It's so confusing with the different words that are used in different traditions within spirituality. I think that modern spirituality is a bit like Babylon, where everybody is speaking in different tongues and thus do not understand each other. Sometimes people even start fighting over words. What you call "the Self", Martinus calls "I", the "divine something" or "X1". Anyway, I agree with your ideas here about how to differentiate between the Self and identity and so we may have an illusionary identity because we think of ourselves as something which is not the Self or not X1, e.g., in the animal kingdom we identify ourselves with the body. According to Martinus that’s even necessary because of what he named the “principle of contrast”. In order for there to be a life experience, we need differences and oppositions. The Self is, however, everything and in its own nature it's undifferentiated and undivided and therefore, it must create something that appears to be not the Self. So that’s illusionary, but necessary nonetheless ☺️👍
Thank you for reading! It’s true that people are sometimes pointing to the same thing with different words. I inquired about your sense of “I” because a sense of self is an identity. At the same time, I understood that you and Martinus meant the Self by “I.” So using your terminology, I would say “I” and “a sense of I” are not the same. (The former includes but transcends the latter.)
But people are also sometimes pointing to different things with the same word. For example, some people think the Self is some basic element in the world of form. Reductionism can easily creep in if we are not careful.
Yeah, sure "I" and "the sense of I" are not the same. The sense of it requires a distance, right!? So, it's like looking at it from outside which is in itself a paradoxical thing to do because it's the I looking at the I 😃
It's so confusing with the different words that are used in different traditions within spirituality. I think that modern spirituality is a bit like Babylon, where everybody is speaking in different tongues and thus do not understand each other. Sometimes people even start fighting over words. What you call "the Self", Martinus calls "I", the "divine something" or "X1". Anyway, I agree with your ideas here about how to differentiate between the Self and identity and so we may have an illusionary identity because we think of ourselves as something which is not the Self or not X1, e.g., in the animal kingdom we identify ourselves with the body. According to Martinus that’s even necessary because of what he named the “principle of contrast”. In order for there to be a life experience, we need differences and oppositions. The Self is, however, everything and in its own nature it's undifferentiated and undivided and therefore, it must create something that appears to be not the Self. So that’s illusionary, but necessary nonetheless ☺️👍
Thank you for reading! It’s true that people are sometimes pointing to the same thing with different words. I inquired about your sense of “I” because a sense of self is an identity. At the same time, I understood that you and Martinus meant the Self by “I.” So using your terminology, I would say “I” and “a sense of I” are not the same. (The former includes but transcends the latter.)
But people are also sometimes pointing to different things with the same word. For example, some people think the Self is some basic element in the world of form. Reductionism can easily creep in if we are not careful.
Yeah, sure "I" and "the sense of I" are not the same. The sense of it requires a distance, right!? So, it's like looking at it from outside which is in itself a paradoxical thing to do because it's the I looking at the I 😃
Exactly!