Seeing Others As Self

[Echoes]

I'm struggling with this at the moment. In direct experience, you could say that others are me. I only have the perception, the voice and my assumptions of their thoughts and intentions (which are actually my thoughts). Now, the experience of "another" seems to arise in me (In experience that I am having), and therefore the other and me are one. Other bodies are, like my own body, and basically everything, facets...metaphors...exemplars of the (no)-self out of a range of infinite metaphors - So everything is the one self.

My problem is this: The "other" is not the body, not the language, not the thoughts. It's the mystery of another perspective, another experience of reality taking place, the inaccessible question mark of and if another perceiving is happening. And this perspective or experience is not my own -> there is separation.

When I see others as myself it feels like cheating. It feels like robbing them their individuality. They become so innocent suddenly, like "Oh, you are an experience in me, you have no existence outside of this experience" It almost has a solipsistic flair. 

So yes, everything I have of them (perception/thought/language) is me you could say. But what about the inaccessible consciousness? It's what keeps the separation and feeling of fear intact.

Can anybody relate to this?

[Nahm]

@Echoes  in my mind, there are levels so to speak, I imagine the levels as atomic, nuclear, and quantum,  just words of course for different focuses within awareness.   on one level we all have our individuality, on another we are all one.  quite a few times, when I'm alone with someone, their individual consistent personality abruptly stops and they speak directly to me as the one, and snap right back into their personality.   this has to do a lot with the collapsing of the wave and the observer, which  ultimately of course there is no observer, but again,  trying to explain these levels.  in my opinion,  knowledge and or information dictates the behavior and reaction of all things  relative,  so it's critical to have an understanding and some knowledge about the wave collapse process.  helpful bro?

[Natasha]

@Echoes I think what you're talking about is empathy in a deeper kind of sense. I have been catching myself lately merging with another on that level too. Perhaps it's a sign that one is tapped into collective consciousness, but I haven't contemplated much on this yet. 

[Echoes]

@Nahm But their individuality/personality is also only appearing in you. It's a facet of you. It's like: "Oh, I can be this way. and this way. and this way. and WOW! I didn't consider I am this too!"   When you say you have levels of them in your mind, isn't it all you dividing yourself into levels? On the other hand, if I only take the ontological reality without buying into the mind, it's basically a variation of solipsism. which I notice my mind wants to go there sometimes out of fear of the other. -The other- is a complex phenomenon. How do you reconcile -the other- with realizations of no objective world existing, and nothing outside of experience existing? Where is the other?? And what is the difference between -the other- in a dream and -the other- in  "normal" reality? 

Thank you! You always get me interested to learn more about quantum physics  Because of your descriptions it seems that is has actual value in life. Often I see the mentality "This is what we found out about reality in our experiments. Now let's get back to  "real life" and act as if nothing happened and that it only applies to the laboratory!" 

@Natasha Yea, I think empathy is really the degree of being able to connect with another. Connect to their feelings/emotions/thoughts. The greater the degree of "strangeness" or separation, the lesser the ability to connect and empathise and the more fear one feels. The question is: What is this connecting really? On what dimension does it take place? And can we ever be entirely free of the feeling of separation? Nonduality says yes. But I don't know to what degree this is an idealistic absolute statement. In the end we still have to defend ourselves if someone attacks our body physically.

Thank you! 

[Thesnakerising]

"The one that is many, and the many that are one" states vishishadvaita. I tend to agree. 

Everything is made out of one "substance" and a part of one whole. The self. Yet differences still exist. To deny this is delusional and stems from a lack of understanding of what enlightenment is, and listening to delusional self realized people who although are self realized refuse to accept their humanity.

Here is an analogy: If Light goes through a prism. The light will then become and turn into all the colors of the rainbow. The color blue and the color pink are different colors. Yet at the same time the originate from the same source and are of the same substance, light. Vibrating at different frequencies.

 

[Haumea]

This sounds like the Cosmic Consciousness stage, i.e. "I am everything."  There is still the "I am" arising, the I-thought is still there, so there are issues with The Other, the object.

This is fully resolved in the Absolute, when the "I am" no longer arises.  There's only The Self, the I-I.  No other, no object.

Edited September 3, 2017 by Haumea

[Thesnakerising]

16 minutes ago, Haumea said:

This sounds like the Cosmic Consciousness stage, i.e. "I am everything."  There is still the "I am" arising, the I-thought is still there, so there are issues with The Other, the object.

This is fully resolved in the Absolute, when the "I am" no longer arises.  There's only The Self, the I-I.  No other, no object.

The I thought doesnt exist, consciously at least at cc. You misunderstand maharishis map.

 

[Haumea]

Quote

The I thought doesnt exist, consciously at least at cc. You misunderstand maharishis map.

That was my point.  It's not conscious, it's implicit.  There is still the "I am" experience.  In the Absolute there is no "I am" experience.

It's the I that doesn't know itself.

[Grasshopper]

@Echoes The way I see it, there are three possibilities:

1. Everyone has their own separate consiousness.
2. Yours is the only consiousness that exists. Everyone else has no awareness of their being (they're basically puppets).
3. Only your consiousness exists, but it is within everyone (you experience all perspectives at different times, so to speak).

Take #1. This would mean separation. Your experience is one self, but someone else's is another self. It's ultimately an infinite number of selves interacting with each other.

Take #2. This would inhibit compassion and encourage selfishness ("no one else is experiencing suffering, so why care?")

Take #3. If you probe your awareness enough, you realize everyone has the same identical awareness. Identical to 100%. We are all identical siblings living different experiences through unique bodies. Now consider this: are we all separate identical awarwnesses? (If so, then you're back at #1.) Or does the identical nature of awareness point to every consiousness as originating from the same being?

Edited September 3, 2017 by Grasshopper

[Leo Gura]

@Echoes That is because you're trying to force this using intellect. That cannot work. You must be CONSCIOUS that other is self. This requires enlightenment.

There is no such thing as "inaccessible consciousness". Consciousness is Nothing, you are Nothing, other is Nothing. But believing it isn't helpful. Only enlightenment will do.

[RossE]

@Echoes You really need to experience this first hand, which is very do-able. 

When you have the experience, the thing you're trying to describe becomes an obvious feature of how reality works. You will see others in that way naturally, and all the above questions will be irrelevant. There is a silent understanding, with no real need for intellectual categorising. Keep up the practice.

[orroz]

Seeing no Self = Seeing no Others

[Nahm]

10 hours ago, Echoes said:

@Nahm But their("Their" individual personality isn't me or my individual personality (both don't exist), "their" reality One is also "my" reality One) individuality/personality is also only appearing in you (The One, not Nahm). It's a facet of you (a facet of an illusion) . It's like: "Oh, I can be this way. and this way. and this way. and WOW! I didn't consider I (The One)  am this too!"   When you say you have levels of them in your mind, isn't it all you dividing yourself into levels? (By "in my mind" I meant, in my opinion, or the way I see it) On the other hand, if I only take the ontological reality (Ontology is not reality in my experience, it's a thought in an illusion by a brain in a hallucination) without buying into the mind, it's basically a variation of solipsism (Nahm isn't "real" either). which I notice my mind wants to go there sometimes out of fear of the other (the fear is in you, so you're perceiving with fear. Fear doesn't exist. You can only reference it as a means of continuing to perpetually create it. It's all good though, it's part of the fun, part of the illusion. Like watching a scary movie...once it's all over, you return to All is Well, and move on to the next fun shit to do). -The other- is a complex phenomenon (Other is part of the fun, and illusionary, in reality, there is only alone, only the consciousness of the infinite One Love, alone, Blissfully alone) (notice there are 'others' created in your dreams, and that's you (Echoe's brain) creating them- similar to The One in reality creating everyone in it's dream/hallucination/illusion) ( In our dreams, "others" seem real af, amIright?) . How do you reconcile -the other- with realizations of no objective world existing (Reconciling is an illusionary act by an illusionary brain. There is no objective reality because there are no perceivers nor experiences in reality, only The Infinite One Love. Individual perceivers are part of the illusion, not reality) , and nothing outside of experience existing (My (Nahm's) brain is illusory also)? Where is the other (in the hallucination of Love, The One - nowhere. Same place "Echoes" "is", nowhere, not real, doesn't exist in reality) ?? And what is the difference between -the other- in a dream and -the other- in  "normal" reality? You're calling one of them "normal reality". That's the only difference. I don't make that distinction. I used to. Thus, in conversations about this subject, I refer to "levels". One is reality, one is illusory. 

Thank you! You always get me interested to learn more about quantum physics  Because of your descriptions it seems that is has actual value in life. Often I see the mentality "This is what we found out about reality (The illusion) in our experiments. Now let's get back to  "real life" (a fucking illusion, lol)  and act as if nothing happened and that it only applies to the laboratory!" (There are no laboratorys in reality. No labor either. That's the funny thing about QM, it reveals that there is no "real life", but ain't nobody tryin to hear that, I find) 

 

IMO, the difference between what I'm saying and what you're saying is in the meanings & definitions & usage of "I, you, me, them, others, One". It boils down to what we've each experienced, within this illusion, and wether we hold our experiences to be real, or nothing.  I'm a fan of nothing. Quantum Erasure shows the past isn't by any stretch what we experienced as having happened at all. A deep surrender to this is liberating af. When this illusion expands beyond it's self / retracts into the void - , there is no "I, you, me, them, others, One", because in reality there are no words or brains, etc, only Love. I'm not confident that this can be communicated really, nor that I am equips to communicate it, and that's pretty fuckin awesome imo. It's trying to use words to communicate what is far beyond using words. It's what / where all the words are coming from, and at the same time there is nowhere anything is coming from, and yet that "anywhere" and "nowhere" is here, right now.   Thanks for the compliment on the QM usage. It's a paradigm to me; i know a lot about QM, I don't know shit about QM, it gives me a lot of clarity about these things, and at the same time, it reveals that QM's itself isn't real at all in the first place, and neither am I.    You rock Echoes! I always love hearing from you! You're always kind & challenging at the same time and that's where the expansion for me is! Thanks!

[Nahm]

@Grasshopper IMO, all 3 of those scenarios are happening. Locality and non-locality, super position entangled. 

[Girzo]

I think that this excerpt from The Impersonal Life might help you with your struggle. Relax yourself, take a few deep breaths and read it with open mind. The I in this text is your Enlightened, Impersonal Self, the Real You.

Quote

You have been told that each cell of your body has a consciousness and an intelligence of its own; that were it not for this consciousness it could not do the work it so intelligently does.

Each cell is surrounded by millions of other cells, each intelligently doing its own work and each evidently controlled by the united consciousness of all these cells, forming a group intelligence, which directs and controls this work; this group intelligence apparently being the intelligence of the organ which the cells comprising it form. Likewise, there are other group intelligences in other organs, each containing other millions of cells, and all these organs make up your physical body.

Now, you know You are the Intelligence that directs the work of the organs of your body, whether this directing is done consciously or unconsciously; and that each cell of each organ is really a focal center of this directing Intelligence; and that when this Intelligence is withdrawn the cells fall apart, your physical body dies and exists no more as a living organism.

Who is this You who directs and controls the activities of your organs, and consequently of each cell composing them?

You cannot say it is your human or personal self who does this, for you of yourself consciously can control the action of scarcely a single organ of your body. It must then be this Impersonal I AM of you, which is You, and yet is not you.

Listen!

You, the I AM of you, are to Me what the cell consciousness of your body is to your I AM Consciousness.

You are a cell, as it were, of My Body, and your consciousness (as one of My Cells) is to Me what the consciousness of one of the cells of your body is to You.

Therefore, it must be that the consciousness of the cell of your body is My Consciousness, even as your consciousness is My Consciousness; and therefore We must be One in consciousness -- the cell, You and I.

BTW I find this book a real goldmine for self-inquiry topics.