Discussing the ‘I’


Hi Philip.
As I’m not in Saturday’s dialogue, I couldn’t post a reply there. So, I created here a topic about the ‘I’.

Shall we discuss here - are you okay with that?

It’s been said that - the ‘I’ comes into existence only when it is summoned by the outside. Is it so? In no other way the ‘I’ comes into being?

And we shall also do the “shadow work” here, if you are fine doing it with me. You say that you couldn’t digest the reaction to the flagrant hypocrisy. Right?. How do you find something as flagrant hypocrisy?

“I” am born when I am called to attend. The feeling of “I,” as in “this is me, here and now” is not produced out of separation, but “I” feel myself always-already from being touched and called by you. When you arrive, I appear. There is my origin. Not from the starting line. But out of the always-already.

Reactions are always products of that which will not be settled (or digested) within us. They arise out of a failure to cope. So it is not unlike indigestion, and metaphorically we say, “something is not settling.” If it could be settled, coped with, then it would simply be processed unreflectively and vanish unnoticed. Whenever we feel ourselves as ourselves, it is always accompanied by a sense of things being out of balance, off center and out-of-place. There is a discomfort at having and holding this sense of myself that is thrust into my hands without choice. That is what self-consciousness is. Paradoxically, what brings the light of consciousness, is what darkens vision. I notice you because you present as that which cannot be understood and you escape all conditions. You exceed my expectations. That is what enables you to appear at all. So, to answer your question, “how do I find something as hypocrisy?” My answer is, I don’t find it. It finds me.

Does that help at all?

Absolutely Philip. When there is a call - “I” appears. But there are other situations too.

When we get out from our house - we (through senses) feel many things materially. Like car/bike/buildings/entertainments/etc… Here when we feel it - there immediately “I” arises as “I need this/that”. Here there is no call at all.

And when we are alone in our home - even when we close our eyes (and all senses) - within few seconds/minutes “I” arises in a form of thought/past. Here there is no call from outside too. But “I” still arouses. Isn’t it?

I see further inquiry is to be made here Philip. Let me share my observation here.

When we here a question/statement/observation - for few it is felt as hypocrisy but for few it is felt as ‘good’ and for few it is felt as neutral. So if it finds one person, why couldn’t it find all?.

So, inquiring this I observe that, within us we have ‘beliefs,ideas,expectations,experience,knowledge’. And if something happens opposite to the above, it is felt hypocrisy. If something is felt matching to the above, it is felt satisfactory.

But if we start our dialogue with all our beliefs,etc… set aside (here setting aside of these beliefs means to be aware of it’s effects and negating it), we can be neutral to every questions,statements,observations and there might be no reactions/response and only dialogue (without ‘me’ and ‘you’) takes place.

These are my observations. It might be wrong too. Please feel free to question it.

Hi Viswa, thank you for your questions. Much appreciated.
Indeed, we have a need for material things, but this is not sufficient to produce the sense of myself as that which exists only in answer to that which calls me. For example, food is a material need, but food is indifferent to my material needs. It does not regard me, the way I regard it. Likewise, bikes, cars and buildings, if they are just taken to be material modes of conveyance and places to dwell in, are also indifferent to my needs. If material be our only concern, then any mode of transportation will do (even two legs) and any tent will suffice as shelter. But, when we see bikes, and buildings and cars, they already exist in and as the background of commerce, which we always-already live in; in which society and others are already implied, understood and coped with. Secondly, these are things we may need, but they don’t need us. You can have regard for your bike, you can even ask it to love and have regard for you (although that would be a pretty strange desire, perhaps requiring drugs or something), but this isn’t going to happen. Your car is not capable of loving you and your building doesn’t need you in order to relate to itself. And if it does, then it is, in fact the Other. In other words, you may see a building, but it does not see you and you will never feel its gaze.

But if I want this particular building or this particular bike then I want it because I’m already within a world where the Other has touched me

Even in reverie, you are still under regard. Being under regard is what brings the very possibility of being alone. It is the very condition for such a state.

First, we are united by difference, not by being the same and identical. Phil is in fact constituted by the world as the location where hypocrisy is experienced, where this allergy manifests. But behold, that same allergy now causes a reaction in you. For it is you, Viswa that out of all that I have written thus far, find the issue of hypocrisy calling to him such that he puts the question to Phil of his own hypocrisy. Thus you do have a sensitivity to it and in so doing it becomes shared and universalized. That is, in detecting a possible inconsistency (which would be a form of hypocrisy) with me, you demonstrate the same allergy does live not just within me, (the few) but within you as well (the many) and your statement self-refutes.

Here’s an oldie but a goodie: Who sets it aside? If that isn’t satisfactory, ask me again tomorrow. I have to hit the sack here; it’s very late. Its best to catch me in the morning here on the West coast or in the evenings. I’m busy throughout the afternoons.

You’re not wrong. This isn’t an either/or situation. It’s a both/and. Your questions are necessary and provide an opportunity for unpacking and furthering the exploration.

Thanks for your observations Philip

Hi Philip.

I inquired within what you shared. I have some things to share too. But before that, I have a question in your below statement,

Here you said, I put the question of my “own hypocrisy”. Is this a question or a conclusion?. If it is a conclusion, how do you concluded as such? Is it because I voluntarily came to ask questions to you, and so u concluded as such?
And say, if you’re son/daughter asks you something about stars,nature,anything and questions your reply/statement - will you say that too as ‘hypocrisy’?
Is asking question to other person’s reply, arise only because of ‘hypocrisy/inconsistency’ and not for learning?

Does asking question always mean ‘finger-pointing/finding flaws’ on others and not for own learning?

And In my previous reply, I said that few feel hypocrisy, satisfied and neutral. Right?. I hadn’t said “I come under hypocrisy/satisfactory/neutral or few/many”. Then, how you formed an ‘image’ about me?

So ultimately, if I share anything about your reply - I see there is a possibility that, you will again group/label it as “my own hypocrisy” and not for learning, and so it is better to clarify the above questions and continue our inquiry/discussion/dialogue.


Viswa, I do apologize, but you have me wrong. Go slowly.

I say, “X is a hypocrite.” You say, “But, hypocrisy is not universal, because I don’t feel it and don’t have that sensitivity.” I say, “in responding as such, you demonstrate your sensitivity because you are, as in right now, perceiving and are sensitive to hypocrisy.” Thus you undermine your original declaration that, “for few it is felt as hypocrisy but for few it is felt as ‘good’ and for few it is felt as neutral. So if it finds one person, why couldn’t it find all?”

But it does and is finding you.

Hi Philip. There is no need for apology. Let us again slowly and carefully inquire.

See, in other topic, you(Philip) said “ I(Philip) sometimes react viscerally to perceptions of flagrant hypocrisy and I find it difficult to allow the feeling to settle.” Right?

Then I(Viswa) said, “ When we hear a question/statement/observation - for few it is felt as hypocrisy but for few it is felt as ‘good’ and for few it is felt as neutral. So if it finds one person, why couldn’t it find all?.” right?

I didn’t said anywhere that, I (Viswa) feel it as hypocrisy/satisfactory/neutral.But, you are concluding that,

Again I’m repeating, i didn’t said anywhere that “I don’t feel hypocrisy.” So, why you are creating an image that “Viswa don’t feel hypocrisy” without asking me?. Please don’t conclude other way that “I feel hypocrisy”.

I hereby say that, I only feel neutral to every statements/questions. I sometimes felt upset and left the group. (Here ‘upset’ is not because of hypocrisy, but as more aggressiveness/conclusions/images/ideas being made in our dialogues, so much time is wasted in our inquiry. Why I feel wasted because I’m preparing for my exams too and so.)

Another question is, you are saying,

But I ask, do only because of ‘hypocrisy’ one should ask question/respond to others? One shouldn’t ask it for the purpose of learning? And so I said,

And say, if you’re son/daughter asks you something about stars,nature,anything and questions your reply/statement - will you say that too as ‘hypocrisy’?
Is asking question to other person’s reply, arise only because of ‘hypocrisy/inconsistency’ and not for learning?

Does asking question always mean ‘finger-pointing/finding flaws’ on others and not for own learning?

So, without asking me, whether I ask these in ‘hypocrisy’ or for learning, how you are ‘concluding’ that, it is “surely hypocrisy”?. I hereby say that, only for learning I’m having a dialogue with you.

Here is the wiki definition of ‘hypocrisy’

Hypocrisy is the practice of engaging in the same behavior or activity for which one criticizes another or the practice of claiming to have moral standards or beliefs to which one’s own behavior does not conform

I say, if we are neutral, we may have smooth dialogue and rightly perceive what others say and if we couldn’t perceive too, we may ask questions to them until it is perceived/caught/clarified. But we won’t feel hurt/anger/aggressive, if we are neutral and not making conclusions/assumptions/images. It is not a belief/standard, but it is my observation. It might be wrong. But let us inquire about that.

So, my suggestion is, before anyone shares how they feel, please don’t conclude or make an image that, “they feel this/that”. You may be right/wrong. But it’s not actual relationship in assuming as such.

These are to be clarified here, or else it will be a block/hindrance in our dialogue.




So sir,

Could you now see the problem we are facing in the dialogues?

So, in our dialogues, whatever is put on the table by others, shall we ask/question it “what is it”, “what do you mean by this”, “why you say so”, as such… so that without taking positions - we can perceive it as a whole.

I had also said about this in feb 7 - to bring out the observation/etc… - what/why makes other person to raise that question (not as personal experience, but to share the reason/view/observation behind the question), so we can see it as a whole and inquire about it.

This is what I see as most important and lagging in our dialogues from the start. What’s your view about this?

Thanks and regards