--Nope, you're wrong. There is an "I" after realization but it's not the delusional I as before. The referent is the body/mind, even though there's no inner core of a false identity.; and this is not only notational! The new individual is the "I", and we can show that this new entity is not only notational by extrapolating to anything in general, say events. a. First, people, events, places, things, etc, (strictly in the relative sense), in any state of consciousness, are obviously notational; but beyond that, such entities have meaning, priorities, significance,; and in case of humans, various goals. For example, MMY has many goals. Who is it that has the goals? I've heard MMY say "I"...this and that many times. What or who is this "I"? Obviously, it's the body/mind, MINUS the false identification of an ilusory "I". In short, before realization, "I" = body/mind INCLUDING the false egoic "I". After, realization "I"= = body/mind MINUS the false egoic "I".
- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > --- tertonzeno <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > --I disagree. The "I" after the illusory "I" > > vanishes and refers to > > something. It, the pronoun, refers the body/mind > > that others engage > > with. > > You have to distinguish here between a linguistic > convention that is used in conversation and a > subjective/phenomenological/experiential "I". After > Realization there certainly is a conversational "I" > for the sack of communication. But this personal > pronoun has no reference for the Realized person > speaking it. In Realization there is no private > psychological entity that the conversational "I" > refers to. > > > The idea that everything vanishes is the > > Neo-Advaitin trap of > > delusion. I can't believe anybody would fall for > > it. > > Who said everything vanishes? That is your > understanding or your misunderstanding of Advaitic > literature. And I agree with you, it is nonsense that > Neo-Advaitic practitioners spout because they take a > description of Realization and try to use it as a > means of Realization resulting in absurd statements > like, "I don't exist" yet here they are fully in > waking state where there certainly is an "I." > > > > Go back to > > MMY's SBAL: Brahman has two aspects, inseparably > > nondual: relative > > and Absolute. The relative aspect remains as a > > body/mind even even > > though there's no inner core of delusion remaining. > > Right, I agree with you. That "inner core of delusion" > that you refer to is the phenomenological or > subjective "I". This literally is gone in Realization. > There is still a mind though. There are thoughts, > there are emotions, obviously there is a body, but > there is absolutely no inner "I" or subjective sense > of "me" that is experienced as separate and private. > Nothing is there. > > > But since the > > body/mind still exists, this must be the "I'; but > > now meaning > > something different. > > Why must an "I" exist just because the mind and body > are still around after Realization? > > > The I - the Individual, as > > opposed to other > > individuals occupying another set of space-time > > components. > > Who occupies any set of space-time components? This is > a fallacy. The body/mind does not generate the > delusion of "I". It is the identification of pure > consciousness with body/mind that generates the > delusion of an "I". Patanjali uses that metaphor of a > transparent jewel to desribe this in yoga sutras, > Chapter 1, verse 41. The transparent jewel sits on a > colored cloth and the jewel appears to be colored. So > to consciousness projeted into and identified with > body/mind becomes body/mind and an "I" is created. > > > You will > > agree that MMY is (in the strictly relative sense); > > an individual > > separate from SSRS. > > Yes, they are two separate body/minds. > > > I've heard MMY say "I" on many occasions. If he > > uses that pronoun, > > it must have a meaning, a referrent. > > It has a body/mind referent of course, but it has no > referent for Maharishi as a subjective entity. > > > The "I" is > > Maharishi Mahesh > > Yogi: everything that pertains to this person, as > > opposed to others. > > The body, mind, robe, hair, etc. > > Right, but again, there is no subjective, private > individuality or "I" that Maharishi speaks from. He > certainly has a body/mind; a distinct personality > shaped by genes and cultural influence just as we have > a body/mind shaped by genes an cultural influence. > > > > > > > > > > > > - In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter > > <drpetersutphen@> wrote: > > > > > > Comment below: > > > > > > --- tanhlnx <tanhlnx@> wrote: > > > > > > > --Below, you ask if "I" is the individual. > > Depends > > > > upon how you > > > > define it: a. the illusory I that is the core of > > > > misidentification, > > > > or b. the "individual" who remains after the > > > > ignorance of > > > > misidentification is gone, and who STILL may > > refer > > > > to herself as "I" > > > > in ordinary exchanges of conversation with > > people. > > > > > > Of course this is done! It's mere convention. But > > > "your" name and the personal pronoun, "I" don't > > > experientially refer to anything. > > > > > > > The question then > > > > becomes, what is the nature of this (b) "I"...; > > is > > > > it/he/she simply > > > > saying something that has no "reality"? No. > > > > > > Actually, yes. When you say "I" in Realization you > > > aren't refering to anything at all within your own > > > experience. There is no phenomenological or > > > experiential "I" to refer to. When you try to do > > this > > > there absolutely nothing. > > > > > > > > > > The I who remains has no "substantial", i.e. > > > > "in-itself" reality > > > > separate from Brahman; but the ongoing error of > > > > Neo-Advaita is that > > > > there's no significance to the remaining I. > > > > > > I don't know what your experience is with this, > > but > > > you seem to be trying to have your cake and eat it > > > too, as it were. Since in Realization there is no > > "I" > > > that is experienced you can't speak of it being > > > non-substantial or not having an in-itself > > reality. > > > All this makes no sense because there is > > absolutely > > > nothing there to refer too. There is only > > > consciousness which is completely unlocalized. > > What > > > are you talking about? > > > > > > > > > > > > > As pointed out by several contributors, the I > > > > that/who remains also > > > > has several major components when > > misidentification > > > > vanishes. One of > > > > these components can be called the social I, and > > > > includes all manner > > > > of habitual behaviors in the due course of > > social > > > > interactions. > > > > > > Of course, but this is not "you" any longer. It > > just > > > occurs, like the weather. > > > > > > > > > > > > > There are several other categories of this I: > > (b), > > > > the bodily/mind > > > > I; in essence, this body/mind that remains (even > > > > though "non- > > > > substantial") is a new I that exists in the > > world of > > > > nonduality. > > > > > > How can an "I" exist in a wold of non-duality that > > by > > > definition is non-dual? > > > > > > > Say you lived on a planet where everybody was > > born > > > > enlightened. > > > > Would people go around saying nobody has an "I". > > > > > > No. First, not > > > > having tasted the ignorance of > > misidentification, > > > > they would have no > > > > conception of what it is, none whatsoever. > > > > In the course of social intercourse, the > > > > notational "I" would be > > > > required, because on that planet, visitors may > > knock > > > > on your door > > > > asking if you are so and so. Naturally, you > > would > > > > reply "Yes, I am". > > > > More specifically and directly, exactly what is > > > > this new "I", apart > > > > from being a mere notation? > > > > > > It is a lingusitic notion in Realization that has > > no > > > phenomenological reality in Realization. > > > > > > > It's a relative body/mind! > > > > > > Absolutely incorrect. > > > > > > > Thus, to answer your question, an "I" exists > > after > > > > Enlightenment, > > > > > > No it doesn't. > > > > > > > yes, but it's not the same I as before which is > > > > based on the delusion > > > > of separateness. > > > > The new I is a holographic "me", wholly > > inseparable > > > > from the > > > > Absolute continuum of pure Consciousness; but > > still > > > > composed of > > > > various relative components such as the capacity > > to > > > > interact > > > > socially, to perform actions with the mind, > > senses, > > > > and organs; and > > > > to engage in new types of perceptions, > > especially > > > > relating to the > > > > entire universe of existence that forms the > > > > holographic identity. > > > > > > The capacity to interact socially, to perform > > actions > > > with the mind,etc., are relative components as you > > > say, but in Realization these certainly do > > continue, > > > but there is no identification with them as "you" > > or > > > "me" or "I." They just occur on their own as they > > did > > > before Realization. > > > > > > > The holographic aspect to the new I is > > important > > > > since holograms > > > > enfold the totality but each hologram differs > > from > > > > the others in > > > > having priorities of viewpoints. The things > > being > > > > seen have no inner > > > > core of an "I' as a false identity, but they > > (the > > > === message truncated === > > > > ______________________________________________________________________ ______________ > Don't let your dream ride pass you by. Make it a reality with Yahoo! Autos. > http://autos.yahoo.com/index.html >
