abrakamowse

I agree.... what I do when that happens is to think "it's just a thought" and I continue doing what I was doing...

Well... I work 8 hours a day doing graphic design. But if you don't want to do that you can search for works that give you "passive income". Things that you just do one time and then you just repeat the process, like selling stuff, buying something at wholesale prices and selling for more, like any web store. I told you that thinking in a profession, but you don't have to do what I suggested. The guys that I know would give their lives for comics hahaha... just kidding, but they love it. They would do it for free if they could and not 8 hours, whatever it takes to accomplish their goals. You have to enjoy the process and it's like if you were not working.

I don't think is a matter of courage @DimmedBulb . It is related , but I think is also a matter of patience. Let me share you my history. I always liked to draw comics, and any kind of drawing or illustration. I felt that I was not good enough so my father took me to the home of a known comic artist in my country. He was english, but he lived in my country since he was very young and he made his career there. His nickname was Fola. He told me that I have to keep drawing all the time non stop. Try to draw any moment I can. And I did that, but I didn't see many improvements so I never dedicated the time that is needed to succeed. So, I decided to become a Graphic Designer, it was like a "safer" position. And I didn't draw so often. To get good at illustration you need to draw everyday, no skip any day. Draw, draw and draw. I have friends that I meet because we liked to create comics that are now publishing to Europe and Image Comics, Marvel, DC, etc... I am the only one who didn't publish anything yet, I did but for minors comic magazines. What happened, they kept drawing more than me, so they become better than me faster. Now I am 47, I continue drawing but not at a fast pace as them... and now I am beginning to feel that my art has a professional look and it is good to publish. So now I am making a portfolio to begin to look for opportunities in the field of illustration and comics when I could have done that much younger. But that's life. I am not complaining, it was my choice. Unconscious, conscious or not, it was my choice. It takes about 10,000 hours to learn a new skill, that's what everybody says. The rule of 10,000 hours , you can read about it here . Leo talks about it in some of his videos I think. So, if you draw 5 or 6 hour per day (I am talking about drawing but is the same with any other project or skill) you will be good at something (let's say learn the ropes of creating a business) in about 5 years. I have friends who draw less than 5 hours, let's say 3 hours and they become really good in 10 years. But they began when they were 16 or around that age so they become good at 26 even at 30... that's a pretty nice age. But forget about ages and all that, what I wanted to tell you is that you will be failing the 2 or 3 first years, but you have to be PATIENT. Be patient and know that you will become good, you only have to continue trying. Don't quit fast. Remember winners never quit and quitters... never win...

That's the spirit! Yes, I agree and I arrived to the same conclusion, maybe that's what I wanted to find out. Thanks!!!

Metaphysical meaning of I AM I AM--Spiritual identity; the real or Christ Mind, of each individual. The I AM Being. God is I AM, and man, His offspring, is also I AM. I AM is the indwelling Lord of life, love, wisdom, and all the ideas eternally in Divine Mind. The I AM is the metaphysical name of the spiritual self, as distinguished from the human self. One is governed by Spirit, the other by personal will. Christ and Jehovah are the scriptural names for spiritual I AM. Jesus called it the Father. I AM is eternal, without beginning or ending: the true spiritual man whom God made in His image and likeness. The I AM has its being in heaven; its home is in the realm of God ideals. It is the center around which all the thoughts of man revolve. The narrow concept of the personal I AM should be led out into the consciousness of the great and only I AM. Man identifies himself with that to which he attaches his I AM, and whatever he identifies himself with, that he manifests. Hitch your I AM to the star of Christ, and infinite joy will follow as night the day. I AM identity--As the will of God, man represents I AM identity. Individual consciousness is like an eddy in the ocean--all the elements that are found in the ocean are also found in the eddy, and every eddy may, in due course, receive and give forth all that is in the ocean. This is individual consciousness, freedom to act without dictation of any kind, selfhood without consciousness of cause, the power to make or break without limitation. I AM, used adversely--Man seeking happiness through sense pleasure. This is sin (missing the mark), and the wages are pain, sickness, poverty, and death. Think I AM in harmony with God-Mind, and health, wealth, and harmony will be yours. "I am the light of the world"--(John 8:12). Refers to Christ as the expresser of Truth in all its aspects.

Enlightenment is not difficult, what is difficult for us is not to get attached to those fears. We take those fears as is "our" fear. It is not. It's just fear manifesting, you can observe it and let it go. It doesn't have power on you. I know this is easier said and done, I am actually having some fear problems. We are moved by fear and not by love. My way to deal with that is to do mindful meditation, where you just observe your thoughts but without getting attached to them. This with practice will give you a "separation" between you and the thoughts so you will be able to feel the fear but not be scared by it, because is just a feeling. Nothing bad is going to happen. Check Leo's video about mindful meditation. If you want I send you the link later.

Keep trying... don't quit

Just book names that Leo advice everyone to read.

But I was asking me also about the existence of a higher self. The Non-self teaching is in Buddhism and it differs from Hinduism in that point. From The Editors of Encyclopædia Britannica

I wasn't talking about that kind of "Free Will" if a person is not enlightened he's not aware of it... I thought you were talking about us as a "separated self" thinking that we have free will. I agree with what you just said. Basically...

I agree with that, but the same thing goes with 'nothing' it's just a label too... a concept and a thought. What do you think?

Why not? A fiction that creates everything?

So you don't see the objects as yourself, like there's no difference between perceiver and being perceived.. everything is happening, but something is perceiving it, right? Just asking, I'm interested in different points of view. Thanks.

This is a quote from Alan Watts I find interesting.

Do you feel identified more with the idea of a separated "I" or with nothingness? Just curious. It happened to me and now a shift in the way of thinking is appearing and I wanted to know. I used to feel very identified with the identity and I couldn't think of reality as myself, that I AM everything and nothing at the same time. Maybe is there some pointer? I don't know...

Yeah, that's exactly what I am (not really "me" hehehe) thinking....

I agree with that.

Sometimes is better not to name it... hehehehe... cool. This thread was very helpful to me. I hope to others as well, and I also hope others will add their perspectives even if they are different of what was posted here so far. We need "radical open mindness"

Cool, thanks!!! I never seen someone calling it that way "the Supreme Self, the unseen Seer of seeing, the unheard Hearer of hearing, the unthinkable Thinker of thinking" Nice

That's awesome @cetus56 where did you find it?

Maybe here's there's part of the response: Anatta – the difference between Buddhism and Hinduism Anatta is a central doctrine of Buddhism, and marks one of the major differences between Buddhism and Hinduism. Buddhists do not believe that at the core of all human beings and living creatures, there is any "eternal, essential and absolute something called a soul, self or atman". Buddhism, from its earliest days, has denied the existence of the "self, soul" in its core philosophical and ontological texts. In its soteriological themes, Buddhism has defined nirvana as that blissful state when a person, amongst other things, realizes that he or she has "no self, no soul". The traditions within Hinduism believe in Atman. The pre-Buddhist Upanishads of Hinduism assert that there is a permanent Atman, and is an ultimate metaphysical reality. This sense of self, is expressed as "I am" in Brihadaranyaka Upanishad 1.4.1, states Peter Harvey, when nothing existed before the start of the universe. The Upanishadic scriptures hold that this soul or self is underlying the whole world.[117] At the core of all human beings and living creatures, assert the Hindu traditions, there is "eternal, innermost essential and absolute something called a soul, self that is atman."[5] Within the diverse schools of Hinduism, there are differences of perspective on whether souls are distinct, whether Supreme Soul or God exists, whether the nature of Atman is dual or non-dual, and how to reach moksha. However, despite their internal differences, one shared foundational premise of Hinduism is that "soul, self exists", and that there is bliss in seeking this self, knowing self, and self-realization.

That's the idea... I think Buddha was asked about this and he didn't want to answer. And I think he did that because he thought that clinging to the idea of "I" or a self (a big self) can be a trap of the ego for not getting enlightened. So, I think that's the main purpose for me on this post. To find out that. If that belief makes me stop of being enlightened I drop the belief hehehehe... I am still investigating.

This is going to clear up this topic a bit I think.

Freud called ID "The id (Latin for "it",[4] German: Es)[5] is the unorganized part of the personality structure that contains a human's basic, instinctual drives. Id is the only component of personality that is present from birth.[6] It is the source of our bodily needs, wants, desires, and impulses, particularly our sexual and aggressive drives." Ego for him was: "The ego (Latin "I",[18] German: Ich)[19] acts according to the reality principle; i.e. it seeks to please the id's drive in realistic ways that will benefit in the long term rather than bring grief.[20] At the same time, Freud concedes that as the ego "attempts to mediate between id and reality, it is often obliged to cloak the [unconscious] commands of the id with its own [ preconscious ] rationalizations, to conceal the id's conflicts with reality, to profess ... to be taking notice of reality even when the id has remained rigid and unyielding."[21] The reality principle that operates the ego is a regulating mechanism that enables the individual to delay gratifying immediate needs and function effectively in the real world. An example would be to resist the urge to grab other people's belongings, but instead to purchase those items.[22]" and he also mentioned the Over I or super-ego: The super-ego (German: Über-Ich)[27] reflects the internalization of cultural rules, mainly taught by parents applying their guidance and influence.[28] Freud developed his concept of the super-ego from an earlier combination of the ego ideal and the "special psychical agency which performs the task of seeing that narcissistic satisfaction from the ego ideal is ensured ... what we call our 'conscience'."[29] For him "the installation of the super-ego can be described as a successful instance of identification with the parental agency," while as development proceeds "the super-ego also takes on the influence of those who have stepped into the place of parents — educators, teachers, people chosen as ideal models."[30] The terms "id", "ego", and "super-ego" are not Freud's own. They are latinisations by his translator James Strachey. Freud himself wrote of "das Es",[5] "das Ich",[19] and "das Über-Ich"[27]—respectively, "the It", "the I", and "the Over-I" (or "I above"); thus to the German reader, Freud's original terms are more or less self-explanatory. Freud borrowed the term "das Es" from Georg Groddeck, a German physician to whose unconventional ideas Freud was much attracted (Groddeck's translators render the term in English as "the It").[46] The word ego is taken directly from Latin, where it is the nominative of the first person singular personal pronoun and is translated as "I myself" to express emphasis. I think what Freud is talking is not exactly what we are talking about, but he perceived something. In my opinion the idea of the ID and Ego is the "I am" in lowercase. And the Over-I would be the I AM in uppercase. I just wanted to add this perspective that is just a pointer. I am not saying this is the truth.

That's the confusion I think... when we say I AM is the core being as a raw perceiver of reality as you said. The separated self (ego) is the one that takes that "concept" and tries to own it, that's not the I AM. That can be called "I am this" or "I am a loser"... etc That's how I see it. Or the way I understand... and I think basically we are talking about the same thing, but we get attached to the meaning of the words. The question would be, "is reality or core being a self?" the true self? In that sense nothing is separated in the I AM because everything is that. And the way it perceives itself is by creating an idea of a separated I that doesn't exist. But that doesn't imply there's no I AM. Not just "I". The being-ness, awareness and beyond. Maybe just calling it being-ness without the I. But why the I implies separation? I think I/we can be everything and nothing.