Semantics
I just came from a local meeting of seekers and experienced non-dualists and noticed a tendency to make speeches, quote major spiritual teachers BUT rarely ever use the 'I' word to speak of their own, direct experiences and/or understandings.
I come from a background of sharing meetings in support groups so, using the 'I' word is both easy and also way more significant to me than listening to pompous lectures, theories or disguised advice from self appointed authorities so some "spiritual" meetings are both irritating and uninformative. If others could or would just talk about their own direct, personal and ACTUAL experiences with awakening, realizing, knowing, doing, feeling, understanding, I could learn a lot from that and take away a lot more from such simple HONESTY. The pompous though emotionally safer use of words like: we, you, they, them, us, others, all, everyone, etc. rather than the more honest and authoritative terms such as: I, me, my, mine, my self, for me, etc. work a lot better for me and gives the speaker some credibility. I'd much rather hear or read of someone's own, personal awakening than have them tell me how it's going to be or feel for me, us, them, we or you. "I am that" carries way more authority and meaning for me than to be told "YOU ARE THAT! ...or We are that, etc." by some self made authority figure. I know this is just about semantics but I personally prefer and can HONOR statements that come from someone's own, direct experiences rather than speeches and pompous quotes, etc. :smile: |
Quote:
Seriously though the lack of personal pronoun use to indicate some kind of 'transcendence' of the personal is plain silly. People should know it that "I" means the ego, or 'self' or 'little me" so to say "I am That' means the ego isn't the end of the person because there's 'That'...there's everything else including the "I". I was also an Advaita Vedantin for quite a while, but I never got into the "I am That" or "You are That" bit because those sayings, those mahavakyas were contradictory in themselves. If they would have been "I am" or just simply "That" it would make a lot more sense because the relation between "I am" and "That" is what kicks off the whole duality game. So when "I" speak, you know it can't be anything other than "I" because "I" don't know if the "not-I" as in "Brahman" even has a voice beyond OM! Yes, it is all semantics and why I left the path of Advaita Vedanta and embraced the path of Tantra fully after that. It was the next step in my spiritual evolution and the most logical route for me to take. |
Oh, my Higher Self just kicked in.
"In basic terms, yes but there's a lot more to it than that. In certain academic philosophical circles of non-duality, any kind of 'personal experience' is seen as subjectively anecdotal and why wouldn't it be? It is nice to speak of our experiences and share them with others, but the sublime experience related to non-dual consciousness cannot be described or spoken of with anybody really because words just don't exist for it. The phrases "I am That" and "You are That" originate from the Upanishads, a branch of Vedanta dealing with the limitations of individual human thought and experience within the framework of that which lay beyond them. In the end, there is nothing more one can say, after ALL has been said and done but "thou art That". It means, 'I've taken you as far as I can go, the rest is up to YOU now'...what one makes of that is personal and individual. This is why personal pronouns are never used and apart from that, there's the damn stupid experience of getting in with a bunch of Advaitins and alluding to the ego by saying "I" only to have them retort "and just what is this "I" you speak of?" so it's easier to just omit any reference to yourself whatsoever. It's an experience and a half, put it that way, but yeah it's quite ridiculous". |
I have often thought about this and came to the conclusion that most people live their lives vicariously through other people. They identify with the characteristics of others, that person is their role model, their hero, their savior. It would be wonderful though if we could all speak in an original voice, our own, about our own experiences.
I have used the experiences of others which have stood the test of time as a reference, or template, for my own experiences. We pass on knowledge by sharing our experience as related to the experiences of others. This is how we come up with the term "normal." Normal is what the majority of people are doing or how they function; normal is what we see the most in our environment; normal is what gives us "abnormal." It is based on the experience of others, and then most people compare and contrast their own experience with that designation of "normal." I believe that we are all inter, and intra, related and part of my learning and growing is dependent on the experiences of others; they are as one possible example of what I might, or have, encountered. My story of life is interwoven with the story of others, but they are not the authority on my life. I am my own authority even to the extent that I turn my authority over to others, a higher power, etc., or refer to some noted person as an authority; for even in giving it away I have exercised my authority to make a choice. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
I would want to define the 'I' and then define the "That" in that cliche before deciding what it means. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
Words
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
So who are you - the Real or an angry, frightened, temporary little person???? :icon_eek: |
Quote:
|
Normal
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
Personal vs Impersonal
Although I feel any path is good enough since there is only One thing or Being here, I see Religion as the egoic or personal path and Spirituality as the Impersonal or Pathless path. IMO, it's just a matter of choice and preference as to what "path" is taken. The joke is that there is no path or anywhere to go since this is it! This is all that there is! The limited mind/ego/self cannot grasp that and is frightened of that truth so Religion was invented to offer this frightened ego some comfort and a process to finally get "there" or into "heaven" when the comical truth is that all there is, is heaven or this right here and now! There is no where to go or become because this is already IT!
The ego or person hates and fears such a message and fights it to the bitter end. It sees such a message as a threat to it's existence, happiness and FUTURE where as Religion offers the ego: comfort, purpose, things to do to be "saved" and get to heaven some day. Religion is for the ego. Spirituality is for the Spirit. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
The basic difference is that a Spiritual person is free and honest but a Religious person is caught in learned concepts and beliefs so is only able to speak like a Parrot or robot. Spiritual folks "think" - Religious folks NO NOT think but only repeat what they've heard or read somewhere. Spiritual folks are OPEN - Religious folks are CLOSED. |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:17 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
(c) Spiritual Forums