Who Is Me? Why is Me?

[eye_of_the_storm]

It would be interesting to understand why me exists

 

where does it come from / its purpose etc

 

the idea in terms of 'spirituality' appears to be disidentification with 'me'

 

Why is that/ what purpose..?

 

Is it the whole way or half the way or?

 

Or kind of like

 

the flower doesnt think it is a flower it just is a flower? haha

 

(offshoot from LSD thread)

[Everything]

Being is you, you are being.

 

Being is being.

Reason is being.

Question is being.

Answer is being.

Everything is being.

 

Being is.

 

Questions needs being. Without being, question would not be. Being is not because of reason. Being is because of being. Reason is: because of being.

 

Being can never not be. Being can only be. Thus, some say: "Being has allways been and shall allways be."

I simply say "Being IS."

Edited November 26, 2012 by Everything

[C T]

"Suffering exists, not the sufferer.

Actions exist, but not the actor.

Nirvana is, but nobody is released.

There is a Way, but no one on it."

Buddhagosa

 

Not disidentification... but to come to a point where one sees self as equal to all else. To disengage from the self is a dangerous practice, but, on the other hand, the realization that all beings want the same thing as oneself leads to deliverance from the selfish, self-contracting acts of grasping and aversion. It can be about 'you', but at the same time, this 'you' would allow for other's needs as well, that kind of way. Then a lot of anguish, craving, guilt and other associated negative emotions can have space to dissolve.

[Everything]

"Suffering exists, not the sufferer.

Actions exist, but not the actor.

Nirvana is, but nobody is released.

There is a Way, but no one on it."

Buddhagosa

I think he was just feeling lonely. It's common, but you don't have to be lonely all the time. We are allowed to enjoy company too, you know?

Edited November 26, 2012 by Everything

[Marblehead]

No, "I" am not going to get involved in this one. Hehehe. Y'all go ahead though.

[gatito]

No, "I" am not going to get involved in this one. Hehehe. Y'all go ahead though.

 

LOL

[C T]

I think he was just feeling lonely. It's common, but you don't have to be lonely all the time. We are allowed to enjoy company too, you know?

 

It could well be, but i feel its not about loneliness.

 

The OP is making a realization statement.

 

Just my opinion tho.

[manitou]

I think we are the communal spirit that is constantly trying to perfect itself.

[deci belle]

It would be interesting to understand why me exists

 

where does it come from / its purpose etc

 

the idea in terms of 'spirituality' appears to be disidentification with 'me'

 

Why is that/ what purpose..?

 

Is it the whole way or half the way or?

 

Or kind of like

 

the flower doesnt think it is a flower it just is a flower? haha

 

Only if this weren't an idle thought, who would set about immediately to find out?

 

The beautiful thing is, the mind that asks is the central issue.

This very mind that asks is itself void of self and identity, without origination.

If you were to experience sudden realization on the spot

Just this mind is still, complete, miraculously aware, perpetually on the brink

Yet has never itself fallen into the created, known, knowing.

Selfless, unknowing, simply aware, the spark of living aware potential.

 

If you stumbled onto this and found such a wonder as this void of self

Knowing only this has truly without beginning ever existed, no mind of nonbeing

And returned to conscious awareness seamlessly, like opening your own eyes again

Without doubt that selfless awareness is itself your own everyday mind

Would you care that there is no purpose beyond itself

Other than seeing creation in terms of the uncreated itself

And having seen the Changless, endeavor to go along with situations

Yet never again stooping to follow

Circumstantial evolution for others

Because others are the same as you?

[Protector]

Yeah, I've been wondering if it was the root chakra or the crown chakra

[eye_of_the_storm]

Only if this weren't an idle thought, who would set about immediately to find out?

 

These are ongoing musings since about the age of 10

 

I have experienced states of "no-self"

 

Looking into a mirror and disengaging thought is interesting

 

+ other experiences

 

Though I guess I have never really pushed it.

 

CT said: Not disidentification... but to come to a point where one sees self as equal to all else.

 

I like this definition

 

I was reading up on Ganesh the other night... how Shiva took his head off... then replaced it with an elephant head (extremely crude explanation of the story)

 

But basically this was symbolic of the transition between earthly being and super/cosmic being

 

Or self and Self

 

I suppose one can have the philosophical understanding of this... though ultimately the experiential is the aim

Edited November 27, 2012 by White Wolf Running On Air

[eye_of_the_storm]

Yeah, I've been wondering if it was the root chakra or the crown chakra

 

Perhaps every center has an effect on being

 

Though the higher centers are dormant mostly

 

So the capacity is there but the full personality isn't activated/ realized

 

The Moon only reflects the light of the Sun.

Edited November 27, 2012 by White Wolf Running On Air

[deci belle]

Mr Wolf said:

I have experienced states of "no-self"

 

I have never experienced states of "no-self". If "I" experience, then this is not nonbeing.

 

If it was you who experienced, then I am afraid this is not Reality.

 

If this itself is selfless awareness, then why entertain idle thoughts of self when you know self has never been other than illusion?

 

If you know self and creation has never really fallen into the creative and that nonbeing is awareness itself, then I'm not so sure about your reference to "(plural) states of no-self". Buddhas don't experience enlightenment twice.

 

If it's not nonoriginated, you are very mistaken in your assessment of "no-self"

 

Yours is a nice sentiment, and I don't mean to rain on your reverie, But I won't mislead you… Just sayin'❤

[eye_of_the_storm]

Mr Wolf said:

 

 

I have never experienced states of "no-self". If "I" experience, then this is not nonbeing.

 

If it was you who experienced, then I am afraid this is not Reality.

 

If this itself is selfless awareness, then why entertain idle thoughts of self when you know self has never been other than illusion?

 

If you know self and creation has never really fallen into the creative and that nonbeing is awareness itself, then I'm not so sure about your reference to "(plural) states of no-self". Buddhas don't experience enlightenment twice.

 

If it's not nonoriginated, you are very mistaken in your assessment of "no-self"

 

Yours is a nice sentiment, and I don't mean to rain on your reverie, But I won't mislead you… Just sayin'❤

 

You say Buddhas don't experience enlightenment twice

 

By your reasoning Buddhas should not experience enlightenment even once

 

As to experience something there must be an experiencer / observer

 

To say that I have experienced "no self" is...

 

Perhaps one should say I have experienced states without concepts of self... and was just pure being / awareness

 

I am sure there are different levels of refinement in this regard

 

I remember once waking up in the middle of the night feeling / being infinite void potential

 

I guess this was just a sample

 

I don't really believe in enlightenment... enlightenment implies an end

 

I don't believe there is end, only beginnings

Edited November 27, 2012 by White Wolf Running On Air

[eye_of_the_storm]

Tao begins where Buddhism ends

Edited November 27, 2012 by White Wolf Running On Air

[gatito]

Or perhaps:-

 

Taoism begins where Buddhism ends and

Buddhism begins where Taoism ends

 

might be more accurate?

[eye_of_the_storm]

yes and no

 

haha

[gatito]

OK - how about?

 

Taoism begins where Buddhism ends

Buddhism begins where Taoism ends

Buddhism begins where Taoism begins

Taoism ends where Buddhism ends

[3bob]

speculation has its place but will come to an end...

Edited November 27, 2012 by 3bob

[Boy]

...

Edited December 13, 2012 by Boy

[manitou]

Or perhaps:-

 

Taoism begins where Buddhism ends and

Buddhism begins where Taoism ends

 

might be more accurate?

 

All goes to the same place.

[3bob]

where the ducks never flew away

[Fū Yue]

You say Buddhas don't experience enlightenment twice

 

By your reasoning Buddhas should not experience enlightenment even once

 

As to experience something there must be an experiencer / observer

 

To say that I have experienced "no self" is...

 

Perhaps one should say I have experienced states without concepts of self... and was just pure being / awareness

 

I am sure there are different levels of refinement in this regard

 

I remember once waking up in the middle of the night feeling / being infinite void potential

 

I guess this was just a sample

 

I don't really believe in enlightenment... enlightenment implies an end

 

I don't believe there is end, only beginnings

 

Human experiences enlightenment.

 

Buddha is all that's left.

[deci belle]

By your reasoning Buddhas should not experience enlightenment even once

 

As to experience something there must be an experiencer / observer

 

As for your pure being/awareness goes, evidently you feel you can be the judge as deluded as you are.

 

Until you experience pure nonbeing, you have no basis for objectivity to judge your own everyday mind—

 

much less your enthusiastic contentious notions of what could possibly constitute "pure being".

 

As for your nonsensical spray about buddhas not having to experience enlightenment even once… even a buddha has nothing over anyone who knows their original face. Spend less time pimping your imaginary buddha and become an awakened human being yourself. It's not easy before and it's not easy afterwards either. Dogen said, "Buddhas become people and people become buddhas." In other words, become a buddha first, then learn how to be a realized human being.

 

Only an ignoramus would endeavor to employ reason to express the inconceivable. Anyone can understand understanding, only an enlightening being can understand not-understanding. How do you thing the classics came to be? Having fathomed my mind, I would not dream (as you do) to use logic to express the unspeakable.

 

Furthermore, sudden realization is not a matter where one exists to experience anything. Among other things, it is the event of one's inherent selfless potential returning to its source. YOU DON'T GET TO GO. Where potential is the same as living awareness, no different than the seat of your current replaying states of ignorance— it's just that you do not see it is why you take imaginary causes reflective of an habitual self-propping ego-driven psychological apparatus, as proof that you do, in fact, exist.

 

Since you completely misunderstood my expression (and liked it too, if I recall correctly), I fail to corroborate your multiple versions of what you have taken to be your idea of pure being. Those must have been lovely experiences, mon ami~ but even though realization only happens once, one must still go further and shatter the absolute, which is no mean concept, before one steps over eternity. Only then is one an equal of prior illuminates, able to follow in their footsteps as you place yours as theirs, and proceed up the gradual incline.

 

The gradual path leading to the sudden is finite. The path beyond eternity has no words. This is entering the tao in reality, planting lotuses in fire, taking over creation in order to steal potential, able to match creative evolution with the virtue of receptivity, effecting creative evolution without ever again entering the matrix of karmic cycles of yin and yang. You know, seeing through phenomena without negating appearances. You know, the middle way, suchness …enlightening being.

 

Surely old-hat for someone such as you, hmmmmmm?

 

Obviously you have no knowledge of the absolute, much less the sense to realize that one must already be in harmony with nonoriginated selfless awareness in the first place. Enlightenment is just an indication of harmony with the way. It has no intrinsic meaning. Its like being sick, and you know it; but then finally actually being temporarily bedridden~ then finally returning to health, delicately aware of your weakness, eventually to simply just forget you were ever sick at all as you resume ordinary activities. Enlightenment is like reversing your process of growing up and being born, only to be born again in the unborn.

 

The source of inconceivability doesn't owe you a logical cause, yet you insist that something beyond even the mysteries of creation should be as logically comprehensible as a democratic entitlement—as if.

 

You must be able to be done with your worldly ignorance (your intellectual entitlement issues) to enter into the entry-level experience of simple awakening— which is none other than realizing self is a wonderful and effective, functional illusion.

 

BUT MISTAKING ONE'S THIEVING PSYCHOLOGICAL SPIRIT AS ENLIGHTENED MIND IS THE NUMBER ONE ERROR OF STUDENTS OF SELF-REFINEMENT OF ALL TIME.

 

Your mistake is so common this saying has been the hallmark of buddhist study since before bodhidharma's coming from the west.

 

As I said before, call it what you like, but you have a loooooooong way to go~ isn't that good to know?❤

 

 

 

ed note: typo four paragraphs from the end

Edited November 28, 2012 by deci belle

[Birch]

I was pondering this one this morning and yesterday after I read the post. I have one of those 'stinky' mes that thinks it knows that it doesn't exist (in the r-word of the sense) and insists on being in awe of this idea far too often. I don't know why anything would go about pretending to not exist either. I don't know what I is made of, nor if it arrived with suitcases half-packed already and waited to fill itself with the world before finding itself burdened and wishing to unpack again.

 

Probably not a good idea to let people who don't know what they are tell you what you are:-)

 

It's a good thread.