--- In [email protected], Peter Sutphen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > --- Rick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > --- In [email protected], Peter Sutphen > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > An unenlightened person looks at an enlightened > > person > > > and they appear to have desires. They talk, they > > move, > > > they eat food, they do this and that, they prefer > > one > > > thing over another. > > > > What is it that is actually driving the speach, > > movements, eating? > > And when there are preferences, why is one thing > > preferred over > > another? > > > > If an answer is Brahman then does Brahman have a > > sense of "I"?. > > > > Rick Carlstrom > > In waking state there is a foundational confound > between consciousness and the experiential sense of > "I". This "I" is ego. Because consciousness is > projected into and identified with body/mind there is > a bound sense of self: individuality. This ego assumes > ownership for action. Thus in waking state we assume > that action occurs because "I" am intending it. But in > enlightenment it becomes rather clear that there is no > "I" to intend or not to intend anything. Action just > occurs or not occurs. Thoughts just occur or not > occur. Feelings just occur or not occur. There is no > "I" that takes ownership. The "I" actually does not > exist. But it appears to exist in waking state and is > confused with consciousness. What drives the > behavior/thought/feeling of the enlightened is what > drives everything phenomenal: God/Nature/Mystery, > whatever. This is actually driving people in waking > state too, but they think that subjective sense of "I" > is doing it. It's quite the delusion! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In fact from the behavioral level > > > there is no difference between the unenlightened > > and > > > the enlightened. But the enlightened person is not > > > "there" in the way the unenlightened person > > believes > > > themselves to be. There is no sense of "I" or > > "mine" > > > in the enlightened person. There is no subjective > > > "self" that sees itself as "me" or "I" . That just > > > goes in enlightenment. The best an enlightened > > person > > > can say is that they are "nothing." They aren't > > there > > > in they way an unenlightened person believes they > > are > > > there. There is no personal identity or self in > > > enlightenment. The mind can't understand this > > because > > > it confounds a sense of individual self with > > > consciousness. The two have no relationship what > > so > > > ever. A personal self is a product of > > consciousness > > > projecting into mind and experiencing itself as > > bound.
So, the "I" doesn't exist because its an illusion, and in CC all illusions are expelled? To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
