The origin of "I am"
I would like to specify that at the base of the following discourse I place my personal experience, implanted in the memory, of the moment when the consciousness was illuminating the formation of a body in my mother's womb, being this individual consciousness called "soul", in which I perceived clearly the karmic course that that psychophysical form (that myself) was destined to perform. I saw his propensities, his genic roots, innate tendencies, destined events, difficulties, glory, sacrifice, in short all that had to be accomplished through that specific human individual. Well in perceiving all this clearly I felt a certain reluctance to face the tests, better to say to testify them, or to make them possible through the conscious presence that I am. Yet, the emergence of incipient fate in the mirror of the mind, which recorded it and then stored it as a film that would then be projected over the course of life, entailed a semblance of free will in accepting or rejecting fate. Of course this feeling of acceptance or rejection was totally subjective and could in no way change the course of the preordained events, but could have left a trace in the form of dissatisfaction and rejection, with the consequences that can be imagined in the unfolding of the life that was about to manifest... (and perhaps also in hypothetical future existences)...
A question arises, where does it arise? Let's give an answer where did it come from? Now, for example, I am here that I ask myself about the reality of the manifestation of our life. Is it accomplished by a set of joint forces and elements that combine according to their laws, or dictates of the case, or is it the result of a voluntary action that tries in every way to forge its shape and content? This investigation is at the basis of any conceptualization and physical or metaphysical action ...
In an attempt to understand the nature of our thinking and acting, the men who preceded us have already questioned themselves and it will be so for those to come ... And the answer: this text, for example, that I am writing and that you read (assuming someone reads it ..) where does it come from? How did the ideas contained in it emerge in the mind, how are they shared and understood by the hypothetical reader? The reader understands the theme therefore it means that the dilemma has been posed equally ... In any case, the result of a free choice is written, an elaborate with a precise intent, deriving from a voluntary process, from a decision to implement the action of thinking and writing?
Or rather is it the consequence of a series of self-generated impulses that come together to formulate this article? Following a hypothetical rational process, at first glance, I would be led to answer that yes, this writing is the result of my decision, it is the result of my personal compositional ingenuity that takes this descriptive form, using the figures of a philosophical reasoning ... No, I'm not sure ... I'm not sure because I "understand" or I sense that my reasoning can be defined only after spontaneously and without any intention on my part appeared in my mind.
Did he "appear" and from where? The mechanism of the appearance of thoughts is an unknown and unknowable aspect, they arise from an unknown where… Only after they appear before our conscience can we say "I thought about this...". In short, we make our thoughts our own after they came to meet us out of nowhere, we possess them like any other object that we call our (even though it is actually of the earth) ... and then the sense of possession is only a continuous indication of use, a limited use in any case over time and in the quality of its enjoyment...
Everything we define as "ours" or in which we identify ourselves as "my body" -for example- or "my mind" is in truth ours only for a custom of use and presence. When we dream we are accustomed to identify with one of the characters of the dream and we perceive this character as a "me" who relates to other characters operating in a world, the whole dream actually presents itself in front of our conscience and on it we have no operational control, even if, as in the waking state, we believe we are acting with a purpose, obtaining results or failing to obtain them. I say "as in the waking state" to insert a rapid comparative analogy with the reality of our work while awake...
We call our action in the world the result of a free will and we do it, in front of ourselves and others (exactly as in the dream), responsible, we accept the effort of the attempt to achieve a goal, we feel frustrated if we fail in achievement, we consider that our actions are related to a cause and effect process, in trying to prefigure us an end, then eventually repent and seek its opposite.
Religions have used this process of becoming and instability of the mind and the desire for a result (imagined as stable and definitive but vain) to order life of each in terms of "direct responsibility" with subsequent final prize in the guise of hell or heaven. In religious, social, or ideological dualism, in separation from the Whole, the only thing that can be done is to try to achieve good results using his own will, which we define as free choice, thus deluding ourselves that we will reach some outcome which we naively define as the "answer" to our material and spiritual research.
Reward and punishment are in our hands... and with this weight on the rump we "trade" and "speculate" with and on God -if we believe him- or with Nature and the laws of the jungle -if we are materialistic atheists- or do as superstitious people who say "it's not true... but I believe it!" ending a little here and a little beyond the imaginary barricade, or perhaps, as often happens to most of us, trying tout court to forget the problem by immersing ourselves in the satisfaction of daily needs and needs. But the riddle returns ... It is something unknown and unknowable that comes back to haunt us...
In the end we blame the Gods and the force of fate! In fact, we observe from direct experience that some things that we intend to achieve escape us, while others that we abhor happen. "We can define this force that makes everything happen God or" swabava ", which means the inherent nature of everyone - said Anasuya, when I was in Jillellamudi - adding that “this force manifests itself not only in natural and cyclical events but also in the unexpected and even in man's attempt to control the unexpected, and even in the sense of having decided to make a determined action or course of actions ". How to say that this" force "takes the form of inner compulsion and that we, making our formulation, define" free choice "... In short, free choice is nothing other than the mental development consequential to the stimulus received interior, the banal way through which that "force" or "swabava" makes us perform the action "voluntarily". it does not take away that in our ego, at least that mental reflection of the consciousness that we call "ego", we are perfectly convinced that the action taken is the result of our decision, that the observed thought is our own, that this writing is arbitrarily edited by me , that you are reading of your own option.
"But the fruits of our actions are not permanent - said Ramana Maharshi - and chasing the results makes us prisoners of the ocean of" karma "(becoming through action), preventing understanding the true nature of Being ”This means that the actions we perform with a purpose, and with identity appropriation of fulfillment, lead us to experience pleasures and pains. They are actually limited in time but leave seeds in the mind, the cause of a subsequent effort in avoiding or pursuing certain actions. These seeds (called in Sanskrit "vasana") push us into an apparently infinite series of engagements and acts, binding our attention to the external world and preventing the discovery of our true internal nature. Therefore in the understanding given to action there can be no release from the ego, which is limited to the mind body. One could object that if there is no understanding, neither evolution is possible, nor the improvement of one's condition...
Yet accepting the spontaneous growth to which life spontaneously tends (as it is in fact understanding it) we will be "free" to carry out all those actions that naturally go in the direction of growth, to fulfill the inner inspiration, without assuming the burden ... Calling it “surrender” to one's inherent nature or performance of one's karmic duty (dharma) at this point doesn't matter, it just happens!
Paolo D’Arpini
A question arises, where does it arise? Let's give an answer where did it come from? Now, for example, I am here that I ask myself about the reality of the manifestation of our life. Is it accomplished by a set of joint forces and elements that combine according to their laws, or dictates of the case, or is it the result of a voluntary action that tries in every way to forge its shape and content? This investigation is at the basis of any conceptualization and physical or metaphysical action ...
In an attempt to understand the nature of our thinking and acting, the men who preceded us have already questioned themselves and it will be so for those to come ... And the answer: this text, for example, that I am writing and that you read (assuming someone reads it ..) where does it come from? How did the ideas contained in it emerge in the mind, how are they shared and understood by the hypothetical reader? The reader understands the theme therefore it means that the dilemma has been posed equally ... In any case, the result of a free choice is written, an elaborate with a precise intent, deriving from a voluntary process, from a decision to implement the action of thinking and writing?
Or rather is it the consequence of a series of self-generated impulses that come together to formulate this article? Following a hypothetical rational process, at first glance, I would be led to answer that yes, this writing is the result of my decision, it is the result of my personal compositional ingenuity that takes this descriptive form, using the figures of a philosophical reasoning ... No, I'm not sure ... I'm not sure because I "understand" or I sense that my reasoning can be defined only after spontaneously and without any intention on my part appeared in my mind.
Did he "appear" and from where? The mechanism of the appearance of thoughts is an unknown and unknowable aspect, they arise from an unknown where… Only after they appear before our conscience can we say "I thought about this...". In short, we make our thoughts our own after they came to meet us out of nowhere, we possess them like any other object that we call our (even though it is actually of the earth) ... and then the sense of possession is only a continuous indication of use, a limited use in any case over time and in the quality of its enjoyment...
Everything we define as "ours" or in which we identify ourselves as "my body" -for example- or "my mind" is in truth ours only for a custom of use and presence. When we dream we are accustomed to identify with one of the characters of the dream and we perceive this character as a "me" who relates to other characters operating in a world, the whole dream actually presents itself in front of our conscience and on it we have no operational control, even if, as in the waking state, we believe we are acting with a purpose, obtaining results or failing to obtain them. I say "as in the waking state" to insert a rapid comparative analogy with the reality of our work while awake...
We call our action in the world the result of a free will and we do it, in front of ourselves and others (exactly as in the dream), responsible, we accept the effort of the attempt to achieve a goal, we feel frustrated if we fail in achievement, we consider that our actions are related to a cause and effect process, in trying to prefigure us an end, then eventually repent and seek its opposite.
Religions have used this process of becoming and instability of the mind and the desire for a result (imagined as stable and definitive but vain) to order life of each in terms of "direct responsibility" with subsequent final prize in the guise of hell or heaven. In religious, social, or ideological dualism, in separation from the Whole, the only thing that can be done is to try to achieve good results using his own will, which we define as free choice, thus deluding ourselves that we will reach some outcome which we naively define as the "answer" to our material and spiritual research.
Reward and punishment are in our hands... and with this weight on the rump we "trade" and "speculate" with and on God -if we believe him- or with Nature and the laws of the jungle -if we are materialistic atheists- or do as superstitious people who say "it's not true... but I believe it!" ending a little here and a little beyond the imaginary barricade, or perhaps, as often happens to most of us, trying tout court to forget the problem by immersing ourselves in the satisfaction of daily needs and needs. But the riddle returns ... It is something unknown and unknowable that comes back to haunt us...
In the end we blame the Gods and the force of fate! In fact, we observe from direct experience that some things that we intend to achieve escape us, while others that we abhor happen. "We can define this force that makes everything happen God or" swabava ", which means the inherent nature of everyone - said Anasuya, when I was in Jillellamudi - adding that “this force manifests itself not only in natural and cyclical events but also in the unexpected and even in man's attempt to control the unexpected, and even in the sense of having decided to make a determined action or course of actions ". How to say that this" force "takes the form of inner compulsion and that we, making our formulation, define" free choice "... In short, free choice is nothing other than the mental development consequential to the stimulus received interior, the banal way through which that "force" or "swabava" makes us perform the action "voluntarily". it does not take away that in our ego, at least that mental reflection of the consciousness that we call "ego", we are perfectly convinced that the action taken is the result of our decision, that the observed thought is our own, that this writing is arbitrarily edited by me , that you are reading of your own option.
"But the fruits of our actions are not permanent - said Ramana Maharshi - and chasing the results makes us prisoners of the ocean of" karma "(becoming through action), preventing understanding the true nature of Being ”This means that the actions we perform with a purpose, and with identity appropriation of fulfillment, lead us to experience pleasures and pains. They are actually limited in time but leave seeds in the mind, the cause of a subsequent effort in avoiding or pursuing certain actions. These seeds (called in Sanskrit "vasana") push us into an apparently infinite series of engagements and acts, binding our attention to the external world and preventing the discovery of our true internal nature. Therefore in the understanding given to action there can be no release from the ego, which is limited to the mind body. One could object that if there is no understanding, neither evolution is possible, nor the improvement of one's condition...
Yet accepting the spontaneous growth to which life spontaneously tends (as it is in fact understanding it) we will be "free" to carry out all those actions that naturally go in the direction of growth, to fulfill the inner inspiration, without assuming the burden ... Calling it “surrender” to one's inherent nature or performance of one's karmic duty (dharma) at this point doesn't matter, it just happens!
Paolo D’Arpini