"Am I a Who?" better question than "Who am I?"

I'm a cliche. But then, who isn't?

My philosophical approach to life falls squarely into the cliched "I'm spiritual but not religious" vein that we hear so much about nowadays -- using spiritual in a decidedly non-supernatural sense.

So even though I've forsaken organized religion, I continue to enjoy pondering questions that are increasingly appearing to me as imponderable. Such as, "Who am I?"

In one of the comments that make up an interesting interchange on this post, Mike Williams said:

"If I realize that there is no 'self', then why would I think of a 'journey' being completed? I see a 'no-self' not needing any journey at all." quote Roger

That is correct, there is no need for a journey. Only a direct realization of how impersonal thought.... personalizes itself.

The question is transposed from India. The question 'Who am I ?', should actually
be 'Am I a WHO?"

The Western mind understands it clearer that way.

Nicely put.

This is the first time I remember coming across the query Am I a Who? But I'm pretty familiar with Buddhist, Zen, Vedanta, Taoist, and other literature where this is a central focus of the teachings.

It's a great question.

For me, what it does is point to the potential dissolving of the main motivation for seeking some sort of salvation, enlightenment, divinity, self-knowledge, or other "spiritual" goal.

After all, if there's nobody at home inside my psyche to sign for the self-realization package, why should I be concerned with ordering it?

Buddhist meditation teacher Rodney Smith talks about this paradox, or contradiction, in his book "Stepping Out of Self-Deception: the buddha's liberating teaching of no-self."

Smith's central thesis is that most, if not all, of the effort people devote to their spiritual practice is misguided, because this simply strengthens the ties that bind them to the notion that they are individual free will'able selves with the capacity to liberate themselves from ... something or other.

If this whole liberation/salvation game is founded on a false premise -- that the playing field of "I am" or selfhood exists -- then Alfred E. Neumann's famous Mad magazine phrase is right on.

"What, me worry?" No me, no worries. Smith says:

As we have seen in a previous chapter, the sense-of-self builds upon the pain of its own contraction, forming a narrative that when left unimpeded consumes us emotionally, physically, and psychologically. The effort we make can undermine or support the narrative depending upon our view and intention.

Wise Effort is in alignment with the Wise View of interconnectedness and the Wise Intention of retracing our longing back to its source. But like a fine craftsman we must pick exactly the right instrument to satisfy this purpose, or we will be supporting the conditions for self-deception and add further dialogue to our story.

The four R's of Wise Effort are the perfect instruments for this objective. They are relax, release, relinquish, and rejoin. None of these words holds any tension or stress, nor builds upon the "story-of-me." These words represent moments of surrender, not acts of assertion.

They allow us to fall back into ourselves rather than make something of ourselves. They call us back to our inherent nature through Wise View.

The four R's do not build upon the sense-of-self; instead they invert the energy of seeking back to its rightful direction of investigation and discovery. The four R's are counterintuitive because the sense-of-self only survives by constructing itself over time, and these words deconstruct the self by eliminating the scaffolding on which it builds itself.

I'm not on board with the supernatural side of Buddhism. But I like how the central notion of no-self (anatta) is firmly in line with modern neuroscience when stripped of metaphysical speculation.

I like to visualize how I'd feel if I learned that the being I think of as "me" actually is a robot, a computer simulation, or some other entity far different from the self that I consider myself to be.

That is, if I wasn't really who I think I am, would I be as concerned with such questions as "What will be I be after I die?" and "Have I become all that I can be?"?

And if the answer is No, then Buddhism and other "Am I a Who?" teachings are asking a great question.

Heck, it might be the only question spiritual seekers need to ask, since it points toward the possible dissolving of all other meaning-of-life questions.

Comments

[Mike Williams]

Hi,

There have been very many posts now on
"Who am I", over the last several days.

It is been refined as, "Am I a WHO", for Western
consideration.

The book by Bernedette Roberts, The Realization of
No Self, has been highly recommeded by two people.
I consider it the best ever written. One person
found her website, which I posted today on another post.

She had little or no backround in Indian dogma.

So, when it 'happened' to her, she wrote the book
in plain English, stripped of dogma.

There are many people claiming to be jnani writing
books. But, only two living that are actually jnani, that I am aware.

One is Ramesh Balsekar, the other Bernedette Roberts.

And, they are all a person needs.

Over the last days we have classified yoga into
"EXPERIENTIAL" and "JNANI".

Experiential being kundalini with shaktipat,
surat shabda and one vastly different pranahuti. Pranahuti

being energy tranfered by the master from top down. Kundalini,
a bottom up.

Forgetting the question of veracity of these for the
moment, lets look at the jnani.

The jnani is the enlightened one. There is only one
enlightenment. Radhasoami masters are not enlightened,
nor are any other experiential Gurus.

The jnani realizes "NO SELF".

Isn't it strange so many intelligent people are on
this club and we are asking each other "WHO" we are ?

Shouldn't we have asked this question on the beginning of our
long journeys ?

Why are we asking it at the end of our journeys ?

Because we have finally tried to stop fooling ourselves.

We want to know the answer to the great questions now
at all costs. Even if those answers are turn out to be
terrible revelations.

We have realized we can think for oursleves without a Guru.

Before we didn't think, we repeated what the Guru told us
and rationalised it in every way.

We were hyponotised. We are removing our hypnotic trance.

The trance of the 'self'. What is it ?

Lets define the 'self' as personalised thought. Personalized
thought manufactures the "WHO". The 'self' has a flavor
like vanilla ice cream, called the "WHO".

But, can thought, as a thing, an impersonal thing in
our brains, be turned into a "WHO" (self) ?

What is it in our brains that turns impersonal thought
into a WHO (self) ?

"WHO" is thinking 'our' thoughts ?

At what exact point does impersonal thought turn itself
into a "WHO" (self) ?

Ramana Maharshi used to sit reading comic books on a sofa,
while the great scholars and religious minds asked him
endless questions.

He stated that when it 'happens', all the chakras are opened
from the top down. (Lets forget the rhetoric for now.)

He meant that was the final stage.

So, we have traveled full circle........ and have
ended back where we started... with ourselves.

And..............

We finally what to know, "Am I a WHO"?

[Mike Williams]

Buddhism, Zen, Gurdjieff-Ouspensky etc., are the first things that pop into ones mind when asking such questions
such as, "Am I a WHO" ?" Yet, in all the years I studied these things, I have never came across an enlightened Buddhist.

During WW 11, the Zen donated heavily to the Mitsubishi
aircraft war planes that went up against the Americans.
They have all sorts of problems that make them look
'Oh so Human'.

Buddhism twisted what Buddha said, back into the old
mold the mind keeps insisting on.

It became a religion. Zen, no better. Yet, these people
sound so intelligent.

They have woven a web. When one tries to escape a web,
one becomes more tangled.

Because they have no enlightened ones, there is no one
to teach them.

The problem is, the jnanis don't want other people to become
enlightened.

What they want is for people to simply stop searching.

This would cause the downfall of religion and masters.

That would save alot of pain in this world and conflict
between factions.

The 'Big Bang' in the brain, was caused by personalization
of impersonal thought. Called the "WHO".

Can the Gordian Knot of the WHO, be cut all at once, instead
of trying to unwind the whole ball ?

Enlightenment does not come in stages, steps, or degrees.
Nor, will a method of practice produce it.

A person is either 100% enlightened, or 100% not enlightened.

We people here probably know 1000 times more knowledge then
Buddha had. Buddha did not know about atoms, molecules,
energy to matter converstions, the Big Bang, String Theory,
evolution, etc.

So, we have much more knowledge than we need to become enlightened.

So, why aren't people becoming enlightened ?

Could it be because unenlightened people are teaching
how to become enlightened ? From Zen to Radhasoami, could all
groups and masters be wrong ?

Well, they must be, if no enlightened people are being produced.

This being the case, we must go another route.

Is it not enough knowledge that stops us from
enlightenment ? Can all the knowledge in the world
break a hypnotic trance ?

We must though everything we thought we ever knew out the window.

If no one will tell us how to become enlightened, must we
not find it ourselves ?

And, must this journey not begin, with the orgin of
the WHO in our brains ?

If we do not know WHO we are, how can we know where
we want to go ?

It is only the WHO that seperates us from animals.

It also creates all the conflict in the world.

So, to be rid of all conflict in the world, the WHO
must be addressed.

Can there be any real change in the world, until we
know WHO we are ?

We run from the WHO, dance to its dictates, suppress the WHO
with drugs and yoga and nada.

WHO is it that controls our lives ?

WHO is in my head ?

WHO is thinking my thoughts ?

WHO wants spiritual advancement ?

Can we ever stop being ants of mechanical nature ?

Can we break loose from the herd ?

WHO is stopping you ?

Are 'you' in a hypnotic trance ?

How do you de-hypnotise your 'self'?

[George]

Here's a better question what is a jnani if not a guru?
Or even better, what is the answer to either who am I or I am who?
The problem with all these metaphysical ramblings is they provide no answers, merely reframe meaningless questions?

[Brian Hines]

George, I don't see the "who am I?" vs. "am I a who?" question to be any sort of metaphysical rambling. It isn't "metaphysical" at all, since it concerns the nature of the human brain/consciousness and is tied to findings of modern neuroscience.

As to whether such questions are meaningless, that is in the eye of the beholder. I've read several books about the meaning of quantum theory recently. Both authors discussed how many physicists don't care about what quantum phenomena mean; they just do the math and get the predicted results.

Other scientists, like Stephen Hawking, are interested in taking a broader perspective. That's why he recently published his new book that argues God is not needed to create the universe given current theories about cosmology in relation to quantum physics.

What is meaningful to one person isn't meaningful to another. Myself, I think the question of whether we humans have, or are, a "self" (or "soul") versus whether we are an interrelated aspect of the cosmos without a distinct individual identity is one of the most meaningful questions with which people should grapple.

Socrates is reputed to have said, along with other Greek philosophers, "Know yourself." If we don't understand who we are, it seems difficult to claim that the "we" which knows the world, really does.

[George]

Brian
yip I have no real problem with any of what you said, but I can't really understand when ppl like mike claim certain ppl are enlightened while others are not. Or these new age theories that one should not search for enlightenment, it just comes to you in an instant. Well if that's the case why aren't more ppl enlightened cos most if them as sure as nuts are not interested in any search.

As for quantum theory, the implications of the accepted Copenhagen interpretation are extremely bizarre, but they are totally different to metaphysical ramblings where terms like 'enlightenment', 'self', 'jnani' and 'I' are not only poor defined but framed as vague questions without any accuracy or predictive power. In contrast quantum mechanics is the most accurate scientic theory in the history of mankind with stunning predictive power and accuracy.

[Mike Williams]

"Or these new age theories that one should
not search for enlightenment,"
quote George

Actually Buddha searched high and low for years
trying everything under the sun. Then he gave up
and sat under a tree. He debunked systems.

But, Buddha followers, have reintroduced
systems, because they are not enlightened.
The human mind intrepreted Buddha incorrectly.

The jnani is an anti Guru, like Jiddo and
U.G. Krishnamurti. The jnani is a freak of
nature. They tell you to stay away from Gurus
and religion.

They are able to see they have no self (WHO)
directly. When they see they have no self,
they realize enlightenment is impossible.

So, it is true enlightenment exists for those
whom still believe they have a self (WHO). But,
it is also true, enlightenment does not exist
for the enlightened person.

The jnani is selfless via realization. They are
not mystical, or religious.

The jnani is selfless and does not hurt people.
Greed and hate are absent. The jnani is a decent
person, not a holy person.

If the self (WHO) does not exist, there can be
no seeker and nothing to be sought.

Instead, the jnani moves harmlessly through life.

The jnani does not know if there is a God, or
afterlife.

Only Gurus know (grin).

Faquir Chand described a similar state as,
"hanging by the gallows".

All you can do is live life now.

No one whom has ever lived has met God, or knows
if there is an afterlife.

That's why Faquir Chand called the Gurus criminals.

[Nobody]

without Love and Guru the Jnani is a Zombie walking harmlessly. Harmlessly walking like a Zombie is a Jnani without Love and Guru
I prefer a self filled love
Than a self-less body without a 'who' in it.
Without Love and Guru the Jnani is a Zombie walking harmlessly. Harmlessly walking is a Jnani without Love Guru

[Mike Williams]

--------------
From Gopi Krishna's book Higher Consciousness. Note the references to inner light and sound:

"But it is important to remember that all these visionary experiences with shape, form, place, or time are but the figments of one's own imagination, rendered vivid and realistic by the radiant stream of kundalini. The gods and goddesses, angels and devils, heavens and hells, superhuman and subhuman beings, strange unearthly creatures, astral and mental planes, conditioned by earthly time, space, name, form, or figure, have no real significance, but are merely the creations of the subjects themselves through their active and glowing imagination.

"The higher state of consciousness, despite its enrapturing radiancy and the alluring sounds in the ears, is as void of visions and hallucinatory figments as the consciousness of a healthy, wise, and clear-thinking human being, who calls a spade a spade, and who views everything he comes across in sane perspective and proportion, always ready to distinguish reality from a dream or a hallucination."

--------------
Faqir Chand (Sawan-Charan endorsed RS Master)says

"So what I have understood about Nam is that it is the true knowledge of the feelings, visions, and images that are seen within. This knowledge is that all the creations of the waking, dreaming and deep sleep modes of consciousness are nothing but samskaras (impressions which are in truth unreal) that are produced by the mind. What to speak about others, even I am not aware of my own Self (in dreams). Who knows what may happen to me at the time of death? I may enter the state of unconsciousness, enter the state of dreams and see railway trains. . . How can I make a claim about my attainment of the Ultimate? The truth is that I know nothing."

"O man, your real helper is your own Self and your own Faith, but you are badly mistaken and believe that somebody from without comes to help you. No Hazrat Mohammed, no Lord Rama, Lord Krishna or any God or goddess or Guru comes from without. This entire game is that of your impressions and suggestions which are ingrained upon your mind through your eyes and ears and of your Faith and Belief."

http://radhasoamis.freeyellow.com/index.html

[George]

Yip I understand the historical story of the Buddha and yet the prince was not enlightened before he started searching either. So if ppl do not search, which is the majority of ppl who are not spiritually inclined, why are they not enlightened?

What is 'enlightened'? Do you believe you are enlightened? How can I know you are enlightended as compared to me or a guru or a jnani?

[George]

If enlightenment is realizing there is no self, how is it possible to realize in the first place? How can you see your own eye if you have no eye to see with?

What is this 'self' (WHO) that on one hand you talk of, but on one hand yet also say does not exist? An individual, soul, mind or an aspect of mind that has a subjective perception of reality?

If I look at a mountain from my own individual perspective and you look at the mountain from your own perspective - does the mountain itself change? If you have realized there is no self, what does that actually mean for our reality?

[Roger]

I can conceptualize my 'Self' and view with other conceptualized 'selves' and thus view a mountain. This mountain would be within my(our) objective reality. The 'no-self' would be a non-conceptualization, the 'no-self' is a dualistic term for such. This goofy 'enlightenment' term would be that my conceptualized 'self' (my mind creation), using my brain, does recognize the illusion of such self. I don't need to make a big deal out of the 'no self' term.

[George]

My point is that these terms like 'self' and WHO are so I'll-defined that it is difficult to see any sort of meaningful rigorous insight, instead we just become lost in language.

If I say I touch myself, then presumably self means my physical body.
If I think to myself, then presumably self means my subjective consciousness.
If you shit yourself, then presumably self means your bodily functions.

Om

[Mike Williams]

Hi George,
I totally agree that a refinement of terms
is needed. A very exact language without
rhetorical terms such as mind and soul, which
I do not believe exist.

The self (WHO) is caused by the personalization
of impersonal thought. All thought is impersonal.
To see the self is to see the exact moment thought
personalizes itself. The WHO begins at this exact
point. Like the frosting on cake. Cake is bland until
the frosting, or flavor is put on top.

Thought is dry and bland. Thoughts float around the
head. But, suddenly thought personalizes itself.
The WHO appears at that point, like the syrup on
a dry pancake.

But, WHAT just personalized thought ??? A WHAT does
not have a WHO. A`WHAT is a thing, not a persona.

An impersonal thought has just personalized itself
as if by magic. An impersonal thought, a WHAT, has
personalized itself into a WHO.

Can that which is impersonal..... personalize itself ?

Can a WHAT ever make itself into a WHO ?

When the person sees the WHO is nothing more than
a BELIEF of the WHAT, the self is seen as a myth.

When the self is seen as a myth, it can no longer
dictate personalized action.

There is no other way for truly selfless action
to occur. The person will not spend any time trying
to wax a WHO belief (myth). They no longer have
to resist a WHO, or suppress a WHO.

The search is over, because the searcher never existed.

The searcher was personalized thought, chasing itself
like a dog chasing its tail.

The WHO holds out the carrot and chases it like a donkey.

Gurus give out various sizes of carrots.

There is nothing mystical about enlightenemnet.

It's all physical in the brain.

[George]

But if all thought is impersonal what is doing the thinking?

Can you read my thoughts?

[tucson]

George,

The thinking does it. Thinking thinks. No who or what about it.

Birds chirp.
Clouds go by.
A horn beeps.
A mountain stands firm.
"I" am no where to be found or unfound amidst all this.

As long as you hold to the idea that anything, even if it be smaller than a neutron, exists objectively, then all the knowledge in the world will be of no use to you in appreciating the above statements.

I know. I sound like some cliche' in a Zen store.

[Mike Williams]

"But if all thought is impersonal what is doing the thinking?"
quote Georg

WHAT is doing the thinking as you stated,
not the WHO.

One part of impersonal thought is looking
at the self (WHO) belief. Impersonal
thought, as tucson points out, sees the falacy of the WHO myth.

The impersonal thought in our heads, sees
it is impossible to personalize thought.

Most people are born religious, so if one becomes enlightened, there will usually
be a backround of searching.

All energy is impersonal. Can energy personalize itself ? Can even God have
a self (WHO) ?

If God is everything and everywhere,
how can there be anyone else but God ?

There can only be a self, where there is
the belief other selfs (WHOS) exist.

The WHO is created by impersonal thought
to maintain permenacy after death, to not
be a bland pancake of pure selfless thought.

The WHO can then impress 'others' and be
'somebody' in history, or science, etc.

We are living out a Hollywood movie. One we
have written the script, too.

We wax our WHO, trying to make it better
than all other WHOS. We try to impress God
with our humility and holyness.

Suppress and resist our way to the right
hand of God.

The God WHO is a creation of our brain.
We create God to love us and love Him.
We create fictional love.

Humans are in a terrible spot. The brain
knows deep down. The brain resists the
horrible realities of life.

The WHO was created by evolution for
man's survival. But, now survival depends
on the realization of no WHO (self).

[George]

Good day Tucson
but thinking is not a thing.
Seeing does not see and hearing does not hear.
The eye sees, the ear hears and the brain thinks.

[George]

Why overcomplicate?

I is your physical body, which is controlled by your brain.
Your brain is your own subjective consciouness, which is why you cannot read my thoughts, nor I yours.
Your brain is unique (and thus so is your subjective consciouness), it is unique becase the complexity of genetic and environmental experiences combine to define your very own personality.
No Zen, advaita nonduality or enlightenment needed.
Simple and easy.

[Roger]

George,

You stated,

"But if all thought is impersonal what is doing the thinking?"

--How are you defining 'impersoanl' in that statement?

Yes, all thought(mine, yours) is our own subjective consciousness.

So, what do you mean by, "but all thought is impersonal?"

This may or may not be the over 'thinking' that tuscon mentioned.

Best wishes, Roger

[the 'just happening' elephant]

Tucson you forgot the
'internet connections appear in homes and offices'
Sounds a bit ridiculous? Probably because it is ... just like for your statements.

You mention the belief in objective reality; I think you are giving to much credit to the average guy or gal. Don't take my word for it: just go around and ask a bunch of people how they think of and define objective reality and how confident they are about the validity of their view (for instance, Roger could provide an answer (for once ;))-- you will get contradictory, inconsistent and confused answers (and that when you get any answer at all). My point is that you are creating straw man claims (just like Suzanne) to help yourself in advancing your beliefs. You simply exploit the vagueness of non-existing beliefs/views to serve your purpose regardless of the facts. Your cliche/explanation to George also rests the assumption that there are only two extreme and exclusive ways to see reality: objective reality or not. But like the author Arthur Koestler argued in the ghost in the machine, the questions and issues surrounding the experiences of integrity, identity, power, necessity and irreducibility are more complex than that and can't be reduced to either one of these (straw man) positions. Another case against what can only be characterized as a bit of a naive position: Idealists did not believe in whatever you tag as 'objective reality' and yet they did not believe either in the false idea that "stuff just happens". They would not have appreciated your statements as much as you think they could.

Tucons: "As long as you hold to the idea that anything, even if it be smaller than a neutron, exists objectively, then all the knowledge in the world will be of no use to you in appreciating the above statements."

So if I don't hold the idea that anything exists objectively then all the knowledge in the world will suddendly be sufficient to appreciatve the above statements :) Weird way to see things ;) You are trying to sell fuzziness for wisdom ... probably not even realizing how bad your product is ... used sale cars suddenly don't look so bad after all ...

You claim 'stuff just happens' and there is nothing more to it (or at least George should just be satisfied with that answer; "No who or what about it"). But that is bullsh*t. I know it, George knows it and you know it. I also know a few algorithms and quants that would beg to differ as well – see below. The simple fact you are communicating on the net is an acknowledgment that 'stuff does not just happen'. Men and women working against the (not so) 'given' (however you represent it: the environment, nature, etc.) to create something new and useful for their self-centered purposes -- that is what technology is after all. Understanding further and deeper the unknown and reshaping its boundaries to satisfy our desires. Technological progress is a sure evidence that there is some gray to your fantasies that admit only black or white. The internet did not just happened in your home. Primitives believed wrongly that gods were responsible for stuff happening -- you? You recycle the same basic narrative but instead of gods you say 'nothing' makes the unfolding unfold. We can see the same naive underlying dynamics of the imaginations behind their story and your updated version-- the same basic dynamic of ignorance except you try to mask it under the pretense of wisdom or insight. In the end it is only a difference of semantic.

You have mentioned in the past that you invest and deal in the financial markets. Do you invest on the notion that 'the stock market moves prices up and down', they move because they move? and there is nothing to more to it: "No who or what about it". Of course not. Again an inconsistency between what you tell others on this forum and who you really are and do. It sounds like a cliché because it is a cliché because you made it a cliche. You may think that whatever you sell on this forum seems Zen but let me tell you it is not Hakuin's Zen. Neither does it compare to the wisdom of Angelius Silius when he wrote "The Rose is without 'why'; she blooms, because she blooms". You have created a persona and you interject yourself to this forum through it -- hiding the cognitive dissonances and contradictions entailed by what you say here and what you really do and are. It is very common and natural to human nature : the majority of the people lie about themselves and their ages on dating websites. I can't prove what I claim about you but let just say that the odds (and human nature, neurosciences, etc.) are on my side here, and I am better off thinking what I think than the opposite. And if you would have to put any money on it you would just do the same.

What is beyond doubt however is the deliberation and calculations behind your frequent and always redundant self-deprecation. Fake humility is just that: fake. The zen saying is not "look at me I only carry water ..." There is just too much 'self-awareness' in your remarks about yourself for them to be 'just happening'.

George asked very good questions (many of which are not 'what is ultimate reality'). That you can't deal with them except with insufficient, irrelevant and simplistic narratives while pretending it is sufficient or insightful reveals a lot if you ask me.

[Captain America]

Welcome to the brave new world

watch this:

http://vimeo.com/10149605

Who?
Who?
Is Mickey? Who is Rocky? Who is Osama? Who is you?

clouds dont go by tuscon. logos do
birds dont sing.they cry
Cars don beep they roar
Trees are signs
Fruits are the symbols
the blue sky is covered with smoke and high rising building
a mountain stands firm with an advertisment on it
a forest is there; but there is an entrance fee
This is La LA LA Laaaaand
This is the US social self which every body around the world consumes...
Bugs bunny f*****ing mini mouse
with goofy getting stoned in the living room
watching the simpsons rumble in the jungle against southpark

You can buy one if you got the cast, the guts to cross the border, or the luck to win the green card

Like I said above:
Its a brave new world....

[tucson]

Elephant,
I am not here to write a thesis or a book which would be required to fully address all the issues you raise. I think you attach too much importance to what I say. You make too much of it. You are straining with a tool (concepts and reason) that is an impediment. You must have a headache. You are trying to trip me up, but all you are doing is tripping yourself up. It's not complicated. I have explained that words are poor tools in these matters. They are just symbols of intuitions and therefore limited, at best a part of a whole, one side of a picture. See for yourself. That's my message to you. It is not done by someone for someone else. It is not done by anyone. You expect too much of me.

Myabe Captain Amnerica's words will serve you better.

[the Elephant]

Again, you fail to accept that I have not interest in 'finding' the ultimate reality, I just get a kick toying w/ people's inconsistencies and contradictions. As an activity, it is more down to earth and quite within the reach of words and concepts.

Once again you show you can't participate in or initiate any mature and serious discussion about anything. All you want is us to listen with docility to what you say. Once again, as soon as someone raises some doubt or is being a bit critical of your narratives her character is attacked, treated as she 'does not get it', etc. without any evidence or basis supporting the claims about failures of character. Her criticisms or points are never engaged and simply dismissed for being ignored (you ability to ignore the issues raised and answer some that were never brougout is uncanny). For all the sh*t RSSB is getting on this blog as being a cult/sect anyone with a bit of brain cells will realize that the dynamics you display on this board constitute a nice little microcosm of what cults, sects etc. are. The few dynamics I just described are textbook 101 on sect and cultish behavior. Just look at Andrew Cohen ...

Now, lets be a bit less serious and have some fun :)
"You expect too much of me": Actually I expect bullsh*t from you and that is what we have gotten so far: you have even surpassed my expectations.
"You make too much of it": no. I don't take yout too seriously -- otherwise how would have been able to called it bullshit?
"You are trying to trip me up, but all you are doing is tripping yourself up": I don't need to 'make you' trip -- you do it just as well on your own. I am just pointing it out in passing ...
"I have explained that words are poor tools in these matters. They are just symbols of intuitions and therefore limited, at best a part of a whole, one side of a picture.": Just like technology, words and concepts are not the problem. To the contrary they are behind fantastic achievements. It all depends on how and who use them. Words dont' fail you -- you fail them. Simply read the chapter on Dogen's view of Dori (reason) in Kim's insightful book for an alternative presentation of non-duality where the power and proper functions of words and concepts are acknowledged instead of being treated as an excuse for our own insufficiencies. http://www.amazon.com/Dogen-Meditation-Thinking-Reflection-ebook/dp/B003DM3QOO/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&m=AG56TWVU5XWC2&s=digital-text&qid=1284498228&sr=8-2

P.S. However simple you say it is, George has still to 'get it'!

[George]

Roger
I was responding to mike who said 'all thought is impersonal', he seems to be saying that thought is made personal by a false sense of self.

I say he's overcomplicating.
Thought is entirely personal. A person thinks.

A person can think impersonal thoughts, but the process of thought itself is performed entirely by the individual - ie the brain of a person (or self).

A mountain does not think, neither does a WHO or a WHAT or anything else that is capitalized.An individual thinks because of an evolved physical brain.

Cheers Rog

[George]

In a nutshell, mike appears to be creating some sort of imagined homunculus (Self, WHO, WHAT), which is then dismantled as being imaginary. Its just circular. There is a personal self which thinks, which is the personal brain. What more needs to be said.

Tucson seems to believe that this thinking is not actually done by a personal human brain, but that all that is is thought, without physical subjects or objects or things. He seems to be saying that this ubiquitous Thought is illusorily manifeste as things or objects, which are figments of Thoughts imagination. I think Tucson has been puffing on the peace pipe, though his thoughts are interesting.

[Mike Williams]

"Thought is entirely personal. A person thinks."
quote George

A person thinks. A personal 'self' does not think.

The fact that thought happens to a person,
does not mean the 'persona' is real.
The persona being the WHO (self).

Animals also think, yet they have no self.

The thought the brain thinks has no persona.

Thought itself dreams up the myth of a self.

But, thought has no self.

Thought thinks itself. There is no thinker
of thought.

One side of the brain is debating the other side. So, it seems like there is a thinker.

There is only 'thinking'.

[tucson]

Elephant,
You seem to have a mental dosier of my statements on this blog over the past few years. Your vibe is getting a bit creepy and something like a stalker. Yours is like the voice of a prank phonecaller. It is best not to encourage them with any type of response, so this may be my last.

You take offense when I don't respond to the issues and challenges you raise and you are frustrated. It is not that you don't raise valid or interesting points. You do. It is just my unwillingness to organize and write the length of adequate response that would be required. I flunked out of high school because I did not like homework and compulsory essays. Apparently, that has not changed. And in the end I think we would end up where we are now. So why bother?

George,
You're right. I have somoked my share of "peace pipes". I have taken psychotropics more times than I could count maybe because I wasn't good at school(math). In fact, I have even imbibed a number of times recently with the young people who come to the house, but I find it numbing and blurrrs my vision.

Thinking is done by a physical human brain but the entity so identified by objectivising those thoughts is a phantom.

A favorite poem:

The birds have vanished into the sky,

and now the last cloud drains away.

We sit together, the mountain and me,

until only the mountain remains.

[George]

All animals including man have a persona to degrees of gradation.
especially so in social species such as dogs, encaphilopods and apes.
A persona is a word describing the real general behavior of an individual.

Thought does not happen to a person, rather a person (or animal) thinks.
Thought does not think itself, rather a brain of an indivual person thinks.
There is no debate in the brain, it simply thinks, which is what brains do.
It does not seem like there is a thinker, there is a thinker, the brain.
There is not only thinking, there is a brain doing the thinking.

[kriyaman]

peace pipe thinking ala tucson is confused thinking, as is intellectual jargon ala mike williams

only one with any clarity of thought is one who has mastered the control of his own thoughts or stilled his thinking mind

these individuals who 'think' they can determine their own existence, are but only fooling themselves, whether under the influence of hallucinogenics or under the influence of their own puffed up imaginary mental intellectualized delusions.

[Roger]

Thought is a conceptualization. And the 'thinker' is another conceptualization.

That said, within duality, there is the Thinker that generates thoughts. I, George, Tucson, that creepy elephant person can and do generate thoughts and writings.
Our blogging is a dualistic activity.

I think about mountains much, I enjoy the study of plutonic formations regularly. This is duality, and there is nothing wrong with such.

In non-duality, the non-conceptuality term is used. There would be no thoughts and no thinking and no self. Again, these are just a bunch of words, being piled up into a sentence or two.

[George]

Yip a nice poem Tucson
I got that blue cliff record book, but that zen stuff is more difficult than quantum mechanics. My head still hurts

[jon weiss]

Gosala Makkhali, a contemporary of the Buddha, comes to mind:

http://www.answers.com/topic/makkhali-gosala

[Mike Williams]

"Thought does not think itself, rather a brain of
an indivual person thinks"
quote George

A brain thinks impersonal thoughts. A brain is a
piece of meat. WHO personalizes impersonal thought ?
WHO personalizes the brain (meat) ? Can a slab of beef
personalize itself ? When a cannibal eats our brain,
do they eat our 'self' ?

"only one with any clarity of thought is one who has
mastered the control of his own thoughts or stilled his thinking mind"
quote kriyaman

When the falacy of the self (WHO) is seen, no matter
how fast thought moves, it cannot produce selfish actions
beyond the needs of the organism. The self can no longer
motivate action when it is seen as a myth.

I can see now why some of you are having a hard time
figuring out what tucson, Brian and myself are saying.

[George]

A brain is very specific piece of meat having a very specific ability thinking.
That is why a brain has a most complex array of neurons.
It is also why when a lion sinks his canines into the meaty rump of a gazelle, the gazelle thinks 'my ass hurts'.
It's also how he remebers why it's a good idea to prevent his meaty self from being eaten by other meaty objects he thinks look (or behave) like lions.

This is how the gazelle survives in this arms race of self-preservation.

[Roger]

I like this description,

"The brain for as sophisticated a bio-mechanical mechanism as it is, it is simply a mental computer that, through an electro-chemical process, resonates, replicates, records and remembers the vibratory patterns of apparent external energy that the 5 senses and the body in general report to it in conceptual space-time. In this regard, I would suggest that the brain does not “create consciousness” as a materialist (one who seems to believes in the absolute nature of relative matter and its apparent relativity as the Ultimate Reality) might think or suppose. Rather, the brain is a computer through which Consciousness is able to become Locally Self-Aware – a kind of Spiritual or Cosmic Transceiver, as it were, that is able to convert energy into a seemingly personal and collective conceptual reality defined as “self and other” or “myself in a world of not-self.”

---So, an individual brain thinks personal(conceptual) thoughts thru such brain. Now, Consciousness may or may not come from other sources too.

[Mike Williams]

Hi George,

Lets take this example. A cannibal cuts
open the top of your scull while you are still alive. The cannibal then takes a big bite of your brain and swallows it.

Does the cannibal develop a multiple
personality ?

[Mike Williams]

The Mad Scientist

Lets say a mad scientist
gets a hold of an exsatsangis DNA.
Lets pick some here for example.
Lets say Brian.

The mad scientist grows Brian's
brain in a large jar. This new brain
is absolutely identical.

Will we then have two Brian's ?

Lets say the mad scientist clones Brian,
(after turning down a million dollar offer
from Gurinder not to do so.)

Now you have two identical Brians.

Which one is Brian ?

[George]

mike
I would need a liitle more case history on the cannibal to arrive at a personality disorder diagnosis.