recoverer
|
Spooky:
Responses within double quotation marks below.
[quote author=spooky2 link=1198867968/0#8 date=1198975544]Hi Recoverer and all,
I have thought on a closely related topic this way: The relationship of the "I" and it's memories: For a person in the usual sense there are special memories needed. But for the more basic "I" / "here" / "me" it doesn't seem so, it is more that this "I" is providing the possibility of memory in the first place, so that it is that the "I" "has" or "owns" memories, but would be still there without them, though not easy to imagine. Imagine someone would give his/her memories to you, directly, so that you really had that memories, like first-hand memories. You, or more precise, your "I" would still be there, only with more memories. Imagine all memories of all people would melt into one. Surprisingly, only one "I" would be sufficient for all these memories, without a loss. How is this possible? It is because the pure "I", without memories, is always the same, as it is something like a state, a function, and all "I"s are the same. So, it is possible to merge with everything and everyone without losing the "I", as the "I" is the same in everyone. (Of course, it doesn't fit with the "many mansions", unless it is meant the personal origin of memories endures, like "these memories once are gathered under the person of Charles Smith" or so)
""Think of the one self as a large room with many computer terminals. Each computer has the capability to make use of thoughts, even if they have none to deal with. Replace digital computers with bio computers in the form of human minds. Each mind has the ability to make use of thoughts, even if they have no thoughts to be aware of.
If it is possible that energy can be used to create physical computers and bio computers, isn't it possible that energy can be used to create spirit computers/souls/individual "Is?" How precisely a source being would do such a thing, I don't know. However, I figure that disks, planning intelligences and even higher levels of intelligence are quite crafty, and can use energy in just about any way they want, even if a guru who doesn't know about their existence claims that they don't exist.
When in human form, "Is" tend to be quite limited. When they progress further, usually sometime after death, they find out that there is much more to an "I' than meets the eye. They'll find that they are connected to disks/I-theres/Soul groups/whatever name you like to use, and they'll have access to all kinds of memories/information that they'll be able to make use of according to need. They'll find that it is possible to make use of knowledge in a manner that is so wise and loving, that no need to negate the existence of an "I" comes into being.
Through all of this each I will find out that it is is connected to many "Is" including source I, at a divine center of consciousness and creative energy that had an instant where it wasn't modified. Since time didn't exist at such an instant, it doesn't make sense to say for how long source being existed in such an unmodified state""
Your guidance-experienced is quite interesting Recoverer. Those persons we are close to, we might think it is easier to be "one" with them; but it can appear as quite opposite, this closeness can make us aware of the differences in the personalities, while with strangers we don't know so well there is not this hindering threshold. In the terms of my thoughts above, when you look at the person, the personal memories and, following, attitudes, the difference between persons might be emphasized, while looking at the unity of the "I" function and the, at least in theory possible direct-sharing of memories, the oneness of all is emphasized.
""I get what you're saying. I also figure it is a matter of seeing that a person I define in a limited way, is actually an unformed being who makes use of its experiences in various ways.
Think of it this way. Quite often we view people as the body based people they appear to be. The soul that occupies a person's body could've just as well occupied another body, and seem to be a completely different person. If one wants to see a self/soul as it actually is, one needs to be able to see beyond the appearances of a particular person, and see that there is a divine soul that exists in a manner that is far beyond what body based personas are about.""
Thanks Dave, your brief comments are so clear. The difficulty, as it appears to me, is simply that it can seem that you have nothing "to lean on" without all these (or at least one) things which we're used to deal with in the physical life. So, we have to get used to "emptiness" without looking for "something" to hold on.
""The question is, is there just one self that has nothing to lean on, or one self and the many souls it created that have nothing to lean on? I've had meditations where I saw that I wasn't a particular persona, yet I knew that I was still somehow distinct from Spooky, Alan, Vajra, Alysia, Dave, Betson and others. For example, I don't know what you had for breakfast this morning.
On the other hand, what if beings develop to the point where they know how to live according to love and wisdom. Wouldn't such an ability be something to lean on?""
Recoverer wrote: "How can one self fully experience love and oneness if there is nobody to share it with?" Ultimately, if there is only one, one can share love with oneself, and it would be allright. It is like "love your neighbour as you love yourself" in the state of oneness.
""Perhaps one being could spend all of eternity loving itself and no one else. Perhaps this one being figured it would be much more fun if many other beings, perhaps infinite in number, got to join in on the fun. Perhaps this is where the reproductive instinct really comes from. Some might say that the urge to reproduce is simply a survival of the speices thing. Perhaps some of us want to share the gift of life with others, and have others to share love with. If in the end existence can be a wonderfully joyous thing rather than just a bunch of suffering, why not?""
Albert
|