer this question is to let go of knowledge and look.
karmarider
 
Posts: 2141
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2009 8:00 pm
Location: Florida

Re: What Am I - What Are You?

Postby Sighclone » Mon Nov 08, 2010 5:20 pm

Aw c'mon kr. We have these great big minds, and some of us love to exercise them, whether informed by and reflecting Source or not. It's all lila in maya, at worst! :)

(Which is to say, that, of course, you are right, which is self-revealed by all the tail-chasing...but then, we go to the gym to improve the utility of our bodies, pushing big slabs of iron up and down -- why not here to do the same with another tool, the mind?)

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
User avatar
Sighclone
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 6182
Joined: Wed Feb 13, 2008 6:22 pm

Re: What Am I - What Are You?

Postby karmarider » Mon Nov 08, 2010 5:21 pm

hehe, okay I concede. Jed Mckenna calls it Big Thoughts.
karmarider
 
Posts: 2141
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2009 8:00 pm
Location: Florida

Re: What Am I - What Are You?

Postby Ananda » Mon Nov 08, 2010 5:49 pm

If you already have beliefs and theories, even if they are spiritual and beautiful and validating and impressive and symmetric, then can there ever be honest inquiry?

The only way to answer this question is to let go of knowledge and look.


I don't see the problem with a 'theory' that's 'spiritual, beautiful, validating, impressive and symmetrical' if it is supported by honest self-enquiry and 'looking'. The answers come from direct experience, the explanation of those answers comes from openly discussing and, yes, 'theories'. There's no need to be averse to discussion or debates, especially if they are constructive, they can help to look even deeper into self-enquiry and uprooting old assumptions or beliefs. Knowledge is not in opposition to insight.
User avatar
Ananda
 
Posts: 949
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 10:35 am
Location: Manchester, England

Re: What Am I - What Are You?

Postby garuda » Mon Nov 08, 2010 11:31 pm

karmarider wrote:Wow, all of this interesting (actually it isn't) but what does it have to do with awakening? What does it have to do with "What Am I - What Are You?"?

Karma, I agree that we should tend toward the topic of the OP. But when members like Gen6 veer from the topic, then some prefer to trail in pursuit to return them to the centerline. Though hard we may try to remain true to the topic, we all may occasionally drift to the sidelines to beckon the bencher back to the playing field.

Ananda, once again, quite impressive combination of lucidity and mastery of logic. Perhaps the key feature between theory and direct experience.
Recognize present awareness......... rest in that awareness..........don’t become distracted.
garuda
 
Posts: 367
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2008 8:44 pm
Location: USA

Re: What Am I - What Are You?

Postby garuda » Tue Nov 09, 2010 12:00 am

Sighclone wrote:...... reflecting Source or not. It's all lila in maya, at worst! :)
Andy

I love it when you talk dirty. :D What does that mean? :wink:
Recognize present awareness......... rest in that awareness..........don’t become distracted.
garuda
 
Posts: 367
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2008 8:44 pm
Location: USA

Re: What Am I - What Are You?

Postby karmarider » Tue Nov 09, 2010 3:17 am

Ananda wrote:I don't see the problem with a 'theory' that's 'spiritual, beautiful, validating, impressive and symmetrical' if it is supported by honest self-enquiry and 'looking'. The answers come from direct experience, the explanation of those answers comes from openly discussing and, yes, 'theories'. There's no need to be averse to discussion or debates, especially if they are constructive, they can help to look even deeper into self-enquiry and uprooting old assumptions or beliefs. Knowledge is not in opposition to insight.


I don't agree. Honest inquiry is not compatible with the accumulation of knowledge. If you are already attached to a theory, the inquiry cannot be called honest. It's certainly fun for the mind to accumulate, debate, prove and vanquish. But that's not experience.
karmarider
 
Posts: 2141
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2009 8:00 pm
Location: Florida

Re: What Am I - What Are You?

Postby Webwanderer » Tue Nov 09, 2010 3:50 am

I agree that being 'attached' to a theory is a problem, as that suggests one is no longer open to other possibilities. However, 'leaning towards' a theory based on honest inquiry, insight and direct experience, may be the best one can do in the development of one's world view. So long as there is sufficient openness to evolve one's perspective, clarity should continue to grow.

WW
User avatar
Webwanderer
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 6279
Joined: Fri May 12, 2006 12:03 am

Re: What Am I - What Are You?

Postby karmarider » Tue Nov 09, 2010 4:38 am

Webwanderer wrote:I agree that being 'attached' to a theory is a problem, as that suggests one is no longer open to other possibilities. However, 'leaning towards' a theory based on honest inquiry, insight and direct experience, may be the best one can do in the development of one's world view. So long as there is sufficient openness to evolve one's perspective, clarity should continue to grow.

WW


You're trying to be diplomatic and I appreciate that, but there cannot be openness if there's a theory. There can't be honesty or direct experience or openness or evolution if there is accumulated knowledge. When we see, maybe knowledge helps deepen it. When we don't, all that knowledge can do is get in the way.
karmarider
 
Posts: 2141
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2009 8:00 pm
Location: Florida

PreviousNext

Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

cron