Relinquishing The"I"

passerbye999 · 06-01-2011, 09:27 PM

I have had this discussion on a few different threads and am curious to other peoples thoughts on the subject of " I am" vs. " I am not" describing personal enlightenment. What do you feel is the truth based on your personal experiences? Can the self be truly removed or is it simply a metaphor? Do we want to remove the self which is who we are and what defines us an individual human being belonging to the collective of humanity? If we do want to remove the self is it death we are truly striving for or life?

I believe "I am" is the enlightened practice of living life where " I am not" is the enlightened practice of living death and that it is better to live life for death will come in it's own time. My self I explored and practiced both I was " I am not" now " I am".

I am interested to hear what others have to say.

Peace

passerbye999 · 08-01-2011, 05:09 AM

Another thought on this subject is it " I think therefore I am" or " I am therefore I think" and is " I am" the definition of the divine within.

These are thoughts I have been pondering for a while but are starting only recently in my life to come to realize as some kind of awakening within myself.
They are solidifying and are a blending of Eastern and Western thought.

That brings me to another question. Is one form of enlightenment Eastern or Western any better than the other? I myself see no real distiction exept the idea of embracing the self or denying the self. Things are so muddied now a days because of the imformation age we live in yet this is the only time in human history such thoughts can really be pondered.

Maybe it is when the East and West come together true enlightenment can be found. Ancient beliefs like Taoism and Hinduism have helped form modern pshychiatrics, Jung was heavily influenced by them so were modern western philosophers. Everything comes down to "I" is I the self or simply a definition of self? Since all wisdom is derived from within from the self shouldn't the self be considered sacred? Is the self or "I" the spirit or soul? Consciousness is considered by Buddhists to be an attachment to be discarded yet in ch'an(became buddhist)mind or consciousness is the original nature it is what is here and now and what continues. The faceless face. If you empty your mind and discard attachment you still are conscious or you wouldn't be aware.

Lots of riddles with no real purpose exept in philosophy. Every religion contradicts itself. So why believe and practice? I practice for health and to strenghten the mind others practice to attain some kind of bliss that they are always reaching for and never grasping. No path is correct all are wrong yet all are correct if they offer peace and happiness in ones life. This thread I started is a brain fart I could offer my opinions but I know them and would like to hear others.

Peace

alisa2 · 08-01-2011, 02:34 PM

Here's a definition of the "I":

From the book Beyond the Mind by Dada Gavand:

"I will tell you what thought is. Thought has nothing to do with God. Rather, thought is like a dense cloud around the divine energy. Thought comes from imagination, from past memory; it is a product of past cravings and of incomplete experiences. When an experience is total, there is no memory and no thought about it. Out of unsatisfied cravings and unfinished actions thought arises. Thought has nothing to do with God. Thought itself is a diversion of energy, a hindrance to experiencing God, the divinity.

We must see the relation of thought with the vital energy. Thought projects itself out all the time and usurps our vital energy. Our whole life is based on thought activity and the pursuit of desire and ambition. What we call “I,” or the self, is a huge cluster of thoughts, ideas, hopes, desires, and all the past memories. This monolithic cluster uses our vital energy for its own repetitious energy. That is how living has become a mechanical routine. Only when energy is free from this catch by the cluster can it intuitively find its own independent action. Such total action of free energy is the intelligence of life. This action is unhindered by thought and the plans of the mind. The yogi is he who lives through such actions.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

In short, the "I" is EGO. When thought disappears, there is no I AM. There is only I AM NOT. In other words, you, the seeker, the mind, is not there; hence, I am not.

The book noted above is highly recommended.

knightofthegrail · 08-01-2011, 02:41 PM

It depends greatly on what you mean by "I".

Mr Icke is very fond of slating the herd mentality, but its one which has evolved over millions of years and served us well for majority of that time. The problem came when our environment was changed in such a way that we became a herd evolving in an insane environment rather than a healthy one.

The real "I" is the Herd. The community. The greater and wider of which we are a part. That doesnt mean we have no place for a sense of personal self (try eating if you dont have one of them

) but it does mean that as a result of seeing the Herd twisted we now place far too great a weight on the narrow, "personal", "I", and too little on the wider and greater Herd/Community/Nation(in the original sense)/Clan/Tribe/Family.

That said, yes, the whole "no ego at all" notion really is just nihilistic nonsense.

alisa2 · 08-01-2011, 03:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by knightofthegrail

That said, yes, the whole "no ego at all" notion really is just nihilistic nonsense.

There is healthy ego and a polluted one. The polluted one is called "I" also.
A healthy ego appropriates nothing. A polluted one:

Radical Awakening by Stephen Jourdain:

"....[F]rom which proceeds this counterfeit world, this pale copy of reality--interior and exterior--in which we live. This second source falsifies everything all at once. The falsification takes place from birth; it is already there when the infant emerges from the mother's body. So much so that, from the start, we live in a state of permanent hallucination, in the torrent gushing from this impure source."

passerbye999 · 08-01-2011, 07:32 PM

The mind is like a garden where flowers can be pruned and weeds picked. Whether it is empty or full of flowers or weeds it is still a garden. So what do we call this garden that is no garden at all exept a garden?

Even if skandhas can be removed what are they being removed from and what is left after they are removed? If there is nothing where did the bundles come from? Who removed the bundles? What was the purpose of the endevour if no one exists and to what end? If there is no "I" how can there be two selfs a healthy and a sick one?

I agree though thought is not intrinsicaly divine but can be. "I am" is divine with or without thought though wouldn't you say. What's good for God is good for us and what defines God is what defines us wouldn't it stand too reason? Is this not the divine spark within?

Just probing a bit deeper into the discussion.

Peace

Ps the above thoughts are neutral and meant for discussion but any nonsesne about everything being a halucination or an illusion is the dilusion of whatever teacher spouts such nonsense. Tell them to run head on into a wall and see if they pass through the illusion. Or jump off a bridge and see if they can fly like in a dream. We are energy but are matter as well and are bound by the laws of the universe which is very real. That is why kung fu is a true dharma vehicle you get on those tangents and take a punch to the face it brings you back to reality. Zen masters used to whack there students on the head with sticks.

KATSU!, KATSU!, KATSU! less reading more meditation KATSU!, KATSU!,KATSU! less meditation more living KATSU!,KATSU!,KATSU!.
Ha! Ho! off to the other shore San! Kan! Ze!

"Katsu (Japanese: 喝; Cantonese: hot3 (help·info), Pinyin: hè, Wade-Giles: ho) is a type of shout that is used in Chán and Zen Buddhism to give expression to one's own enlightened state (Japanese: satori) and/or to induce another person to move beyond rationality and logic and, potentially, achieve an initial enlightenment experience.[1] The shout is also sometimes used in the East Asian martial arts for a variety of purposes; in this context, katsu is very similar to the shout kiai.[2]"

alisa2 · 08-01-2011, 08:18 PM

Quote:

If there is no "I" how can there be two selfs a healthy and a sick one?

We use the word I when referencing ourselves either verbally or in writing. Other than that, what else is the I for? The I-I is the dual nature of the mind. We are born with two egos. One healthy and the other corrupt.

"One cannot deny duality since it is the nature of life. The duality is there; it manifests itself in space and time, and it is in space and time that the duality is either healthy or corrupt. In my opinion, it is a grave tactical error to set people going in an assault on duality without clarifying the difference between a healthy duality and a corrupt one." S. Jourdain

Quote:

Ps the above thoughts are neutral and meant for discussion but any nonsesne about everything being a halucination or an illusion is the dilusion of whatever teacher spouts such nonsense. Tell them to run head on into a wall and see if they pass through the illusion. Or jump off a bridge and see if they can fly like in a dream. We are energy but are matter as well and are bound by the laws of the universe which is very real.

Well, those are your conclusions not mine. I am not going to sit here all day and try to convince you or explain it to you.

If you want to understand something, then do your own research. But obviously you will not have to do any research on it because you've already concluded. Maybe other posters can help you... I'm outta here.

passerbye999 · 08-01-2011, 08:30 PM

Some say that if one says I am enlightened they cannot be enlightened but if they say I am not enlightened they are enlightened. This is a zen koan itself. I hope this makes this threads intent clearer and the confusion I hope it will take away.

Here are six ancient ch'an koans used in the Rinzai school.

1) Now that I've shed my skin completely, one true reality alone exists.

2)I meet him, but do not know who he is; I converse with him, but do not know his name.

3)For ten years I couldn't return; now I've forgotten the road by which I came.

4)Only I myself can enjoy it; it is not suitable to present to you.

5) I alone walk in the red heavens

6)Riding backwards on an ox, I enter the Buddha-hall

I could add more but this is enough for the reader to see alot of "I's" from enlightened masters. Note the 4th " I myself" interesting huh.
I have no problem with readers posting on this thread that say I am or I am not enlightened and here are my thoughts on the subject as a matter of fact I welcome it.
Peace

passerbye999 · 08-01-2011, 08:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by alisa2

We use the word I when referencing ourselves either verbally or in writing. Other than that, what else is the I for? The I-I is the dual nature of the mind. We are born with two egos. One healthy and the other corrupt.

"One cannot deny duality since it is the nature of life. The duality is there; it manifests itself in space and time, and it is in space and time that the duality is either healthy or corrupt. In my opinion, it is a grave tactical error to set people going in an assault on duality without clarifying the difference between a healthy duality and a corrupt one." S. Jourdain

Well, those are your conclusions not mine. I am not going to sit here all day and try to convince you or explain it to you.

If you want to understand something, then do your own research. But obviously you will not have to do any research on it because you've already concluded. Maybe other posters can help you... I'm outta here.

never asked for your help only your opinions, I do have my own conclusions from experience of teaching and training Ch'an for a long time, what I want is dialogue. This is the arguement of what true enlightenment really or supposedly is. Most people who come upon this thread will have had no previous experience to the subject or real ch'an for that matter. This thread is for the reader as well as myself what you explain is for them as well. Everyone on this site talks about enlightenment but always using other peoples words and books. I want to hear personal experiences of enlightenment and opinions derived from that base. I appreciate what you have added and I am sorry you are leaving but I can not keep you so good bye.

Peace

Ps alisa2 you are one of the reasons I started this thread after reading your posts on the enlightenment is childs play thread I believe it was. too bad you wouldn't stay. My research is extensive and never ends it is another purpose of this post. I lived I am not for 10 yrs then woke up now I am. I play with illusions in this dream like a magician, I conjure or disperse them at will alas though so do we all. Awake or asleep I am me just as you are you if not who are we? I deeply understand the illusion but disagree with many interpretations.

passerbye999 · 08-01-2011, 10:46 PM

A special transmission outside the scriptures,
Not founded upon words and letters;
By pointing directly to [one's] mind
It lets one see into [one's own true] nature and [thus] attain Buddhahood

Relinquishing the "I" is the core tenant of all Buddhist practice. The question is how did Buddha and Boddhidharma and Jesus either start without or go beyond any scripture? Boddhidharma they say came from Persia the middle east. Two great world influencing teachers from the middle east and one from india all with similar core teachings even the Taoists accepted the precepts and blended them with their own. The Taoists are older than all three of the others and where already teaching most of these teachings. Only one was a Hindu. So why do we always point to India when we think of enlightenment? What did Buddha really do for the world everything he did had selfish intentions. How did his family, his son like being abandoned? He never lived up to every males responsibility looking after and raising his family. That will piss some people off but I don't care it is the truth. His teachings relinquish suffering seemed to me he created a lot for his family while he was saving himself. So much for the captain goes down with his ship. Is that true enlightenment abandoning those who need you for survival? How does removing yourself and denying the world save the world? Alot of I for a no I teaching. Jesus was the teacher of I am he healed and raised the dead yet he denied his family too or did he right to the end his thoughts were of his mother and her welfare. His brothers followed him to death why would they do that unless they all loved each other deeply. Again though what did he really do for the world? Boddhidharma is middle ground and his teachings allow one to navigate the rest of this theological mess he probably didn't really exist and was a collection of teachings put into human form. This paragraph has been gritty but I feel it needed to be said they all had their faults not one was perfect they were human bound to the human condition. They simply offered advice on how to deal with that condition. I like Taoism, ch'an is taoism with a buddhist robe yet I am judeo christian. So most of this thread will be a mixture of such thought. I don't cling to much but what is true I cling to like my mothers apron string.

I am, I am not the yang and the yin. mindfullness and mindlessness. Here is the duality spoken of by alisa2. Something and nothing. everything that is dual though speaks of and points to the whole. In an instant I am and I am not. I am both together empty awareness. What is the whole both point to and speak of? It must be "I". So nothing is relinquished really just realized. One or two is simply a state of mind. Maybe we need to find one to embrace the other? Acceptance is the only thing that truly defeats suffering not non attachment. Non attachment is simply removing oneself from the situation , escapism. Acceptance keeps the connection yet allows one to move forward. How can we be one when we remove ourselves from the whole, denying ourselves thus denying existance itself?

You see this thread is not me seeking help with answers to my questions it is opening up debate, a philosophical arguement. Agree or deny but explanation is asked for so the debate may grow and ideas flow allowing wisdom to be shared. That is why I started with questions to instigate a response by provoking thought.

Jesus said Matthew 6:26-30 (New International Version, ©2010)

26 Look at the birds of the air; they do not sow or reap or store away in barns, and yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not much more valuable than they? 27 Can any one of you by worrying add a single hour to your life[a]?

28 “And why do you worry about clothes? See how the flowers of the field grow. They do not labor or spin. 29 Yet I tell you that not even Solomon in all his splendor was dressed like one of these. 30 If that is how God clothes the grass of the field, which is here today and tomorrow is thrown into the fire, will he not much more clothe you—you of little faith?

An ancient chinese proverb " Soar like the fowl in the air and grow like the lilies of the feild."

Jesus wasn't from the east but cool comparison of thought though.

I wish no one any offence if I debate their post and I will take none when they debate mine.

Peace

passerbye999 · 08-01-2011, 11:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by knightofthegrail

It depends greatly on what you mean by "I".

Mr Icke is very fond of slating the herd mentality, but its one which has evolved over millions of years and served us well for majority of that time. The problem came when our environment was changed in such a way that we became a herd evolving in an insane environment rather than a healthy one.

The real "I" is the Herd. The community. The greater and wider of which we are a part. That doesnt mean we have no place for a sense of personal self (try eating if you dont have one of them

) but it does mean that as a result of seeing the Herd twisted we now place far too great a weight on the narrow, "personal", "I", and too little on the wider and greater Herd/Community/Nation(in the original sense)/Clan/Tribe/Family.

That said, yes, the whole "no ego at all" notion really is just nihilistic nonsense.

I agree the real I is we and we are forced to focus to much energy and time on the I or personal I as you called it because the pressures the we places on it. Without I there is no we, without we I doesn't exist. Thanks for the imput.

Peace

ashangel · 09-01-2011, 01:03 AM

I see the "I" as the local eyes and ears of infinite consciousness experiencing itself subjectively, so in that view it still has merit to me. The ego is not the I it just likes to pretend it is.

passerbye999 · 09-01-2011, 01:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ashangel

I see the "I" as the local eyes and ears of infinite consciousness experiencing itself subjectively, so in that view it still has merit to me. The ego is not the I it just likes to pretend it is.

Interesting thought and quite unique. I like " The ego is not the I it just likes to pretend it is." Would you say on some level then we strive to be this infinite consciousness not part of it so we imitate it. The ego then being like a control junky over the local I as you referenced it creating a seperation of consciousness. Giving the ego a semblance of individual identity where there is none in the first place. So if we removed the ego all that would be left is the local I.

Peace

opas23 · 09-01-2011, 06:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by passerbye999

My self I explored and practiced both...

Hello again passerbye999,

Perhaps there is something so magnificently powerful in its own and equally powerful subtlety which can appear to be missed when there appears someone who is apparently doing one thing instead of another...and then seemingly later, appears to do the other first, the other way 'round.

Maybe, just maybe, it can be seen to not be solely on one side of the river or the other and perhaps a natural mixture of both which is exactly the same as to say, "Neither of them!" lol

The river will flow naturally 'tween the two regardless of any adherence to which side is preferred.

So maybe the answer, if one is needed at all, lies in the 'v' in the middle of the other appearing alternatives. (I am 'v' I am not)

Nonsensically yours,

Opas23.

passerbye999 · 09-01-2011, 10:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by opas23

Hello again passerbye999,

Perhaps there is something so magnificently powerful in its own and equally powerful subtlety which can appear to be missed when there appears someone who is apparently doing one thing instead of another...and then seemingly later, appears to do the other first, the other way 'round.

Maybe, just maybe, it can be seen to not be solely on one side of the river or the other and perhaps a natural mixture of both which is exactly the same as to say, "Neither of them!" lol

The river will flow naturally 'tween the two regardless of any adherence to which side is preferred.

So maybe the answer, if one is needed at all, lies in the 'v' in the middle of the other appearing alternatives. (I am 'v' I am not)

Nonsensically yours,

Opas23.

Hi opas23 glad you joined in. neither nor, either or, so the "v" is the only vehicle ha! you are good opas23 I like you. an answer that is no answer at all yet like a zen koan penetrates the truth. cheers

opas23 · 10-01-2011, 01:52 AM

greenzxy · 10-01-2011, 02:28 AM

The ego is a troll, lol deep down it knows it's just playing around.

passerbye999 · 10-01-2011, 04:19 AM

1)my single peal of laughter
startles heaven and earth

2)he sees only the winding of the stream and the twisting of the path,
he does not know that already he is in the land of the immortals.

3)when we're reviling one another, you may give me tit for tat;
when we are spitting at each other, you may spew me with slobber.

4)three men testified about the tortoise, so that makes it a turtle.

this is more like it the ancient masters engaged in such conversation with wit and humor as well. we haven't left the original question we are simply moving deeper into it by skipping around it. like troll children singing and dancing as we skip along the path which is messy for none of us are potty trained. since the path is a river though we all walk on water lucky for us for it washes away our stench.

Peace

hadaka_jimmy · 10-01-2011, 11:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by knightofthegrail

That said, yes, the whole "no ego at all" notion really is just nihilistic nonsense.

No, you don't know what you're talking about. The doctrine of no-self, anatta is not nihilistic.

passerbye999 · 10-01-2011, 09:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hadaka_jimmy

No, you don't know what you're talking about. The doctrine of no-self, anatta is not nihilistic.

Hi hadaka jimmy glad you joined the thread. would you please explain for the benifit of others your take on the doctrine of no self so they may understand where you are coming from? all sides of the arguement are welcome and appreciated.

Peace

06-01-2011, 09:27 PM	#1
passerbye999 Banned Join Date: Aug 2010 Location: Between Heaven and Earth Posts: 2,069	Relinquishing The"I" I have had this discussion on a few different threads and am curious to other peoples thoughts on the subject of " I am" vs. " I am not" describing personal enlightenment. What do you feel is the truth based on your personal experiences? Can the self be truly removed or is it simply a metaphor? Do we want to remove the self which is who we are and what defines us an individual human being belonging to the collective of humanity? If we do want to remove the self is it death we are truly striving for or life? I believe "I am" is the enlightened practice of living life where " I am not" is the enlightened practice of living death and that it is better to live life for death will come in it's own time. My self I explored and practiced both I was " I am not" now " I am". I am interested to hear what others have to say. Peace Last edited by passerbye999; 06-01-2011 at 09:40 PM.

08-01-2011, 05:09 AM	#2
passerbye999 Banned Join Date: Aug 2010 Location: Between Heaven and Earth Posts: 2,069	Another thought on this subject is it " I think therefore I am" or " I am therefore I think" and is " I am" the definition of the divine within. These are thoughts I have been pondering for a while but are starting only recently in my life to come to realize as some kind of awakening within myself. They are solidifying and are a blending of Eastern and Western thought. That brings me to another question. Is one form of enlightenment Eastern or Western any better than the other? I myself see no real distiction exept the idea of embracing the self or denying the self. Things are so muddied now a days because of the imformation age we live in yet this is the only time in human history such thoughts can really be pondered. Maybe it is when the East and West come together true enlightenment can be found. Ancient beliefs like Taoism and Hinduism have helped form modern pshychiatrics, Jung was heavily influenced by them so were modern western philosophers. Everything comes down to "I" is I the self or simply a definition of self? Since all wisdom is derived from within from the self shouldn't the self be considered sacred? Is the self or "I" the spirit or soul? Consciousness is considered by Buddhists to be an attachment to be discarded yet in ch'an(became buddhist)mind or consciousness is the original nature it is what is here and now and what continues. The faceless face. If you empty your mind and discard attachment you still are conscious or you wouldn't be aware. Lots of riddles with no real purpose exept in philosophy. Every religion contradicts itself. So why believe and practice? I practice for health and to strenghten the mind others practice to attain some kind of bliss that they are always reaching for and never grasping. No path is correct all are wrong yet all are correct if they offer peace and happiness in ones life. This thread I started is a brain fart I could offer my opinions but I know them and would like to hear others. Peace Last edited by passerbye999; 08-01-2011 at 05:48 AM.

08-01-2011, 07:32 PM	#6
passerbye999 Banned Join Date: Aug 2010 Location: Between Heaven and Earth Posts: 2,069	The mind is like a garden where flowers can be pruned and weeds picked. Whether it is empty or full of flowers or weeds it is still a garden. So what do we call this garden that is no garden at all exept a garden? Even if skandhas can be removed what are they being removed from and what is left after they are removed? If there is nothing where did the bundles come from? Who removed the bundles? What was the purpose of the endevour if no one exists and to what end? If there is no "I" how can there be two selfs a healthy and a sick one? I agree though thought is not intrinsicaly divine but can be. "I am" is divine with or without thought though wouldn't you say. What's good for God is good for us and what defines God is what defines us wouldn't it stand too reason? Is this not the divine spark within? Just probing a bit deeper into the discussion. Peace Ps the above thoughts are neutral and meant for discussion but any nonsesne about everything being a halucination or an illusion is the dilusion of whatever teacher spouts such nonsense. Tell them to run head on into a wall and see if they pass through the illusion. Or jump off a bridge and see if they can fly like in a dream. We are energy but are matter as well and are bound by the laws of the universe which is very real. That is why kung fu is a true dharma vehicle you get on those tangents and take a punch to the face it brings you back to reality. Zen masters used to whack there students on the head with sticks. KATSU!, KATSU!, KATSU! less reading more meditation KATSU!, KATSU!,KATSU! less meditation more living KATSU!,KATSU!,KATSU!. Ha! Ho! off to the other shore San! Kan! Ze! "Katsu (Japanese: 喝; Cantonese: hot3 (help·info), Pinyin: hè, Wade-Giles: ho) is a type of shout that is used in Chán and Zen Buddhism to give expression to one's own enlightened state (Japanese: satori) and/or to induce another person to move beyond rationality and logic and, potentially, achieve an initial enlightenment experience.[1] The shout is also sometimes used in the East Asian martial arts for a variety of purposes; in this context, katsu is very similar to the shout kiai.[2]" Last edited by passerbye999; 08-01-2011 at 09:21 PM.

08-01-2011, 08:30 PM	#8
passerbye999 Banned Join Date: Aug 2010 Location: Between Heaven and Earth Posts: 2,069	Some say that if one says I am enlightened they cannot be enlightened but if they say I am not enlightened they are enlightened. This is a zen koan itself. I hope this makes this threads intent clearer and the confusion I hope it will take away. Here are six ancient ch'an koans used in the Rinzai school. 1) Now that I've shed my skin completely, one true reality alone exists. 2)I meet him, but do not know who he is; I converse with him, but do not know his name. 3)For ten years I couldn't return; now I've forgotten the road by which I came. 4)Only I myself can enjoy it; it is not suitable to present to you. 5) I alone walk in the red heavens 6)Riding backwards on an ox, I enter the Buddha-hall I could add more but this is enough for the reader to see alot of "I's" from enlightened masters. Note the 4th " I myself" interesting huh. I have no problem with readers posting on this thread that say I am or I am not enlightened and here are my thoughts on the subject as a matter of fact I welcome it. Peace Last edited by passerbye999; 08-01-2011 at 09:53 PM.

08-01-2011, 10:46 PM	#10
passerbye999 Banned Join Date: Aug 2010 Location: Between Heaven and Earth Posts: 2,069	A special transmission outside the scriptures, Not founded upon words and letters; By pointing directly to [one's] mind It lets one see into [one's own true] nature and [thus] attain Buddhahood Relinquishing the "I" is the core tenant of all Buddhist practice. The question is how did Buddha and Boddhidharma and Jesus either start without or go beyond any scripture? Boddhidharma they say came from Persia the middle east. Two great world influencing teachers from the middle east and one from india all with similar core teachings even the Taoists accepted the precepts and blended them with their own. The Taoists are older than all three of the others and where already teaching most of these teachings. Only one was a Hindu. So why do we always point to India when we think of enlightenment? What did Buddha really do for the world everything he did had selfish intentions. How did his family, his son like being abandoned? He never lived up to every males responsibility looking after and raising his family. That will piss some people off but I don't care it is the truth. His teachings relinquish suffering seemed to me he created a lot for his family while he was saving himself. So much for the captain goes down with his ship. Is that true enlightenment abandoning those who need you for survival? How does removing yourself and denying the world save the world? Alot of I for a no I teaching. Jesus was the teacher of I am he healed and raised the dead yet he denied his family too or did he right to the end his thoughts were of his mother and her welfare. His brothers followed him to death why would they do that unless they all loved each other deeply. Again though what did he really do for the world? Boddhidharma is middle ground and his teachings allow one to navigate the rest of this theological mess he probably didn't really exist and was a collection of teachings put into human form. This paragraph has been gritty but I feel it needed to be said they all had their faults not one was perfect they were human bound to the human condition. They simply offered advice on how to deal with that condition. I like Taoism, ch'an is taoism with a buddhist robe yet I am judeo christian. So most of this thread will be a mixture of such thought. I don't cling to much but what is true I cling to like my mothers apron string. I am, I am not the yang and the yin. mindfullness and mindlessness. Here is the duality spoken of by alisa2. Something and nothing. everything that is dual though speaks of and points to the whole. In an instant I am and I am not. I am both together empty awareness. What is the whole both point to and speak of? It must be "I". So nothing is relinquished really just realized. One or two is simply a state of mind. Maybe we need to find one to embrace the other? Acceptance is the only thing that truly defeats suffering not non attachment. Non attachment is simply removing oneself from the situation , escapism. Acceptance keeps the connection yet allows one to move forward. How can we be one when we remove ourselves from the whole, denying ourselves thus denying existance itself? You see this thread is not me seeking help with answers to my questions it is opening up debate, a philosophical arguement. Agree or deny but explanation is asked for so the debate may grow and ideas flow allowing wisdom to be shared. That is why I started with questions to instigate a response by provoking thought. Jesus said Matthew 6:26-30 (New International Version, ©2010) 26 Look at the birds of the air; they do not sow or reap or store away in barns, and yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not much more valuable than they? 27 Can any one of you by worrying add a single hour to your life[a]? 28 “And why do you worry about clothes? See how the flowers of the field grow. They do not labor or spin. 29 Yet I tell you that not even Solomon in all his splendor was dressed like one of these. 30 If that is how God clothes the grass of the field, which is here today and tomorrow is thrown into the fire, will he not much more clothe you—you of little faith? An ancient chinese proverb " Soar like the fowl in the air and grow like the lilies of the feild." Jesus wasn't from the east but cool comparison of thought though. I wish no one any offence if I debate their post and I will take none when they debate mine. Peace Last edited by passerbye999; 09-01-2011 at 03:31 AM.

08-01-2011, 02:34 PM	#3
alisa2 Premier Subscribers Join Date: Jan 2007 Posts: 1,567	Here's a definition of the "I": From the book Beyond the Mind by Dada Gavand: "I will tell you what thought is. Thought has nothing to do with God. Rather, thought is like a dense cloud around the divine energy. Thought comes from imagination, from past memory; it is a product of past cravings and of incomplete experiences. When an experience is total, there is no memory and no thought about it. Out of unsatisfied cravings and unfinished actions thought arises. Thought has nothing to do with God. Thought itself is a diversion of energy, a hindrance to experiencing God, the divinity. We must see the relation of thought with the vital energy. Thought projects itself out all the time and usurps our vital energy. Our whole life is based on thought activity and the pursuit of desire and ambition. What we call “I,” or the self, is a huge cluster of thoughts, ideas, hopes, desires, and all the past memories. This monolithic cluster uses our vital energy for its own repetitious energy. That is how living has become a mechanical routine. Only when energy is free from this catch by the cluster can it intuitively find its own independent action. Such total action of free energy is the intelligence of life. This action is unhindered by thought and the plans of the mind. The yogi is he who lives through such actions. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ In short, the "I" is EGO. When thought disappears, there is no I AM. There is only I AM NOT. In other words, you, the seeker, the mind, is not there; hence, I am not. The book noted above is highly recommended.

08-01-2011, 02:41 PM	#4
knightofthegrail Banned Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 10,659	It depends greatly on what you mean by "I". Mr Icke is very fond of slating the herd mentality, but its one which has evolved over millions of years and served us well for majority of that time. The problem came when our environment was changed in such a way that we became a herd evolving in an insane environment rather than a healthy one. The real "I" is the Herd. The community. The greater and wider of which we are a part. That doesnt mean we have no place for a sense of personal self (try eating if you dont have one of them ) but it does mean that as a result of seeing the Herd twisted we now place far too great a weight on the narrow, "personal", "I", and too little on the wider and greater Herd/Community/Nation(in the original sense)/Clan/Tribe/Family. That said, yes, the whole "no ego at all" notion really is just nihilistic nonsense.

09-01-2011, 01:03 AM	#12
ashangel Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2010 Location: Superpositioned Posts: 675	I see the "I" as the local eyes and ears of infinite consciousness experiencing itself subjectively, so in that view it still has merit to me. The ego is not the I it just likes to pretend it is. __________________ http://www.clipboard.com/Ashangel http://www.youtube.com/user/AshangelV1 We came out from the deep To help and understand, but not to kill It takes many lives till we succeed To clear the debts of many hundreds years That's why we are here !

10-01-2011, 01:52 AM	#16
opas23 Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2010 Posts: 1,316	__________________ "It is wiser to find out than suppose." Mark Twain

10-01-2011, 02:28 AM	#17
greenzxy Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2010 Location: Maryland, U.S. Posts: 276	The ego is a troll, lol deep down it knows it's just playing around. __________________ Watch your thoughts; They become words. Watch your words; They become actions. Watch your actions; They become habits. Watch your habits; They become character. Watch your character; It becomes your Destiny!

10-01-2011, 04:19 AM	#18
passerbye999 Banned Join Date: Aug 2010 Location: Between Heaven and Earth Posts: 2,069	1)my single peal of laughter startles heaven and earth 2)he sees only the winding of the stream and the twisting of the path, he does not know that already he is in the land of the immortals. 3)when we're reviling one another, you may give me tit for tat; when we are spitting at each other, you may spew me with slobber. 4)three men testified about the tortoise, so that makes it a turtle. this is more like it the ancient masters engaged in such conversation with wit and humor as well. we haven't left the original question we are simply moving deeper into it by skipping around it. like troll children singing and dancing as we skip along the path which is messy for none of us are potty trained. since the path is a river though we all walk on water lucky for us for it washes away our stench. Peace Last edited by passerbye999; 10-01-2011 at 04:20 AM.