"WHO WE ARE

Understanding others is wisdom. Understanding yourself is enlightenment.
--Lao Tse

It's very easy to observe and understand our physical body and our surroundings when we can use our senses. Our senses can motivate us to achieve material riches in order to fulfill our sensual pleasures. The difficult part is to understand our mind and rather more difficult is to search our soul, our spiritual self, our ultimate level of humanity. It is not until we assume responsibility to understand the total self that we can live a full-life.

Possession of material riches, without inner peace, is like dying of thirst while bathing in a lake.
--Paramhansa Yogananda

For the sake of simplicity, let us divide human life into 3 levels or categories of existence. All three levels, we may point out, are a normal part of the human life cycle. It's how we handle these 3 levels that creates hell or heaven in our lives.

1. The first level of our existence as a highly evolved animal, would lead us to search for SENSUAL PLEASURES such as lust, drinking, smoking, drugs and anything that satisfies or pleases the senses. Many of us may spend the entire life right at this level. That's what these of us have decided to be. And for those of us that's ‘who we are.’

2. The second level of our existence as we advance leads us to think more like humans since we live as a civilized society. That is to have a well-paying respectable job, a good house, an expensive car and other MATERIALISTIC DESIRES. All this is a normal characteristic of ego which requires strength, strategy, and effort to achieve material possessions. Most of us spend our life rising only to second level. And that's what those of us have decided to be. And for those of us that's ‘who we are.’

3. The third or highest level of our existence demands something more than the first level of sensual pleasures and second level of striving to acquire materialistic living. It provides an extra touch to the first and second levels! That third level is SPIRITUAL LIVING, which I call the ultimate achievement in human existence. It is because of this desire, we find well educated, highly intelligent, extremely successful, and wealthy people looking for a spiritual leader or Guru. These are the people who desperately follow those who can provide some insight into spiritual philosophy.

A preponderance of spiritual Gurus happens to be from the east. One explanation for this is that western society has traditionally focused on action, and guidance for spiritual advancement has been relegated to secondary importance. This has led to a spiritual void. Owing to this spiritual need or void, 2500 or more cults exist in the U.S. alone. Cult leaders come from both east and west. Cult leader Jim Jones poisoned hundreds of his followers in the 1980s and David Kuresh led 86 people to deadly confrontation with the U.S. government at Waco, Texas in 1993; Luc Jouret led over 50 members to forced death in Canada and Switzerland in October, 1994; a religious cult in Japan was held responsible for nerve gas incidence in sub-way killing of several people in March, 1995; Doomsday cult in Uganda set themselves ablaze burning 924 members to death in April, 2000; unfortunately, we are likely to see more of such instances in the future-- all in the name of spiritual pursuit. It's the understanding of spirit within us that can help understand "who we are" and can save us from cult incidences.

"To seek spiritual power, there is no need to seek it through any occult hierarchy, any guru, any doctrine," says J. Krishnamurti. "The important thing is to free our mind of envy, hate, and violence; and for that we don't need an organization." He calls on people to examine their own hearts and minds to see the egotism and self-ignorance at the root of all sufferings and troubles; and egotism and self-ignorance are precisely what prevents enlightenment and spiritual power.

The spiritual power doesn't come from the same sources that feed our ego. Ego power is an important part of society in a worldly sense. Most people like a well-paying respectable job irrespective of them being good at it, and it's because of ego power we often are attracted to other material possessions. This attraction is a natural necessity and should be followed.

Our efforts to achieve ego power, however, don't necessarily empower the spirit or soul. The spiritual power comes from living close to the heart. It comes from unexpected sources. For example, when we endure the loss of job or illness we find inner strength that fortifies our spirit. Spiritual or soul power also comes from being ourselves and doing what we're good at. Inherent qualities such as intelligence, attractive appearance, and even powerful voice provide soul power. Spiritual power comes from doing something for the community or country. Although we may not see a benefit in the worldly sense, it nurtures the spirit and feeds the soul. When we fail to nurture our soul, we fail to live in peace with ourselves in the face of illness, loss of job or loss of loved one. It was perhaps the spiritual power, more than her wealth or recognition, that provided Mrs. Jacqueline Kennedy Onasis the strength to live through life-crises up to the last minute of her life-- May 19,1994.

In everyday living, spiritual power is experienced as an absence of need to dominate others, kindness, forgiveness, mercy, compassion, peace, joy, acceptance, non- judgment, joining, and intimacy. A spiritual being focuses on authentic personal empowerment, utilizes multidimensional thinking, and believes loving guidance is available. He/she feels connected to all of humanity and practices a life without desire to control someone or to prove that he/she is right and the other person is wrong. He knows a dimension beyond cause and effect. He is motivated by morality, serenity and quality of life. He knows a violent response to evil is the same as participating in evil and focuses on what he stands for. He feels a sense of responsibility and belonging to the universe. He has a tendency to extend love and help others rather than feel enmity and competition. His mind is not controlled by anger, fear, lust, greed, attachment, false ego, or envy. His existence is not affected by time and age. He is not afraid of getting old or of dying young. He sees no sin in the world to escape from.

A lack of spiritual power, on the other hand, makes a person live in a state of fear. The non-spiritual person experiences anger, abuse, pain, greed, addiction, selfishness, obsession, corruption, and violence. He/she may hold grudges and seek revenge for perceived wrongdoing. He is only motivated for acquisitions' sake. He often experiences loneliness and separation from all others.
A spiritual person sees not only himself in the world, but the whole world in himself.

It is discovery of spiritual power within each of us that can define the total self of "who we are." And please remember, discovery of spiritual-self and a life lived in a spiritual state of mind is no different than an everyday life but with an extra dimension added to it. The spiritual life does not lie away from the everyday life.
It is the everyday life, unmodified, but with an extra dimension added to it.

--The Great Awakening

Note, parts of this entry are taken from a recent book manuscript by me entitled, ‘SCIENCE, RELIGION & SPIRITUALITY: In Search Of God’."

Dr. S.S. Dhillon July 28 2003

Response:

How do you more reasonably know that your proposed three levels to existence, sensual pleasure, materialism, and spiritual power are the "total self" or completely who we are?

What is the (more reasonable) ground(s) for your claim of complete (or "total") knowledge (through "experience" and "discovery") of who we are?

What is it about "experience" and "discovery" that more reasonably proves complete (or "total") knowledge of who we are?

436. Entry:

"If the self looks in a (metaphorical) mirror, and sees itself there is an addition of information to the original self, and thus the old self is in part destroyed or added to, and a new self is therefore created. Nonetheless, since the majority of the self remains intact the addition of new information, and the expulsion of old information helps foster the creation of the new self which is still the self, but not the self we knew before. Drawing from this idea it is generally impossible to be the original self after the addition of knowledge of the self because one is changed by such knowledge, so one would have to look again in the metaphorical mirror, and discover the new self, which would begin again the cycle that seems to start/end here. Nonetheless it could be said that one's entire self would not be discarded in this process and thus with the gaining of knowledge of the old self the new self is able to know part of its own being (the parts of the old self which were not changed or destroyed), but such an easy answer fails to completely satisfy every portion of my being. Although it is both easy and seemingly sound.

To discover an end to such a cycle one must come to understand what is causing the change in the first place. Why, or how does knowledge of the self change the entire self or, does it just add knowledge to the self? In the obtaining self knowledge in its entirety two things seem to happen in regard to changing of the self. One: the addition of self knowledge to the self. Two: change stemming from the self coming to terms with itself. The original addition of knowledge as far as I see it is no problem in the overcoming of the posed statement due to the fact that the original self is not changed merely by adding knowledge. The change to the original self occurs when the self's old knowledge (truth) comes into conflict with new knowledge and one or both are discarded (if both truths fill the same void, only one is really the truth). Now it might be possible to stop things at this stage by becoming totally self satisfied, but I doubt the vast majority of us (humans) are that 'evil' (quotations used to express the fact that it is only my opinion). Now, as the old and new knowledge begin to merge and shift within the mind a new self begins to form. Though this self is really all old self; it is just seemingly more true than the old self. However there begins the problem of a new self being created and, with that the possibility of an addition of more self knowledge. However there remains a problem with considering this to be infinite. There is the fact that eventually the self will come to be completely true, and thus in possession of complete self knowledge already; in fact the self would be in possession of knowledge of knowledge of the self knowledge to an almost infinite extent.

Maybe the better idea is just to be satisfied with knowledge of the self in the past, and since that is still a basic knowledge of the self in the present (the entire self is not changed, knowing I like hamburgers does not make me dislike hamburgers, although an infinite amount of knowing I know I like hamburgers might). Basically all I have to say is that there are two ways to overcome the proposed statement (besides the easy way out). One: Near obsession with obtaining perfect self knowledge, whereby at one point you come to the end of the cycle as I wrote in paragraph two and three. Two: Complete obsession with one's own perfect imperfection and a complete lack of care for everything (if those two things can possibly coexist). However this has the dangerous side effect of making everyone who sees you want to burn all life, human life in particular, from the face of the earth.

Supplementary information (Responses to main arguments supporting proposition):

Response to defense 1 (Representational knowledge): can we be assumed to know everything, No. Than let us not mislead each other about what is, for what is according to an incomplete finite, flawed, or imperfect being is not truly what is. Basically the complete story of what is is still in debate so don't tell me what is.

To defense 2 (Epistemology of knowledge (human invention)): it is possible to be the basis of invention and the outcome through the aid of time, i.e. change occurs as the basis builds through natural motion to the end product.

To defense 3 (Internalism and externalism): through careful, objective observation of the self and its actions makes it possible, even realistic to come to know yourself in part.

To defense 4 (Temporal lag): substantial argument tackled in my main argument.

To defense 5 (Comparative nature of reason (reliance on past knowledge)): definition of self necessary. I look upon the self as the basic animal mind (desires) of a human being (hunger, desire, anger) molded by outside influences (__ is attractive, __ is desirable, __ is bad) and, the reasoning mind (taking A action is superior to taking B-Z actions) thus using this definition it is possible to examine the self's past actions and understand why those actions were compiled. Hence, one should be able to predict with some degree of accuracy the outcome of a situation involving the self. Thus one would have self knowledge in the present and future.

To defense 6 (Incomplete empirical knowledge): the mind can grasp concepts like "that is my hand" or, "that is my thought" so one might say that while complete self knowledge does not seem possible at this time partial self knowledge does. Its hard to ignore the fact that you think, or that you have a hand. Basically if you stare at your hand you will find that it is changing but you are able to observe the change. Thus even though the self changes it is possible with persistent observation to come to an understanding of what or who you are.

To defense 7 (Recursive reflexivity (infinite regress)): another substantial argument, once again I tackle it in my main argument.

To defense 8 (Precedence of possibility): I didn't find any reason in argument eight to change my not agreeing with basic statement of this argument for this reason: if possibility can exist without impossibility; impossibility can exist without possibility. However I would contend that they are both independent of each other, its just that they both stem from the ability to do or lack thereof.

To defense 9 (Limited perspective): I am not even sure if all the intelligent idiocy contained in this argument pertains very much to my argument. Not that it is not of value, its just not of any value to me, at least not without a masters in philosophy."

Sam C Sutton August 6 2003

Response:

We agree that "[by] gaining of the old self, the new self is able to know part of its own being, (the parts of the old self which were not changed or destroyed)". But how is the parts of the self which were not changed or destroyed, complete part knowledge of the self? How can you or anyone else more reasonably have complete part knowledge of oneself without complete whole knowledge of oneself? (Note, we added the "in part" to the proposition for the sake of clarity especially for empiricists who may think they do not completely know everything, but they completely know somethings.)*

Responses to your criticism of some of the main arguments supporting the proposition:

Defense 1 (Representational knowledge): Our assertion that human conscious knowledge is representational is from our limited or incomplete perspective, rather than our unlimited or complete perspective as you suggest.

Defense 2 (Epistemology of knowledge (human invention): How can the basis for invention be the invention itself through the aid of time?

Defense 3 (Internalism and externalism): What does careful, objective observation have to do with complete part knowledge?

Defense 5 (Comparative nature of reason (reliance on past knowledge): How does prediction based on an examination of one’s past actions result in complete self-knowledge in the present and future?

* Defense 6 (Incomplete empirical knowledge): Since you concede that complete self-knowledge does not seem more reasonable, how is complete part self-knowledge more reasonable? How do you more reasonably know your knowledge of your hand is complete?

Defense 8 (Precedence of possibility): Even though possibility and impossibility may exist without each other, how from our perspective is impossibility not contingent on the possibility of it?

437. Entry:

Reply to the response to Entry 436

"1: if our knowledge is assumed incomplete than it is reasonably possible for us to actually have complete knowledge yet the complete knowledge be obscured by the seemingly flawed self.

2: I have a trash can, this trash can stinks. I also have a 'good' or 'sweet' smelling substance. By combining the two I can invent a new trash can which does not stink. The trash can itself is not changed, merely added to. Thus I can say that the basis for invention, the stinky can, can with the passage of time be the end product. Not the complete end product but part of it. This can be proved by one dismantling the can and returning it to its previous state.

3. If one is untouched by bias in ones observation of oneself than it becomes more feasible to prevent the reaction (changing) of the self which would be caused by self-knowledge. This is proved by the fact that one is untouched, the key word being untouched.

5. If one were able to observe completely one's own life one might come to find they can draw conclusions in regard to who they are based on their reactions to specific stimuli and their more innate qualities. These conclusions can be considered to be knowledge of the self, esp. if the self is inclined to repeat X action in response to X stimuli. But even if the action is considered a mistake it still reveals something in regard to who the self is by the reaction to the mistake.

6. Complete and part are two different concepts sitting upon the same platform. Or they would be, however there is only room for one since it is impossible to have something be complete and partial at the same time. And although I do see what you mean by complete part I was not referring to a complete part, only a partial part (I don't need to see every detail in my hand to see my hand) but if broken down and looked at separately that partial part exists independently and thus could be said to be complete.

8. It could be said that impossibility is one of many possibilities. However in coming to better understand what you mean I have concluded that neither of us can be said to be totally right, due to the fact that without the impossible possibility would not exist. Things would just happen. Thus I would say your proposition in relation to argument eight is not false but not true either.

One might say that to fully recognize oneself one only has to be oneself. Or at least be able to understand the concept of you. This is because by being able to look upon oneself you have the possibility to see oneself. The degree of this might generally be said to depend on the self. Although I can say that I believe it to be possible for me to understand myself. This could be possible through careful examination of your past and estimation of the future based on knowledge gained from looking upon oneself from the emergence of rational thought to the changes which one has endured. From this you should be able to predict to some degree your actions with logical analysis. The spots of which have little hard data can be filled in to some degree with imagination.

For something to be complete in our universe it must be infinite since we live in a place of infinites (time). Thus hoping to gain complete self-knowledge might be thought to be impossible due to the limited capacities of the human mind. However one can gain completeness of an incomplete since we can be said to be a complete incomplete. Thus one can gain complete knowledge of an incomplete being only because we are an incomplete being.

Thus it is possible for me to gain knowledge of myself (complete or incomplete is unimportant) by being able to look upon myself. (how simple is that)"

Sam C Sutton August 13 2003

Response:

We agree that by being able to look upon oneself, an individual has the possibility to (completely) see (and know) oneself, but establishing possible completeness is not the same thing as establishing more reasonable completeness.

Also, it is unclear to us how we can more reasonably gain completeness of an incomplete (who we are) through defining ourselves as "complete incomplete"? Viz., how does an individual more reasonably know that his view of his incompleteness is complete, when according to you the human mind is defined by "limited capacities"?

Moreover, it is inconsistent in our view for you to assert that you are incomplete and you completely know you are incomplete. To completely know you are incomplete implies you are not incomplete, and yet you are asserting that you are incomplete. Perhaps you mean some aspects of yourself are complete and some aspects are incomplete. If so, how can you know any aspect of yourself is complete, without knowing completely all aspects of yourself? If you reply that what you completely know of yourself is independent of the rest of yourself, then how can that independent aspect of yourself be considered part of yourself? In other words, how can you more reasonably have an aspect of yourself which is not connected, at some level, to the rest of yourself?

Reponses to additional critique of some of the main arguments supporting the proposition

1. We agree that by establishing the (apparent) incompleteness of what we know, it is possible to have complete knowledge (without completely knowing that we do).

2. Regarding your trash can example, we view you as the basis (or inventor) of the trash can which does not stink, on grounds that the invention stems ultimately from you and not the materials, stinky can and ‘sweet’ smelling substance, used to make the invention.

3. How can oneself observe directly oneself, so that what one sees (and knows) is exactly what one sees (and knows)? How can you more reasonably overcome the apparent comparative, interactive, and incomplete nature of human consciousness? How can you consistently reconcile the "limited capacities" of human consciousness with direct (complete) perception of things?

5. Sure if one could observe completely one’s own life, then one could "draw conclusions in regard to who they are based on their reactions to specific stimuli and their more innate qualities", but what would be the point if one could already completely observe one’s life?

6. How more reasonably could there be a part of oneself which is "independent" (in all conceivable senses) of the rest of oneself? Based on the concept of interconnectedness, how can anything more reasonably exist entirely independent of anything else? How can you more reasonably completely know an aspect of your hand by merely looking at your hand? What is it about the act of looking that equates to complete knowledge?

8. From a fundamental standpoint, impossibility is linked to completeness, and possibility is linked to incompleteness. So unless you or anyone else can more reasonably establish completeness, from our perspective possibility precedes impossibility. Note, possibility is not necessarily contingent on (complete) impossibility, because you have yet to more reasonably establish complete impossibility. Viz., without establishing completeness, things remain possibility even after contradictory things occur. So for example, if John marries Jane and one thousand people witness the event, it is still possible (from our incomplete perspective) that John never married Jane.

438. Entry:

"Hope is the supererogatory essence of human nature (on top of our animal nature--it is dualistic). All else follows: invention, thought, culture, politics, etc. The proposition is overcome by locating the essence of human nature, which is hope. In other words, hope is a distinctive human instinct which expresses itself in an infinite number of forms (which we observe, where observation is objectification of order and disorder), including the proposition and its solution."

Ha Quach August 24 2003

Response:

What is it about the incomplete (or relative) distinction between order and disorder that leads you to claim more reasonable complete knowledge of who we are?

Entries 431-434,  Entries 439-442