Self - open discussion

Originally Posted by andrew g

Hmmm. There are lots of ways of playing with that. I might say we are the experiencer, the experienced and the experiencing. Or I might say that we are the experiencer individuated. Or I might say that we are the experiencer beyond the experiencer. Or I might say that we are the experience, experiencing itself through the form of life.

I think whatever way we look at it, in order for there to be an experience, there has to be the formless oneness/awareness, the manyness of consciousness, and form. The Holy Trinity. Creator, Created and Creation. Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

These 3 aspects are the requisites for experience.

The individual is the experience. It doesn't do anything by itself.

[andrew g]

Originally Posted by ichc

The individual is the experience. It doesn't do anything by itself.

I dont really understand what you mean. What 'individual' are you talking about exactly? I just checked and I didnt mention the word 'individual' in what I said.

However, I dont think anything does anything 'by itself'.

Originally Posted by andrew g

I dont really understand what you mean. What 'individual' are you talking about exactly? I just checked and I didnt mention the word 'individual' in what I said.

When you say 'we' you refer to individuals. And I do the same (most of the time).

However, I dont think anything does anything 'by itself'.

Exactly!

[andrew g]

Originally Posted by ichc

When you say 'we' you refer to individuals. And I do the same (most of the time).

Right. Even to say 'I' is to speak of an individual. Like it or not, identification is happening to at least some degree. However, if there was no individuation, no difference, we wouldnt even be able to speak of an 'I' or 'we'. There would be no reference for it, no meaning. There has to be 'other' of some kind in order that meaning can be created out of it.

Humans dont suffer because there is 'difference'. They suffer because they are attached to thoughts as being true. The idea that there are individuals or individuation is not a problem, it is the need to believe the idea is true that is a problem.

Originally Posted by andrew g

Right. Even to say 'I' is to speak of an individual. Like it or not, identification is happening to at least some degree. However, if there was no individuation, no difference, we wouldnt even be able to speak of an 'I' or 'we'. There would be no reference for it, no meaning. There has to be 'other' of some kind in order that meaning can be created out of it.

Humans dont suffer because there is 'difference'. They suffer because they are attached to thoughts as being true. The idea that there are individuals or individuation is not a problem, it is the need to believe the idea is true that is a problem.

Humans (individuals) don't do anything by themselves... and that includes suffering!

[andrew g]

Originally Posted by ichc

Humans (individuals) don't do anything by themselves... and that includes suffering!

I agree, and I would say that when the illusion of autonomous doership is released or transmuted, the experience is one of peace. But again, the problem is less that there are individuals but more the need to believe thoughts to be true (whatever they are). I think its just as possible to attach to the thought as being true that 'I am formlessness' or 'I am Consciousness' or 'I am that which is prior to thought' or ''there is no me'' or ''I dont exist''....as it is to believe the thought that 'I am human' or 'I am a person' or 'I am Andrew' or 'I exist'

Time for me to assimilate some other differences!
Thanks for chatting, Andrew!

[andrew g]

Originally Posted by ichc

Time for me to assimilate some other differences!
Thanks for chatting, Andrew!

Thanks to you too, its been a conversation that has pushed me to look closely and to refine as Im going, which is cool. See you around.

Originally Posted by andrew g

Yes, I like much of that, but I dont think even the masters (and even the archangels) are omnipotent and omnipresent.

The idea of omnipresence etc. is actually irrelevant when there is no point of reference.
As Papaji said "The idea of omniscience can only arise when there is a subject who has knowledge of an infinite number of objects.
If there is no subject and no objects, what happens to omniscience?"

[andrew g]

Originally Posted by Elijah

The idea of omnipresence etc. is actually irrelevant when there is no point of reference.
As Papaji said "The idea of omniscience can only arise when there is a subject who has knowledge of an infinite number of objects.
If there is no subject and no objects, what happens to omniscience?"

Im not really sure what you are asking me. Im saying there is no omniscience or omnipresence to start with, unless we want to say that 'God' is omniscient and omnipresence. I would say the ideas are relevent though when talking to those who believe that its possible to accumulate fixed knowledge and also to those who believe that there is no individuation or difference at any level.