Originally posted by Itisnowagain
reply to post by Lucidia
"The claim that one becomes more self-aware by denying the existence of individual self is so absurd for those that have the logic to see the
Of course this is an absurd claim-who wrote it?
edit on 6-12-2011 by Itisnowagain because: (no reason given)
Through various posts in this thread and in other threads, you deny the existence of separate self ---- logically that is the same as denying the
existence of individual self, which means your are showing what I call 'self-nihilism' (denial of the reality of distinct selves and, consequentially,
dismissal of the validity of personal psychology, a dismissal that rejects the view that the mind can psychologicallly individuate its selfhood). What
you pose is better known as solipsism which includes primarily the belief that there is only one self.
You claim the only way to know oneself is to view oneself as being one with--yet greater than--the universal mind, that is, the "god mind" which
includes the total phenomenal field of views (the conscious, as you say, tv-like "screens" of all experiencers). You suggest all mental experience
belongs to god, and say god has the mind, but it is more than mind itself. You view yourself as one with god, not an individual (separate) self
logically distinct from god. You wrote: "I don't believe i am separate from God." Plus, you insist "I" is also one with that which exists outside of
universal mind. This indicates that you have a solipsist view of self that holds that we all are the 'god consciousness,' only one consciousness, not
individual consciousness. Problematically, you do not recognize the conscious experience of each individual as belonging to each distinctly or
separately; in your view, the cosmic consciousness is the only mental property holder, and thus there are no distinct minds, or distinct mental
property holders, or separate knowers of self-knowledge.
While, as you said, you don't deny the existence of 'I," the only 'I' you believe in, which you call "true self" and a "perfect expression of oneness"
is that of the "god" or cosmic consciousness. Essentially, you are denying the existence of individual self, and preaching that those that aim to be
self-knowers should not identify or define "I" because it is not good for us to have a sense of distinct (separate) self-identity in our effort to
'find' our "true" self, which is oneness, omni-presence, god.
You are trying to say there is a self to get to know but not an idividual self. You consider your view as non-dualistic, because it is logically
contradictory from a dualistic perspective (ex. in this thread, you wrote "you are nothing...you are everything"..."absence of self is presence");
instead of choosing one or the other duality or opposite, you are trying to choose both. That is a logically impossible task. It is the diverse nature
of self that gives its meaning distinction. Otherwise, there is no need for the word 'self:' with the existence of only one "self," the word 'self'
would be a redundant and logically unnecessary identifyer; it would be meaningless.
So, what you mean by self-knowledge is not self-knowledge at all. It is self-ignorance. In that extreme state of self-ignorance, that you mistakenly
view as non-dualistic self, and some spiritualists call no-self, one chooses to not exclusively choose the dualities that apply to their
self-definition, yet talk permissively and loosely as if all the dualities apply to oneself, and that is actually the most extremely dualistic
self-identity possible, which claims that one's "true" self is in a state of self-contradiction, and thus that logic cannot be used to get to know it.
What you need to consider is that dualistic self-definition is a necessary part of the process of getting to know oneself.
edit on 8-12-2011 by
Lucidia because: (no reason given)