If you are new, you can start here

[helio]

Are they all parts of the whole?

Yes

Or functions of the one?

Both; they are parts and functions of the whole

Code: Select all

You have used the common sense world view (and using your terminology) said that identity is not the body.

In this perspective, the body is part of the identity.

Code: Select all

Is identity a thing? Or a collection of identifiers?

The identity is a combination of identifiers

Code: Select all

Humans being have learned to refer to it like it is a thing.

Yes

Here is a little pointer.

Code: Select all

A red car can be identified as red and red is certainly part of its identity but it doesn't have a red.

Does it not have "red" as the pigment of the color, which is the light wave frequency reflected by the atoms?

[mark_tywharton]

There is a subtle line which you are unwilling to cross?

Yes I know it is a metaphor but can I invite you to take a leap in understanding?

There is no part of you called "I" it is only ever imagined however real.

Perhaps it would help to see that everything you think is reality is only ever imagined.

You can perceive reality but you can only ever experience your perception of it.

You perceive Helio but he isn't there, no matter how or where you look you will not find him.

In reality. Keep looking, you are doing great.

[helio]

Hey Mark,

I hope you had a great weekend.

There is a subtle line which you are unwilling to cross?

Not sure what you mean by this statement

Yes I know it is a metaphor but can I invite you to take a leap in understanding?

Please do. If you could be a bit more specific, I am willing to follow.

There is no part of you called "I" it is only ever imagined however real.

I agree with you since I am familiar with the hallucination of the "I", however, since we seem to have different understandings of this fact, is it possible for you to be more specific as to your meaning, and how you "see" this conclusion?

Perhaps it would help to see that everything you think is reality is only ever imagined.

I also agree with you on this; reality is subjective. And I also want to make sure we have the same understanding why this is true. Consequently, if you could expand on the meaning and reason why, that would be great.

You can perceive reality but you can only ever experience your perception of it.

Correct.

You perceive Helio but he isn't there, no matter how or where you look you will not find him.

What do you say I "see" when I look in a mirror?

In reality. Keep looking, you are doing great.

Thank you for the vote of confidence. One thing I noticed this weekend is the natural propensity of all human beings to attach to concepts and meanings. This naturally can cause a distortion of reality. For me, even an attached to the idea of "knowing" or "being enlightened" or "liberated" or whatever you want to call it, can also create a distortion. Accordingly, I have detached from any conceived knowledge I think I posses and try to transcend even that which "I think I have realized."

[helio]

Hi Mark,

I do have one question that just came up... For you; within you and within your mind, who is it that accepted the concepts we are discussing?

[mark_tywharton]

What do you say I "see" when I look in a mirror?

You see a mirror!

More accurately, the perception of a mirror...

[mark_tywharton]

Hi Mark,

I do have one question that just came up... For you; within you and within your mind, who is it that accepted the concepts we are discussing?

That's rife with presuppositions :-)

Within me, within my mind.

Thoughts happen but they don't appear to have a location.

Is there a mind?

Or is mind a concept about thoughts?

In terms of accepting, the concept seemed an adequate explanation in the absence of an absolute and it pointed to an absolute.

We could sing a song of sixpence until we agree we have both found what it points to if you like.

It doesn't matter what happens in language really.

We stop the discourse when we both know we have got it :)

[helio]

That's rife with presuppositions :-) Within me, within my mind.

Which presuppositions? The mind? Are you saying that the mind is also an hallucination?

You see a mirror! More accurately, the perception of a mirror...

Is the mirror also an illusion? And what of the reflection in the perceived mirror?

Thoughts happen but they don't appear to have a location.

Would you agree that the thoughts appear in the absolute?

Is there a mind?

Are thoughts not the product of the mind, which is a manifestation of the absolute?

Or is mind a concept about thoughts?

I don't know, which is why I am asking questions. If I understand what you are communicating, thoughts happen out of nowhere, have no location (even though I think the location is the absolute), and consequently, there is no mind, because the mind is associated to thoughts. Is this accurate?

In terms of accepting, the concept seemed an adequate explanation in the absence of an absolute and it pointed to an absolute.

Not sure what you mean here, because I do presuppose that there is an absolute.

We could sing a song of sixpence until we agree we have both found what it points to if you like.

I Not sure what you mean, however, my intention is just to look and see what you are pointing to, without any preconceived concepts.

It doesn't matter what happens in language really.

Once again, I find myself lost.

We stop the discourse when we both know we have got it :)

Ok, however, I still have do not have it.

[helio]

Mark, could the Self (not a personified self) be a manifestation of the absolute?

Can there be an illusion without a perceiver of the illusion?

[helio]

Mark,

Even though I have read this quote many times and have understood it intellectually, it was not until today, once I was willing to gave up my preconceived ideas, that it all became clear...

“Wisdom is knowing I am nothing, Love is knowing I am everything, and between the two my life moves.”
― Nisargadatta Maharaj

Nevertheless, now, I am not even willing to identify to this clarity

Thank you very much for your time and your guidance!

Best regards,
Helio

[mark_tywharton]

This is all good.

Let's pull it back on track a bit and go back to the basic question.

for Helio, is there an "I"

then back up and look for this

who identifies the "I" and is it real?

[helio]

for Helio, is there an "I"

For me, it depends on the realization or frame used.

If the body and all of it's characteristics is considered, then yes.

If the body is not considered, then the answer is yes and no;

Yes there is an "I", is the realization that the "I" is part of everything, and it is the same as everything, consequently, it is everything. From this realization, there is a sense of unconditional love and compassion experienced, but no attachment to the "I". Pure awareness is all that is found.

No, there is no "I", is transcending the above awareness, and realizing that the Absolute is all there is, and the body is just an organism within. There is no "I" here, because there is no identification between the "I" and the Absolute.

However, even realization of the above, is not accurate because it is still a product of the "I".

who identifies the "I" and is it real?

the "I AM" identifies the "I" however, what "I AM" is, cannot be described accurately, because, whatever used is it.

These statements are not just philosophical, but for me are actually experienced.

[helio]

Mark,

basic question: in your understanding, why is the "body" not the "I"?

[mark_tywharton]

Mark,

basic question: in your understanding, why is the "body" not the "I"?

How much of the body Helio?

If you cut off a toe, are you still you?

If you cut off a foot?

A leg.

Remove a leg, do you still see yourself as Helio?

If I could remove your brain and sustain the existing thoughts and memories in some way, would you still consider yourself to "BE"

This isn't an existential argument, it is a phenomenological one.

There is a phenomena which arises in the complete experience of Helio which you identify as "I".

And it isn't real.

Look there.

Is the phenomena which arises in the complete experience real?

[mark_tywharton]

Yes there is an "I", is the realization that the "I" is part of everything, and it is the same as everything, consequently, it is everything. From this realization, there is a sense of unconditional love and compassion experienced, but no attachment to the "I". Pure awareness is all that is found.

It makes more or less sense to say that everything shows up (think of a friend who arrives at the front door, shows up out of the blue unannounced) in a space of nothing. The I is just one of the things that shows up but it is not real. So it is not part of everything. It is an illusion.

You can be attached to something that doesn't exist I suppose but only in the imagination.

What is pure awareness? It sounds like another concept.

Ability to have awareness and experience is what is ultimately found and it has absolutely no qualities at all but the body might laugh at it and break out into spontaneous joy - but YOU can't do that!

However, even realization of the above, is not accurate because it is still a product of the "I".

Really? Keep looking.

[helio]

Hey Mark,

I am trying to look at this whole thing without using as reference anything that I have realized, or think I know. Consequently, some of the answer will seem simplistic.

How much of the body Helio?

All of it.

If you cut off a toe, are you still you?

Yes

If you cut off a foot? A leg. Remove a leg, do you still see yourself as Helio?

Yes

If I could remove your brain and sustain the existing thoughts and memories in some way, would you still consider yourself to "BE"

Yes, just like a quadriplegic that is mute, blind and deaf.

This isn't an existential argument, it is a phenomenological one.

There is a phenomena which arises in the complete experience of Helio which you identify as "I".

And it isn't real.

Correct

Look there.

ok

Is the phenomena which arises in the complete experience real?

Yes