The *I*

[zenzero]

Friends,

The following is a query by friend Sage Tree one of his PM; however since the topic is something which am sure every seeker would be seeking to know/understand and share; so am putting it here and opening it for discussion.

How does the use of "I" fit into the skillful use of relative truths with in the two truths doctrine?

The answer when understood/realised is LIBERATION in itself.
Cause the *I* that is mind [thought] created is what we encounter everyday, everywhere and is just an ILLUSION.
The real self is that which is a part of the *whole* but appears to be an individual form but in fact is nothing but consciousness / energy which is all around in various forms. Transcending the individual form, one feels only energy and this feeling of oneness is through the resonance of the vibrations of two bodies. That is the true *I*.
In other words there is no *I* anywhere but still for practical purposes one may need to use words for communication and personally attempt to convey/communicate personal experiences without the use of the *I* as understand that am not an *I* but an *US* and using the word *US* can be a progression when the readers too understand its actual meaning. The *US* too could be misleading as it may mean differently for different people. Personally may mean the sum total of the environment the individual form is in which includes every other form and no-form in this universe or the *whole*.
So once again would state that the only medium is *silence* for transmission of TRUTH.

Am not sure if the response is any way satisfactory to friend SageTree's query but is only an attempt and like everyone to share their thoughts.

Love & rgds

 

[stlekee]

The 'I' is an illusion in that it sets us apart from tghe world, from reality. The world is exterior and we are interior. In reality, there is no separation, no boundary. That is the illusion that we create. We are connected to each other and to the universe. We are each oother and the universe.

As a member of our human species, we are human and human is us, there is no boundary except that which the ego / self creates

The sponge is in the ocean and the ocean is in the spong

 

[zenzero]

stlekee,

Yes, that is exactly what one IS!

Love & rgds

 

[Reptillian]

My question is; Since language and thought seem to depend upon our ability to split things up into categories and distinct states with distinct properties, how do we talk and think about things that are all interconnected? Do I say spongeocean in the previous example? Since the spongeocean is part of the earth do I say spongeoceanearth? Since its part of the solar system do I say spongeoceansolarsystem? Where do I stop?

What about logically distinct things? Are they part of the whole, or is the world still split up into multiple categories for each logically incompatable idea?

 

[LuisDantas]

The way I see it, Reptilian, it is a matter of developing dialetic skills. Things are separate, yet definitely related. Once one understands the boundaries and the connectedness it becomes possible to switch from a form of thought to another according to the situation.

 

[zenzero]

Friend Reptillian,

You have asked the right question.
Firstly when we understand the oneness of forms and no-forms then the rest are all *labels* that one uses to indicate the form like "Ocean" is that large body of water though both the communicator and the one communicated understands that the label ocean is used it is only as an indication otherwise it is understood that everything in this universe is one.
It is the misunderstanding of the human mind that all words are just labels have led to not only all religious wars but even wars. When minds itself is at PEACE, then Peace is all around.

Love & rgds

 

[Guitar's Cry]

This discussion reminds me of a quote from Alan Watts:

You didn't come into this world.
You came out of it,
like a wave from the ocean.
You are not a stranger here.

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.

 

[zenzero]

Friend Guitar's Cry,

Though friend Alan Watts has said it beautifully; we must understand that nothing has come out of anything.
Wherever you draw a boundary it is only a thought/creation of the MIND.
There is no coming or going!

Love & rgds

 

[Onkara]

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.

Hi Guitar's Cry
I think that is a good point. Doesn't it assume that we must already know ourselves as the Universe in order to state it that way?

It seems that initially people are convinced that they are their "I" and the realisation that they are much more comes after recognition of that "I" and its limitations.

 

[Guitar's Cry]

Friend Guitar's Cry,

Though friend Alan Watts has said it beautifully; we must understand that nothing has come out of anything.
Wherever you draw a boundary it is only a thought/creation of the MIND.
There is no coming or going!

Love & rgds

Anything also comes from nothing, which is everything without separation. I would say that it is the mind that separates everything from itself to create this existence we find ourselves in.

So there is coming and going as long as we are here to make stepping stones from the eternity we are in, I think.

After all, though the mind may be illusion, it is as real an illusion as everything else.

 

[Guitar's Cry]

Hi Guitar's Cry
I think that is a good point. Doesn't it assume that we must already know ourselves as the Universe in order to state it that way?

It seems that initially people are convinced that they are their "I" and the realisation that they are much more comes after recognition of that "I" and its limitations.

As a child before mental habits shaped my mind, I dimly remember being aware of the world as a part of "me" rather than a separate thing.

 

[zenzero]

Friend Guitar's Cry,

Yes; it is and Is not and so early meditators have left it for posterity:

''There was neither non-existence nor existence then.
There was neither the realm of space nor the sky which is beyond.
What stirred?
Where?
In whose protection?
Was there water, bottlemlessly deep?

There was neither death nor immortality then.
There was no distinguishing sign of night nor of day.
That One breathed, windless, by its own impulse.
Other than that there was nothing beyond.

Darkness was hidden by darkness in the beginning,
with no distinguishing sign, all this was water.
The life force that was covered with emptiness,
that One arose through the power of heat.

Desire came upon that One in the beginning,
that was the first seed of mind.
Poets seeking in their heart with wisdom
found the bond of existence and non-existence.

Their cord was extended across.
Was there below?
Was there above?
There were seed-placers, there were powers.
There was impulse beneath, there was giving forth above.

Who really knows?
Who will here proclaim it?
Whence was it produced?
Whence is this creation?
The gods came afterwards, with the creation of this universe.
Who then knows whence it has arisen?

Whence this creation has arisen
- perhaps it formed itself, or perhaps it did not -
the One who looks down on it,
in the highest heaven, only He knows
or perhaps even He does not know'' -Rig Veda 10. 129

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Insightful posts all, thank you, here is my 2C...

Given that when consciousness uses a human body as a reference center for experience of existence, it's experience is naturally limited in space and time to create the illusion of duality,..i.e. me and not me, here and not here, now and not now, etc..

When said consciousness ceases using the human body as a definite center for its experience of existence, the 'I' center also ceases along with its illusionary dualistic perception.

The state of consciousness that is liberated from a separative space time reference center is beyond description because it has no specific reference point of existence. If the 'I' centered consciousness can be imagined to be analogous to the center point of a circle and its field of experience is that covered by the area within the circumference, then the liberation would be analogous to consciousness whose center is everywhere and whose circumference is nowhere.

 

[zenzero]

Friend ben,

Thank you for sharing.
Personal understanding is that there in existence there is consciousness and unconsciousness and within consciousness there is unconsciousness and within unconsciousness there is consciousness and this cycle of becoming conscious of the unconscious or transcending the unconscious is *evolution* and this is something happening since and till eternity.
Personal understanding is that enlightened forms like Jesus or Gautama have evolved from the human form but some form will remain as it is an eternal process transcending all time and space.
Personal understanding is that that which takes place at any given point of time is determined by the net result of the given circumstances which is the *karma* theory and this keeps on moving ahead; a never ending process.
When the consciousness penetrates any individual form or the unconscious form the flow starts and from there on the *evolution is a *revolution* as it is now conscious.
The individual form [unconsciousness] is also a part of that universal consciousness and is a play [maya] that gets enacted over and over like the dance of the clouds in the sky or the waves on the ocean floor.

Love & rgds

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Thank you for sharing zenzero, my understanding resonates reasonably well with your understanding.

 

[Thesavorofpan]

Friends,

The following is a query by friend Sage Tree one of his PM; however since the topic is something which am sure every seeker would be seeking to know/understand and share; so am putting it here and opening it for discussion.



The answer when understood/realised is LIBERATION in itself.
Cause the *I* that is mind [thought] created is what we encounter everyday, everywhere and is just an ILLUSION.
The real self is that which is a part of the *whole* but appears to be an individual form but in fact is nothing but consciousness / energy which is all around in various forms. Transcending the individual form, one feels only energy and this feeling of oneness is through the resonance of the vibrations of two bodies. That is the true *I*.
In other words there is no *I* anywhere but still for practical purposes one may need to use words for communication and personally attempt to convey/communicate personal experiences without the use of the *I* as understand that am not an *I* but an *US* and using the word *US* can be a progression when the readers too understand its actual meaning. The *US* too could be misleading as it may mean differently for different people. Personally may mean the sum total of the environment the individual form is in which includes every other form and no-form in this universe or the *whole*.
So once again would state that the only medium is *silence* for transmission of TRUTH.

Am not sure if the response is any way satisfactory to friend SageTree's query but is only an attempt and like everyone to share their thoughts.

Love & rgds

Whoa wait a second before I can understand this "I" what is your defefintion of truth?

 

[atanu]

Friends,
-----Cause the *I* that is mind [thought] created is what we encounter everyday, everywhere and is just an ILLUSION.
......
In other words there is no *I* anywhere but still for practical purposes one may need to use words for communication and personally attempt to convey/communicate personal experiences without the use of the *I* ......

Namaste Zenzero

If 'I' is an illusion, then whose personal experience is being conveyed? A personal experience of an illusion can only be another illusion and that will make the teachings of Buddha an illusion?

Om

 

[Ben Dhyan]

A personal experience of an illusion can only be another illusion and that will make the teachings of Buddha an illusion?

Om

Yes, very astute atanu, here is what Huang Po had to say about the essential teaching of the Buddha.

The fundamental doctrine of the dharmas (teachings) is that there are no dharmas, yet this doctrine of no dharma is itself a dharma, and now that the no dharma doctrine has been transmitted, how can the doctrine of the dharma be a dharma. Whoever understands the meaning of this deserves to be considered one truly skilled in the practice of the teaching.

 

[atanu]

Yes, very astute atanu, here is what Huang Po had to say about the essential teaching of the Buddha.

The fundamental doctrine of the dharmas (teachings) is that there are no dharmas, yet this doctrine of no dharma is itself a dharma, and now that the no dharma doctrine has been transmitted, how can the doctrine of the dharma be a dharma. Whoever understands the meaning of this deserves to be considered one truly skilled in the practice of the teaching.

Thank you Ben d

I wish you will further expand the above in the light of noble eight fold path teaching, so that the reading in this thread is more complete.

Om

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Thank you Ben d

I wish you will further expand the above in the light of noble eight fold path teaching, so that the reading in this thread is more complete.

Om

Hi atanu,

The point being made by HuangPo is that it is mind which seeks understanding indirectly through juggling conceptualizations it creates to represent the apparent external reality is in fact dealing in illusions. The very mind that indulges in this dualistic process evolves a self reference center to manage the process and this is the temporary persona of mortals known as ego or I.

However, concepts/thoughts/etc, are not real in the true sense of existing independent of a creator, they are just used as an expedient by the mind to represent the real, therefore they are mere symbols. Hence these conceptualizations along with the 'I' doing the conceptualizing, are illusionary relative to the permanent reality.

The teaching that the true teaching is no teaching is meant to convey that in order to be free from the suffering that comes from the error of mistaking mental constructs for reality, one needs to cease conceptual thinking to realize reality directly. In this process of Dhyana, the mind is stilled and subsequently the apparent conceptual duality of subject and object that the 'I' normally experiences disappears...Samadhi results.

While the Tathagata, in his teaching, constantly makes use of conceptions and ideas about them, disciples should keep in mind the unreality of all such conceptions and ideas. They should recall that the Tathagata, in making use of them in explaining the Dharma always uses them in the semblance of a raft that is of use only to cross a river. As the raft is of no further use after the river is crossed, it should be discarded. So these arbitrary conceptions of things and about things should be wholly given up as one attains enlightenment. -Buddha ...