Who I Am Not

[Shivani Devi]

Last night, I watched two movies on YouTube.

The first one was called "Kumbh" all about the Khumba Mela in India, and the second one was called "Jnani" and it was a documentary all about the life and times of Sri Ramana Maharishi.

Here are the links to both:

https://youtu.be/ReWiJ4pd6Kc
https://youtu.be/hVYv9ktilQw

After watching the second movie, I got to thinking...

There is a lot of emphasis placed on the "I" or "Self" through self-inquiry to find out "who/what I AM".

If I ask myself this question, I get one of three "answers".

"I am the ego self" or "I am the mind and body conglomerate" or "I am nothing or no one".

For me, the whole inquiry and awareness totally rests on who I am NOT and I guess I can take something from the Buddhist teachings in regards, to the concept of Anatta, or no-self and no "I" because for me at least, as soon as the word "I" or "Self" is used, there is an immediate identification with identity and being this person who "I" am at the physical and mental level.

I thought the whole goal was to transcend the "I" and not to identify by saying "I am Oneness" or "I am Brahman" but rather, "Oneness IS" or "Brahman IS" either respective and/or inclusive OF the "I".

This has been my main sticking point with Advaita Vedanta and non-duality, because whenever somebody says "I AM" there's always room for "you are what"?

Please discuss.

[Tomma]

How I see it is, once you have realized who you are, fully realized the I, you are at the door. The next step is the last you, the I, will ever take, through the door. After that is .... nothing left but consciousness. But the I has to be realized first, seen and felt, and then only the step beyond can be taken.

[Iamit]

Originally Posted by Shivani Devi

Last night, I watched two movies on YouTube.

The first one was called "Kumbh" all about the Khumba Mela in India, and the second one was called "Jnani" and it was a documentary all about the life and times of Sri Ramana Maharishi.

Here are the links to both:

https://youtu.be/ReWiJ4pd6Kc
https://youtu.be/hVYv9ktilQw

After watching the second movie, I got to thinking...

There is a lot of emphasis placed on the "I" or "Self" through self-inquiry to find out "who/what I AM".

If I ask myself this question, I get one of three "answers".

"I am the ego self" or "I am the mind and body conglomerate" or "I am nothing or no one".

For me, the whole inquiry and awareness totally rests on who I am NOT and I guess I can take something from the Buddhist teachings in regards, to the concept of Anatta, or no-self and no "I" because for me at least, as soon as the word "I" or "Self" is used, there is an immediate identification with identity and being this person who "I" am at the physical and mental level.

I thought the whole goal was to transcend the "I" and not to identify by saying "I am Oneness" or "I am Brahman" but rather, "Oneness IS" or "Brahman IS" either respective and/or inclusive OF the "I".

This has been my main sticking point with Advaita Vedanta and non-duality, because whenever somebody says "I AM" there's always room for "you are what"?

Please discuss.

Hi Shivani,

We will agree that Oneness/Brahman is the only reality. So what is all this stuff we see around us, including us? Well surely it flows from the first assertion that it must be Oneness/Brahman "looking" like all this with names and titles. So at least that is clear is it not?

[Melahin]

I believe one can become to intellectual about the whole process, and in that miss it altogether. If the intellect need something it can measure reality with, then the wholeness of oneness gets lost to it, because it cannot be completely absorbed in it. So maybe there is a letting go of it all, a surrendering of the self, in order to become all that you are

[God-Like]

As always, it depends on context .

If Self is all there is, then in this context quite literally Self is al there is . The mind-body-ego included .

I have used the analogy before in reference to neti neti where one renounces all that they are not .

It's likened to getting rid of all the weeds in order to see the path clearly, the path that leads to Self .

When Self is realised there is the realisations that the weeds were Self .


x daz x

[Iamit]

Originally Posted by Melahin

I believe one can become to intellectual about the whole process, and in that miss it altogether. If the intellect need something it can measure reality with, then the wholeness of oneness gets lost to it, because it cannot be completely absorbed in it. So maybe there is a letting go of it all, a surrendering of the self, in order to become all that you are

There are things we dont like and regard as problematic, in this case the intellect. From a nondual perspective both the positive and negative view of intellect are Oneness manifest, always both sides of conflict, each the other.

[Melahin]

Originally Posted by Iamit

There are things we dont like and regard as problematic, in this case the intellect. From a nondual perspective both the positive and negative view of intellect are Oneness manifest, always both sides of conflict, each the other.

What?

[Iamit]

Originally Posted by Melahin

What?

Another way of putting it may be that the intellect, being Oneness manifest, may be the way some characters end the feeling of disconnection. That approach is no more or less effective than rejecting the intellect as problematic. It depends on the character. One size does not fit all.

[Melahin]

Originally Posted by Iamit

Another way of putting it may be that the intellect, being Oneness manifest, may be the way some characters end the feeling of disconnection. That approach is no more or less effective than rejecting the intellect as problematic. It depends on the character. One size does not fit all.

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?

[Shivani Devi]

Thank you all for the replies in this thread. I am reading and digesting them all, without trying to overthink or over reason this.

The last two comments made by Iamit and Melahin come to the whole crux of the matter.

In certain schools of Non dual thought, we are taught about Maya and the concept of neti neti, in that anything which is not the Absolute Reality or Brahman is only a false perception, which is called Mithyavadi or superimposition, like how a rope is thought to be a snake in the darkness. This includes any association with an individual consciousness with a universal or all pervading one.

In another school of Non dual thought, such as those propounded by Ramana, Brahman also includes Maya, but then how does one differentiate the divided from the undivided Self if all, including the ego is Brahman? If "Oneness" is manifesting as ego, what is to stop somebody from doing a heinous crime like murder and say "I did not kill anybody, Oneness killed Oneness..

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