If you are new, you can start here

[helio]

Question:

If there were two brains (only the brains), and one was alive and the other one was not, what would be the difference between the two? Besides the fact that one is dead and one alive. In other words, what is this thing that is uniquely manifested in the live brain? If we say that it is just "life" in general, then how come it is only in one and not the other? Where does it come from and where do it go? If one says, "it comes from nowhere and it goes nowhere"... then it obviously means that it is always here, and it is everywhere... does it not? But then, how come it is only on one brain? And it is when it is in that particular brain that this brain has the "I"... is it not?

[mark_tywharton]

Question:

If there were two brains (only the brains), and one was alive and the other one was not, what would be the difference between the two? Besides the fact that one is dead and one alive. In other words, what is this thing that is uniquely manifested in the live brain? If we say that it is just "life" in general, then how come it is only in one and not the other? Where does it come from and where do it go? If one says, "it comes from nowhere and it goes nowhere"... then it obviously means that it is always here, and it is everywhere... does it not? But then, how come it is only on one brain? And it is when it is in that particular brain that this brain has the "I"... is it not?

Apart from the fact they are different brains, the only difference between the two brains is still just that one is alive and the other is not.

Just because one brain has life force energy running it, does not mean it has a an "I" in it.

In the post before this, you agreed there is a phenomena that arises in the complete experience of Helio which you identify as "I" that isn't real.

Illusion is a phenomena right?

So describe the phenomena in detail and explain why the "I" isn't real?

If the "I" isn't real, can all attachment to it be given up?

Can the "I" phenomena cease to run life?

Can aliveness be enough?

[helio]

Just because one brain has life force energy running it, does not mean it has a an "I" in it.

Not an "I", but this life force definitely continues after death... what is it?

In the post before this, you agreed there is a phenomena that arises in the complete experience of Helio which you identify as "I" that isn't real. Illusion is a phenomena right?

correct

So describe the phenomena in detail and explain why the "I" isn't real?

The phenomena is the idea that this body and all of the past experiences created an identity, and this identity is the illusion. It is an illusion, because the "I AM" is so much more, and it is immortal and permanent.

If the "I" isn't real, can all attachment to it be given up?

Yes, it is theoretically possible.

Can the "I" phenomena cease to run life?

Yes

Can aliveness be enough?

of course it can be enough, but the 'I" is not the same thing as the "I AM," which is not the phenomena mentioned. At least this is my understanding. And aliveness does not explain the energy that continues after death, which is the "I am" and can not be defined.

[mark_tywharton]

Just because one brain has life force energy running it, does not mean it has a an "I" in it.

Not an "I", but this life force definitely continues after death... what is it?

Impossible to say, however giving it the attribute "I, me, or self" marginalises what it is.

So describe the phenomena in detail and explain why the "I" isn't real?

The phenomena is the idea that this body and all of the past experiences created an identity, and this identity is the illusion. It is an illusion, because the "I AM" is so much more, and it is immortal and permanent.

The "I Am" is still a concept and the terminology is so close to the original sense of "I" that it makes it hard to understand exactly whose version of "I Am" you are referencing?

Nisargadatta is one obvious source?

http://img2.tapuz.co.il/forums/1_162615739.pdf

At the risk of taking it out of context,

Code: Select all

All hangs on the idea ‘I am’. Examine it very thoroughly. It lies at the root of every trouble. This ‘I am’ idea was not born with you. You could have lived very well without it. It came later due to your self-identification with the body. It created an illusion of separation where there was none. It made you a stranger in your own world alien and inimical. Without the sense of ‘I am’ life goes on. There are moments when we are without the sense of ‘I am’, at peace and happy. With the return of ‘I am’, trouble starts. It is because the ‘I am’ is false that it wants to continue...

Nisargadatta is saying EXAMINE THE 'I AM' and while it is the one thing that can be known for certain, there is a state (the word state is being used by way of conversation and does not constitute a thing) prior to the 'I Am' an ability for awareness and experience. This is where you need to look. What makes 'I Am' possible, gives rise to the sense there is a 'you'. When this is seen then it is clear that the 'I Am' experienced isn't the you.

Can aliveness be enough?

of course it can be enough, but the 'I" is not the same thing as the "I AM," which is not the phenomena mentioned. At least this is my understanding. And aliveness does not explain the energy that continues after death, which is the "I am" and can not be defined.

It is much simpler than this if you avoid using other people's terminology.

It can be explained to a child using every day language.

Try and explain it again please using simple language.

IS THIS IT Helio? Or is there somewhere to get to?

Is there a seeker?

[helio]

[/quote] The "I Am" is still a concept and the terminology is so close to the original sense of "I" that it makes it hard to understand exactly whose version of "I Am" you are referencing?
[/quote]

For me, this life force is the "I AM," which is different than the illusion of the identity Nisargadatta was referring too. The "I AM" that Nisargadatta refers to, is the "I" phenomena I explained; "The phenomena is the idea that this body and all of the past experiences created an identity, and this identity is the illusion." Which one can live without and was not present at birth. However, the life force that was present at birth, which was present before we were born, and will continue to be present after the body dies, is the "I AM" I refer to, which is (for lack of a better word) the True or Ultimate "I AM," and it is indescribable, immortal, and permanent.

Nisargadatta is saying EXAMINE THE 'I AM' and while it is the one thing that can be known for certain, there is a state (the word state is being used by way of conversation and does not constitute a thing) prior to the 'I Am' an ability for awareness and experience. This is where you need to look. What makes 'I Am' possible, gives rise to the sense there is a 'you'. When this is seen then it is clear that the 'I Am' experienced isn't the you.

Just to clarify again, the "I AM" I experience, is not the common "identity" you are describing.

The "state" and ability for awareness and experience, prior to the "identity" is also an illusion, since it is only electrical impulses interpreted by the brain. The Ultimate "I AM" was realized once pure "awareness," devoid of a seeker, was transcended.

Code: Select all

It is much simpler than this if you avoid using other people's terminology.

Never use someone else's terminology, otherwise I would give them, credit. What I say is from experience and realization.

It can be explained to a child using every day language. Try and explain it again please using simple language.

The simplest way to explain it is this way. Energy is everything of the universe. This energy a life force, which cannot be created nor destroyed; It is present before we are born, it is within us while we live, and it continues when the body dies. This force unifies the universe and it is all one. However, this explanation is also inaccurate, for this force cannot described accurately, but this force is the "I AM." However, it is NOT as personal identity; "I AM."

Mind you, this is only my understanding. However, I also understand that here, you guys have a different "realization" and it is this that I want to "see"

IS THIS IT Helio? Or is there somewhere to get to?

You tell me.

Is there a seeker?

There are many seekers;human beings, that have not realized.

Let me ask you two questions:
1) Can you explain to me why you are not your body?
2) Who are you?

Thank Mark.

[helio]

"Try and explain it again please using simple language."

I know that you prefer an explanation containing physical experiences, so, allow me to explain it tis way;

When I meditate and close my eyes, the visual awareness obviously disappears, and touch, smell, and hearing are left. After a while, thoughts stop, and the identity disappears along with the input from the senses. It is then, that the "I AM" remains, void of awareness...

[helio]

I kept contemplating the comments yesterday; I try to "look" where you are pointing, but I don't realize what you have realized. Where or on what should the focus be?

[mark_tywharton]

Who is it who thinks they can direct the focus

See if you can find this person?

[helio]

When I look, I do find who directs the focus, but it is not a person, it is "I am."

[mark_tywharton]

YOU? find WHO? directs the focus?

it is not a person? well there is agreement on that then :)

it is "I am" - well... you need to really provide some pointers then?

explain it accurately

what is the experience?

what is the sensation?

what colour is it?

what does it smell like?

where is it?

[helio]

Hey Mark,

I am sorry it is taking longer than usual. I am still contemplating the questions and will provide answers as soon as I can.

Thanks

[mark_tywharton]

Okay, cool

[helio]

Hey Mark.

After much meditation, contemplation and analysis (thanks for your patience by the way), I come to realize one huge difference between the idea of "no-self" and my understanding of the "ultimate self." However, I will admit that my spiritual experience has a tremendous influence on my realization.

It came down to the simple idea of a soul, which is more than just a flow on consciousness, or a river of awareness. While I can't tell you physical aspects of it, such as color, smell, or location, I can tell you that the experience and sensations give birth to the mind, thoughts, and gives life to the body. It is this entity which directs the focus of the mind, creating the opportunity for free will.

Here is where we do agree. If we take the soul out of the equation, then human beings are just a ramdom set of variables naturally combined, which generates random thoughts linked to feelings and sensations, but have no actual origin nor destination. This natural combination creates the illusion that all of these thoughts, feelings, and sensations are independent and are controlled by a "self," when in reality there is "no-self." In this perspective, since there is no-self, there is no free will, and every thought, feeling and sensation is just a natural product, and everything that happens in a person's life is predetermined by the set of variables. There is however, a flow on awareness, but this is also not individualized. This river of consciousness does not have an observer nor is it experienced by any one entity. It is a universal awareness that is ever changing.

This is the best explanation I can give you after experiencing both states. One thing I will tell you; when experiencing pure consciousness, there seems to be a an inexplainable empty void. However, when experiencing the soul, all there is, is pure love and peace.

[helio]

By the way, it is my opinion that if in fact there is no such thing as a soul, then we are all just a bunch of biological machines and there is no real purpose for this life.

[mark_tywharton]

Hey Mark.

After much meditation, contemplation and analysis (thanks for your patience by the way), I come to realize one huge difference between the idea of "no-self" and my understanding of the "ultimate self." However, I will admit that my spiritual experience has a tremendous influence on my realization.

It came down to the simple idea of a soul, which is more than just a flow on consciousness, or a river of awareness. While I can't tell you physical aspects of it, such as color, smell, or location, I can tell you that the experience and sensations give birth to the mind, thoughts, and gives life to the body. It is this entity which directs the focus of the mind, creating the opportunity for free will.

Here is where we do agree. If we take the soul out of the equation, then human beings are just a ramdom set of variables naturally combined, which generates random thoughts linked to feelings and sensations, but have no actual origin nor destination. This natural combination creates the illusion that all of these thoughts, feelings, and sensations are independent and are controlled by a "self," when in reality there is "no-self." In this perspective, since there is no-self, there is no free will, and every thought, feeling and sensation is just a natural product, and everything that happens in a person's life is predetermined by the set of variables. There is however, a flow on awareness, but this is also not individualized. This river of consciousness does not have an observer nor is it experienced by any one entity. It is a universal awareness that is ever changing.

This is the best explanation I can give you after experiencing both states. One thing I will tell you; when experiencing pure consciousness, there seems to be a an inexplainable empty void. However, when experiencing the soul, all there is, is pure love and peace.

Imagine the soul is kept in the equation.

Can you say with any certainty that the soul you experience is a separate soul?

It seems you are clear there is no self.

Do you have a separate soul?

Can you define a boundary?