Truly Enlightened
Well-Known Member
This is certainly possible. Which is why I asked for more information. Otherwise it makes no sense at all, and even sounds redundant.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Who Am I? Again
- Thread starter atanu
- Start date
This is certainly possible. Which is why I asked for more information. Otherwise it makes no sense at all, and even sounds redundant.
The knowledge of unknowing/ignorance is also knowing.
We wake up from deep sleep and we say "I knew nothing". That is knowing.
Truly Enlightened
Well-Known Member
Really. I said that "What precedes knowing/knowledge is unknowing/ignorance". To the average person, this presupposes that you don't know or not have any knowledge of something beforehand. What exactly in your opinion, do you think proceeds "not knowing" something? I don't see how your dream analogy is relevant at all. But it certainly sounds nice. Are you seriously suggesting that "not knowing" something is in fact knowing that you do not know something? This is silly, fallacious, and evasive. But is certainly understandable.
Your use of words like ‘silly’ etc. is not acceptable. You are not speaking of the same thing as I am.
Is it not clear to you that I have been speaking of self awareness and not knowledge of objects?
There is an assumption that the waking state knowledge of the self as “I am this body-mind-intellect’ is correct. The thread is intended to bring out mistake in that assumption.
We spend time in dream and in deep sleep too. In those states, we do not have same form as we have in waking. The understanding of the nature of self should include the subjective knowledge of these states too.
As an approximate example we may cite states of water in solid, liquid, and gas forms. So, what is actual form of water?
In our case, the “I am” awareness that is intrinsic in waking, dreaming, and deep sleep states is real. The changing forms are appearances.
If the above seems silly or evasive, then please let us stop. This subject may not be for you as of now.
Last edited:
Truly Enlightened
Well-Known Member
Firstly, you were clearly speaking of the precursor to knowing and knowledge(both are different). You implied that the precursor itself, was that you know that you do not know or have knowledge. And that this is still knowing something. This is indeed a silly response. Now you're saying that being aware of yourself and your position in spacetime(self-awareness), is what we were talking about. Since knowledge is acquired in our waking state through our senses, it is irrelevant what the object of knowledge is. We can't control what our senses perceive.The waking state of "self", ALSO includes the knowledge from internal stimuli(autonomic, reflective, responsive, plasticity, or hormonal) as well. It is only at a different level of consciousness, and under genetic control.Then you add to the word mix, "I am this body-mind-intellect". Since there is no "we are", or "you are", or "they are", what other term can you use to represents our subjective perspective. It is like stating that we are only aware of self, when we are aware of self. Is "self" not an object? Do we not have knowledge of "self"?
Depending on its temperature, water can exist in all three states(including a plasma state). The form we call water is liquid. The form we call ice is solid. And, the form we call steam or vapor is gaseous. Not sure of the point you are making here. This logic can also apply to the different states of matter, in general.
Sleep is a biological necessity for all animals. Sleep deprivation in mammals can even lead to death. You are only fully self-aware when you are in an awake state of consciousness. Dreams are only fragmented mental representations of parts of our stored reality. They originate from neural activities from different sections of the brain. Certainly not the most reliable way of navigating through reality.
You are correct. Since you refuse to define or clarify your rote parroted terms, it is impossible to know exactly what you mean. And, since you refuse to answer any of my questions, you are simply proselytizing your own belief, and not interested in any other point of view. This is against the forum rules. You are also right, if I think that the subject is silly and needs to be evasive to appear credible, and that it is certainly not for me.
I cannot help if you do not comprehend the discussion in the context of "I am" and "I am this body-mind-intellect".
Isn't the OP "Who Am I? Again"...still a question in point ?
I think that we are a mix of all that Stuff that's on the Earth already.
That's of what we are really made. From where did all that Stuff come ?
Some think that `I Am` is created by `Gods`, not really self evolved.
That would make the `xyz` be created by these same `Gods`, wouldn't it?
The question remains, are we created, or are we evolved from the Earth.
I think that the `xyz` component more fits the evolvment than the creation.
But...`I Am` seems to fit the creation format, doesn't it ? Confused again !
NuffStuff
I think that we are a mix of all that Stuff that's on the Earth already.
That's of what we are really made. From where did all that Stuff come ?
Some think that `I Am` is created by `Gods`, not really self evolved.
That would make the `xyz` be created by these same `Gods`, wouldn't it?
The question remains, are we created, or are we evolved from the Earth.
I think that the `xyz` component more fits the evolvment than the creation.
But...`I Am` seems to fit the creation format, doesn't it ? Confused again !
NuffStuff
Truly Enlightened
Well-Known Member
No. You have already avoided your burden of proof in respect to your assertions, and lack of definition of terms. Now you are avoiding your responsibility to clearly state your position and ideas. It is you who is responsible for anyone's lack of comprehending your comments, not them. Or are you just hoping that your word-salad will stay ambiguous and confusing? Since you are the author, it is your responsibility to make sure that even a child would have a clear understanding of the meaning of your comments. This is also a mark of your level of understanding and confidence in the subject. Of course, if you are only rote parroting the ideas of others, then I wouldn't expect you to be able to share any in-depth personal understanding, outside of what you have been told. Obviously, you are not the best representative to defend your point of view.
Yes. It is still the question.
It is you (the self) that has experience of three states: waking, dreaming, sleeping. In these three states, 'xyz' (the composite of objects) differ. But do you, the "I" also change? The materialistic view is that only the waking state is reality. And the brain, which is an object of the waking state, is creating the consciousness and dream and sleep states and is also the knower of these states.
The brain that is a waking state object is supposed to be the subject also? Then who it is that is seeing the brain? Is it not foolishness?
Is "I am" created or evolved? I do not see that. "I am", as I understand, is unborn pure awareness. In a sense, it is the God.
Because our awareness is never of pure "I am", it is difficult to perceive it. It cannot be perceived as an object, since it is the subject. We cannot easily comprehend pure consciousness because in us consciousness works through layers of memories and attributes. But we can build a couple of thought experiments to help us intuit it. I have borrowed the first thought experiment from Salvadore Poe.
So, it is said that the self is self illuminating. No external light is required to sense it. Even the senses that go outward: eyes, ears, nose etc. are also not required.
There is one more step. We can examine the deep sleep state when even the mind is not operative. Yet we exist without sensing a world or "I". But when we wake up we remember that we knew nothing. And that is knowing, implying consciousness.
So, at any given moment, "I am", the pure attttribute-less consciousness, underlies all our "I am xyz" experiences, spanning three states of waking, dreaming, and sleeping states.
Last edited:
hey Atanu,
Ahhh, the knowing ! That is the prime factor. How does one know one's own `I` ?
From where does the `Am` come, what provides the source, what cause is there ?
One becomes a product of the `xyz` vs. the `I Am` doesn't one ? We are the cause.
We become the Stuff from what we were before, and then become the `xyz` again.
Ahhh, the knowing of what Stuff we will eventually become in that final last eternity.
Ahhh, the knowing ! That is the prime factor. How does one know one's own `I` ?
From where does the `Am` come, what provides the source, what cause is there ?
One becomes a product of the `xyz` vs. the `I Am` doesn't one ? We are the cause.
We become the Stuff from what we were before, and then become the `xyz` again.
Ahhh, the knowing of what Stuff we will eventually become in that final last eternity.
To me, anything that I can grasp as 'this' cannot be "I", the subject. 'This is my body' or 'this is my idea' or any variation of these two cannot be the "I", which is the subject.
In my understanding, "I am" the subject appears to become an ever-changing complex of "I am xyz stuff", by the process of superimposition of non-sentient objects on the sentient subject "I am".
I can speak from the advaita tradition of Hinduism. The core of our awareness is the eternity and it can be realised by being the seer "I am", stripping away the misconception that anything seen is "I am".
The journey begins with the understanding of the following and conducting meditative inquiry into the distinction between the "seer" (Dŗg) and the "seen" (Dŗśya).
- Form is observed, eye is the observer.
- That (eye) is observed, mind is the observer.
- Mental activities are observed, witness is the observer.
- But that observer is not observed.
What observes the observer of thoughts?
"What," "observe," "observer," and (especially) "thoughts," are all conventions. I bowed out of this conversation because of the impossibility of any proper discussion.
We could discuss conventions, though.
I agree. But.
What then is not mere convention? How many of us consider ‘observe’ etc. as mere conventions? And how that understanding arises without discrimination between the seen and the seer?
The understanding arises with discrimination between seer and the seen because of convention. It is the grammatical convention (in most languages) that verbs have a subject.
When we are taught, as youngsters, that this action means "to eat," we are at the same time implicitly taught that there is an eater who is eating. When we understand that there is thinking, with that thought we also have learned that there is a thinker. And when our ontological models of the universe give life to thought, as if distinct from the world, we also give life to that other side of the coin.
We bring what is behind the veil to life, with how we use language.