What am I

[usmaak]

In addition to reading The Early Sessions book #1 right now, I am also re-reading the first Living a Safe Universe book.  In it, Lynda is talking about the entity and the inner self and the ego.  This is the chapter entitled The Entity and Inner Self.

I realized that I am so thoroughly confused by this and the more confused/frustrated I get by it all, the temptation to just throw it all down is strong.  This raises the question of what I am?  Am I the inner self?  Am I just an ego?  What is it that the me that is typing this message really is?

I've always struggled with this stuff.  Why does the explanation of all of this have to be so damned difficult to understand?  Or maybe I'm just not at the point in my life where I'm meant to understand.

Frustrating.

[Deb]

You are you. The you that you know as you. My sense is that you are on the verge of learning something of importance to you, so try to go easy and take a break if you need to, but don't completely give up. I think Lynda is extremely adept at presenting the Cliffs Notes version of the Seth materials, so you're on the right track with her.

I'll try to put into words my understanding of all of this. I could be totally wrong in my understanding, but this is where I'm at. It's also been an exceptionally stress filled weekend for me, so if I seem like I'm rambling here, that's probably correct.

My feeling of what I am is basically a unique conscious person(ality). While I'm an extension (expression?) of ATI, and an entity or two or more that I don't know right now... and just one of many incarnations, a few counterparts and probable selves, I am still uniquely me. Right here and now. Which I guess one could label as my ego... my sense of who I am. Which according to Seth, will never be lost... the eternal validity. I consider my inner self to be an interface, a modem or medium of sorts, between my ego-self and the magic of F2.

I probably need to take a look at that chapter in Safe Universe to see if I'm completely off base. And hopefully others here will have something to add.

[leidl]

Why does the explanation of all of this have to be so damned difficult to understand?

Hey, all.  I feel that frustration too, usmaak.  I have a friend who says about once a year "whatever it is we need to know, it can't be that complicated.  It has to be something really simple, that everyone can get!"  He says it with that unique tone of frustration that comes from decades of trying to get one very simple thing, and still not getting it.  Yep.  Sounds familiar, doesn't it?   

Limited vision, limited understanding, seem to be part of this gameboard.  To the degree that I can accept my lack of understanding, there is peace.  If I can't accept my lack of understanding, at the very least I can accept that I can't accept my lack of understanding.  And then there is peace.  Until my resistance to not-knowing arises again.

I came across a metaphor for the self the other day that I hadn't seen before, and I'd like to share it.  Well, what I'd really like to do is ponder it longer and share it when I've mastered it, but that instinct has proven to be counterproductive here.  In fact that day will never even come.  So I'm stepping out of my comfort zone and sharing it now.   

The self is like an iceberg.  What Seth calls the outer ego is the part floating above the surface, readily visible.  The whole iceberg is made of the same thing, which is the ocean of consciousness.  Other icebergs float in the ocean, and they are made of the same thing...the very same sea of consciousness, the sea of love, that is ATI.

It is tempting and easy when we look at ourselves and others to just notice the obvious bit that sticks up visible in the gleaming sunlight, and to weigh the merits of the self on that limited bit.  But we become anxious if we lose sight of the mostly unseen massive self that grounds us and guides us and moves us along.  We suffer when we reduce ourselves in this way, and others suffer when we reduce them. 

Down in the depths is the bulk of the self.  Parts melt away, evaporate, break off and form new selves, but those small bits all retain the memory of what went before.  Well, because time is an illusion in the ultimate sense, all those selves still exist! Sometimes a large piece may break off and float in a different direction.  It may eventually develop a massive entity that is the source of other selves.  Or it may be just a fragment that experiences a separate identity briefly, before being absorbed by the sea.  Some of us here may have participated in the same iceberg at one point.  An iceberg is never threatened; it creatively guides its own change, breaking apart, dissolving, rebuilding as it sees fit, for its own reasons.

Different disciplines, I think, see the self differently, and the viewpoints are all valid in a relative sense.  Buddhists would say the self is the sea in which it all arises.  Seth wants to reassure us that there is a sense of continuity of the self, despite the fact that all is change. 

Rupert Spira is the person I heard talking about this, but I've put a more Sethian spin on what he said.  He comes from the tradition of Advaita. 

I'm really going to miss seeing all you beautiful icebergs bobbing in the sunshine.  But perhaps Deb is doing something really important here, forcing us to take our eyes off the obvious parts of each other so we can focus on our common depths/source.  Our connection may be completely unthreatened, even though it doesn't feel that way.  Our different ID's may even be different parts of a single iceberg, sticking up into the sun and wind of our present reality.  Or we may be part of the same family of icebergs, floating in the same section of the sea. 

What I'm pretty sure of is that we aren't going to know what the self is by focusing on concepts.  We have to turn our focus to our inner depths.  It takes time, and quiet.  And if we fail to do that, no sweat.  It's all good.  Eventually we'll no longer be on this gameboard where understanding feels so hard.  Let's get together and have a party then....a bunch of ice cubes in the same awesome drink.   

[usmaak]

I came across a metaphor for the self the other day that I hadn't seen before, and I'd like to share it.  Well, what I'd really like to do is ponder it longer and share it when I've mastered it, but that instinct has proven to be counterproductive here.  In fact that day will never even come.  So I'm stepping out of my comfort zone and sharing it now. 

I am glad that you went against your comfort zone and shared this.  It's lovely and powerful yet easy to understand.

Or it may be just a fragment that experiences a separate identity briefly, before being absorbed by the sea.

I sometimes wonder if this is me.  Sometimes it feel like that.  Of course part of the thing that pushes me away from Seth sometimes is ideas like this and the fear of no longer existing.  This type of thing makes being an atheist particularly difficult.

I'm really going to miss seeing all you beautiful icebergs bobbing in the sunshine.  But perhaps Deb is doing something really important here, forcing us to take our eyes off the obvious parts of each other so we can focus on our common depths/source.  Our connection may be completely unthreatened, even though it doesn't feel that way.

In a way though, it kind of sucks.  After my failed attempt at going through ACIM, I decided to approach Seth with fresh eyes.  Part of that was going to be this group and just like that, it's gone.  I have no desire to go to a different group and will, I suppose, just attempt to get it all without anyone's feedback.

This is a great response though.  I really like the analogy and have copy/pasted it somewhere that I can see it when I want to.