abrakamowse

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.

Thank you very much @cetus56 that is very clarifying. I also heard Mooji once saying that the I AM can be very tricky, because awareness can be the I AM and the ego can say that too. Is there were we are confused and think we are the body, etc... And Nisagardatta said that the I AM when you leave the I AM behind there's the Absolute. But I don't know why I think that Absolute is still and I AM. Hehehe... I think that the idea that we have of a "self" is limiting. Thanks for the input. And really, thanks everyone for their opinions, even if we don't see it the same way. I grow when I listen to different voices and opinions that are not the same that I have at this moment. Thanks!!!

And what is that nothingness? Who perceives? or what is being perceived by who? Is it possible to have perception without a perceiver? How consciousness perceives itself? Nothingness is another word too... in my opinion that Nothingness is the I AM, the one that Buddhist call it Buddha Mind or Big Mind. and they call our perception or wrong idea of I am this or that as Small Mind. I feel there's a lot of confusion on this topic.

I understand I AM is just words. The truth cannot be really named because it's not a concept and not an object. Having said that, I don't understand why people tend to say I AM is just words but Nothingness is the truth. The same thing happens with nothingness. So what is the point saying this is the real way to call it, there's nothing and if you say I AM is wrong is a concept. The concept that we have of I AM is wrong, we as a separated being are not the "I". There's no I in that sense. But we are one with reality, that's is what I AM. I AM = Truth = reality = everything = nothing. But is there a perceiver?

It can be interesting to open a separated thread about this, Thanks again!

Like the I AM? hahahaha... just kidding. No problem. I appreciate your understanding in disagreement. I am open to your idea, I don't discard anything.

The Tao that can be named is not Tao. Anything we say is wrong because we make it an object. There must be extreme openmindness to understand the real meaning of what we are trying to give behind the words. I understand you (or at least I know where are you going) but I think you don't understand what I am trying to say. You said it well when you said everything is real and unreal simultaneously. That's what I wanted to point, the I AM exists and doesn't exists. But maybe you don't give the words the same meaning I give. I don't give to the I AM any meaning, it can't be named. Thanks for the exchange of ideas anyway.

There's no substance. But, what is consciousness to you and what is the idea of a self? Do you think that I AM is a self? It is not...

What does it has to do that there's no boundary? Why do you think that if there's no boundary there's no true self (or no-self if you like to call it like that... it's just different names for the I AM.) The Buddha Mind... it has thousands of names). There's no boundary because everything is I AM. Nature is perceiving itself through Maya (Illusion). The I AM is everything that IS. Reality, cosmos, Universe, everything.... you, me, perceiver, perceived, everything at all... nothing escapes from it. The concept we have of a "self" doesn't apply to the I AM.

http://www.anandavala.info/miscl/I_Am_That.pdf

Depends on the perspective where you are looking. The "I Am this" doesn't exist. But the being-ness of I AM does. I know is just a matter of words, words are concepts but the idea is that the big I AM is reality. The I AM is everything, and nothing at the same time. And cannot be grasped or objectified. When the realization that "I AM nothing" comes, we understand that the "I AM" is everything.

I agree there's no you... but we are talking about I AM...

And ? what does that prove?

And who is aware of that?