I am NOT.....

[jimrich]

Originally Posted by shiningstars

Hi jimrich,

If we approach this intellectually, is it still not incomplete?

What are you not? But what are you?

You first, what are you?

OK, it seems like that question irritates (frightens) most ego-bound folks so my answer is: I don't know. If I had to label me, I'd say that I am felt aliveness.

I think that words are used to point, but they are never conclusive in and of themselves, nor 'the end', and the Heart knows or will learn it for itself.

Thanks for allowing me a space to air my own opinions.

You are welcome.
jim

[shiningstars]

Originally Posted by jimrich

OK, it seems like that question irritates (frightens) most ego-bound folks so my answer is: I don't know.

jimrich,

Your pre-supposition that you are not ego-bound may be quite premature. I saw a press conference yesterday of a US President - he accused his detractors as being liars, hateful, wrong, and on and on he went. Other people may see that differently, and that those "motivations" were not fear or anger, but rationality and care.

Sometimes, and this goes for me also, we are not right, Jim. And being right is not always the point either.

Good luck in your quest.

shiningstars

[jimrich]

[quote=shiningstars]
jimrich,

Hey, how about you and Ground as the BLUES BROTHERS act?

[Ground]

From the Dzogchen thread in the Buddhism forum, because it matches the topic of this thread:

Originally Posted by naturesflow

So where are you in all this?

Originally Posted by Ground

Not findable under rational analyses, i.e. ultmately empty like all these similes and what they imply. So I am merely through imputation of 'I', 'me', 'my', 'mine' and 'myself'. But that is valid for everything and everybody else, i.e. everything and everybody appearing as 'other than me' exist only on the basis of imputation but not inherently.
With this wording there is an infinite regress implied because everthing I say arises as still another object only through imputation, i.e. without inherent truth. And that groundlessness of everything actually is what the expression 'the ground of conscious being' stands for. So the ground of conscious being actually is a groundlessness, i.e. an infinite emptiness which is lucent due to its potentiality of becoming conscious of this or that.

So I am ... a dependent arising or an instance of emptiness but it is not as the title of this thread would suggests that I would not be. It is just that I am not existing the way I have been perceiving myself innately.

I am not..... A ROBOT! (I have my own mind thankfully)