When the body, mind and conditionings are gone, there is still something left, and this is what is known by the enlightened, and this is not transcient, all the other stuff is.
If the enlightened when using the word "I " are referring to this eternal "IS", that is One thing, if one is using "I' to refer to something other than than that, and then at the same time declaring elightenment, then this dellusion. No persona ever gets enlightened. It is not a me that is one with something. My Guru just added the last line, she is sitting next to me. --- In [email protected], "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. 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 [email protected], 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 > > > 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 [email protected], "Ron" > > > <sidha7001@> wrote: > > > > > > > > --- In [email protected], "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 > > >
