In defense of the "I"

[goldisheavy]

To the OP, if you're still there.... Question for you - if the mind is the chooser, who or what is it that is making the choice? Look at that for a while. You don't need to get rid of anything. Just look at it, see it for what it is.

 

And the flip side: who or what is choiceless? Never forget the flip side!

 

I think that some of us feel somehow that we are not seeing the whole picture. We start to search for something. That something leads us to question all that we hold dear, all of our stability and security. If you have enough energy and seriousness, you will inevitably become uncomfortable with what you find.

 

Yes. If you follow the straight road you eventually come to a fork in the road. Once you make your choice, you can be on a straight road again, for a very long time. In other words, calamity is not the end.

 

At some point, the recognition occurs that "I" am simply a construct of societal, cultural, parental conditioning and conventions. We start to see through all of the bullshit and lies and hypocrisy. We choose to let all of that go and then realize that there is nothing left. No security. No stability. No rules and conventions. Unchartered territory. Liberation! Some of us will find solace in ritual, dogma, sutras, or scripture. Still conditioning. Let it all go and see for yourself - I think you are doing that.

 

I like how you put this. However, is liberation a deconstruction of ritual or is it becoming responsible for the ritual, where dismantling is one option, change is another, and conscious status quo is yet another option? For liberation to be real, deconstruction must be "on the table" as they say, but is deconstruction of convention alone what liberation is?

 

If you are frightened, you are probably seeing things more clearly than most. At some point you may also see that there is something more that allows you to again feel secure and at peace despite a complete lack of any real security or stability. And who you are is always still there, it's just that you get to choose when to play the game and when to be free of it.

 

As has been said, you no longer have the choice to just go back. You can try but you've gotten a glimpse of truth and it will stick with you. It won't always be uncomfortable though, I think that is just a transition.

 

Good luck to you!

 

_/\_

 

I love what you're saying here. I would say that, as crazy as it sounds, you can "go back" so to speak. But going back will be a similar kind of path, with similar commitment as going forward has been. Backward and forward... funny words. No one is stuck. I disagree with whoever says that withered flowers cannot bloom again.

[goldisheavy]

Second, the perception of physicality is not ultimately real.

 

And there you go telling the whole world that you do not ultimately exist. This is so lame it is close to being pathetic. Everything that has ever been manifested is now, or was at one point in time absolutely real. Maybe you are not real but "I" damn sure am real at this point in time. Will "I" live forever? Hell no. But I am real while I am real - I cannot be otherwise. The earth rotates around the sun - it cannot do otherwise. This is the reality of the moment.

 

It seems you equate physicality with existence. Bad mistake. What is physicality to you? I have a feeling that you rely on a non-standard definition of physicality. When I appear as a dream body inside a dream, do I exist, even though the dream contents are not physical?

 

You can think of me what you want, but I still think you're greatly deluded.

[nac]

Okay. I agree with this but I also disagree with it. How do you like that?

Love it! Okay, which part(s) do you agree with, and with which do you disagree?

 

The feeling of self-hood is a subjective phenomenon that arises in our minds because of conditions such as the way our minds and bodies are constructed, our environment, worldview, etc. While it shouldn't be ignored or suppressed, I see no reason to attach undue importance to it. Spiritual practice that helps us overcome our fixation on the self isn't the same as simply losing awareness of it, or something like that.

Edited November 3, 2009 by nac

[xabir2005]

Hmm yes I see what you are saying here. The I in actuality is not existent, not non existent, not both and not neither. So really, truly, nothing can be said about it in the end. So the "I", the doer, the controller since all these or the notions of these arise dependently on causes and conditions they have never been any of the four extremes. So to say they were originally in any of the four extremes would be wrong. Best not to say anything. That feels more free to me than just simply to say "it is and always has been non existent."

Yes, everything we experience dependently originates. To say 'it does not exist' still implies a real entity that can exist or not exist, or something that can first exist and later stop existing (i.e. the view of annihilation), etc.

 

When we see that the 'self' is just a sky flower, appearing yet without substance, notions of it's existence and non-existence, etc, gets thrown out of the window.

Edited November 3, 2009 by xabir2005

[Marblehead]

 

Your attachment to your perception through the 5 senses is a tall tail illusion that only seems real due to various causes and conditions of trained identity. Sure it's real, but only relatively. Never ultimately.

 

And, of course, this is your opinion and I must say, I too have my opinions.

 

Yep. I am attached to the input I recieve from my 5 senses. I love them, each and every one of them. Even the pain I experience without suffering.

 

I'm not sure about 'only relative' but I do agree with 'never ultimate'. I have yet to find an absolute except for the concept of change.

 

I do indeed like your usage of the word 'your' though. With that word you are pointing to the me "I".

 

Peace & Love!

[Vajrahridaya]

 

I do indeed like your usage of the word 'your' though. With that word you are pointing to the me "I".

 

Peace & Love!

 

Oh, you funny bag of personality... ok then.

 

I mean relative as in you absolutely only exist because everyone who seems to exist, does so interconnected with you as you are to them... through an endless array of causation without discernible static nature. Eh?

 

Change is the spice of life anyway... even in death do you never part from impermanence.

[Marblehead]

It seems you equate physicality with existence. Bad mistake. What is physicality to you? I have a feeling that you rely on a non-standard definition of physicality. When I appear as a dream body inside a dream, do I exist, even though the dream contents are not physical?

 

You can think of me what you want, but I still think you're greatly deluded.

 

Hi GIH,

 

I respect you and your opinions. It is just that sometimes we have different opinions on specific subjects. This does not make either of us wrong - only different. And I am sure you don't want to be me and I am sure I don't want to be you.

 

Yes, I equate 'my' existence with 'my' physicality. You say this is a bad mistake. I say it is no mistake at all. We disagree on this point.

 

This should have been very clear because V. has mentioned this to me at least seven times and each time he has mentioned it I have suggested that it is more likely that he is deluded.

 

I rely on 'my' own standard of physicality. I do not rely on what others say.

 

If "I" do not exist "I" cannot dream. It is just that simple in my mind. If "I" do not exist "I" can do nothing. The fact that "I" can dream is an indicator that "I" exist. The fact that "I" am placing "my" fingers on this keyboard and pressing various keys is an indicator that "I" exist. However, I can dream, both while awake and while sleeping and imagine all sorts of things. Yes, imagine! That is the important word: imagine! We should not confuse our imagination with our reality. This is called being delusional.

 

And it is just fine that "you" have the opinion that "I" am greatly deluded. But "you" should understand that "your" opinion has absolutely nothing to do with "my" reality.

 

So there "you" go.

 

BTW I do like the way you used the word "I" in this phrase: but I still think you're greatly deluded.

 

Peace & Love!

[Vajrahridaya]

Hi GIH,

 

I respect you and your opinions. It is just that sometimes we have different opinions on specific subjects. This does not make either of us wrong - only different. And I am sure you don't want to be me and I am sure I don't want to be you.

 

Yes, I equate 'my' existence with 'my' physicality. You say this is a bad mistake. I say it is no mistake at all. We disagree on this point.

 

This should have been very clear because V. has mentioned this to me at least seven times and each time he has mentioned it I have suggested that it is more likely that he is deluded.

 

I rely on 'my' own standard of physicality. I do not rely on what others say.

 

If "I" do not exist "I" cannot dream. It is just that simple in my mind. If "I" do not exist "I" can do nothing. The fact that "I" can dream is an indicator that "I" exist. The fact that "I" am placing "my" fingers on this keyboard and pressing various keys is an indicator that "I" exist. However, I can dream, both while awake and while sleeping and imagine all sorts of things. Yes, imagine! That is the important word: imagine! We should not confuse our imagination with our reality. This is called being delusional.

 

And it is just fine that "you" have the opinion that "I" am greatly deluded. But "you" should understand that "your" opinion has absolutely nothing to do with "my" reality.

 

So there "you" go.

 

BTW I do like the way you used the word "I" in this phrase: but I still think you're greatly deluded.

 

Peace & Love!

Ah.. thus the lust for true and personal existence goes on, and thus the possibility of future suffering... all is relative.. that is it.

[Marblehead]

Oh, you funny bag of personality... ok then.

 

I mean relative as in you absolutely only exist because everyone who seems to exist, does so interconnected with you as you are to them... through an endless array of causation without discernible static nature. Eh?

 

Change is the spice of life anyway... even in death do you never part from impermanence.

 

Hehehe. I knew what you meant. It is just that we have different understanding concerning different concepts and I really want to make sure that you understand that I have not changed my understanding on hardly anything since I have been a member of this forum.

 

Yep. If there was no Earth I would not exist so I exist only relative to the existence of the Earth. But I can exist without you. Hehehe. Sorry V., but you just are not relative to my existence.

 

Peace & Love!

 

 

Ah.. thus the lust for true and personal existence goes on, and thus the possibility of future suffering... all is relative.. that is it.

 

Ah! .. but I lust not! I only experience my personal existence. I gave up suffering a long time ago. Yes, I suppose that there is a possibility that I might one day again suffer - I might convert to Buddhism! That would be cause for great suffering. (But I doubt it very much that I will convert. Hehehe.)

 

Peace & Love!

[Marblehead]

Love it! Okay, which part(s) do you agree with, and with which do you disagree?

 

The feeling of self-hood is a subjective phenomenon that arises in our minds because of conditions such as the way our minds and bodies are constructed, our environment, worldview, etc. While it shouldn't be ignored or suppressed, I see no reason to attach undue importance to it. Spiritual practice that helps us overcome our fixation on the self isn't the same as simply losing awareness of it, or something like that.

 

Hehehe. Okay, let's go back to your post:

 

If we analyze at it scientifically, we can see that the relative "I" is not a clearly self-existent thing, but a combination of it's various components and related phenomena. Just as cars don't need an additional quality of car-ness to function as long as it's parts are in place, beings don't need an additional soul or relative self to be people. The question of ultimate self is, of course, different in every tradition.

 

No, I cannot put my finger on a thing called "I". "I" is indeed a collection of all the parts that currently exist. If we cut off one of my legs what remains will still be this "I" that I cannot put my finger on. But, when any one of my vital organs stop functioning I will become what is known as 'dead'. It is at this point, and this point only that "I" will no longer exist because I will have lost me true essence which is the life force of Chi. The body will rot and become parts of other essences. I do not know what will become of my true essence, the energy of Chi. I suspect that it will return to the Mystery and may or may not be reused in some other life form.

 

But what I am is stuff that existed in different form before I was born and what I will be after death I have absolutely no Idea and I see no way of understanding what any of it is, was, or shall be so I just don't bother myself with the thoughts.

 

How'd I do?

 

Peace & Love!

[nac]

Hehehe. Okay, let's go back to your post:

 

If we analyze at it scientifically, we can see that the relative "I" is not a clearly self-existent thing, but a combination of it's various components and related phenomena. Just as cars don't need an additional quality of car-ness to function as long as it's parts are in place, beings don't need an additional soul or relative self to be people. The question of ultimate self is, of course, different in every tradition.

 

No, I cannot put my finger on a thing called "I". "I" is indeed a collection of all the parts that currently exist. If we cut off one of my legs what remains will still be this "I" that I cannot put my finger on. But, when any one of my vital organs stop functioning I will become what is known as 'dead'. It is at this point, and this point only that "I" will no longer exist because I will have lost me true essence which is the life force of Chi. The body will rot and become parts of other essences. I do not know what will become of my true essence, the energy of Chi. I suspect that it will return to the Mystery and may or may not be reused in some other life form.

 

But what I am is stuff that existed in different form before I was born and what I will be after death I have absolutely no Idea and I see no way of understanding what any of it is, was, or shall be so I just don't bother myself with the thoughts.

 

How'd I do?

 

Peace & Love!

The way I see it, "you" never existed to begin with. When our components become too rusty to continue their harmonious functioning, the body becomes clinically dead. Sometimes we come back to life again when the heart is kicked back into action by a sudden surge of energy, but that's very rare. If it takes too long, certain chemical reactions and microorganisms set in which render our organic components unusable. It's like the rusting of a car, only it happens much faster. Cryogenics can slow down this process of degeneration, and once science figures out to set the organs back into motion artificially, we'll be able to breathe souls back into corpses. (as long as they're not too far gone)

 

If you want to call the co-dependent functioning of bodily organs the "I", then clocks have a kind of life too. Harmonic motion isn't a form of "energy" nor is it mysterious, it's a matter of conditions being set just right for the desirable type of self-perpetuating animation to take place. The system occasionally needs a renewal of fresh energy from an external source. For us, that's eating and breathing, for a pendulum, yet another push. (the matter in our bodies needs constant replacement from food sources too) Machines may lack minds like ours, but cars, clocks and pendulums have only relative selves like us, while ultimately, motion & functioning is caused by their components and related conditions. So from the ultimate view, selves or "essences" of artificial machinery are illusory just like ours. While we have minds and bodies, a machine consists of the praxis and it's manifestation in the form of an interlocking arrangement of physical phenomena. Disperse or randomize the assorted phenomena, and only the praxis remains, a purely mental phenomenon. The main difference is that our construction and "praxis" are a lot more complicated.

Edited November 3, 2009 by nac

[Marblehead]

The way I see it, "you" never existed to begin with.

 

Hehehe. I guess we will just have to agree to disagree on this one.

 

I do understand what you are saying, it is just that I don't agree. (And, of course, this puts me at odds with all Buddhists, but then you can ask me if I care if you don't already know what kind of response I would offer.)

 

Peace & Love!

[xabir2005]

As long as you cannot pinpoint an essence 'I', there is only the 'collection' so to speak.

 

The "I" is not refering to a truly existing, independent thing but only a convention, like the name 'car' is labelled on the many parts joined together for a particular function but cannot be found in or apart from those parts. There is no car-ness of car, the car is dependent on all the factors and is without essence.

[nac]

I do understand what you are saying, it is just that I don't agree.

What I'm interested in is, why not? My view appears reasonable and entirely justified to me. We do have selves in a relative sense, but these simply don't hold up as true existents at the ultimate level of analysis.

 

It's not because this outlook seems depressing or pessimistic, right?

[Sunya]

What I'm interested in is, why not?

 

the mark of an idiot: he will hold on.. and keeping holding on... even when the futility of it all has been pointed out to him, he will still hold on simply for the sake of holding on. can't let go, man! can't let go! well that'll just be...crazy! and i'm sane, damn it! i'm real!

[Fruitzilla]

As long as you cannot pinpoint an essence 'I', there is only the 'collection' so to speak.

 

The "I" is not refering to a truly existing, independent thing but only a convention, like the name 'car' is labelled on the many parts joined together for a particular function but cannot be found in or apart from those parts. There is no car-ness of car, the car is dependent on all the factors and is without essence.

 

As long as it honks like a car, and drives like one, I'll call it a car.

Just because something is a verb, doesn't mean it has to convey a undividable essence. Sometimes anti-essentialism can be taken too far.

[TzuJanLi]

Greetings..

 

The comedy is nearly overwhelming... two, or more, unique manifestations of the cosmos.. some aruging they 'exist', others arguing they don't exist.. and, in either case, it is a 'mind-game'.. there is the certainty that a uniquely manifested being is reading the posts of other uniquely manifested beings. The contrasting opinions contained in the posts are clearly formed by beings with differing perspectives.. somehow, linguistic and semantic word-games have been cobbled together is some fashion sufficient to convince rational beings they 'don't exist'.. the humor, however dark, is overwhelming..

 

Is there any doubt that there are individual physical bodies, humans, existing on this celestial body we call earth? Is there any doubt that no two of these uniquely individual humans will interpret any experience in an exactly identical manner? (hint: they won't).. Examine your 'dreams', do they return nightly in a flowing stream of related events, no.. they are fragments of glimpses into the 'non-local' you, the Cosmic Mind.. each day you wake to the actuallity of existence, a streaming continuum of inter-related events.. to equate the streamimg continuum of inter-related events to random fragmented and often unintelligible 'dreams', is a leap of faith unsustantiated by any measure of reason..

 

Yes, there is an 'I'.. no, it is not the constructed image of thoughts and beliefs.. it is that unique manifested being, the unique perspective the being generates simply by being unique.. it is the necessity of 'relationship', and.. it is relationships that drive this whole existence, the whole Cosmos.. the Singularity, in order to 'know' itself, set the process in motion that result in 'its relationship with itself.. the 'I' is also the Singularity, it evolves through interactive relationships with itself.. we/us/Life ARE those relationships.. we (a bunch of 'I's) construct the personas that reveal to the singularity what the Singularity IS.. This whole process is called 'Evolution', the principle of self-organization choosing its natural direction and revealing the nature of the Singularity to the Singularity.. Evolution is without design or constraint, the only way the the Singularity can experience its own 'truth'..

 

While the mental image, the thoughts, you believe about yourself are not tangible.. their effect is very tangible.. 'You', the unique being and its unique perspective, are quite real.. if not, simply cease your manifestation.. stop posting, stop the 'dream'.. you want a really good laugh? watch one 'not real' being trying to convine another 'not real' being they are 'not real'.. it's a hoot! AND, it's a pathetically insincere game.. i have not met even one of the proponents of the 'not real' existence that conduct themselves in manner consistent with their statements, nope, not even one.. and, i know a bunch of them.. what i see is people that think it's really cool to insist that they don't exist, i mean 'how cool is that'.. to look another human in the eye and say.. 'we don't really exist'.. that, my 'non-existent' friends, is precisely what P.T. Barnum was referring to..

 

Be well..

[dwai]

This is an interesting subject to me. A lot of the time in traditions, realization or enlightenment is equated with the dropping of the I. Now personally for me, I don't see that much of a problem with the I. it just gives one stability and something to center oneself in in reality. Anyways, I see "I" as referring to my individual body and mind. What is wrong with that? Some say that there really is no chooser/controller and no doer. Of course there is. The mind itself is the chooser/controller, it's very nature is to choose and control and the body is the doer (probably mind too).

 

My life was a lot better before I got into all this "get rid of the I" stuff when I actually cared about having some sort of identity and stable personality. I could interact with people better, I had more interest in life. Now it just seems so...empty. And not empty in a good way. Real or not, I'm considering living through the I again.

 

What are your thoughts on the I?

 

Dropping the "I" is simply a tool to get us to see the "big picture", imho. Once we realize the immensity of what is "Real", the "I" simply doesn't seem that big a deal. It is still present and indeed helps navigate the practical world but it loses it's edge, so to speak and the lines blur and the selfish traits that govern each and every one of our living moments tend to lose their intensity. A Collective "I" (Us) is what many traditional systems are pointing towards.

 

The real I is that which encompasses everthing...good, bad and ugly. The real I is Tao...the Path...and life is simply Walking the Path.

 

Cheers.

[xabir2005]

Edited November 3, 2009 by xabir2005

[Marblehead]

the mark of an idiot: he will hold on.. and keeping holding on... even when the futility of it all has been pointed out to him, he will still hold on simply for the sake of holding on. can't let go, man! can't let go! well that'll just be...crazy! and i'm sane, damn it! i'm real!

 

Michael,

 

You behave yourself.

 

You are not real, remember?

 

Go study for your classes or something likewise productive.

 

Peace & Love!

[Lucky7Strikes]

Is there any doubt that there are individual physical bodies, humans, existing on this celestial body we call earth? Is there any doubt that no two of these uniquely individual humans will interpret any experience in an exactly identical manner? (hint: they won't).. Examine your 'dreams', do they return nightly in a flowing stream of related events, no.. they are fragments of glimpses into the 'non-local' you, the Cosmic Mind.. each day you wake to the actuallity of existence, a streaming continuum of inter-related events.. to equate the streamimg continuum of inter-related events to random fragmented and often unintelligible 'dreams', is a leap of faith unsustantiated by any measure of reason..

 

Yes, there is an 'I'.. no, it is not the constructed image of thoughts and beliefs.. it is that unique manifested being, the unique perspective the being generates simply by being unique.. it is the necessity of 'relationship', and.. it is relationships that drive this whole existence, the whole Cosmos.. the Singularity, in order to 'know' itself, set the process in motion that result in 'its relationship with itself.. the 'I' is also the Singularity, it evolves through interactive relationships with itself.. we/us/Life ARE those relationships.. we (a bunch of 'I's) construct the personas that reveal to the singularity what the Singularity IS.. This whole process is called 'Evolution', the principle of self-organization choosing its natural direction and revealing the nature of the Singularity to the Singularity.. Evolution is without design or constraint, the only way the the Singularity can experience its own 'truth'..

 

While the mental image, the thoughts, you believe about yourself are not tangible.. their effect is very tangible.. 'You', the unique being and its unique perspective, are quite real.. if not, simply cease your manifestation.. stop posting, stop the 'dream'.. you want a really good laugh? watch one 'not real' being trying to convine another 'not real' being they are 'not real'.. it's a hoot! AND, it's a pathetically insincere game.. i have not met even one of the proponents of the 'not real' existence that conduct themselves in manner consistent with their statements, nope, not even one.. and, i know a bunch of them.. what i see is people that think it's really cool to insist that they don't exist, i mean 'how cool is that'.. to look another human in the eye and say.. 'we don't really exist'.. that, my 'non-existent' friends, is precisely what P.T. Barnum was referring to..

 

Be well..

 

The whole "in order to know itself" bothers me personally.

 

Why does it have to know itself? Create all this fuss to know itself. Bleh.

 

The Cosmic Mind is not the source of my dreams. My dreams are manifestation of deeper imprints within my consciousness.

 

But I like the last paragraph! .

[Marblehead]

As long as you cannot pinpoint an essence 'I', there is only the 'collection' so to speak.

 

The "I" is not refering to a truly existing, independent thing but only a convention, like the name 'car' is labelled on the many parts joined together for a particular function but cannot be found in or apart from those parts. There is no car-ness of car, the car is dependent on all the factors and is without essence.

 

Okay. When you break the collection down into parts all you have is parts.

 

That is why we Taoists speak of the uncarved wood. We view things in their original essence.

 

A human being is a human being. The process of self-actualization produces the concept of "I". Yes, "I" is a label - it identifies this particular human being. It would be no different than walking out to the garden and saying the red rose bush. There are a number of different rose bushes in the garden but there is only one 'red' rose bush.

 

Likewise, there are many human beings. We cannot differentiate between Michael and myself except by placing a label on each of us.

 

The word "car" is the label we place on the collection of parts that result in a car. The word "I" is the label I place on the collection of parts that result in me.

 

So yes, there is an "I", the "I" signifying the collection of parts that result in what "I" am. I'm not saying that there is such a thing as "I"-ness. But I am saying that each "I" is a specific collection of stuff that results in a specific human being.

 

Peace & Love!

 

 

What I'm interested in is, why not? My view appears reasonable and entirely justified to me. We do have selves in a relative sense, but these simply don't hold up as true existents at the ultimate level of analysis.

 

It's not because this outlook seems depressing or pessimistic, right?

 

So you go ahead an cling to your views. Hehehe. Yes, we do have selves in a relative sense. Yes, they are true existents at this particular point in time.

 

If you want to consider absolute ultimate reality you must delete everything except Tao because every 'thing' will eventually be destroyed. There is no ultimate 'thing' or even an ultimate non-thing.

 

To think that I do not exist would be depressing (and rather silly, I must add). I love life and all its physical manifestations. I have no reason to pretend that it does not exist. I have no reason to pretend that "I" do not exist.

 

I understand that Buddhists do not exist. I have no problem with that. But they sure make a lot of noise for something that does not exist. (Sorry V. but they started it.)

 

Peace & Love!

 

 

Sometimes anti-essentialism can be taken too far.

 

Here on this forum even that is an understatement. Hehehe.

 

Some of our members get totally lost in space.

 

Peace & Love!

[Lucky7Strikes]

The Sevenfold Reasoning on the Selflessness of Persons:

1. The self is not inherently the same as the parts of the body/mind.

 

2. The self is not different from the parts of the body/mind.

 

3. The self is not dependent upon the parts of the body/mind.

 

4. The self is not inherently the substratum upon which the parts of the body/mind depend.

 

5. The self is not inherently the possessor of the parts of the body/mind.

 

6. The self is not inherently the mere collection of the parts of the body/mind.

 

7. The self is not inherently the shape of the parts of the body/mind.

 

There is a pattern here.

 

The self is. It isn't anything. It is. Isness. Thusness? .

 

The parts make the car. But the parts are also of more parts. And those parts are also of more parts. So it is wrong to view the car as made of parts. It's an infinite mind tease.

 

It is a misconstruction of the mind to designate "parts" and "whole." There are no parts that make a whole. It is an illusory distinction. But distinction nonetheless, and it is the act of distinction that is significant. It really doesn't matter whether there are actual parts that make the car.

Edited November 3, 2009 by Lucky7Strikes

[xabir2005]

Greetings..

 

The comedy is nearly overwhelming... two, or more, unique manifestations of the cosmos.. some aruging they 'exist', others arguing they don't exist.. and, in either case, it is a 'mind-game'.. there is the certainty that a uniquely manifested being is reading the posts of other uniquely manifested beings. The contrasting opinions contained in the posts are clearly formed by beings with differing perspectives.. somehow, linguistic and semantic word-games have been cobbled together is some fashion sufficient to convince rational beings they 'don't exist'.. the humor, however dark, is overwhelming..

 

Is there any doubt that there are individual physical bodies, humans, existing on this celestial body we call earth? Is there any doubt that no two of these uniquely individual humans will interpret any experience in an exactly identical manner? (hint: they won't).. Examine your 'dreams', do they return nightly in a flowing stream of related events, no.. they are fragments of glimpses into the 'non-local' you, the Cosmic Mind.. each day you wake to the actuallity of existence, a streaming continuum of inter-related events.. to equate the streamimg continuum of inter-related events to random fragmented and often unintelligible 'dreams', is a leap of faith unsustantiated by any measure of reason..

 

Yes, there is an 'I'.. no, it is not the constructed image of thoughts and beliefs.. it is that unique manifested being, the unique perspective the being generates simply by being unique.. it is the necessity of 'relationship', and.. it is relationships that drive this whole existence, the whole Cosmos.. the Singularity, in order to 'know' itself, set the process in motion that result in 'its relationship with itself.. the 'I' is also the Singularity, it evolves through interactive relationships with itself.. we/us/Life ARE those relationships.. we (a bunch of 'I's) construct the personas that reveal to the singularity what the Singularity IS.. This whole process is called 'Evolution', the principle of self-organization choosing its natural direction and revealing the nature of the Singularity to the Singularity.. Evolution is without design or constraint, the only way the the Singularity can experience its own 'truth'..

 

While the mental image, the thoughts, you believe about yourself are not tangible.. their effect is very tangible.. 'You', the unique being and its unique perspective, are quite real.. if not, simply cease your manifestation.. stop posting, stop the 'dream'.. you want a really good laugh? watch one 'not real' being trying to convine another 'not real' being they are 'not real'.. it's a hoot! AND, it's a pathetically insincere game.. i have not met even one of the proponents of the 'not real' existence that conduct themselves in manner consistent with their statements, nope, not even one.. and, i know a bunch of them.. what i see is people that think it's really cool to insist that they don't exist, i mean 'how cool is that'.. to look another human in the eye and say.. 'we don't really exist'.. that, my 'non-existent' friends, is precisely what P.T. Barnum was referring to..

 

Be well..

I agree that all beings are unique with unique mindstreams. In fact, there is no cosmic mind, cosmic consciousness, only individual and unique mindstreams.

 

These mindstreams however are interdependent on a whole lot of conditions and factors (i.e. from education, culture, etc) which shape their so called unique perspective. Hence, these unique perspective themselves are conditioned.

 

Their lives, etc, are also shaped by karma, which can come from a previous lifetime.

 

Because all these are unique yet interdependently originated, so called individual mindstreams do not have independent essence but are the result of seamless relativity. However this has no relations with the idea of a cosmic consciousness.

 

Also at any point in time, there is only the experience: thoughts, sights, sounds. An entity that is the 'thinker', the 'seer', the 'hearer' etc cannot be found, though it may appear so. When you experience this, in seeing mountain just mountain -- there is no sense of a subject/object distance. And these thoughts, sights, sounds, etc, dependently originates.

Edited November 3, 2009 by xabir2005

[Marblehead]

Greetings..

 

The comedy is nearly overwhelming...

 

Be well..

 

Lovely post.

 

Peace & Love!

 

 

I agree that all beings are unique with unique mindstreams.

 

I really enjoyed this part of your last post. Especially the word "I".

 

Thanks for sharing.

 

Peace & Love!

Edited November 3, 2009 by Marblehead