Well, this is some question. My best pop at an answers from me would be to suggest first and foremost, that what 'I' am is itself made of the this experience itself. Thats is the first cut.
Nothing can be experienced without experiencing itself, or without the knowing of it. (as Rupert Spira would say)
When we talk of affecting our experience, be it positively or negatively, we immediately place a dualistic point of view - a 'me' in here, separate from an 'experience' out there. This is where we disappear down the rabbit-hole.
But the recognition of my nature as the knowing of experience has the possibility to change profoundly that experience itself, yet there is little impetus to do so from a personal point of view, it either occurs or it doesn't, 'I@ am simply on a ride that existence is playing through both character and environment, 'both' (oops) of which arise in one awareness.
Tricky to talk of with a language based in duality.
Great post.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
We are the result of all our interactions we have had.
Yes, we need to put a "me" in there because we are talking about how each of us, individually, develop a different perception, probably making the interpretation of our world different as well.
As far as I know, we are the only tool the universe has to experience itself.