From: mw@anja.ki.fht-mannheim.de (Marc Wachowitz)
Subject: Re: Looking for the Self (was Re: absolute truth)
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 92 10:30:21 GMT
Organization: Fachhochschule fuer Technik Mannheim
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4

Len Moskowitz <moskowit@panix.com> continues the dialogue about a possibly
nonexistant:
: >- If for some times you aren't aware of your arm, does it then cease to be 
: >  part of you?
: If I am never aware of my arm then indeed it does cease to be part of me.
So if "you" (grmf, always those language problems :-) may sometimes be aware
of all as one, that may be interpreted as having "forgotten" it before - much
like one can "forget" unliked memories and - sometimes - access them later
(the persona/shadow split). Still it wasn't really separate.

Btw, a good book about those "splits" is "No Boundary" by Ken Wilber; he
argues that the various therapies, from ordinary psychology over psyche/soma
until "spritual" practice, just address different kinds of "pseudo-separations"
of the spectrum of consciousness, thus healing the whole.
Though someone remarked that the whole doesn't need healing.
Don't know.

: If we were one, would I ever be unaware of Marc?
Where is this "I" and "Marc"? :-)

: >- Oneness doesn't mean absence of structure and differences, but no strictly
: >  separate entities; just like you can reasonably speak of different waves, 
: >  but all are one process, the movement of the ocean
: I take this as saying that we can be different and distinct in form
: and character but still part of a whole.  This is a weaker One that
: allows for self, even ego.
But according to that model the ego is somewhat like your arm "thinking" it
had a self-identity and would decide/act independently from "you". Something
like that does indeed exis: there's a nice book by Oliver Sacks, the title is
is something like "The day when my leg went away", don't remember it exactly
(huh, repressed memories??? :-)

[about thought-reading etc.]
: In the Jewish tradition we also have similar reports.  I don't know if
: this is a manifestation of no-self (one-ness) or of personal
: cleverness.
The difference (if one wants to draw a border *shudder*) might then be whether
the "person" considers itself somehow separate from the world, and just has
access to those memories, or it's like being more-or-less aware of a part of
oneself.

: >I'd propose first to investigate the nature of this ego, and not to worry 
: >so much about metaphysical claims and all that stuff.
: Ego, body, all the same, no?
Since thinking draws all those maps, it might be useful to start there directly,
instead of trying to make yet another and another map.

: That perhaps there are no distinct selves who remember unique personal
: histories.  That perhaps there is a One who sees through all eyes,
: experiences all experiences, remembers all, binds all to One.  For
: whom there is no life or death, no past, present, or future.
Is this meant as allusion to "I AM THAT I AM", the "Tao" or ... ? :-)

Do you really experience past, present and future - or is that only yet
another map made by thinking?

: >The memory pictures when sleeping are different from those when awake, so are
: >there two persons?
: Many more than two, each for the most part unaware of the others.
: Have you read Mr. Gurdjieff?
Only little parts quoted in other works; from that it appears there's still the
assumption of some "higher self" (still personal) being aware of all the other
"selfs".

"No however exceptional action/experience exceeds exceeds eating rice."
  -- Dogen Zenji

Nice meal :-)

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Marc Wachowitz, mw@gandalf.ki.fht-mannheim.de, 75742@novell1.rz.fht-mannheim.de
  *  wonder everyday    *    nothing in particular    *    all is special  *
Xref: sparky talk.religion.newage:3579 alt.alien.visitors:4926 sci.skeptic:13380