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 Sighclone » Tue Nov 09, 2010 6:26 am

Diry talk 101:

Lila or leela is simply "divine play."

Maya is the manifested world, i.e. the totality of all mental projections, an illusion.

Check the definitions at the back of "I Am That." (That is a required text for all Moderators, you know... :) (except heidi and eric, who get a pass on everything.))

Film at 11, and 12, and 13....

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 Webwanderer » Tue Nov 09, 2010 6:52 am

karmarider wrote: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.


I can't agree with your presumptions here. A theory isn't sealed in concrete. By its very nature a theory has room for growth as knowledge and insight add to understanding. There's no teacher like direct experience, but even in such a case, experiences may vary and may be interpreted in any number of ways, even by honest viewers. And it's certainly possible to come to inaccurate conclusions even when direct experience is the source.

The problem comes when theory, especially one born of experience, is presumed to be fact. The point in these discussions is to peal back the layers of our understanding to see if yet greater clarity may be found. I doubt anyone on this forum has absolute clarity on Truth. The value in the use of logic is that it helps break through the mental concepts that can lock us into a rigid point of view that limits the full potential of our understanding. Yes it's more mind stuff, but it's also one type of thorn to remove another thorn. Openness is a personal thing that should be under constant review. It is to our own peril if we lose touch with this critical quality.

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 8:06 am

Yes, that's one point of view and I don't want to debate or refute, but I will present another point of view, if there is openness to it, and that is simply that the power of these theories does not come from what is behind the theories, but rather from the ego's will to survive.
karmarider
 
Posts: 2141
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2009 8:00 pm
Location: Florida

Re: What Am I - What Are You?

Postby Kutso » Tue Nov 09, 2010 10:35 am

karmarider wrote:It's certainly fun for the mind to accumulate, debate, prove and vanquish. But that's not experience.


Not experience? Kindly explain.

karmarider wrote: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.


Why is that? Isn't what you are saying here a theory of your own that totally contradict itself?

Webwanderer wrote:I can't agree with your presumptions here. A theory isn't sealed in concrete. By its very nature a theory has room for growth as knowledge and insight add to understanding.


I agree with Webwanderer here. A theory is not the same as a belief taken as fact.

karmarider wrote:Yes, that's one point of view and I don't want to debate or refute, but I will present another point of view, if there is openness to it, and that is simply that the power of these theories does not come from what is behind the theories, but rather from the ego's will to survive.


Is this your theory? Then by your own words we should discard it, since it comes in the way of truth.
Not that. Not that. Not that. Not that. Not that. Not that. Not that. Not that.
User avatar
Kutso
 
Posts: 884
Joined: Tue Oct 30, 2007 6:27 pm
Location: Gothenburg, Sweden

Re: What Am I - What Are You?

Postby gen6 » Tue Nov 09, 2010 12:50 pm

Hello gen6,

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


Thank you :)

gen6 wrote: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.


You claim to have experienced awareness through direct experience? Is that right? Since you are human, your direct experience can be done only with the senses you have and with nothing else. So you have sensed ,,awareness,, somehow? Is that what you say?
If you don't believe in awareness nor even an idea of awareness, how come do you manage to speak for it, to write posts that include awareness as a word , as a concept, to try to make me have a direct experience of this awareness? You speak of something you do not believe in? You had a direct experience of something you do not believe in? There's something wrong here, can you explain further ? I think that since you had a direct experience of this you should later on believe in it and conceptualize in your mind, this is how mind works, otherwise you wouldn't be able to write posts about awareness is this forum, right?

gen6 wrote: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.


I can say the same about my theory, It can be tested through logical reasoning, self-enquiry, regarding the direct experience of Self, I have asked some questions above, which I hope you answer.

gen6 wrote: 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 seems illogical only from your point of view, because you current conceptual system in your brain just disregards some facts, thus my theory will seem illogical to you and your theory seems logical to you, if you realize some facts, this will change.

gen6 wrote: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;


Splitting up awareness into parts and placing it inside the body does not present a single problem. This identification with the body or the mind, just does not exist the way you think it exists, that's an illusion you have created in your brain and from there spring many other assumptions in your theory.


gen6 wrote: 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).


gen6 wrote: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.


Well it doesn't work for me, it doesn't bring any negativism and lead towards any negative action or thought for me. Everything you suggest comes from the idea that we identify something that is called the Self as the body. That's an illusion. What's wrong with the ownership thing? Nothing negative there nor it can provoke anything negative in future.

gen6 wrote: 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.


Again, it's only a fact for me, and it doesn't do anything wrong with me, it does only according to your theory and the way you explain how things are, but there are certain illusions in your theory that make it such (i.e. not valid), because it just doesn't work for me..and for most people ,they are absolutely alright and happy and content even if they know the fact , that you are not me, I am not you, this guy's hand is not my leg. That's perfectly alright with billions of humans. I think that speaks for itself. And there's nothing wrong to refer to an object here. Of course in your theory this is a big no no, but again, if we remove certain illusions from your theory , the way you explain how things work is going to be different and refering to an object will be something normal that doesn't harm you, actually most bodies on this planet do that, I know many happy people that do that. Nature can't be wrong.

gen6 wrote:What means bodily identification?


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


There is no Self to conflate with something, where do you find this Self ( I guess the direct experience questions above will resolve this). Bodily identification, this just does not exist, it's an illusion.

gen6 wrote: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.


Yes I guess this is what I'm implying, since I don't know any other way to express this sentence, do you have another way? Come on, you know it's just language, right? What should I say, no body on this planet instead of no person on this planet? Or no flesh and bones with larynx attached on this planet will say etc etc. ? That's funny.
This whole thing about the bodily identification, it only exists in your conceptual system in order to be able to explain some things, your conceptual system cannot exist without the bodily , mind identifications. But these things are illusion.
Again, do you know a body with larynx attached on this planet, that will say, I am my mind or I am my body? No sane person will say every say or think this or identify himself/herself with his/her body or mind. This is just now how the brain works in regards to identification.


gen6 wrote: 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'. :)


gen6 wrote: 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.


Whatever I say, it doesn't mean bodily identification, as I explained above there is no such thing as bodily identification. I would love you to prove me that there is such thing as a bodily identification.
And please, here we come again to this pesky little language - ,,I am thin,, ? What is wrong with that? When you hear a a body with larynx attached say - ,,I am thin,, , do you put this body with larynx attached into a category - bodily identified?


gen6 wrote: 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


gen6 wrote:How did you come up with these conclusions?


Experience, Self-enquiry, reasoning etc.


I can say the same think about myself, same experience different explanations.


gen6 wrote: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.


You are sure that I will suffer in future because of my current belief system?

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.


That's what I'm saying, despite my belief system, my false views (according to you), I'm getting the same experience as you do and I'm getting it constantly, this means that this false belief system of mine is not acting as a cloud the cover the sun. It doesn't influence me anyhow. I think this speaks for itself, doesn't it?
Last edited by gen6 on Tue Nov 09, 2010 4:22 pm, edited 1 time 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 erbeeflower » Tue Nov 09, 2010 1:08 pm

very interesting.... :)
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?

Postby Kutso » Tue Nov 09, 2010 2:28 pm

gen6 wrote:Again, do you know a body with larynx attached on this planet, that will say, I am my mind or I am my body? No sane person will say every say or think this or identify himself/herself with his/her body or mind. This is just now how the brain works in regards to identification.


Ehm... Yes? All the people I know does this. I'm a bit confused. You don't think you are your body and mind?

gen6 wrote:You are sure that I will suffer in future because of my current belief system?


Sorry to say it, but yes. No doubt about it. :(
Not that. Not that. Not that. Not that. Not that. Not that. Not that. Not that.
User avatar
Kutso
 
Posts: 884
Joined: Tue Oct 30, 2007 6:27 pm
Location: Gothenburg, Sweden

Re: What Am I - What Are You?

Postby gen6 » Tue Nov 09, 2010 4:35 pm

gen6 wrote:Again, do you know a body with larynx attached on this planet, that will say, I am my mind or I am my body? No sane person will say every say or think this or identify himself/herself with his/her body or mind. This is just now how the brain works in regards to identification.


Kutso wrote:Ehm... Yes? All the people I know does this. I'm a bit confused. You don't think you are your body and mind?


Well of course I am not my body and mind? :lol: If I have to answer the question who am I most correctly it will be something like - I am combination of every action I do, every thought I have, everything I feel, everything that my brain produces as an impulse, my needs, the way I percieve the world around me, I am the human who developed in this environment influenced by all subjective and objective factors,everything, one huge combination. But that is only in case I am asked this question. What answer do you suggest? Actually, whatever the answer is , it doesn't really matter. I don't find anything wrong with my answer and it doesn't influence my anyhow, that's just a thought. When you ask a person who is he/she, you are basicaly forcing his/her brain to come up with an anwer, it's a dead end, one way question, who are you? So if you except an answer, you will get something like my answer most often, more simplifed or more detailed (depends how much the person has thought on this topic, who is he/she) I find the question , Who am I, who are you, useless anyway. Don't you? All the people you know say that they are their body when you ask them who are they? :lol:
You go to somebody you know and ask him , hey buddy, who are you ? He - I am my body ? :lol: or...I am my mind? Come on Kutso...are you sure?
Don't make me go out in the streets with a video camera and ask 30 random people who are they to actually show you what they will answer. Even if the answer is the body - LIke I am my body or my mind, it doesn't really matter, this doesn't mean that he/she actually identifies him/herself with the body literally or the mind, what you hear as an answer is just information coming from his/her brain, that's all, it doesn't influence anything , anyhow.


gen6 wrote:You are sure that I will suffer in future because of my current belief system?


Kutso wrote:Sorry to say it, but yes. No doubt about it. :(


Okay, I haven't suffered anyhow in months with it, also many other people I know haven't suffered from years with it and by I suffer I also mean any subtle suffering, everything that Ananda listed. But I guess you know better than me, let's wait and see :D
Last edited by gen6 on Tue Nov 09, 2010 4:50 pm, edited 1 time 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 Ananda » Tue Nov 09, 2010 4:49 pm

Hello gen6,

You claim to have experienced awareness through direct experience? Is that right?


It is what I am, of course.

Since you are human, your direct experience can be done only with the senses you have and with nothing else


This is circular reasoning. I have already showed that it is a fallacy to conflate the subject (awareness) with an object (the body). First you have to disprove this logically before you can then assert 'since you are a human' etc. Human is obviously referring to the body and I have already said that the Self is not arrived at through any object of knowledge. The senses are also an object of knowledge, therefore I did not experience awareness through the senses. Read the bottom of the quote you replied to;

that it does exist, however, is self-evident, as it is the witness, or subject, to which all objects are evident.


You know the mind because you are awareness. You know the senses because you are awareness. The senses do not know you, the mind does not know you- objects are not conscious, only the subject is. Negation of immediate objects reveals the self-evident awareness synonymous with one's nature.

If you don't believe in awareness nor even an idea of awareness, how come do you manage to speak for it, to write posts that include awareness as a word , as a concept, to try to make me have a direct experience of this awareness?


Because the existence of awareness is available for direct confirmation outside of any concept or belief in it, therefore we use words to go beyond words (pointers).

I think that since you had a direct experience of this you should later on believe in it and conceptualize in your mind, this is how mind works, otherwise you wouldn't be able to write posts about awareness is this forum, right?


We need words, concepts, to communicate with. There is no guidance, sharing, or teaching without concepts. I use words as a vehicle, not a destination. See what the words refer to in your immediate experience, test them.

I can say the same about my theory


Of course, all views can be tested in the same way, that is the beauty of it - unbiased and impartial. The outcome of testing, however, is not always the same, it depends on the strength of the view.

It seems illogical only from your point of view


Logic is unbiased, it doesn't care about my point of view.

you current conceptual system in your brain just disregards some facts


I've considered your facts reasonably and refuted them.

Splitting up awareness into parts and placing it inside the body does not present a single problem.


Okay, prove this. Also adress my point where I explain how it does pose a problem. You've just side stepped my response and then said 'Nope, no problem at all'. Ignoring a problem doesn't make it go away.

This identification with the body or the mind, just does not exist the way you think it exists


Okay, this is your assertion, now prove how this is true using logic and reasoning. Saying it is so does not make it so unless you can make a case for it. You also have to demonstrate how my view of it is false, saying it is false does not make it false.

that's an illusion you have created in your brain from there spring many other assumptions in your theory


This is nebulous, and is not a reasonable argument. You haven't demonstrated how any of my 'theory' contains assumptions yet, you've asserted it but not given any evidence. Everything I say can be tested reasonably, so test it, don't just say it's false because it contains assumptions, that is fallacious reasoning.

Well it doesn't work for me, it doesn't bring any negativism and lead towards any negative action or thought for me


If this is true, then you have not experienced any negative action or thought in your entire life. Which is false.

Everything you suggest comes from the idea that we identify something that is called the Self as the body. That's an illusion.


Demonstrate how it is an illusion. Adress my view in the same way I adress yours- using proper reasoning and critical thinking. I have already demonstrated how it is very obvious that the Self is constantly conflated with objects, now prove this wrong before simply concluding that it is false.

What's wrong with the ownership thing? Nothing negative there nor it can provoke anything negative in future.


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.


Please read through my posts properly as you might miss some details which already provide an answer for your questions.


Again, it's only a fact for me


See;

You've confused yourself with objects that you experience therefore your statement seems factual and perfectly sound to you


and

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.




it does only according to your theory and the way you explain how things are


And my theory is in accord with direct experience and reasoning, so it can be tested and validly applied.

there are certain illusions in your theory that make it such (i.e. not valid)


Yes, this is your claim, haven't proven it yet.

because it just doesn't work for me..and for most people ,they are absolutely alright and happy and content even if they know the fact , that you are not me, I am not you, this guy's hand is not my leg


Have you tested it? Have you inquired into your direct experience, and tested it against what I say, and have you tested it against what you say? Saying my explantions are false because you don't like them, or because it just 'doesn't work' for you does not make what I say false, it just means you are unwilling or unable to accomodate what I say into your experience at the moment. Saying 'this guy's hand is not my leg' proves all of my previous statements regarding the identification of the subject (awareness) with objects of knowledge; you've just revealed that you do infact take the Self to be the body and thus the idea of individuality arises from that. Thanks for proving my arguments, every body does. :)


That's perfectly alright with billions of humans. I think that speaks for itself. And there's nothing wrong to refer to an object here.


It's perfectly alright to say that bodies are individual, one body is not another, one arm is not the leg of another. Yes, that's fine. But the body is an object of knowledge, so it is still fallacious when referring it to 'I'.

There is no Self to conflate with something, where do you find this Self


The Self is the awareness in and by which all objects are known. It is your essential identity, it cannot be non-existent, as a subject is necessary to know things both existing and non-existing. You cannot possibly refute the Self, as I have demonstrated time and time again on this forum, it is self-evident and can never be denied. If you want to have a look where I have discussed this previously, then have a look at my post history.

Bodily identification, this just does not exist, it's an illusion.


You have yourself proven it exists when you said 'this guy's hand is not my leg', and also when you denied that such statements as 'I am thin' etc relate to bodily identification and I refuted you. I've also demonstrated how it exists again and again in this thread, and others.

Come on, you know it's just language, right? What should I say, no body on this planet instead of no person on this planet? Or no flesh and bones with larynx attached on this planet will say etc etc. ? That's funny.


I said the convention of saying he/she can be overlooked as it is necessary when communicating with (assumed) others. However, when you explicity say that you don't know of any others who would say he/she is the body then you are already implying that the Self is the body, otherwise there is no ground for saying 'I don't know of any others who would say he/she is the body'.


This whole thing about the bodily identification, it only exists in your conceptual system in order to be able to explain some things, your conceptual system cannot exist without the bodily , mind identifications.


I have tested the idea of bodily identification with observation, direct experience, and logical reasoning and it checks out. I've also presented the idea using some of those methods in this thread. You need to disprove the idea in the same way in order to say that it is false and/or an illusion, otherwise you are just making unsupported claims.

Again, do you know a body with larynx attached on this planet, that will say, I am my mind or I am my body?


Every single body I have ever personally met says this. Every single one. Not one mind have I ever known in person has ever not identified the subject with objects. If you reread my previous statement about this, and then observe anybody, you will find out that they all do it;

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

I replied;

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.


It is said either 'Yes, I am my body, this is me, it's who I am' or 'I am the attributes of my body, ie I am fat, thin, ugly, stupid, pregnant, old' etc. You'd have to be barking mad or extremely ignorant to deny that bodily identification is completely omnipresent in human society.

No sane person will say every say or think this or identify himself/herself with his/her body or mind


Then there are very few sane persons in the world.


Whatever I say, it doesn't mean bodily identification, as I explained above there is no such thing as bodily identification


This is arguing in a circle. I have already proven how what you are saying does equate to bodily identification. You have not 'explained' how there is no such thing as bodily identification, you've either ignored what I've said or fallaciously 'explained' it away. Adress my responses logically or your claims go unsupported. Simply saying 'Whatever I say doesn't mean bodily identification' is ignoring how I've demonstrated that it does, you're just moving the goalpoasts and then fallaciously reasserting your premise.

I would love you to prove me that there is such thing as a bodily identification.


Reread my posts, read the last paragraph from the previous post I just quoted. I have proven that there is bodily identification, you are simply ignoring the evidence I do give and then asking for more.

And please, here we come again to this pesky little language - ,,I am thin,, ? What is wrong with that? When you hear a a body with larynx attached say - ,,I am thin,, , do you put this body with larynx attached into a category - bodily identified?


'I' refers to the subject, the awareness, not to any object arrived at by a means of knowledge. The body is an object of knowledge, as are its attributes. To say 'I am thin' is confusing awareness with the contents of awareness, it is msitaking the independent subject with the objects of knowledge viz the body and its attributes (thinness etc).

It is not the body that identifies with the body in the statement 'I am thin' because the body is an object of knowledge, it is known; the body is inert apart from the conscious subject by which it is known. No object is conscious or known without the subject being present to illuminate it, the subject's reflection on the intellect is 'I'- what 'I' refers to is always the conscious being, the awareness, never some object known that is known. No objects are conscious or aware, only the subject is. Your question is fallacious because it already identifies the subject as an object and therefore the premise is faulty to begin with, it is much more than a language problem.

I can say the same think about myself, same experience different explanations.


And I have been refuting your explanations for your experience thus they are not reasonable.

You are sure that I will suffer in future because of my current belief system?


Everybody has suffered, is suffering, or will suffer. Erroneous beliefs can limit one's potential and add to suffering.

That's what I'm saying, despite my belief system, my false views (according to you), I'm getting the same experience as you do and I'm getting it constantly, this means that this false belief system of mine is not acting as a cloud the cover the sun. It doesn't influence me anyhow


It means your views are in dissonance with your experience. Your direct experience may be the same regardless of your views because if your experience is genuine then the mind may have ceased, therefore all views are temporarily removed. I'm not questioning the validity of your experience here, whatever that may be, I'm just questioning the way in which you interpret and explain your experience because your explanations aren't watertight. I think we can both agree that our views should agree with our direct experience and even come from or be informed by it- not come from conditioned or assumed ideas about who and what we are, because our assumptions tend to be illogical, overlooked and unquestioned.

I hope we can maintain civility in this discussion, thanks.




Hello karmarider,

There can't be honesty or direct experience or openness or evolution if there is accumulated knowledge.


Do you not think it's presumptious to rule out direct experience or openness coexisting with knowledge? Have you not considered that the views we have here are our way of explaining what we have already experienced directly? We need words to make sense of what we know, be it through either accumulated knowledge or direct experience.

If what you say is true, and 'there can't be honesty or direct experience etc if there is accumulated knowledge', then all teachers are false teachers and there are no teachers that are enlightened, because they also must speak in terms of concepts and accumulated knowledge in order to explain direct experience. If what you say is true then all the teachers, all the teachings, all the books and scriptures are not coming from a place of direct experience or honesty and none are enlightened. I think we can agree that this view is absurd at best and slanderous at worst.

There are great traditions of debate within all schools of enlightenment teaching, and as I said in a previous thread one size doesn't fit all - so if debate doesn't work for you that's fine, just don't get involved by adding nothing to the discussion.

:)
Last edited by Ananda on Tue Nov 09, 2010 4:59 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Ananda
 
Posts: 949
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 10:35 am
Location: Manchester, England

Re: What Am I - What Are You?

Postby Kutso » Tue Nov 09, 2010 4:58 pm

gen6 wrote: I find the question , Who am I, who are you, useless anyway. Don't you?


No, I actually don't think it's useless. It has helped me a lot.

gen6 wrote:You go to somebody you know and ask him , hey buddy, who are you ? He - I am my body ? or...I am my mind? Come on Kutso...are you sure?


It's not that I've asked people "who are you?", because most often they would answer to such a question with a name. However, I have asked a few people I know if they think they are their body. And all of them has answered yes on this question.
I wanted to know your answer to this, but obviously your answer is "I don't know", which is fine. I am satisfied with this answer.

gen6 wrote:Okay, I haven't suffered anyhow in months with it, also many other people I know haven't suffered from years with it and by I suffer I also mean any subtle suffering, everything that Ananda listed. But I guess you know better than me, let's wait and see


Ofcourse I can't be certain that you will suffer again. But from what I read from your posts I'm fairly certain you will. But that's ofcourse just my interpretation of it.
Not that. Not that. Not that. Not that. Not that. Not that. Not that. Not that.
User avatar
Kutso
 
Posts: 884
Joined: Tue Oct 30, 2007 6:27 pm
Location: Gothenburg, Sweden

Re: What Am I - What Are You?

Postby gen6 » Tue Nov 09, 2010 5:21 pm

Kutso wrote:
gen6 wrote:You go to somebody you know and ask him , hey buddy, who are you ? He - I am my body ? or...I am my mind? Come on Kutso...are you sure?


It's not that I've asked people "who are you?", because most often they would answer to such a question with a name. However, I have asked a few people I know if they think they are their body. And all of them has answered yes on this question.
I wanted to know your answer to this, but obviously your answer is "I don't know", which is fine. I am satisfied with this answer.


It's not I don't know. Please read carefully - If I have to answer the question who am I most correctly it will be something like - I am combination of every action I do, every thought I have, everything I feel, everything that my brain produces as an impulse, my needs, the way I perceive the world around me, I am the human who developed in this environment influenced by all subjective and objective factors,everything, one huge combination.
Furthermore as I said even if the answer is the body - Like I am my body or my mind, it doesn't really matter, this doesn't mean that he/she actually identifies him/herself with the body literally or the mind, what you hear as an answer is just information coming from his/her brain, that's all, it doesn't influence anything , anyhow. Furthermore, when you ask the question Do you think you are your body - The answer Yes I am, is not incorrect, it's just incomplete, the body is part of the huge combination. So they have answered your correctly. If you also ask them - do you think you are what you do, how you view the world etc etc, if you ask them everything that I listed in my answer, they will most probably answer again , Yes I do. I think this is enough on this topic.

gen6 wrote:Okay, I haven't suffered anyhow in months with it, also many other people I know haven't suffered from years with it and by I suffer I also mean any subtle suffering, everything that Ananda listed. But I guess you know better than me, let's wait and see


Kutso wrote:Of course I can't be certain that you will suffer again. But from what I read from your posts I'm fairly certain you will. But that's of course just my interpretation of it.


Hehe, ok :)
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 Ananda » Tue Nov 09, 2010 5:41 pm

Hello, if I may interject and elucidate where Kutso didn't;

Well of course I am not my body and mind? If I have to answer the question who am I most correctly it will be something like - I am combination of every action I do, every thought I have, everything I feel, everything that my brain produces as an impulse, my needs, the way I percieve the world around me, I am the human who developed in this environment influenced by all subjective and objective factors,everything, one huge combination.


To say 'of course I am not my body and mind' and then say the rest of that quote is a direct contradiction. I'll show you why, and this will hopefully clarify what I've been saying by bodily identification.

I= Subject, you, awareness.

I am combination of every action I do


Actions are known, they are objects of knowledge.

Action is performed by the body so immediately there is a contradiction. The quote also contradicts itself, since it says 'I am a combination' of actions 'I do' , therefore it is basically saying something like ' I exist and become existent by the actions I perform', it doesn't even make sense because existence is assumed a priori in order to 'do' anything, therefore how can the 'I' be a product of combined actions?

So, with the first quote it is equating the Self with actions performed by the body, therefore equating the Self with the body and/or its attributes, thus conflating the subject I with an object of knowledge.

every thought I have


Thoughts are known, they are objects of knowledge.

Thinking belongs to the brain which is a part of body. Therefore your statement equates the Self with the body and/or its attributes, thus conflating the subject I with an object of knowledge.

everything I feel


Feelings (sense perception/emotions) are known, they are objects of knowledge.

Feeling in relation to sense perception and/or emotion belongs to the body, therefore your statement equates the Self with the body and/or its attributes, thus conflating the subject I with an object of knowledge.

everything that my brain produces as an impulse


Impulses are known either directly or indirectly by their effects on the body, they are objects of knowledge.

Impulses in the brain are a part of the body, therefore your statement equates the Self with the body and/or its attributes, thus conflating the subject I with an object of knowledge.

my needs


Needs are known due to knowing the condition of the body, needs are objects of knowledge.

Needs are intrinsic to the body because it requires things for its survival, therefore your statement equates the Self with the body, thus conflating the subject I with an object of knowledge.

the way I percieve the world around me


Subjective experience is known to you, subjective experience is an object of knowledge.

The way you perceive the world is determined by the subjective experience of the body produced by the presence of the senses, mind (memory, intellect, thinking, imagination etc), and the three states of waking, dream and dreamless sleep- therefore your statement equates the Self with the body, thus conflating the subject I with an object of knowledge.

I am the human who developed in this environment influenced by all subjective and objective factors,everything, one huge combination


Development such as growth of the body and/or increase in mental capacity is known, development is an objects of knowledge. Your environment is an object of knowledge.

To say ' I am the human who developed in this environment' implies both growth and change over time (which is only possible for objects) and also being bound or located in space, which again infers the identification of the Self with the body, thus conflating the subject I with an object of knowledge.

If you say ' no, no, I am not the body or the mind, I am the complete combination of everything that I experience' then I have to say that the body and the mind are composed of a combination of parts, all of which you experience, and all of which you have identified with in your 'most correct answer' at the beginning of my post. Therefore you contradict yourself when you say that you do not equate yourself with the body because I have demonstrated that you definitely do. To then suggest that it's still valid, still okay to equate the two is to ignore the subject/object problem and basically to hold on to a false idea and shirk further inquiry into who you are.

My post might seem excessively pedantic but i'm trying to get across that even if a person doesn't outright say 'I am this body' it is still completely implied by the answer that is given that there is identification with the body. It seems common sense to everyone that the body is an object of knowledge, we even say ' my body' as if we are distinct from it and own it - but nobody bothers to look at this more closely so they still end up identifying with it in some way or another, be it through the attributes of the body or the experience the body has.

It is lack of inquiry into this fundamental question that is the cause of so much ignorance and all the troubles that come with it.

I find the question , Who am I, who are you, useless anyway. Don't you?


It is very revealing and should definitely be asked if ignorance should be removed :)

All the people you know say that they are their body when you ask them who are they?


You have just said the same, every answer you gave implied it, even if you aren't aware that you did..

LIke I am my body or my mind, it doesn't really matter, this doesn't mean that he/she actually identifies him/herself with the body literally or the mind, what you hear as an answer is just information coming from his/her brain, that's all, it doesn't influence anything , anyhow.


A false answer doesn't make it any less false, but in terms of understanding and experiencing who one really is then of course it matters that the body is continually mistaken to be the Self. Ignorance is no substitute for knowledge. :)


ps; you might like to split your paragraphs up into consumable chunks, I got in trouble for that recently. :lol:
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 » Tue Nov 09, 2010 6:37 pm

Kutso wrote:
karmarider wrote:It's certainly fun for the mind to accumulate, debate, prove and vanquish. But that's not experience.


Not experience? Kindly explain.


It's not the direct experience of looking.

Kutso wrote:
karmarider wrote: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.


Why is that? Isn't what you are saying here a theory of your own that totally contradict itself?


That's very clever. But mental gymnastics have nothing to do with actual looking.

Kutso wrote:
Webwanderer wrote:I can't agree with your presumptions here. A theory isn't sealed in concrete. By its very nature a theory has room for growth as knowledge and insight add to understanding.


I agree with Webwanderer here. A theory is not the same as a belief taken as fact.


That sounds wonderful.

Kutso wrote:
karmarider wrote:Yes, that's one point of view and I don't want to debate or refute, but I will present another point of view, if there is openness to it, and that is simply that the power of these theories does not come from what is behind the theories, but rather from the ego's will to survive.


Is this your theory? Then by your own words we should discard it, since it comes in the way of truth.


Again, you're trying for clever mental gymnastics.

Let me just completely concede here and say that you win! Your mental gymnastics are clever, articulate, logical, unassailable and impressive.

But they have nothing to do with looking.
karmarider
 
Posts: 2141
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2009 8:00 pm
Location: Florida

Re: What Am I - What Are You?

Postby garuda » Tue Nov 09, 2010 6:59 pm

Webwanderer wrote: ..... logic is that it helps break through the mental concepts that can lock us into a rigid point of view that limits the full potential of our understanding. Yes it's more mind stuff, but it's also one type of thorn to remove another thorn..... Openness is a personal thing that should be under constant review.

I agree with this. I think various practice techniques work the same way. We use one technique to dissolve an unwanted mental defilement. Then we must use another (better) technique to dissolve the collateral mental smudges that first technique inadvertently created, while also using the second technique to address another mental defilement. I too see this as WW’s thorn-thorn thing. And we work our way up ladder gradually, dissolving each defilement (each layer as WW refers to) and at the same time reversing the collateral damage that the last technique necessarily created. Eventually the techniques become worthless and no longer needed, but our clarity should be reviewed continuously, especially if we are exposed to toxic environments that tend to disturb our equanimity. And that is likely pretty much everywhere nowadays.

karmarider wrote: .....if there is openness to it, and that is simply that the power of these theories does not come from what is behind the theories, but rather from the ego's will to survive.

Karma, I’m not certain that I understand your meaning here. But strictly in terms of the ego-aspect — doesn’t this depend on the ego’s innermost motive? So hopefully, it’s trying to implement some deeper insight by examining carefully what the theory is pointing to, and to a lesser degree on what the theory is based upon (invoking its own ego-gratifying trickery). In other words, if the ego gratification or survival is the primary and dominate innermost motive (and not buffered by some clarity of Consciousness) for pursuing the theories, then of course you may be correct in assuming it’s another ego strategy. But not everybody falls for that ego trick.

Granted, it’s difficult to escape the ego entirely in the beginning and middle stages, because we are using the ego itself to see through the falsity of that same ego (until pure awareness-Consciousness if experienced directly). So it’s tricky in a certain sense. But as WW points out, we hopefully utilize the aspects for which the theory was intended, to cut through the layers of delusion and distortions in our understanding. Hence our clarity increases and identification with ego tendencies decreases.

Once we see the ego for what it truly is, then its power is subverted by the clarity of formless Consciousness. Then we can use certain aspects of what some would consider the ego, in productive ways — and without the old raging ego dominating us. Some might call this ego dissolution, while others may call this positive use of a subverted, subordinate ego. For the average person, I think this hinges on whether one identifies with the formless Consciousness and uses thoughts (and ego aspects) as a tool, or whether one identifies more strongly with ego and uses “un-awakened sense consciousness” as an unconscious tool to negotiate with his everyday world of forms.
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 7:07 pm

Ananda wrote:Hello karmarider,

There can't be honesty or direct experience or openness or evolution if there is accumulated knowledge.


Do you not think it's presumptious to rule out direct experience or openness coexisting with knowledge?


No. If you look with concepts that's what you'll find.

Ananda wrote:If what you say is true, and 'there can't be honesty or direct experience etc if there is accumulated knowledge', then all teachers are false teachers and there are no teachers that are enlightened, because they also must speak in terms of concepts and accumulated knowledge in order to explain direct experience. If what you say is true then all the teachers, all the teachings, all the books and scriptures are not coming from a place of direct experience or honesty and none are enlightened. I think we can agree that this view is absurd at best and slanderous at worst.


That's not my view. There are plenty of enlightened teachers who teach direct looking.

As far as the scriptures, they haven't had much success in enlightening people. They're pretty good at creating ideas about Truth, and theories and traditions. Tolle, Adyanshanti, Jed McKenna, and some others seem to have better success. But of course I don't know that statistically.

Ananda wrote:There are great traditions of debate within all schools of enlightenment teaching, and as I said in a previous thread one size doesn't fit all - so if debate doesn't work for you that's fine, just don't get involved by adding nothing to the discussion.


I don't. I haven't read any of the mental gymnastics expounded here. Just the stuff directed at me.
Last edited by karmarider on Tue Nov 09, 2010 7:10 pm, edited 2 times in total.
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