|
|
Post by maxdprophet on Feb 3, 2017 10:53:15 GMT -5
And this is what is referred to as I Am? Is I Am possible without some object? Even I Am That, where That is nothing distinct from anything else...isn't this a form of identification? For myself, the I Am is NOT identified. I Am is NOT a state of identification. I Am is not something we ordinarily have (Are). I Am isn't, for the ordinary person. I Am is, yes, possible without an object. Franklin Merrill-Wolfe called It, consciousness without an object. If you are identified, you are not-in I Am. Concerning the conradg post, no, that is NOT I Am. Opposite of I Am. Identification is a contraction. So you equate I Am with consciousness? And, at base, -without-an-object? It's fundamentally confusing because it is spelled "I Am" which sounds a whole lot like there is some element of identification going on. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Feb 3, 2017 16:25:53 GMT -5
On the OP: identification is when "I" is thought. It doesn't matter what follows -- could be anything or nothing or both... Yes, that is correct, but not precise. The question is what lies behind the correctness? Why is that identification? |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Feb 3, 2017 16:40:45 GMT -5
For myself, the I Am is NOT identified. I Am is NOT a state of identification. I Am is not something we ordinarily have (Are). I Am isn't, for the ordinary person. I Am is, yes, possible without an object. Franklin Merrill-Wolfe called It, consciousness without an object. If you are identified, you are not-in I Am. Concerning the conradg post, no, that is NOT I Am. Opposite of I Am. Identification is a contraction. So you equate I Am with consciousness? And, at base, -without-an-object? It's fundamentally confusing because it is spelled "I Am" which sounds a whole lot like there is some element of identification going on. Yes, I do, I don't know about anyone else. There is a difference between "I" and I am (or I Am). We say "I" all day and every day, but I Am is different. Usually when we say "I" it is in reference to small s self, I did this, I did that, I'm going to.....that's a small small sense of I. I had had I Am That by Niz for some time, saw it at a bookstore, knew it was a classic, bought it, but didn't really get into it until laughter got me interested about 9 months ago thereabouts. Niz made a lot of sense, there was a lot of agreement. Yes, I Am is consciousness, for me. Thinking is not consciousness, feeling is not consciousness. For Niz I Am is something else, wholeness. My sense of the words are from the book title: Life Is Real Only Then When I Am. Most people on the planet do not have I Am. Yes, I Am needs nothing else, only "itself" (in a manner of speaking). ZD had a lot of trouble getting around the term self-remembering, it's just a term. But self in self-remembering has nothing to do with small s self. But in self-remembering there is no identification "going on". I Am is similar (if not the same), but not exactly the same. |
|
|
|
Post by conradg on Feb 3, 2017 16:49:28 GMT -5
precise prɪˈsʌɪs/ adjective adjective: precise marked by exactness and accuracy of expression or detail. "precise directions" synonyms: exact, accurate, correct, error-free, pinpoint, specific, detailed, explicit, clear-cut, unambiguous, meticulous, close, strict, definite, particular, express; More minute, faithful; inch-perfect "precise measurements" antonyms: imprecise, inaccurate (of a person) exact, accurate, and careful about details. "the director was precise with his camera positions" synonyms: meticulous, careful, exact, scrupulous, punctilious, conscientious, particular, exacting, methodical, strict, rigorous; More mathematical, scientific "the attention to detail is very precise" antonyms: loose, careless used to emphasize that one is referring to an exact and particular thing. "at that precise moment the car stopped" synonyms: exact, particular, very, specific, actual, distinct "at that precise moment the car stopped" Yes, all that is what I mean by precise (especially: "the attention to detail Is very precise"). Identification has a precise meaning. Nothing in that definition suggests "one and only one answer", as you claimed. I don't see anything imprecise in the definitions of identification I have offered. You claim to have a precise definition, but you fail to tell us what it is. Why is that? |
|
|
|
Post by conradg on Feb 3, 2017 16:54:49 GMT -5
contraction of the infinite self into a form, name, substance, or point And this is what is referred to as I Am? Is I Am possible without some object? Even I Am That, where That is nothing distinct from anything else...isn't this a form of identification? this is a semantic issue. "I Am That" is shorthand for "I Am Brahman", with Brahman referring to the objectless infinite source from which all things arise, that has no "identity" of its own, no form, name, substance, or point of view. Of course, to speak of Brahman one must give it a name, but it's understood that is just a placemarker for That which is unnameable. However, the "I Am" is a common reference to the "I"-thought, the illusion of separate, independent existence brought about by identification with form, name, substance, and point of view. As for objects, the "I"-thought cannot exist in the absence of objects. When objects are removed, the "I"-thought collapses back into the heart, it's source. The "I"-thought is a dependent process, therefore, requiring objects to identify with. When identification fails to occur, the "I" thought vanishes. What remains is not an "I" at all. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 3, 2017 17:43:43 GMT -5
And this is what is referred to as I Am? Is I Am possible without some object? Even I Am That, where That is nothing distinct from anything else...isn't this a form of identification? this is a semantic issue. "I Am That" is shorthand for "I Am Brahman", with Brahman referring to the objectless infinite source from which all things arise, that has no "identity" of its own, no form, name, substance, or point of view. Of course, to speak of Brahman one must give it a name, but it's understood that is just a placemarker for That which is unnameable. However, the "I Am" is a common reference to the "I"-thought, the illusion of separate, independent existence brought about by identification with form, name, substance, and point of view. As for objects, the "I"-thought cannot exist in the absence of objects. When objects are removed, the "I"-thought collapses back into the heart, it's source. The "I"-thought is a dependent process, therefore, requiring objects to identify with. When identification fails to occur, the "I" thought vanishes. What remains is not an "I" at all. I agree, what would you call it, that which remains? |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Feb 4, 2017 10:26:31 GMT -5
And this is what is referred to as I Am? Is I Am possible without some object? Even I Am That, where That is nothing distinct from anything else...isn't this a form of identification? this is a semantic issue. "I Am That" is shorthand for "I Am Brahman", with Brahman referring to the objectless infinite source from which all things arise, that has no "identity" of its own, no form, name, substance, or point of view. Of course, to speak of Brahman one must give it a name, but it's understood that is just a placemarker for That which is unnameable. However, the "I Am" is a common reference to the "I"-thought, the illusion of separate, independent existence brought about by identification with form, name, substance, and point of view. As for objects, the "I"-thought cannot exist in the absence of objects. When objects are removed, the "I"-thought collapses back into the heart, it's source. The "I"-thought is a dependent process, therefore, requiring objects to identify with. When identification fails to occur, the "I" thought vanishes. What remains is not an "I" at all. You don't equate I Am of the first paragraph with I Am in the second paragraph? Why wouldn't you? (If you did, this is just incorrect, if you didn't, I would suggest for the second paragraph you use I am [small a] instead of I Am). Third paragraph. The "I"-thought is imaginary, based on an illusion. So for me, I would merely say the "I"-thought collapses (meaning it doesn't collapse into the heart, the heart being more-real, not imaginary. I would even say the heart is real). Otherwise, 3rd paragraph, essentially correct. And: why will I not define identification (yet)? (?from your post above; and [see my post] below). Patience. You do not want to follow any clues? (Already gave at least one, saying so, which you totally disregarded. edit sdp, didn't use the word clue, used especially, but just now added clue). Another, in the next to last sentence, why does identification fail to occur? |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Feb 4, 2017 10:27:03 GMT -5
Yes, all that is what I mean by precise (especially: "the attention to detail Is very precise"). Identification has a precise meaning. Nothing in that definition ( see post below, note sdp) suggests "one and only one answer", as you claimed. ( see post below, note sdp) I don't see anything imprecise in the definitions of identification I have offered. You claim to have a precise definition, but you fail to tell us what it is. Why is that?Why is that? I'm just not feeling any love.  ( But mostly, see post above*). ( and below concerning definitions, see note sdp) |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Feb 4, 2017 10:32:25 GMT -5
and you are defining it imprecisely precise prɪˈsʌɪs/ adjective adjective: precise marked by exactness and accuracy of expression or detail. "precise directions" synonyms: exact, accurate, correct, error-free, pinpoint, specific, detailed, explicit, clear-cut, unambiguous, meticulous, close, strict, definite, particular, express; More minute, faithful; inch-perfect
"precise measurements" antonyms: imprecise, inaccurate (of a person) exact, accurate, and careful about details. "the director was precise with his camera positions" synonyms: meticulous, careful, exact, scrupulous, punctilious, conscientious, particular, exacting, methodical, strict, rigorous; More mathematical, scientific "the attention to detail is very precise" antonyms: loose, careless used to emphasize that one is referring to an exact and particular thing. "at that precise moment the car stopped" synonyms: exact, particular, very, specific, actual, distinct "at that precise moment the car stopped" The bold words do not mean precise? (Answering your post above). |
|
|
|
Post by conradg on Feb 4, 2017 16:54:13 GMT -5
precise prɪˈsʌɪs/ adjective adjective: precise marked by exactness and accuracy of expression or detail. "precise directions" synonyms: exact, accurate, correct, error-free, pinpoint, specific, detailed, explicit, clear-cut, unambiguous, meticulous, close, strict, definite, particular, express; More minute, faithful; inch-perfect
"precise measurements" antonyms: imprecise, inaccurate (of a person) exact, accurate, and careful about details. "the director was precise with his camera positions" synonyms: meticulous, careful, exact, scrupulous, punctilious, conscientious, particular, exacting, methodical, strict, rigorous; More mathematical, scientific "the attention to detail is very precise" antonyms: loose, careless used to emphasize that one is referring to an exact and particular thing. "at that precise moment the car stopped" synonyms: exact, particular, very, specific, actual, distinct "at that precise moment the car stopped" The bold words do not mean precise? (Answering your post above). Those are from the dictionary definition. Your definition was that there is one and only one answer, which is an imprecise definition, in that it is simply not true. As in the example I already gave, a quadratic equation has two precise answers, not one. The same applies to many, many things. Precision does not mean uniqueness. That's a different word with a different meaning. |
|
|
|
Post by conradg on Feb 4, 2017 17:08:26 GMT -5
this is a semantic issue. "I Am That" is shorthand for "I Am Brahman", with Brahman referring to the objectless infinite source from which all things arise, that has no "identity" of its own, no form, name, substance, or point of view. Of course, to speak of Brahman one must give it a name, but it's understood that is just a placemarker for That which is unnameable. However, the "I Am" is a common reference to the "I"-thought, the illusion of separate, independent existence brought about by identification with form, name, substance, and point of view. As for objects, the "I"-thought cannot exist in the absence of objects. When objects are removed, the "I"-thought collapses back into the heart, it's source. The "I"-thought is a dependent process, therefore, requiring objects to identify with. When identification fails to occur, the "I" thought vanishes. What remains is not an "I" at all. You don't equate I Am of the first paragraph with I Am in the second paragraph? Why wouldn't you? (If you did, this is just incorrect, if you didn't, I would suggest for the second paragraph you use I am [small a] instead of I Am). Third paragraph. The "I"-thought is imaginary, based on an illusion. So for me, I would merely say the "I"-thought collapses (meaning it doesn't collapse into the heart, the heart being more-real, not imaginary. I would even say the heart is real). Otherwise, 3rd paragraph, essentially correct. And: why will I not define identification (yet)? (?from your post above; and [see my post] below). Patience. You do not want to follow any clues? (Already gave at least one, saying so, which you totally disregarded. edit sdp, didn't use the word clue, used especially, but just now added clue). Another, in the next to last sentence, why does identification fail to occur? Words and phrases have different meanings depending on the context. The Mahavakya "I Am That" is not a way of giving the "I"-thought something ultimate to identify with. It is a reference to our true nature being That, the infinite and indefinable formless Self, not an entity or person or form. So it is a deliberate break from the conventions of identity and self, even in language. In many Advaitic teachings, such as Ramana's or Nisargadatta's, the "I Am" is a reference to the "I"-thought, so I am referring to that usage. There's a yogic process by which the "I"-thought does literally fall into the heart on the right if it has become sufficiently detached from identification with vasanas and form. Imaginary does not mean "non-existent", it merely means not understood from its root source, and thus improperly seen and experienced, like an optical illusion. The "I"-thought is a reflection in the mind of an illusory contraction in the heart. |
|
|
|
Post by conradg on Feb 4, 2017 17:09:19 GMT -5
Nothing in that definition ( see post below, note sdp) suggests "one and only one answer", as you claimed. ( see post below, note sdp) I don't see anything imprecise in the definitions of identification I have offered. You claim to have a precise definition, but you fail to tell us what it is. Why is that?Why is that? I'm just not feeling any love. ( But mostly, see post above*). ( and below concerning definitions, see note sdp) Try feeling. |
|
|
|
Post by conradg on Feb 4, 2017 17:22:26 GMT -5
contraction of the infinite self into a form, name, substance, or point And this is what is referred to as I Am? Is I Am possible without some object? Even I Am That, where That is nothing distinct from anything else...isn't this a form of identification?" The mahavakya "I Am That" is not a form of identification with "That", because "That" refers to the infinite formless being beyond all identification, not some "thing" that can be identified with. So it's an esoteric statement, not to be taken at face value using the conventions of grammar. "I Am" is something of a gateway drug to That. In the Advaita of Ramana and Nisargadatta, for example, the practice of self-enquiry is a meditation upon the "I Am". One is told to become completely absorbed in this "I Am", to the point where one lets go of everything else. This is the "inner renunciation" advocated in esoteric practice. When all identifications of the "I Am" with body, mind, objects, or thoughts is relinquished, the "I Am" begins its death process, and falls into the heart. When it completely dies there, an entirely different form of life and consciousness emerges through what Ramana called the "Amrita Nadi". Without an "I Am" to orient experience, consciousness is revealed to be infinite and unbounded, and all of creation is similarly transformed from the heart. But if one begins to identify with any of that, it collapses and contracts once again into a finite perception of a measurable world. The "I Am" re-emerges, and from that all suffering ensues. |
|
|
|
Post by conradg on Feb 4, 2017 17:25:24 GMT -5
this is a semantic issue. "I Am That" is shorthand for "I Am Brahman", with Brahman referring to the objectless infinite source from which all things arise, that has no "identity" of its own, no form, name, substance, or point of view. Of course, to speak of Brahman one must give it a name, but it's understood that is just a placemarker for That which is unnameable. However, the "I Am" is a common reference to the "I"-thought, the illusion of separate, independent existence brought about by identification with form, name, substance, and point of view. As for objects, the "I"-thought cannot exist in the absence of objects. When objects are removed, the "I"-thought collapses back into the heart, it's source. The "I"-thought is a dependent process, therefore, requiring objects to identify with. When identification fails to occur, the "I" thought vanishes. What remains is not an "I" at all. I agree, what would you call it, that which remains? There's plenty of traditional names for it. Brahman, the Tao, That, the Unborn, the Christ, give it whatever name you like. As long as it's understood that we are naming the unameable for the sake of conversation, rather than actually defining it. Because it's indefinable. Anything that is precisely definable isn't That. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 4, 2017 17:34:04 GMT -5
I agree, what would you call it, that which remains? There's plenty of traditional names for it. Brahman, the Tao, That, the Unborn, the Christ, give it whatever name you like. As long as it's understood that we are naming the unameable for the sake of conversation, rather than actually defining it. Because it's indefinable. Anything that is precisely definable isn't That. right, The unborn is my fave name for it. |
|
(But mostly, see post above*).