--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. The question then becomes, what is the nature of this (b) "I"...; is it/he/she simply saying something that has no "reality"? No. 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. 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. 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. 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's a relative body/mind! Thus, to answer your question, an "I" exists after Enlightenment, 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 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 objects) are simply "being seen". By what? The body and its senses. Thus, your Guru is misguided if he has fallen into the Neo-Advaita trap which claims that all types of an "I" vanish at Enlightenment. The Enlightenment "I" is a holographic "I", nondifferent from the Absolute continuum but partaking of normal interactions by virtue of ongoing bodily impulses and the capacity to engage in entirely new, creative, and original enterprises.
- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Ron" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "qntmpkt" <qntmpkt@> wrote: > > > > --The statement, "...then there only IS" is an incomplete description > > of existence. > > Of course, any statement will never replace the reality of the situation > > A more complete statement would be "....Is....AS: > > modifications of pure Conscious such as trees, the sky, the body; > > etc; and all of the components that STILL make up an individual, > > minus the false illusory "I". > > The I is the individual, isn't it? > > Therefore, should the IRC come > > knocking on your door (after getting Enlightened), don't say, "Sorry, > > can't pay since there's no "Me". > > > I have posted comments from the enlightened here so it helps to see how their day to day > life is, and that this story book idea of special and superhuman belongs more to ego than > Reaization >
