Still trying to figure out self?
2 posters
Page 1 of 1
Still trying to figure out self?
I chased a shadow, all my life, looking for Thee
When the dust settled, I found, It belonged to Me.
- TruthSeeker
The eternal question: Who am I?
This series will attempt to answer this question. As a first step, it is important to consciously be aware of how we always introspect about this question without completely realizing that who I am to me is who she is to herself, and who he is to himself.
Obsessed with self, it is important to first see the answer to the question – “Who are you?” as “I” sees it i.e. what satisfies our curiosity when we want to know about another person as to who s/he is.
When we meet a little kid, the conversation often goes like this:
“What is your name son?”
“My name is John. And I am 3 years old.”
“Nice. Who is your daddy?”
“He is right over there! In blue shirt.”
“Oh, you are Mark’s son”
When in a party talking to our friend, we notice a good looking woman sitting in the corner, and we ask –
“Who is she?”
“Oh she is Ananya. She works with me handling the accounts.”
What does this tell us about how we perceive others?
Name, occupation, looks, and their relationships with people we know somewhat makes us comfortable enough to the question – who are you?
Realize that how we perceive others is how others perceive us. i.e. the question – Who am I? – actually extends to all human beings. Introspection is not limited to self. We cannot and must not try to answer the question for self while treating others as mere names, having occupation and relationships.
“Who am I?” when asked by me, translates to “Who are you?” when asked by another.
This was for strangers, lets move on to friends and family members. How do we describe them as to who they are?
Again, we do include the name, relationship, how many years we have been together, PLUS our liking/disliking of the person. We also include comments about their nature (stubborn, kind hearted, atheist, adventurous etc.).
“Oh my mother-in-law is one stubborn woman!”
“My daughter is weak in Mathematics, but she is an excellent swimmer!”
“My husband loves me a lot, but always forgets to bring me flowers on my birthday!”
“I and Harpreet shared an apartment for 7 years. He is a typical Sikh guy!”
These, or variation of these statements, are commonplace.
The purpose of this post is to recognize that we often use labels (name, accountant, son of Mark, stubborn, typical Sikh) to describe others but do NOT want others to see our own “I” as mere labels.
When the dust settled, I found, It belonged to Me.
- TruthSeeker
The eternal question: Who am I?
This series will attempt to answer this question. As a first step, it is important to consciously be aware of how we always introspect about this question without completely realizing that who I am to me is who she is to herself, and who he is to himself.
Obsessed with self, it is important to first see the answer to the question – “Who are you?” as “I” sees it i.e. what satisfies our curiosity when we want to know about another person as to who s/he is.
When we meet a little kid, the conversation often goes like this:
“What is your name son?”
“My name is John. And I am 3 years old.”
“Nice. Who is your daddy?”
“He is right over there! In blue shirt.”
“Oh, you are Mark’s son”
When in a party talking to our friend, we notice a good looking woman sitting in the corner, and we ask –
“Who is she?”
“Oh she is Ananya. She works with me handling the accounts.”
What does this tell us about how we perceive others?
Name, occupation, looks, and their relationships with people we know somewhat makes us comfortable enough to the question – who are you?
Realize that how we perceive others is how others perceive us. i.e. the question – Who am I? – actually extends to all human beings. Introspection is not limited to self. We cannot and must not try to answer the question for self while treating others as mere names, having occupation and relationships.
“Who am I?” when asked by me, translates to “Who are you?” when asked by another.
This was for strangers, lets move on to friends and family members. How do we describe them as to who they are?
Again, we do include the name, relationship, how many years we have been together, PLUS our liking/disliking of the person. We also include comments about their nature (stubborn, kind hearted, atheist, adventurous etc.).
“Oh my mother-in-law is one stubborn woman!”
“My daughter is weak in Mathematics, but she is an excellent swimmer!”
“My husband loves me a lot, but always forgets to bring me flowers on my birthday!”
“I and Harpreet shared an apartment for 7 years. He is a typical Sikh guy!”
These, or variation of these statements, are commonplace.
The purpose of this post is to recognize that we often use labels (name, accountant, son of Mark, stubborn, typical Sikh) to describe others but do NOT want others to see our own “I” as mere labels.
TruthSeeker- Posts : 1508
Join date : 2012-08-18
Re: Still trying to figure out self?
very nice. not plagiarised? let me check... its original and oft repeated in sulekha by you i noticed. _/\_TruthSeeker wrote:I chased a shadow, all my life, looking for Thee
When the dust settled, I found, It belonged to Me.
- TruthSeeker
my reply -
Observe milord... Jab (when) kahin pe (where) kuch nahi (nothing) bhi nahi tha (even nothing was not there) wahi tha wahi tha (thou were there) kun fayakun fayakun kun fayakun (he commands and it is as he wants).
warna, self to car me bhi milta hai
Guest- Guest
Re: Still trying to figure out self?
“My husband loves me a lot, but always forgets to bring me flowers on my birthday!”
have heard this one at times. how hard is it, in this digital age and all sorts of self-reminder tools available, to bring flowers to wife on her birthday, when you KNOW she loves it and expects it?
have heard this one at times. how hard is it, in this digital age and all sorts of self-reminder tools available, to bring flowers to wife on her birthday, when you KNOW she loves it and expects it?
Guest- Guest
Re: Still trying to figure out self?
Beatrix Kiddo wrote:“My husband loves me a lot, but always forgets to bring me flowers on my birthday!”
have heard this one at times. how hard is it, in this digital age and all sorts of self-reminder tools available, to bring flowers to wife on her birthday, when you KNOW she loves it and expects it?
women are from venus. men are from mars.
Guest- Guest
Re: Still trying to figure out self?
Brie - Its a copy of Ghalib's original - Na Tha Kuchh to Khuda tha?
Kiddo - That was the whole point, that such things are meaningless. I do not make friends with any man who never forgets to bring flowers to his woman. These things are not important in seeking self, ones who do make it important are "merely devoting their life to impress another" - and almost always, for a purpose. I do not trust such. Men or Women or even Kids.
Regards,
TS.
Kiddo - That was the whole point, that such things are meaningless. I do not make friends with any man who never forgets to bring flowers to his woman. These things are not important in seeking self, ones who do make it important are "merely devoting their life to impress another" - and almost always, for a purpose. I do not trust such. Men or Women or even Kids.
Regards,
TS.
TruthSeeker- Posts : 1508
Join date : 2012-08-18
Re: Still trying to figure out self?
TruthSeeker wrote:Brie - Its a copy of Ghalib's original - Na Tha Kuchh to Khuda tha?
Regards,
TS.
yes! it escaped my notice. thanks!
Guest- Guest
Re: Still trying to figure out self?
Jab kahin pe kuch nahi bhi nahi tha wahi tha wahi tha kun fayakun fayakun kun fayakun
hello TS,
imagine the universe is a data of binary code like our computers are. we see decimal, syllabary, pictures, videos on our computer. evidently these are holograms of the the two bit, or binary, data that the computer is streaming but our brain, as used to, as it is, to process decimals and pictures faster, imagines the hologram to be the natural state of a language in which the computer functions and the language in which we can understand the computer. but what if the two bit computer is also generating unwanted fields that our brain cannot comprehend and thus is not bothered by (say an inaudible sound frequency through a complex calculation that is not audible to us -- not possible i know -- but say the calculations are affecting gravity and gravity is beyond our calculations and so is any disturbance to it)? now my question is... where is self? is it important any more?
hello TS,
imagine the universe is a data of binary code like our computers are. we see decimal, syllabary, pictures, videos on our computer. evidently these are holograms of the the two bit, or binary, data that the computer is streaming but our brain, as used to, as it is, to process decimals and pictures faster, imagines the hologram to be the natural state of a language in which the computer functions and the language in which we can understand the computer. but what if the two bit computer is also generating unwanted fields that our brain cannot comprehend and thus is not bothered by (say an inaudible sound frequency through a complex calculation that is not audible to us -- not possible i know -- but say the calculations are affecting gravity and gravity is beyond our calculations and so is any disturbance to it)? now my question is... where is self? is it important any more?
Guest- Guest
Re: Still trying to figure out self?
brie wrote:Jab kahin pe kuch nahi bhi nahi tha wahi tha wahi tha kun fayakun fayakun kun fayakun
hello TS,
imagine the universe is a data of binary code like our computers are. we see decimal, syllabary, pictures, videos on our computer. evidently these are holograms of the the two bit, or binary, data that the computer is streaming but our brain, as used to, as it is, to process decimals and pictures faster, imagines the hologram to be the natural state of a language in which the computer functions and the language in which we can understand the computer. but what if the two bit computer is also generating unwanted fields that our brain cannot comprehend and thus is not bothered by (say an inaudible sound frequency through a complex calculation that is not audible to us -- not possible i know -- but say the calculations are affecting gravity and gravity is beyond our calculations and so is any disturbance to it)? now my question is... where is self? is it important any more?
given that, we are living in a simulation
garam_kuta- Posts : 3768
Join date : 2011-05-18
Re: Still trying to figure out self?
@brie -
Last week, I was driving from Santa Fe to Denver - and my daughter quipped - Daddy, I wish I we could teleport.
Busy, driving in icy conditions, I merely smiled, and thought - Oh! The eternal wish of mine! :-)
Machines will evolve. Binary code of computers. 3D TVs. Driverless cars. Internet for the whole planet. Robotic vacuum cleaners.
Life could be very different from what it is today, within 20 years from now.
But that still will not stop a human to think - Who or Why am I?
I am.
So I live - live to survive, to exist, or to enjoy? But why or who am I?
Let people travel in a second from SFO to DEL, let mankind do whatever they can, be it Matrix, be it 1 or 0, be it whatever - but Why am I part of it?
I don't want to.
Regards,
TS.
Last week, I was driving from Santa Fe to Denver - and my daughter quipped - Daddy, I wish I we could teleport.
Busy, driving in icy conditions, I merely smiled, and thought - Oh! The eternal wish of mine! :-)
Machines will evolve. Binary code of computers. 3D TVs. Driverless cars. Internet for the whole planet. Robotic vacuum cleaners.
Life could be very different from what it is today, within 20 years from now.
But that still will not stop a human to think - Who or Why am I?
I am.
So I live - live to survive, to exist, or to enjoy? But why or who am I?
Let people travel in a second from SFO to DEL, let mankind do whatever they can, be it Matrix, be it 1 or 0, be it whatever - but Why am I part of it?
I don't want to.
Regards,
TS.
TruthSeeker- Posts : 1508
Join date : 2012-08-18
Re: Still trying to figure out self?
yes, lol.garam_kuta wrote:brie wrote:Jab kahin pe kuch nahi bhi nahi tha wahi tha wahi tha kun fayakun fayakun kun fayakun
hello TS,
imagine the universe is a data of binary code like our computers are. we see decimal, syllabary, pictures, videos on our computer. evidently these are holograms of the the two bit, or binary, data that the computer is streaming but our brain, as used to, as it is, to process decimals and pictures faster, imagines the hologram to be the natural state of a language in which the computer functions and the language in which we can understand the computer. but what if the two bit computer is also generating unwanted fields that our brain cannot comprehend and thus is not bothered by (say an inaudible sound frequency through a complex calculation that is not audible to us -- not possible i know -- but say the calculations are affecting gravity and gravity is beyond our calculations and so is any disturbance to it)? now my question is... where is self? is it important any more?
given that, we are living in a simulation
Guest- Guest
Re: Still trying to figure out self?
brie wrote:TruthSeeker wrote:Brie - Its a copy of Ghalib's original - Na Tha Kuchh to Khuda tha?
Regards,
TS.
yes! it escaped my notice. thanks!
eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeks! sorry! no, ghalib was wrong and this is not derived from ghalib. ghalib was an idiot.
ghalib - Na Tha Kuchh to Khuda tha?
ghalib (trans.) - when there was nothing, there was god.
song - when even nothing was not there, there was god.
Guest- Guest
Re: Still trying to figure out self?
@brie....
Hmm...
You are smarter than me.
Anyways - The next line of Ghalib's ghazal is -
Kuchh Na Hota to Khuda Hota...
i.e. Jab kahin pe kuch nahi bhi nahi tha wahi tha wahi tha kun fayakun fayakun kun fayakun
The way I hear Ghalib is -
When "Nothing" was, God was.
If "Nothing" were there, "ONLY" God would have been there.
My "existence" makes it a "non-Godly" atmosphere....
If I were NOT, then Why not?
Regards,
TS.
Hmm...
You are smarter than me.
Anyways - The next line of Ghalib's ghazal is -
Kuchh Na Hota to Khuda Hota...
i.e. Jab kahin pe kuch nahi bhi nahi tha wahi tha wahi tha kun fayakun fayakun kun fayakun
The way I hear Ghalib is -
When "Nothing" was, God was.
If "Nothing" were there, "ONLY" God would have been there.
My "existence" makes it a "non-Godly" atmosphere....
If I were NOT, then Why not?
Regards,
TS.
TruthSeeker- Posts : 1508
Join date : 2012-08-18
Re: Still trying to figure out self?
TruthSeeker wrote:@brie....
Hmm...
You are smarter than me.
Anyways - The next line of Ghalib's ghazal is -
Kuchh Na Hota to Khuda Hota...
i.e. Jab kahin pe kuch nahi bhi nahi tha wahi tha wahi tha kun fayakun fayakun kun fayakun
The way I hear Ghalib is -
When "Nothing" was, God was.
If "Nothing" were there, "ONLY" God would have been there.
My "existence" makes it a "non-Godly" atmosphere....
If I were NOT, then Why not?
Regards,
TS.
fair enough. i like the way you explained it! cheers!
Guest- Guest
Similar topics
» figure skating ...
» The guy used the wrong word. Can you figure it out?
» Hezbollah is one leading figure short
» how to mourn the passing of a public figure
» Sikh riots: BJP names figure in records
» The guy used the wrong word. Can you figure it out?
» Hezbollah is one leading figure short
» how to mourn the passing of a public figure
» Sikh riots: BJP names figure in records
Page 1 of 1
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
|
|