The human delusion of "I"

[doodle]

Alan Watts makes a brilliant argument for why the Word "I" is merely a hallucination. I really think that the philosophy of humans as independent entities is a very dangerous notion because it negates the inherent symbiosis of our reality. Western religion and philosophy has conditioned our mindset to view the world through a certain set of lenses that distort the underlying oneness between ourselves and our environment. Unlike the historical eastern philosophic tradition of unity, we in the west tend to set things up as a conflictual duality. Ying and Yang dont flow together and balance one another, we instead have the forces of good and evil engaged in an endless battle. The eastern view is that man "comes out" of the universe (or God as you might call it) and is thusly a part of the universe and God itself. The western view is that man "comes into" the world a solitary and sinning creature separate from God and must strive for reunification.

From my personal experience and perspective, the western worldview has horrible unintended consequences such as a pervasive feeling of isolation, separateness, conflict and turmoil. I hope that a rise in the economic fortunes of the east come accompanied with a similar awakening of their traditional philosophy as I believe it to be an essential condition to our future survival as a species.

For more on Alan Watts "I" lecture see here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8vaaJP6fpJ0&sns=em

[Benko]

You are into the realm of real sprirituality now.  May I recommend I am That i.e. dialogs with an enlightened being.

NB: philosophy is an attempt to understand things with your mind.  The mind is useful for doing your taxes, investments, etc but cannot understand anything important.

Watts is certainly correct, but if you believe you can understand it with your mind....

[Pointedstick]

If there is no you, can we take your stuff? 

You do realize that the improvement in the East's economic fortunes derives from their embracing Western "I"-focused capitalism, right? Money itself is a personal thing.

Also, I'd be curious to know if you have ever lived for any length of time in a society that actually does de-emphasize the individual and focus on collective issues and harmony with nature? I'm not talking about Japan, either, I'm talking about a place where privacy is nonexistent, nobody has money, the family or tribe is the social unit, and deviance from social and religious norms is grounds for punishment. Because that's the kind of society you're talking about.

I lived in a place like that in an African village for a period of time when I was a child and it had a very profound impact on me. I now realize how much we take for granted in western nations, and how deeply I want to avoid living in a place where collectivism rules, with no running water, no electricity, no medicine, no privacy, little food, and where women could be raped by their husbands because the tribe declared that she had a demon inside of her that only sex would cure. They tied her to a bed and all watched, BTW. She didn't want that to happen, but hey, there was no "I", so her wishes were irrelevant.

[Benko]

i have never connected the spiritual understanding of unity with collectivism and rape?? i think it is more about inner peace and silencing the verbal diarrhea that constantly flows through our brain, and about how that inner dialog alters and effects our perception of the world..
finding that mental place is not something somebody else can do for you or force on you.. describing it quickly ends up in the realm of paradox because being "one" or without an "I" is also a personal thing...

Spitirual beliefs have abrolutely NOTHING to do with collectivism.

"A man who claims to know what is good for others, is dangerous."
Maharaj in I am That.

[doodle]

Benko,

Thanks! I read review and it looks interesting. Already ordered from local library. :-)

PS,

Im with "interactive-" on that one, I don't necessarily see the connection between rape and unity conciousness. I would imagine that enlightened beings who have realized their fundamental oneness with the universe don't forcefully rape and beat other sentient beings. What you seem to be describing sounds like a clan of very unenlightened, ignorant, self absorbed beings.

[Benko]

NB before you read I am That:

http://www.thewayofseeing.com/article_reading.html

I am That is one of the best spiritual books for transformation but you have to know how to read it.  Specifically DO NOT READ IT FROM ONE END TO ANOTHER.  Open to random page and start reading.  If it does not strike you, open to another page. 

Also Anthony Demello is/was the real deal and many people who can never can into I am That may find his books e.g. The Way to Love more approachable.

[Pointedstick]

Im with interactive- on that one, I don't necessarily see the connection between rape and unity conciousness. I would imagine that enlightened beings who have realized their fundamental oneness with the universe don't forcefully rape and beat other sentient beings. What you seem to be describing sounds like a clan of very unenlightened, ignorant, self absorbed beings.

I would tend to agree. However, I was speaking more from the practical than the spiritual point of view, as the people I lived among had a greatly diminished concept of "I" in both their spirituality and their day-to-day lifestyle. What I was describing was the actual end result of a culture I lived in that practiced the real-world application of their universalist spiritual principles. Obviously they fell short of realizing their fundamental oneness with the universe.

It may very well me that a society entirely made up of self-actualized spiritually united beings would be devoid of violence and strife. Back in the real world, however, I think that actual societies filled with normal fallible humans lend themselves very poorly to a diminished focus on the "I" because the only real social alternative to individualism is collectivism, which impoverishes people.

Individuals such as yourself are free to do whatever you want, up to and including rejecting individualism! That's the great thing about it. Western societies tainted by western thought give you the freedom to adopt an eastern universalist spiritual inner life, if you so desire. The reverse… much less so.

[Benko]

people I lived among had a greatly diminished concept of "I" in both their spirituality and their day-to-day lifestyle.

What are you basing this on?

[doodle]

there is a PDF version of "I am that"available here http://www.prahlad.org/gallery/nisargadatta/I_Am_That.pdf

Sweet! Thanks :-)

[dualstow]

Has anyone else read 'The Meme Machine' by Susan Blackmore. I did, and had a nice email exchange w/ her some years ago. (Curses, my fastmail.fm account was wiped clean).

[Xan]

people I lived among had a greatly diminished concept of "I" in both their spirituality and their day-to-day lifestyle.

What are you basing this on?

Not to speak for PS, but it sounds pretty straightforward to me.  Abolishing individuality means that everybody is subordinate to the collective, and the collective can simply help itself to anything of anybody's.

I'm not saying that anybody who believes that "I" is an illusion is wrong, but, well, yes I am.

[Benko]

  Abolishing individuality means that everybody is subordinate to the collective

The delusion of "I" i.e. the topic of this thread has absolutely nothing to do with this.

i agree it seems a big jump from spiritual oneness and dissolving the "I" to collectivism, i would think it is far more in line with the is Taoism - libertarian? discussion we were having in the other thread, the three (Taoism, dissolving the"I and libertarian thinking) seem to have far more in common with each other than any of them do with collectivism..

[Pointedstick]

people I lived among had a greatly diminished concept of "I" in both their spirituality and their day-to-day lifestyle.

What are you basing this on?

Their spirituality focused on submission to ghostly ancestors. One's spiritual duty was to serve the dead and avoid offending them. One's personal feelings were irrelevant compared to the weightiness of needing to please the ancestors. This is not really the kind of trancendentalist, universalist eastern spirituality Doodle was describing, but it IS a diminution of the "I" in that their entire spiritual belief structure centered on the (dead) many needing to be served by the (living) individuals whose spiritual needs were by comparison irrelevant.

I am not really arguing against anyone's spiritual beliefs, especially not the kind of universalism that Doodle is talking about. I think individuals should be free to pursue whatever spiritual truths they want!  But I believe is that a societal understanding and embracing of the "I" is a necessary precondition to any individuals attaining enlightenment because otherwise they will not have the freedom to do so. Living in a "non-I-centric" society is an exercise in repression and frustration. If your conception of spiritual enlightenment differs from the group's conclusion, well too bad, you're wrong. And you're probably going to be punished for it, too.

Without the "I" you can't even say "I want to attain a 'non-I' spiritual enlightenment."

[MediumTex]

I love listening to Alan Watts, but to me he was more of an entertainer than wise man.

Watts was an alcoholic, which tells me that for whatever reason the path to peace and oneness that he described to others didn't seem to translate that well in his own life.

That said, I have read many Alan Watts books and find him to be a very interesting and entertaining personality and I have learned a lot from him.

And who knows, maybe he would have drank himself to death 20 years earlier had it not been for his knowledge of Eastern thought.

[Benko]

I am not really arguing against anyone's spiritual beliefs, especially not the kind of universalism that Doodle is talking about.

I don't know how to say this without sounding offensive, but Doodle is talking about a very high spiritual "concept" (or "state"), and you are talking about something COMPLETELY different.  What he is talking about has nothing to do with "universalism".
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

We all imagine ourselves to be people i.e. a bodymind i.e. a collection of thoughts, feelings, etc housed in human form i.e. a body.  The reality is something much greater. That is what Doodle's comment is about i.e. the delusion that we are each a body/mind.

[Pointedstick]

I am not really arguing against anyone's spiritual beliefs, especially not the kind of universalism that Doodle is talking about.

I don't know how to say this without sounding offensive, but Doodle is talking about a very high spiritual "concept" (or "state"), and you are talking about something COMPLETELY different.  What he is talking about has nothing to do with "universalism".
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

We all imagine ourselves to be people i.e. a bodymind i.e. a collection of thoughts, feelings, etc housed in human form i.e. a body.  The reality is something much greater. That is what Doodle's comment is about i.e. the delusion that we are each a body/mind.

I was more trying to rebut Doodle's criticism of western "I-centric" thinking than I was trying to say anything about the spiritual content of his post. I am not a spiritual person myself, but I respect your and Doodle's beliefs, as well as your right to hold them. The point that I was making is that in non-western societies, your right to hold those beliefs is usually non-existent precisely because of a lack of "western thinking", which many forget includes concepts such as "human rights" and "religious freedom." Most traditional eastern and African societies hold these concepts to be quaint or dangerous, and people who make the mistake of thinking that they have the right to believe their own set of religious beliefs are often punished physically, socially, or otherwise.

I am sure your belief system gives you great spiritual meaning, and that's wonderful! I just wish there was more respect for the (yes, western and I-centric) social system that allows you to believe it unmolested. China is one of the historical seats of eastern spiritual thought, and yet today they torture and murder believers in non-state-sanctioned spiritual paths.

[doodle]

PS,

What I think I am driving at is that western philosophical traditions, language, economics, culture etc. have conditioned a large proportion of the earth to view "reality" in a particular way. After all, we see the world and its events through a set of cultural lenses. Our reasoning and perceptive faculties are in many ways confined to the boundaries that our language and culture imposes on us. In other words we are highly predisposed to thinking inside the box.

In the west, our perception of reality is conditioned by our cultural baggage to perceive man and his relation to the world in a state of separation. One could say that we see the individual trees and not the greater forest ecosystem. And this has its benefits, the case for which you have clearly argued. However, like many things in life there also exists too much of a good thing. Just as salt in a certain quantity is necessary for survival, can also become a poison when ingested in large quantities. In the same sense our cultural and spiritual perception of separation, independence, and individuality can poison the symbiotic nature of our reality. Just as your head cannot exist without your body, so humans cannot exist without their environment. No reasonable person would argue that the head and the body form a separate organism because their survival is so intertwined that we view them as one organism. In a similar sense our survival is so intertwined with our environment that we can also be perceived as one organism. To make this leap is simply a matter of perspective. One could look at any object and arbitrarily draw lines breaking it down into its various components. But just as one can arbitrarily dig down to the infinitesimally small, one can also expand out the other direction towards the infinitesimally large. This is where the concept of unity conciousness comes in. I am simply making the argument that we cannot and should not forget that although we might appear to be seperate and independent creatures from our human perspectives, we are at the same time part of a larger and vastly more mysterious universal organism. I am arguing that we in the west need to temper and balance the whole and its parts. This is a spiritual quest of self realization that each individual needs to undertake for him or herself. This cannot be forced from the outside, but must arise from within.

[doodle]

Apply this idea to the economy. What is more important to an organisms (economy) survival? The head (capital) or the body (labor). What good is a productive idea without a consumer to buy it? What good is a great idea with no one to implement it? Conversely, what good is a strong and able body with no plan or direction? Is one any more important than the other? Of course not! Separate and apart they both wither and die. Both the head and the body must be nourished and respected in order for the organism to thrive.

[Benko]

we cannot and should not forget that although we might appear to be seperate and independent creatures from our human perspectives, we are really just part of a larger and vastly more mysterious universal organism.

That is a pretty good approximation. Organism probably not the way you mean it, but close anyway.

I am arguing that we in the west need to temper and balance the whole and its parts.

I am not sure what you mean by temper and balance.  I suspect you mean there is something you must do about this....this however is complete and utter BS.  You don't need to do anything, except wake up.  Thinking you need to impose your trip on others is just your typical liberal conditioning, is VERY MUCH not appreciated, and is VERY unspiritual.  Work on yourself, and let the rest of the world (since there really is no rest of the world, apart from you, it is all illusory anway) take care of itself.

Maharaj (I am That) is an enlightened being and he said very clearly:

"A man who claims to know what is good for others, is dangerous."

[doodle]

This however is complete and utter BS.  You don't need to do anything, except wake up.  Thinking you need to impose your trip on others is just your typical liberal conditioning, is VERY MUCH not appreciated, and is VERY unspiritual.   Work on yourself, and let the rest of the world (since there really is no rest of the world, apart from you, it is all illusory anway) take care of itself.

Mahayana Buddhists who take the bodhisattva vow might differ with you on that. :-) I tend to agree with you. I would reword that part of my argument. Yet assisting and talking with others willing to listen is certainly permitted I would hope.

[Benko]

Of course.

And it is paradoxical.  There is a path to walk, but no one to do the walking.  Energy that must be put it, etc etc

[WildAboutHarry]

we are at the same time part of a larger and vastly more mysterious universal organism

Oh please.

We are individual biological organisms.  Natural selection works on individuals.  If anything, each of us is a collection of alleles that build a "more mysterious...organism." 

Lions don't stop eating antelopes for the good of the mammals.  Individual animals may cooperate, have complex interactions, family groups, etc. but that has a biological basis that works on the individual.

We humans can be spiritual because we have figured out a bunch of stuff that previous biological organisms haven't (or at least they didn't or haven't left a record of that knowledge) and we have lots of free time.

[moda0306]

I think there is a bit of conflict with all this.  On a basic level, we're all individual entities, though two things tend to hamper the purity of that.  First off, we simply like to engage with each other on various levels.  We feel lonely and can even go crazy if we don't have any contact with other human beings.  Secondly, we're not just self-sufficient entities floating through space, bumping into each other as we choose... we're all in the same fish bowl.  We can't really leave the fish bowl.  Even if we didn't want to engage with each other, we would very-well have to as we compete for resources present in the fishbowl, limited as they are.

So the necessity and will to engage with each other means we have to find a way of negotiating how we do that, and more importantly, how we engage the resources in the fishbowl around us to yield the most benefit to us while we're all stuck here together.

[RuralEngineer]

Humans are social animals.  We're predisposed to living and working in groups.  However, we are not a colony or hive style organism like ants or bees.  We work well together because we're more effective that way.  It's easier to survive with friends than it is alone.  There's no buffer.  If something happens to you, there's nobody to fall back on and you die.  A great modern example is Fat Tuesday in the Catholic religion.  Because religion imposed a condition (meat free month), it threatened to remove a necessary member of the human organization, the butcher.  The response was a celebration to gorge on meat in order to give the butcher enough money to survive a period of unemployment.  People didn't do this because they wanted to shower charity on the butcher, they did it so they had access to the butcher the other 11 months.

I propose that the two arguments in this thread aren't unrelated, but are in fact two viewpoints on our status as social animals.  We are social and function best in groups.  However, we do so out of an extremely selfish and "I-centric" viewpoint.  It just makes evolutionary sense.  This is why any society that has tried to completely and utterly destroy the "I" has failed without outside assistance.

The problem we're running into with respect to our environment is that we've managed to place ourselves above the short term reach of nature.  A good example is wolves.  If wolves become too successful at harvesting their prey, the prey population drops and hunting becomes difficult.  Nature corrects this with a crash in wolf populations.  The problem humans are facing is that we've become so adept at exploiting the resources of our environment, and we're such a flexible species, that nature can't correct our behavior with short term fixes.  The correction is still coming, eventually.  We're just doing an awful lot of damage waiting for the correction.

[MediumTex]

The problem we're running into with respect to our environment is that we've managed to place ourselves above the short term reach of nature.  A good example is wolves.  If wolves become too successful at harvesting their prey, the prey population drops and hunting becomes difficult.  Nature corrects this with a crash in wolf populations.  The problem humans are facing is that we've become so adept at exploiting the resources of our environment, and we're such a flexible species, that nature can't correct our behavior with short term fixes.  The correction is still coming, eventually.  We're just doing an awful lot of damage waiting for the correction.

I think that you are describing this picture: