Can I Know What I Am?
Summary
TLDRThe transcript explores the profound realization of the illusory nature of the self, leading to a questioning of personal identity. The dialogue delves into the certainty of one's existence, despite the inability to define or describe it. It emphasizes the contrast between the absolute certainty of 'I am' and the elusiveness of defining what 'I am.' The conversation suggests that while the mind may perceive a lack of knowledge due to the incapacity to describe the essence of being, the experience of existence itself is the most intimate and certain, transcending the need for objective description.
Takeaways
- ๐ The individual is grappling with the illusory nature of the self, questioning the concept of 'person' and the certainty of existence.
- ๐ There is a recognition of a universal consciousness that transcends the individual, suggesting a diminished sense of personal identity.
- ๐ค The individual is certain of their existence ('I am') but struggles to define or describe what constitutes their essence.
- ๐ง The certainty of one's existence is contrasted with the uncertainty of the physical world, indicating a deeper, more profound awareness of being.
- ๐ The experience of 'I am' is described as more certain than any other experience, yet it cannot be articulated with words.
- ๐ค The dialogue suggests that the experience of being is so intimate and familiar that it defies objective description.
- ๐ฎ The individual acknowledges an inability to 'look' at or distance oneself from this fundamental experience of existence.
- ๐๏ธ The concept of 'I' is presented as more real and tangible than physical reality, yet it cannot be pinned down or defined.
- ๐ The dialogue explores the idea that the experience of 'I am' is the only absolutely certain element of one's experience.
- ๐ญ The mind's inability to describe the experience of being leads to the misconception that one does not know what they are.
Q & A
What is the main realization the speaker is grappling with?
-The speaker is grappling with the realization of the illusory nature of a person, which leads to a diminished sense of self and a questioning of their existence.
What does the speaker suggest about the certainty of one's existence?
-The speaker suggests that there is an absolute certainty of one's existence, which is more certain than any other experience or knowledge one might have.
Why does the speaker believe that the experience of 'I am' cannot be described?
-The speaker believes that the experience of 'I am' cannot be described because it is too intimate, familiar, and certain, and it lacks objective defining features or qualities.
What does the speaker mean when they say 'I am it'?
-When the speaker says 'I am it,' they are pointing to the direct experience of being, which is not separate from consciousness and cannot be objectified or described.
Why does the speaker feel that the mind cannot describe what they truly are?
-The speaker feels that the mind cannot describe what they truly are because the nature of their being is beyond objective qualities and is experienced directly without the need for mental constructs.
What is the significance of the phrase 'Consciousness is universal' in the context of the script?
-The phrase 'Consciousness is universal' signifies that there is a fundamental unity to all existence, and the individual sense of self is an illusion, which is part of the broader consciousness.
How does the speaker differentiate between the certainty of 'I am' and other experiences?
-The speaker differentiates the certainty of 'I am' from other experiences by stating that the certainty of one's existence is more solid, real, and tangible than any other experience, including the perception of the physical world.
What is the speaker's perspective on the nature of the self in relation to consciousness?
-The speaker's perspective is that the self is not a separate entity but is an integral part of consciousness, and the experience of 'I am' is the most intimate and certain aspect of one's existence.
Why does the speaker avoid using words to describe the experience of 'I am'?
-The speaker avoids using words to describe the experience of 'I am' because language is inadequate to capture the direct and non-objective nature of this experience.
What does the speaker imply about the relationship between the person and consciousness?
-The speaker implies that the person is a diminishing concept in the face of the realization of universal consciousness, suggesting that the individual self is an illusion and consciousness is the fundamental reality.
How does the speaker suggest one should approach the experience of 'I am'?
-The speaker suggests that one should approach the experience of 'I am' by directly experiencing it without trying to objectify or describe it, as it is beyond words and mental constructs.
Outlines
๐ Exploring the Illusory Nature of Self
The speaker grapples with the realization of the illusory nature of the self, which leads to a profound existential question: 'What am I?' This realization is so powerful that it becomes difficult to articulate. The speaker acknowledges the universal consciousness and the diminishing sense of a separate self. They discuss the certainty of one's existence, even when the nature of that existence is elusive. The conversation emphasizes the certainty of 'being' over 'knowing what one is,' suggesting that the experience of existence is more fundamental than any other experience. The speaker is encouraged to reflect on the source of this certainty, which is intimate and beyond words, and to recognize that the inability to describe this experience does not negate its reality.
๐งโโ๏ธ The Indescribable Essence of Being
This paragraph delves deeper into the certainty of one's existence, which is described as more solid and real than any physical object. The speaker is more certain of their existence than any other experience, yet they find it impossible to describe what this essence is. The conversation highlights the paradox that while the mind cannot describe the essence of being, the being itself knows what it is, even if the mind cannot articulate it. The speaker is encouraged to express this knowing through silence or negative terms, as any positive description would fall short. The dialogue concludes with a reaffirmation of the speaker's intrinsic knowing of their being, despite the mind's inability to define it.
Mindmap
Keywords
๐กIllusory nature
๐กConsciousness
๐กCertainty
๐กExperience
๐กSeparate entity
๐กIntimate
๐กPresence
๐กObjective
๐กNegative terms
๐กSilence
Highlights
The realization of the illusory nature of a person can be profoundly challenging and lead to existential questioning.
The certainty of one's existence is more certain than any other experience, even if the nature of that existence is elusive.
The experience of 'I am' is so intimate and familiar that it defies verbal description.
The inability to describe the experience of 'I am' does not negate its reality or certainty.
The search for the source of 'I am' is a fundamental exploration of consciousness.
The experience of being is so present that it cannot be observed as an object; it is the observer itself.
The notion that consciousness is universal suggests a non-dualistic view where the individual and the whole are not separate.
The conversation explores the idea that the 'person' as an entity diminishes as the reality of 'I am' becomes more apparent.
The certainty of 'I am' is contrasted with the uncertainty of the physical world, highlighting the primacy of subjective experience.
The dialogue emphasizes the importance of exploring the experience of 'I am' from a place of not knowing, rather than seeking definitive answers.
The concept of 'I am' is described as being more real and tangible than any physical object, yet it cannot be pinpointed or defined.
The dialogue suggests that the experience of 'I am' is indestructible and ever-present, yet it cannot be described in positive terms.
The mind's inability to describe the essence of 'I am' leads to the paradoxical conclusion that it both knows and does not know itself.
The exploration of 'I am' is presented as a journey into the depths of one's own being, beyond the limitations of language and conceptual thought.
The dialogue concludes with the recognition that the experience of 'I am' is known, but not in a way that can be communicated through words.
The conversation underscores the idea that the nature of existence is not a question of belief but of direct, unmediated experience.
Transcripts
my issue now and my question is that
more and more I see the illusory nature
of a
person and this brings me into hard to
speak at this point from that
realization U of not knowing the
question what am I seems to come up with
greater force
I believe I not believe but I trust and
and believe and experience to some
degree the Consciousness is
universal so there is no
person present or diminishing person
present
in being
Consciousness it's as if I seem to have
come to a new place where again don't
know what I am yes Ron you don't know
what you
are but you know for certain that you
are
yes in other words you don't
doubt the fact of
being so don't worry about knowing what
you
are ask yourself the
question from what experience
do I derive the
certainty that I
am because you are certain that you are
yes you don't imagine it you didn't read
it you know it in fact that experience
is more certain the certainty of your
own being the certainty that I
am is has a different degree of
certainty to it than any other
experience you have for instance you are
much much more certain that you are than
you are certain that this is a
world now ask yourself from what
experience do I derive the certainty
that I
am don't shake your head and say I don't
know because if you didn't know you
would say I don't know that I am I'm not
sure that I am but you never say that
wrong you always say I know that I am
that knowledge of being comes from an
experience you must be having that
experience in order to say for absolute
certainty I am now go to the experience
from which you say with absolute
certainty I
am I have no words for it perfect Ron
perfect I say far too much about it you
why don't you have an you're right there
are no words for it but why can you not
say anything about
it it is too
close too close and yes that's true wh
why else can't you say anything about
it when you look at it I I I know you
can't really look at it but when you
when you taste when you know that
experience from which you say with
absolute certainty I am why why can't
you you you know it it's more intimate
more
familiar more certain than anything else
you have ever known or experienced but
why can't you say anything about
it it is so present
that I have no distance from it because
I do not exist as a separate
entity I am it um
yes but if you absolutely correct but if
you were to try to
describe try and describe it to somebody
who have to imagine this to somebody who
doesn't know what you're talking about
it's intimate Closer Than Close
present try
to try to say something that is true
about it try to represent it in some
way I would tell them now
in this
instant find the source of I you you see
R you're absolutely right you see I keep
pressing you I
keep I keep wanting you to say something
about it and you quite
rightly avoid doing so and I can see
that you you're doing it completely
genuinely the reason you can't say
anything about it is is because there's
not there's nothing objective there to
say anything about it has
no defining features or qualities and
yet you are more certain of it than any
other
experience so whatever it is this the
really the only element of your
experience that is absolutely
certain it's it's it's it's more solid
it's more real it's more tangible than
than than concrete it's it's so
indestructible and present and real and
And yet when you try to find it when you
try to say you cannot say a single word
about it it's good when I I tried to get
you to say something about it you kept
just saying something that
evoked it in The Listener without
describing it because you can't describe
there's nothing there objective to
describe yes
well that's just close
as you can get to knowing not just that
you are but knowing what you are you can
only describe what you are in negative
terms or as you did it with silence
which is even
better so you do actually know what you
are you you not only know that you are
you do actually know what you
are but the Mind cannot describe that so
the mind says therefore I don't know
what I am no you your being does know
what you are but because the mind cannot
describe that the Mind thinks I don't
know what I am it's quite obvious to all
of us that you do know not just that you
are but what you
are I remember in our last conversation
some time
ago I said to you as the person becomes
less and less of a real
entity the statement I am that becomes
that is
that because there is no person in
I but you came back and you said to me
something that almost knocked me over
you
said I am I
yes
5.0 / 5 (0 votes)