--I disagree. The "I" after the illusory "I" vanishes and refers to something. It, the pronoun, refers the body/mind that others engage with. The idea that everything vanishes is the Neo-Advaitin trap of delusion. I can't believe anybody would fall for it. 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. But since the body/mind still exists, this must be the "I'; but now meaning something different. The I - the Individual, as opposed to other individuals occupying another set of space-time components. You will agree that MMY is (in the strictly relative sense); an individual separate from SSRS. I've heard MMY say "I" on many occasions. If he uses that pronoun, it must have a meaning, a referrent. The "I" is Maharishi Mahesh Yogi: everything that pertains to this person, as opposed to others. The body, mind, robe, hair, etc.
- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Comment below: > > --- tanhlnx <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 > > objects) are > > simply "being seen". By what? The body and its > > senses. > > Agree with this. > > > 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. > > No, Ron's guru is correct. > > > 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. > > You are creating a conceptual distinction that makes > no difference. How can there be a "...holgraphic 'I' > nondifferent from the Absolute continuum."? If it was > nondifferent there is no distinction and it is > therefore the same. You seem to be trying to > intellectually resolve the "problem" of individuality > in Realization because you are confounding > consciousness with the phenomenological/experiential > "I" of waking state. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Ron" > > <sidha7001@> 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 > > > > > > > > > > > > > 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 > > > > > > mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > > > > > ______________________________________________________________________ ______________ > Check out the hottest 2008 models today at Yahoo! Autos. > http://autos.yahoo.com/new_cars.html >
