Irmeli: > > It puzzles me also, why people, when they stop > > identifying the 'I' > > with an image of one's personal self, say there is > > no 'I' anymore.
Peter: > Because no "I" or psychological sense of "me" is > present. It can't be found. When people (in avidya) > say "me" they are refering to a sense of separate > individuality. An abstract, felt-sense of "me-ness" > that is private and distinct from others' "me-ness". 1) An abstract, felt-sense of "me-ness" that is private and distinct from others' "me-ness". 2) people (in avidya) say "me" refering to a sense of separate individuality. IME point one is the salient thing that distinguishes i) localized/specific identity and ii) non-localized/non-specific/non-distinct/undifferentiated "identity". (To say that the latter is "universal" identity is a hard to validate hypothesis -- though supported by "traditional" views. And to say it is an identity is a misnomer, thus the quotes. ) While point 2 can be read as an equivalent and restatement of point 1, it can also refer to "the obvious" -- that in a social group there are many distinct social personalities -- sometimes more than the number of people in the group. :) Akasha's social self is distinct, as is Peters, and both are quite distinct from the non-localized/non-specific/undifferentiated "identity". Keeping this semantic distinction in mind might contribute to clearer communication. > > The `I' is the subject, who feels, sees, interprets > > and evaluates > > situations, makes meaning, uses concepts like > > enlightenment in > > communication, relates to others, is in dialogue > > with others. > > Yes, this is all true in avidya. It is a > phenomenological reality. "I" exist, "I" think, "I" > feel, "I" interprate and evaluate, "I" make meaning. > There is always, except in deep sleep, this underlying > sense of "I". IME, IMV, mind being the "thought receptor", and "intellect" being the deciding mechanism, there is a Peter mind and intellect, as there is one for Akasha and Irmeli. Thoughts come effortlessly to all the receptors. To claim ownership is a hall of mirrors type thing. Getting caught in hall of mirrors promotes a feeling of "my thoughts" and from there -- "my thoughts seem inherently correct". Thats a contribution of Byron Katie -- and others -- to pound that false and almost default notion out of ones intellect. And the intellect acts by itself -- without any "doer" -- though again in the hall of mirrors, it can appear so. Or such sense of false owneship is just a default "state" -- that often is not questioned and thus stays stuck in that mode. The non-localized/non-specific/non-distinct/undifferentiated "identity" has nothing to do with the thought recpetor or deciding mechanism. In contrast, a localized identity "pops" up in the hall of mirrors and claims ownership and doership. (If "you" really beleive "you" are really the doer, then STOP thinking, stop evaluating and deciding.) P: > There is thought, there is feeling, there is > everything just like waking state, but there is no "I" > or "me" present. It just can't be located! People say > your name as if refering to a "you," but there is no > "you" present. Though the "I" may appear to be gone, I wonder if its existence can be implied. Like a black hole, it can't be seen -- it appears "not there", but can be inferred as objects in motion are deflected by its gravitational force. For example, if one with "NO I" feels insulted, or gets angry, "what" feels the insult? Its not the non-localized "identity". Though the social self has mind and intellect that functions independent of the non-localized "identity", per your experience there is no ego, no "I". So there is no "thing" to receive the insult. Thus, it should just dissipate, like waves in a stick through water or air type thing. Or simply travel right through the "empty space" of non-individuatity, like light contining to travel through space, in contrast to reflecting off a "thing" in its path and exploding in light. Using this analogy, it would appear that (still) having a sense of "being insulted" implies some traces of ego remain -- even if one cannot see "ego" directly. Again, if there is no "I", the "light" or energy of the insult has nothing to reflect off of. Thus no sense of insult. ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/JjtolB/TM --------------------------------------------------------------------~-> 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/
