dijmart wrote:Enlightened2B wrote:While I don't fully resonate with the emptiness teachings in the regards to the no self (granted, I agree with the no-ego self)
I respectfully ask, what's their difference for you? To me I see none.
There really isn't and yet there is as I see it. It's a matter of context I would say which is so valuable in these types of discussions.
The way I see it and it's really only my own view based on my own experience, is that our physical experience will always be limited. Ego is a "limited view". It's merely an identification with thought in creating a 'separate' self, that never was truly separate outside of the perception that believed it to be as such for however long it perceived it as such.
Meaning, in my own experience, when I allow, and allow thoughts and anything and everything to arise and fall away without resistance, there's just I AM or AMness/Existence. The story of E2B falls away and there's just Being, just Love and nothing at all, but Love. No separation. Unconditional Love is all there is and that is what I truly AM beyond thought. After all, how can I not be? Everything merely just IS as it IS. Only true Love could possibly allow all to exist in its right as it is. I AM that ISness, that space, that allows and allows and allows as my nature. When I believe myself to be an aspect of my experience, I become that aspect through perception. I AM is the unconditional father that allows all of its children to simply Be as they are, all experiences valid as they are and I, as this Unconditional Love, learn about MYSelf, through my children (manifestations). But, most importantly, there is still....Being/I AM, but without identification with thought to label that I AM as something separate from another aspect of my experience.
So, the self we believe ourselves to be via thought is seemingly not real when examined closely. It's just thoughts and really not much else, but.....thoughts.
But, on the other hand to claim there is no Self at all, but to claim that experience still happens, doesn't resonate with me. How can there be experience without an experiencER? Of course that doesn't mean there is a separate person experiencing, or an anthropormorphic entity,or a separate being, but instead Being/Existence itself is experiencER and experience itself. All That IS is Being, Eternal Now, experiencing, learning and knowing itself and growing in an evolutionary process.
Logical reductionism which I find quite limited is often used to deny the Self, but ironically, is coming from the human mind alone, which already is limited and simply can't grasp the larger picture from its own limited point of view in a dimension of time/space. We might awaken from thought based identification, but there's only so much we can possibly know from these limited human vehicles alone about our true nature other than Love itself, because there is only NOW. There is far too much evidence for me, that there most certainly is a Self/I AM/Being experiencing everything in possible existence (far beyond our own universe) through every possible vantage point in learning about ItSelf and knowing ItSelf, through its individual manifestations which (from its own mind) are ultimately unreal as well, but still existing far beyond death of the human body.
So, just because there is no 'person' or 'separate being' experiencing or 'doing' anything, doesn't mean that I AM is NOT. As I see it, everything is Being. Everything is I AM. Being....being human, being tree, molecule, bacterium, etc. Granted, it's thought identification which divides it up, and perceives itself to be separate, these experiences still are and still hold as much value as our human experience.
Yet, even this is saying too much.
To reference something smileyJen said in another thread:
Being physically awake one has the capacity for awareness /consciousness, it doesn't mean that that is the totality of consciousness though.
Consciousness itself is what we plug into.
Of course this is just my own limited take as always.