Page 2 of 2

Re: I am.

Posted: Wed Dec 18, 2013 12:54 pm
by unsigned_char72
the only way to decipher this "I am" thing is to constantly observe it until it manifests by itself.

See what Ramana Maharshi, Nisargadatta, Robert Adams and Ed Muzika have written on the subject.

Among entheogens, Salvia divinorum can be a shortcut because it can put you in the "I am" state very quickly, giving you the time to get acquainted to the "I am" feeling, provided that you focus on the self instead of getting lost in salvia imagery.

Re: I am.

Posted: Thu Dec 19, 2013 12:03 pm
by minderbinder
that's the question for the meaning of life. i don't know. probably it's just to live and to make the experiences you make, whether regarded good or bad or what ever. some people are like an overwhelming experience to others themself, but most people aren't.
the "i am" (what i am) and "life is just life" are somehow not very exciting views from the viewpoint of a standard-human-being of our time, searching for the meaning of life, expecting something really bling and wow but i tend more and more to that view. i think maybe we've taken a seriously wrong turn somewhere on our way of development so maybe everything that can (can it?) be done about this is to recover the needed sense and estimation for that viewpoint of "simply-to-be period". hoey, i bet this must sound pretty weird in my english :)

Re: I am.

Posted: Tue Dec 31, 2013 4:07 pm
by Flapjack
There is this thing called the false ego and then the real ego. The false ego would be the animal body, and then the real ego would be like the unadulterated mind, or like the soul, I guess. So this "I am" could be rediscovering the real ego and maybe even the Supersoul as well, or whatever you want to call it. That all kind of makes sense in an abstract kind of way, but you are damn right, how boring of a concept is that? I want a little more than that has to offer. If we are just souls encapsulated in material bodies because of the modes of nature and then we go to heaven at some point just because we want to is just the most boring concept I've ever read. At least when you throw a hell in there or something it makes it just a little more exciting. I don't know. I like the philosophies about the mind and dissociating it from nature (materiality). I like the melancholic poetry too. I love that stuff, and it's nice to be humbled, but I'm pretty sure there's not much more for me to discover in that realm of thought.

Re: I am.

Posted: Fri Jan 03, 2014 4:49 pm
by minderbinder
i'm trying to grasp it - grasp-grasp-grasp- and can't for most of my life, or, ok, that part i can still remember. i guess it must be true that it's something to work at, something where no one can really give you an any more than very vague way description and it's kind of really desperate (desperating?), prolly one has to be really desperate to go "that" way at all and also got to have still a fair load of despair- and frustration tolerance in reserve ... oh god, this sounds unbelievably depressing :D

trying to observe my thoughts, but that also is rather frustrating. observing that, too, so here we go again :D
just the intellectual understanding - if there is any - can not be the whole thing, i believe it's something one has to experience, gradual or bang-gee-whizz, i don't know that either. Does this make me kind of a "Gnostic"?

the only way i can think of is the exploring of one's "own mind", it's the only thought i find plausible enough to mention in the open without or with just very tiny exclamation marks, meditation and stuff. there are other things, like ... kind of illumination by "chance", or god or what ever is possible, but if i believe in those possibilities or not - they seem not in my reach anyway, nothing i can do towards them.

that meditation thing is worthwhile imho, but i am very very fidgety, have RLS to a degree and so on, that makes my sittings such a pain after only some minutes that i gave up my practice several times, once even after one year of every day practice, but am at it again, trying to go as easy as possible without just making it completely worthless. and i haven't found a way to overcome that yet. if i really should and if there is any. way, i mean. to overcome it :)
maybe this is no insuperable drawback but i'm blessed by that? hooray, thanks ;)

Re: I am.

Posted: Mon Jan 06, 2014 4:45 am
by minderbinder
,,, but does this make me who i am?
so let me parrot bumptiously
some well known far eastern wisdom
that makes more sense with time:
i am not!
but it sure does make me
sound silly!
i am sillyphone!

maybe i'm just too fond of playing nuts

ps.: rather going off topic, is there anyone here with experience on meditation?

Re: I am.

Posted: Wed Jan 08, 2014 6:36 pm
by (^inf
Ive been to a transcendental meditation course as a kid. You are given a mantra by the teacher and, sitting comfortably but upright, you repeat the mantra resting your attention on it. Thoughts 'bubble' up into your attention distracting you from your mantra and each time this happens you acknowledge the thought and bring your mind back to the mantra. After typically 20mins for a beginner you reach a quiet space where you are deeply relaxed and your mantra gets replaced by a stillness of mind. At this point you are conscious of not being. Its a blissful peace that gets quicker and easier to reach with practice. Maharishi encouraged practitioners to meditate twice a day, first in the morning before breakfast/work and once in the evening before your evening meal (the deep relaxation can upset digestion and is best done when properly awake and when not sleepy).

The mantra can be a word, a phrase, an image or a chakra etc but the latter is considered 'advanced' and as having risks associated with poor choice of focus.