Guest guest Posted April 3, 2005 Report Share Posted April 3, 2005 Dear Diana, Faithe: > Is your " I am " the same as my " I am " ? Diana: Yes. IMO, " I AM " = awareness of being. That awareness, prior to any qualification, such as I am ________ (human, female, etc.) is therefore without any qualities that would distinguish it from another's. Faithe: Thank you Diana, not only for your answer, but for the additional explanation. The " I AM " that you describe sounds like " God, Allah " , etc., at the head of all religions. A spiritual figurehead. I wonder what would happen if there were no churchs, shrines, temples, Popes, gurus, priests, ministers promoting all these ideas. What do you suppose would take its place? Just musing, no answer expected. Thanks again. Faithe Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 3, 2005 Report Share Posted April 3, 2005 Nisargadatta , " Faithe Arden " <faithe@v...> wrote: > Dear Diana, > > Faithe: > > > Is your " I am " the same as my " I am " ? > > Diana: > > Yes. > > IMO, " I AM " = awareness of being. That awareness, > prior to any qualification, such as I am ________ > (human, female, etc.) is therefore without any > qualities that would distinguish it from another's. > > Faithe: > > Thank you Diana, not only for your > answer, but for the additional > explanation. > > The " I AM " that you describe sounds > like " God, Allah " , etc., at the head > of all religions. A spiritual > figurehead. > > I wonder what would happen if > there were no churchs, shrines, > temples, Popes, gurus, priests, > ministers promoting all these > ideas. What do you suppose would > take its place? Just musing, > no answer expected. > > Thanks again. > > Faithe > I got the opposite meaning from what Diana wrote, which is that awareness is that non-conceptual clear observer that is prior to thought, or rather the field in which all experiences including thought happens. Johanna Paula III, or whatever will be the name of the next Pope is like gurus, God, Advaita and so on, experienes; they are the 'movie' whereas awareness is the 'screen' which must exist for there to be a movie. The 'screen' = awareness of being. The 'movie' = all the things awareness is aware _of_. The movie & screen metaphor is probably a bit misleading. Awareness is the true observer. When you look at the computer monitor right now as you read these words, then there is an awareness of the image of the computer monitor in your brain and these words - you are aware of what you are looking at right now. You can also notice that you can be aware of everything of what you are thinking, feeling and experiencing. That is observation of the observer so to speak. This is not really the 'pure observer', at least not in my case, because there is still the feeling of 'me' as being a separate entity observing myself, and that is still a subtle though creating duality ( " I " am observing " me and the world " ). But at least we can see that awareness is the simple fact of being aware, and that what is experienced as " me " , memories, thoughts, ideas about God and evolution e t c are content. Awareness is aware of content in the mind, but is not itself content. al. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.