The *I*

[thedope]

The I am I call myself is the same I am you call yourself.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

The I am I call myself is the same I am you call yourself.

That's true, we are all mere 'reflections' of the omnipresent I AM presence.

So then it becomes...the I AM Self is the source of the I am self.

And then it further becomes clear that of these two selves, one of the two is going to disappear since only one is permanent.

 

[thedope]

That's true, we are all mere 'reflections' of the omnipresent I AM presence.

So then it becomes...the I AM Self is the source of the I am self.

And then it further becomes clear that of these two selves, one of the two is going to disappear since only one is permanent.

What is it that becomes?
What is the same is the same and what is not the same is different. What two selves?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

What is it that becomes?
What is the same is the same and what is not the same is different. What two selves?

Sorry thedope, I apparently did not convey that very well, try this....

Our personal 'I' is a derivative/reflection of the Omnipresent Omniscient On High referred to in some traditions as the I AM or Universal Self.

So the source of each of us is the one and only universal Self which reflects in each mortal as a temporary personal self (I am).

Now there is also this religious tradition that teaches that the temporary self has an opportunity in life to unite and merge with the permanent Self to realize immortality, or else it fails. Either way its existence is of a finite nature. Hence the saying "Of the two selves, one of the two must disappear, there is no room for both in Eternity.

 

[atanu]

Sorry thedope, I apparently did not convey that very well, try this....

Our personal 'I' is a derivative/reflection of the Omnipresent Omniscient On High referred to in some traditions as the I AM or Universal Self.

So the source of each of us is the one and only universal Self which reflects in each mortal as a temporary personal self (I am).

Now there is also this religious tradition that teaches that the temporary self has an opportunity in life to unite and merge with the permanent Self to realize immortality, or else it fails. Either way its existence is of a finite nature. Hence the saying "Of the two selves, one of the two must disappear, there is no room for both in Eternity.

Hello Ben

Thanks for the posts. The Universal "I AM" and the personal appearance of "I am this" has been well explained by you. Technically speaking, at least apparently, Buddha did not speak or teach at all about any "I am". Buddha however taught of an unborn reality, without which all endeavors would be meaningless. Hindu equivalence of this unborn reality is attained through the enquiry of "Neti Neti" or "Who Am I?" -- everything that has manifested is transient and cannot be the imperishable stable to which all horses (minds) are tied.

However, in at least one Hindu school the following is known:

Mandukya Karika

IV-99. The knowledge of the one who is enlightened and all-pervasive, does not enter into objects. And so the souls also do not enter into objects. This fact was not mentioned by the Buddha.
-----------------
Why Buddha did not articulate that the souls are unborn and always pure is not known and is not important, since without any doubt, the summit is one only -- that of shedding the mistake that the appearance "I am this" is a reality.

Regards​

 

[zenzero]

Friend ben & atanu,

Both of you have explained the subject of the OP very well.

Personal understanding as to Gautama's non-explaination is that it is for each and every individual form to understand that realise THAT without having anyone else to explain IT.
When the realisation is one's own then one's transcendence becomes Total.

Love & rgds

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Thank you atanu, agreed. The language of Buddhism has its own unique emphasis and is one that resonates well with me. However so do many of the other religious traditions such as Hinduism, Taoism, Abrahamic, etc., so I don't get too involved in the doctrinal purism that is apparently important to many of the adherents of the different schools of the different religious traditions.

And thanks to you zenzero too, you have explained that point well, and succinctly too.

:namaste

 

[thedope]

Knowledge is being shared.

 

[zenzero]

Friend thedope,

Knowledge is being shared.

Knowledge was/is always there; by being conscious one is able to understand and be one with THAT which is also labelled *knowledge*.

Love & rgds

 

[bhaktajan]

be one with THAT

Every factory worker is One with:
the factory machines/Lunch time whistle/Labor-Union Protest Chants/the desires of the chairmen of the board" ---all this is quite elementary and easy to adhere to.
[socio-paths are known to do otherwise]

be one with THAT

It is to indicate the "OWNER" of "THAT" ---who is the owner of "Maya".

Maya (mine things) "Ma" mine, "ya" all such things. One translation of 'Maya' is 'mercy' as in the benediction of bestowing facilty to the forsaken.

 

[Twilight Hue]

This discussion reminds me of a quote from Alan Watts:



The "I" may appear to separate us from the rest of the Universe, but couldn't it also be worded--more appropriately--that it separates the Universe from itself? A minor distinction, but I think it's profound.

I like Watts perspective. There is separation involving "I" yet there is no distinction from which produces the phenomena of "I".

 

[zenzero]

Friends,

No one is separating anyone.
It is the mind which creates that *I* ness.
Just still the mind and the *I* evaporates and the reality of oneness remains.

Love & rgds