Let's end the confusion about "I"/"Me"/"Self"...

[say]

I came across Steve's blogs and podcasts where I think he used "I"(or "You") for speaking about different things. I don't blame him for that, tho. It's normal, it's probably mostly the consequence of a language limitation.

I believe that there can be (at least) 2 "I"s. Like: I as a person, or I as existence (being, life).

Philosophically, I is a difficult thing to describe, probably impossible.
If you read Meditations, you'd know that Descartes tried to reason thoroughly, putting away all the unclear beliefs. He at a point came to the basic "true/correct" conclusion that he exists, because someone has to experience things... someone is the thinker (I think, therefore I am.).
Now here I think D. was not being thorough enough. If you see a chair, all you can say without a doubt is: there is an experience of a (thought of a) chair. That's it.
So where the hell does "I" come from??? Its existence doesn't make any logical sense.

Regarding personal development: Here, the confusion is between the person(ego) and the self as something greater than that. It can become confusing when you start talking about subjective reality. But then, especially when it comes to SR, I'd say that we (Steve included) can agree that "I" is something bigger than the mere person, it's more like existence, or precisely existence.
In that regard personal development is just developing a (small) part of yourself. So that when "you" as a certain person become wealthy (or whatever) it's not the "real" you who has become wealthy. So why are you trying to make this person (the not "real" you) wealthy? I don't know, people do a lot of crazy stuff. (Seriously, you have answer this question to yourself.)

[Shaden]

Until I can find a way to develop that bigger "self" or whatever it is you're referring to here (sorry I'm not really into existential philosophy) I'll continue to develop myself here in this world. After all, If I don't the time will pass anyway. Perhaps developing myself nowwill allow me to find the strength to answer such a question in the near future...

[Adam]

Well, why should I, being one of many avatars of *I*, be wealthy?

To answer that in an objective manner, we need an outside observer... Since I can't be outside of myself, I'll redirect the subject...

Instead of asking why I should be wealthy, I'll ask why Steve should be wealthy. In turn, I hope that Steve asks why I should be wealthy. All together, we are both asking why Consciousness should be wealthy.

So, why should Steve be wealthy? To make it easier for him to live consciously and courageously, to resonate with love and compassion, to awaken the great spirits within others, and to leave this world in peace.

When you can't be direct about the hard questions, redirect them... Someone else will redirect the same question as well, giving you your answer, while you provide them with their answer... Subjectively, we are all the same, right?

[say]

Originally Posted by say

when "you" as a certain person become wealthy (or whatever) it's not the "real" you who has become wealthy.

Let me just clearify that I didn't mean to come disrespectful towards the person or the personal part of existence, tho I used to do so sometimes in the past...
The egoic aspect needs to be recognized for what it is, but not mistreated. Quite the opposite. The egoic aspect is (or rather: can be) just as real as your "real you". But what's "real" anyway?

[say]

Originally Posted by Adam

When you can't be direct about the hard questions, redirect them... Someone else will redirect the same question as well, giving you your answer, while you provide them with their answer... Subjectively, we are all the same, right?

Yeah, that sounds interesting.

[Antarananda]

@ say:

You bring up some excellent points. It's true that Descartes didn't quite take Self-enquiry to its conclusion. And it is also true that there is no such thing as "Higher Self". While it is somewhat correct that we are Existence itself, the real Self is beyond even all forms of creation (the body, the mind, the universe).

To use the terminology of Vedanta, enlightenment is when the Self comes to recognize itself in the context of an individual's life. That moment of recognition severs the ahamkara, or the exclusive attachment to individual identity. Ahamkara is not the psychological ego; it's merely the attachment to identity, not the identity itself. Ahamkara is the false notion that "I am this individual who does things".

Once that bond is broken, you recognize that you are the Self (that which is the formless, attributeless entity that pervades all phenomenal existence). But you remain the person you've always been, minus the exclusive attachment to the idea of "I" as the basis of identity.


I highly recommend you read the book "I am That", which is a compilation of talks with a Realized Master from India. The lucidity of the answers is unparalleled. You can also read it online.

[say]

Originally Posted by Antarananda

I highly recommend you read the book "I am That", which is a compilation of talks with a Realized Master from India. The lucidity of the answers is unparalleled. You can also read it online.

Just wanted to say thanks for that. I've read some pages the other day and I was amazed by the clarity and wisdom. I'm off to read the rest.

[Dharma]

Originally Posted by say

In that regard personal development is just developing a (small) part of yourself. So that when "you" as a certain person become wealthy (or whatever) it's not the "real" you who has become wealthy. So why are you trying to make this person (the not "real" you) wealthy? I don't know, people do a lot of crazy stuff. (Seriously, you have answer this question to yourself.)

Personal development is a funny term because there is no 'person' to develop. It is a fictitious person that needs to be improved -- a mind-made self.

The self that I am is not lacking in anyway, but the self that I have mentally constructed and identify with as "me" is always looking for more of this or that. Whether it be money, identity, notoriety, intelligence, or even PURPOSE. I am the awareness that experiences this world, and this world is shadow.

Be in the world but not of it.

I use that as a reminder all the time. The "me" that is real is not of this world , just observing the world from a unique point of view. I have to quiet my mind to experience myself as that.

[carenkh]

Awww... Dharma, you posted! I was enjoying seeing the 666.

[Anagogy]

Originally Posted by say

Now here I think D. was not being thorough enough. If you see a chair, all you can say without a doubt is: there is an experience of a (thought of a) chair. That's it.
So where the hell does "I" come from??? Its existence doesn't make any logical sense.

Regarding personal development: Here, the confusion is between the person(ego) and the self as something greater than that. It can become confusing when you start talking about subjective reality. But then, especially when it comes to SR, I'd say that we (Steve included) can agree that "I" is something bigger than the mere person, it's more like existence, or precisely existence.
In that regard personal development is just developing a (small) part of yourself. So that when "you" as a certain person become wealthy (or whatever) it's not the "real" you who has become wealthy. So why are you trying to make this person (the not "real" you) wealthy? I don't know, people do a lot of crazy stuff. (Seriously, you have answer this question to yourself.)

From my perspective, I see an Absolute point, and an infinity of Relative points. The Absolute point has always existed, and is eternal. Relative points are temporary. They have beginnings, and consequently must also have endings as well.

Absolute existence is balanced by absolute non-existence.

Nothing-ness cannot become something-ness, and something-ness cannot become nothing-ness. In other words, because nothingness CANNOT exist, everything HAD to exist. Because relative points are not eternal, they must eventually return to the absolute point. All relative points are the result of limitations or boundaries being imposed on an unbounded essence -- that unbounded essence being consciousness.

The relative points only "appear" to exist when the clear light of the Absolute point is obscured by "beliefs", which act as filters, or warps you might say, for consciousness.

Its like this: the One has no limitations. It is an unbounded essence. While infinite, it cannot experience growth in its omniscience, because growth implies ignorance, which is the complete opposite of omniscience. However, omniscience implies all knowledge, which includes ignorance, paradoxically enough. In order to experience growth, it forges "limitations". This results in energy, or consciousness, being restrained into "form". We could say the One dreams these limitations up. There is no sector of reality that is completely unconscious. The One dreams of the two, the two dreams of the four, the four dreams of the eight, and eventually we have all the multiplicity and separation we see and mistake for reality today.

So you see, the multiplicity is a dream. Once an entity is dreamed up, like you or I, we operate based on the limitations that we were created with. That's not to say we can't eventually break our own limitations, but from that point on, based on the freedoms we were organized (which is a much more accurate word than "created") with, we operate and dream. You see, OUR dreams, are based on how we were created. In other words, an ant dreams of ant things, a tree dreams of tree things, and a human being dreams of human things. All forms of consciousness dream, create, and organize things according to what they are able to cognize. Sometimes a form of consciousness will gain the necessary energy in order to dream of something more. You can't reach for a reality you are unaware of. Even cells are reaching towards the light.

So in summation, the "true I" is the place where subject and object are the same thing, and cause and effect are unified as well. All "others" are merely for the experience of growth or expansion. You see, growth has its place in infinity as well.

[fellowtraveler]

Originally Posted by Anagogy

...Its like this: the One has no limitations. It is an unbounded essence. While infinite, it cannot experience growth in its omniscience, because growth implies ignorance, which is the complete opposite of omniscience. However, omniscience implies all knowledge, which includes ignorance, paradoxically enough. In order to experience growth, it forges "limitations". This results in energy, or consciousness, being restrained into "form". We could say the One dreams these limitations up...

This is where I started my journey in earnest, by reading The God Theory.

Makes perfect sense to me, except I can't puzzle out why the One wants or needs to experience growth (although I'm certainly glad we do...).

Maybe the fact that I'm glad we do, is the reason itself.

[Dharma]

Originally Posted by carenkh

Awww... Dharma, you posted! I was enjoying seeing the 666.

And I didn't even know I was sporting the number of the beast.
I missed it.

[Anagogy]

Originally Posted by fellowtraveler

This is where I started my journey in earnest, by reading The God Theory.

Makes perfect sense to me, except I can't puzzle out why the One wants or needs to experience growth (although I'm certainly glad we do...).

Maybe the fact that I'm glad we do, is the reason itself.

That could be true, but if you want a more esoteric answer, we could say that since the One *IS* existence, it contains all knowledge. This knowledge, or knowingness, also includes what it is like to experience growth. Knowledge of ignorance or lack in other words. The One's knowingness of this thoughtform called "ignorance" is ALSO what we MISTAKE for our "selves". And voila, an "ego" is born, or rather, temporarily appears to exist.

We identified with but a portion of infinity so we lost our connection to the whole. It's still there, we just have to let go of limitation, and traverse our consciousness along nodes of experience that lead back to infinity.

So it's not so much that the source wants to experience growth, but rather, it has to. Egos are a natural byproduct of that knowingness.