Guest guest Report post Posted September 15, 2004 the professor is smart. are there 2 i's ? they are of the same substance. he said that the i is not present in the experience part of life, that is right, just how laughter is an example of a reflection on the mind of sat chit ananda. in the moment of laughter the ego is sublimated for whatever reason, the ego is pleased with something and in a moment reclines into *itself* then comes back out. but the i-i which Ramana refers to is just that; all existence can be seen as i-i-i-iadinfinty but the basis of all this is the i. even in action the i is present because in my belief it is synonomous with existence itself. that silent,still effulgent reality. tyroneMaster of Change <lostnfoundation wrote: #1 Ramana has stated that the "I Thought" or "I Am" sense of conscious presence is the primary object by which all other objects arise. Without the "I" or "I Am" no objects can appear on the screen of consciousness. Please offer your views or other philosophical views on the aforesaid.Answer from a philosophy professor friend who shall remain un-named because I did not ask for permission as he is over his head in teaching phenomenology. We also meditated with him for years at the Viet Zen center here in Honolulu so he is a seeker also.Professor: It is said within the Hindu and Buddhist traditions that the eye cannot see itself, the tip of the finger cannot touch itself, the blade of the sword cannot cut itself. So for the eye, there is no eye. Anything that presents itself with any form of presence at all is object, and not subject. Experientially, there is no subject, and therefore, no subject-object duality. So the "I Thought" is precisely that … a thought, and thus, an object of consciousness, and not consciousness itself. But to say that the world and its objects are founded in the "I Thought" implies that we cannot conceive the world except in relationship to the "I." This may, in fact, be a conceptual truth. But it's not an experiential truth, since the "I" (subject) is not present (as a subject) in our experience. So here we have a case of the mind "outsmarting" consciousness. If there is no "I" in experience, but the "I" is a necessary part of our thinking, then thinking is necessarily unfaithful to experience...........INFORMATION ABOUT THIS LIST..........Email addresses: Post message: Realization Un: Realization- Our web address: http://www.realization.orgBy sending a message to this list, you are givingpermission to have it reproduced as a letter onhttp://www.realization.org................................................ Post your free ad now! Canada Personals Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted September 17, 2004 Thanks Tyrone: The next question is the one I am really interested in. Is the " I Am " a mental state? The professior has financial duties so has to teach all day long at at night also, so he said he will answer the next questions in the future. If I had time I would take a course in phenominology. After 65 your get one free one, but now I am working 7 days per week 8pm to 8am, so I have only time to meditate and rest along with the usual family duties. Aloha, Alton Realization , tyrone martin <arunachala_1008> wrote: > the professor is smart. are there 2 i's ? they are of the same substance. he said that the i is not present in the experience part of life, that is right, just how laughter is an example of a reflection on the mind of sat chit ananda. in the moment of laughter the ego is sublimated for whatever reason, the ego is pleased with something and in a moment reclines into *itself* then comes back out. but the i-i which Ramana refers to is just that; all existence can be seen as i-i-i-iadinfinty but the basis of all this is the i. even in action the i is present because in my belief it is synonomous with existence itself. that silent,still effulgent reality. > tyrone > > Master of Change <lostnfoundation> wrote: > #1 Ramana has stated that the " I Thought " or " I Am " sense of > conscious presence is the primary object by which all other objects > arise. Without the " I " or " I Am " no objects can appear on the screen > of consciousness. > Please offer your views or other philosophical views on the > aforesaid. > > Answer from a philosophy professor friend who shall remain un- named > because I did not ask for permission as he is over his head in > teaching phenomenology. We also meditated with him for years at the > Viet Zen center here in Honolulu so he is a seeker also. > > Professor: It is said within the Hindu and Buddhist traditions that > the eye cannot see itself, the tip of the finger cannot touch > itself, the blade of the sword cannot cut itself. So for the eye, > there is no eye. Anything that presents itself with any form of > presence at all is object, and not subject. Experientially, there > is no subject, and therefore, no subject-object duality. So the " I > Thought " is precisely that … a thought, and thus, an object of > consciousness, and not consciousness itself. But to say that the > world and its objects are founded in the " I Thought " implies that we > cannot conceive the world except in relationship to the " I. " This > may, in fact, be a conceptual truth. But it's not an experiential > truth, since the " I " (subject) is not present (as a subject) in our > experience. So here we have a case of the mind " outsmarting " > consciousness. If there is no " I " in experience, but the " I " is a > necessary part of our thinking, then thinking is necessarily > unfaithful to experience. > > > > > > > Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
