Who I Am Not

[davidsun]

Originally Posted by Shivani Devi

Having said that, I also understand that the question "who am I" has no answer. It is the ultimate Koan.

Whatever 'you' grok to be what Being is, THAT is (then what 'you' think, feel and believe) 'you' are a 'ray' of.

In my view, Being is the experience and expression of Love and Joy. Note: 'I' regard Love and Joy to be the Source-'code' (hence progenitor) of all being(s). 'You' of course may have a different 'view' and hence believe in a different 'progenitor'. But the same logic applies.

Analogy: There's red, yellow, blue, green, etc. - but they are all 'rays' of the same Light (Source).

The 'answer' to "Who am I?" is whatever 'you' grok Being (a/k/a) Life) is.

Some folks 'groks' in this regard overlap and converge with the 'groks' of others . Others' don't.

Whatever is most functional in this regard will 'survive' and 'propagate' via 'natural selection' because it is most (creatively) functional.

By this means, Life is gradually revealing what IT is - what 'you' are, in other words.

Look (without bias) and you will 'see' what IT is clearly revealing itself/yourself to be.

P.S. re what 'grok' means: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grok

[Shivani Devi]

Originally Posted by davidsun

Whatever 'you' grok to be what Being is, THAT is (then what 'you' think, feel and believe) 'you' are a 'ray' of.

In my view, Being is the experience and expression of Love and Joy. Note: 'I' regard Love and Joy to be the Source-'code' (hence progenitor) of all being(s). 'You' of course may have a different 'view' and hence believe in a different 'progenitor'. But the same logic applies.

Analogy: There's red, yellow, blue, green, etc. - but they are all 'rays' of the same Light (Source).

The 'answer' to "Who am I?" is whatever 'you' grok Being (a/k/a) Life) is.

Some folks 'groks' in this regard overlap and converge with the 'groks' of others . Others' don't.

Whatever is most functional in this regard will 'survive' and 'propagate' via 'natural selection' because it is most (creatively) functional.

By this means, Life is gradually revealing what IT is - what 'you' are, in other words.

Look (without bias) and you will 'see' what IT is clearly revealing itself/yourself to be.

P.S. re what 'grok' means: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grok

Thank you, David and I understand (grok) what "grok" is, ever since Baile introduced me to the term.

In any case, whatever we can "grok" as being the Absolute, isn't the Absolute.

I also understand now that for some, a sense of an individualized being remains in tact as the "I" whilst for others, all notion of an "I" is lost in the process and I shall refer back to Tomma's explanation in regards.

Once a person has stepped through that door, the whole perspective changes into not having any perspective whatever, and so trying to relate to a concept like "self inquiry" after the fact becomes pretty moot, so of course I am going to get the answer "I am the ego" or simply say "who is asking?".

[Iamit]

Originally Posted by Melahin

I am wondering how deep down the rabbit whole I can go with this. Are you making general statements based on my comment, or are you speaking directly to me?

Both.

Wherever you are down the rabbit whole will be no more or less Oneness than any other point for if Oneness is the only reality then all points
must be equally Oneness. Nothing else real is available.

[Melahin]

Originally Posted by Iamit

Both.

Wherever you are down the rabbit whole will be no more or less Oneness than any other point for if Oneness is the only reality then all points
must be equally Oneness. Nothing else real is available.

Maybe I should have used the phrase why? rather than what? since that might seem more accurate, though it means exactly the same thing in this case. You just keep pulling the same rabbit out of the hat I have placed; and I am wondering why you feel that trick is needed in this instance So how far can we go down before you figure it out?

[davidsun]

Originally Posted by Shivani Devi

In any case, whatever we can "grok" as being the Absolute, isn't the Absolute.

'Absolute' is a loaded term.

There's 'water', for example, and then there's absolutely pure 'water' - meaning 'water' that has nothing 'else' dissolved in it - thought water which has things dissolved in it is still 'water'.

What (any)one 'groks' to be the absolute (or absolutely pure) Essence of Life/Being/Creation, i.e. the 'emanator' or 'foundation' from which all Life/Being/Creation spring (or 'emanates'), will of course be 'colored' by that person's 'lens'. But what he or see 'groks' will nevertheless be THAT, albeit a 'colored' version of THAT.

Let's say, for the purpose of conversation, that the Essence of Life/Being/Creation is 'really' pure Love and Joy - the specifics of my (grokked) version of what this means might well differ from the specifics of your (grokked) version of THAT, but we would still (accurately, IMO) grok that we were both/each really THAT as well as really speaking about THAT to and with one another.

I think what you still haven't fully gotten past (i.e. put 'behind' 'you' - in "get thee behind me, Satan" fashion ) is the (false, IMO) notion that the difference(s) between what 'you' and someone 'else' groks to be the 'reality' of the God-Source of Life/Being/Creation means (I mean 'absolutely' means! ) that one of you must be 'right' (or more 'right') and the other 'wrong' (of more 'wrong').

This is what keeps you stuck (and going around in circles like a duck with one foot nailed to the floor!) in the prison of your separatist 'individualism', wherein you experience alienation from others and wherefrom you (though less and less now, thank Love-and-Joy 'God'! ) speak and act in ways which alienate them.

'I', of course, may be 'wrong' about all this in your view, but if 'you' wish to relate to 'me' as I do 'you', this version of the absolute truth, is (i.e. emanates from, or should I say 'through') Who 'I' really AM.

[Iamit]

Originally Posted by Melahin

Maybe I should have used the phrase why? rather than what? since that might seem more accurate, though it means exactly the same thing in this case. You just keep pulling the same rabbit out of the hat I have placed; and I am wondering why you feel that trick is needed in this instance So how far can we go down before you figure it out?

As long as you continue to exclude some aspects of the manifestation (in this case intellect) as being problematic/something other than Oneness manifest, then of course the same rabbit will be pulled out of the hat:)

[Shivani Devi]

Originally Posted by davidsun

'Absolute' is a loaded term.

There's 'water', for example, and then there's absolutely pure 'water' - meaning 'water' that has nothing 'else' dissolved in it - thought water which has things dissolved in it is still 'water'.

What (any)one 'groks' to be the absolute (or absolutely pure) Essence of Life/Being/Creation, i.e. the 'emanator' or 'foundation' from which all Life/Being/Creation spring (or 'emanates'), will of course be 'colored' by that person's 'lens'. But what he or see 'groks' will nevertheless be THAT, albeit a 'colored' version of THAT.

Let's say, for the purpose of conversation, that the Essence of Life/Being/Creation is 'really' pure Love and Joy - the specifics of my (grokked) version of what this means might well differ from the specifics of your (grokked) version of THAT, but we would still (accurately, IMO) grok that we were both/each really THAT as well as really speaking about THAT to and with one another.

I think what you still haven't fully gotten past (i.e. put 'behind' 'you' - in "get thee behind me, Satan" fashion ) is the (false, IMO) notion that the difference(s) between what 'you' and someone 'else' groks to be the 'reality' of the God-Source of Life/Being/Creation means (I mean 'absolutely' means! ) that one of you must be 'right' (or more 'right') and the other 'wrong' (of more 'wrong').

This is what keeps you stuck (and going around in circles like a duck with one foot nailed to the floor!) in the prison of your separatist 'individualism', wherein you experience alienation from others and wherefrom you (though less and less now, thank Love-and-Joy 'God'! ) speak and act in ways which alienate them.

'I', of course, may be 'wrong' about all this in your view, but if 'you' wish to relate to 'me' as I do 'you', this version of the absolute truth, is (i.e. emanates from, or should I say 'through') Who 'I' really AM.

Yes...and not really.

Is there only one reality, or a different reality for each one who experiences it? According to my teachings, reality is one, but the approaches are different...there are not 7.8 billion different "realities".

Truth be told, what keeps me "stuck" is in the similarity or difference between Jivatman (Individualized Consciousness) and Paramatman (Universal Consciousness) or between Brahman and Parabrahman.

There is still the distinction between "without" and "within"...or how can I love and worship a God or a Divine, loving entity which essentially IS me?...I still cannot reconcile this. Many will say "I am God" but I say "God is God" and "I am me" and God is inside my heart, but me loving and worshiping myself AS God seems a bit silly for me.

I can merge with God, but then neither myself NOR God exists...there is Shunya...void. For me to feel Bhakti, there needs to be my ego self and there needs to be an "Absolute" to direct that unconditional loving emotion towards.

This is where I fall and not believing I am "right" or another is "wrong" in any way, as I have gone beyond that stage.

[davidsun]

Originally Posted by Shivani Devi

Truth be told, what keeps me "stuck" is in the similarity or difference between Jivatman (Individualized Consciousness) and Paramatman (Universal Consciousness) or between Brahman and Parabrahman.

These are overlapping ideas/concepts pertaining to (the) ONE reaity. Your dichotomization (as opposed to synthesization) of them sets up an unresolvable dilemma for you, IMO.

In my view, my preceding post meaning-FULLY addressed/resolved this 'issue' - there can be no resolution in yours, again in my view.

[Shivani Devi]

Originally Posted by davidsun

These are overlapping ideas/concepts pertaining to (the) ONE reaity. Your dichotomization (as opposed to synthesization) of them sets up an unresolvable dilemma for you, IMO.

In my view, my preceding post meaning-FUULY addressed/resolved this 'isshttps://youtu.be/jH_tUSH0NeQue' - there can be no resolution in yours, again in my view.

I guess this is what one asks for and gets when they try to follow both paths of Bhakti Yoga and Advaita Vedanta simultaneously.

One must eventually give way to the other so that the dichotomy is eventually resolved...and either way does not matter...As long as one is not trying to place each foot into two separate boats.

You mentioned before about "survival of the fittest" and I watched a YouTube video tonight...A crazy Shiva Bhakta, like me who stated that even if the whole world agreed by consensus that what he was doing was wrong or incorrect, he wouldn't be phased and would continue doing it because he totally loves Shiva and draws strength from that and from Him...I felt a bit of solace in that, despite others saying "I am God and you are too".

...and so, I finally have my answer. Who am I? I am a Shiva Bhakta... nothing more or less than that.

[davidsun]

Originally Posted by Shivani Devi

...and so, I finally have my answer. Who am I? I am a Shiva Bhakta... nothing more or less than that.

Quoting Paul (from his Letter to the Romans): "Hast thou faith? have it to thyself before God. Happy is he that condemneth not himself in that thing which he alloweth. And he that doubteth is damned if he eat, because he eateth not of faith: for whatsoever is not of faith is sin."

P.S. Besides 'overlapping' ideas/truths/realities, there are also dynamically feedback-loop interfusing ideas/truths/realities which render dichotomizations non-sensical.

Quoting JC from The Book of John: "I am in my Father, and ye in me, and I in you!"

WOOHOO - Ride 'em ShaktiGurl!*

*I first wrote 'CowGurl', hearkening back to the 'American WildWest', but I realized that might be taken to insultingly imply that I thought you should be a Vishnuvite Mohini!