Who are you?

[Traveler]

Though this is an ancient philosophical question that seem to have many answers few seem to search much past the surface of ideas into who they or for that matter anyone else is. Some years ago I became acquainted with a Buddhists monk. Since I have always been fascinated with religion and in particular Buddhism I took advantage of this introduction to seek out a lasting friendship and learn as much as I possibly could about this fascinating religion that perhaps more than any other religion parallels deeply LDS thinking and basic eternal concepts.

One aspect I found most intriguing is mediation. One of the great influences in my personal life (much before my encounter with the Buddhist monk) was a 40 day fast meditating by myself in the wilderness surviving only with what G-d (nature) provided directly and unfiltered through any other human. In our world it is most difficult to avoid contact with other individuals and during my wilderness journey the longest I was able to go without contact with any other human was a little over a week. I will not proceed with details of my youthful wilderness experience – only to say that my exchange with a Buddhist monk turned out to be very enlightening especially concerning this experience.

The first and main effort in mediation for a Buddhist is awareness and the first awareness is self. What I learned from my Buddhist friend was to become aware of what or who is me and what are the external influences that as me, I react to. It became apparent to me that for the most part I have tended to define myself – not by who I am but by how I react or become influenced by outside of what is me “things”. As devout LDS, I found this landscape most fascinating and humbling.

When we ask ourselves the question “Who am I”? it is most interesting to hear responses and how the responses relate to outside of self, influences. For example to an LDS when asking such a question they may answer, “A child of G-d”. But G-d is an external thing. Thus we are not defining our self but rather defining who we are based on our reaction to – and in this case – by your understanding of G-d. In short, although we have identified a powerful influence that we may experience; we have not identified who we are.

In another thread in a discussion concerning perfection – the question was asked if we lose our individuality in becoming perfect? My answer is that if you do not know who you are – you have already lost your individuality. I submit that a most important step to achieve perfection is to be aware of who you are.

So the question is – who are you?

The Traveler

[Vort]

Answering "I am a child of God" might be enlightening in a personal sense, but it provides no useful information to anyone else. It's like saying, "I am a human being."

[HiJolly]

For example to an LDS when asking such a question they may answer, “A child of G-d”. But G-d is an external thing.

Traveler, I don't think God is *completely* an external thing. Why else would the Kingdom of God be found within? (Luke 17:21) And Intelligence is what makes it so, IMO.

HiJolly

[JudoMinja]

I've pondered this question myself many times and have never been able to come up with an answer that is not merely a reflection of an outside influence. We seem to be "made" entirely by external forces, yet there is most certainly something within each of us that is uniquely "us". There must be an internal force for those external forces to work upon. But how do we identify that internal force? What is it? What are we, as individuals?

Should I answer "I am a mother", that only identifies my relationship with my son.

Should I answer "I am a teacher", that is not really a reflection of who I am but of what I do.

Should I answer "I am JudoMinja", that is merely my name which others use to identify me.

The list goes on and on, and every answer identifies some kind of relationship or connection to an external force, and does not at all identify that core. That core must exist for these relational phrases to have any meaning, but just what is it? How do we identify it? Like an electron that cannot be physically studied as it is only identified by the forces that act upon it. Or like light which we cannot study or perceive directly, but can only understand it based on how it interacts with and reflects off other objects. So we cannot separate our core from the forces that constantly, daily act upon it.

I believe that the only truly accurate answer to the question "Who are you?" ... the only answer that will not be merely a reflection of something else would be to answer "I am." Yet, do we understand what we are enough for such a statement to even be accurate? Can we "be" without extending the statement to identify a relationship with something else? I believe that we will never reach such an understanding of our "self" of who we "are" without attaining a state of godliness, as God is the only one who was able to answer "Who are you?" with "I am."

"And God said unto Moses, I Am That I Am: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I Am hath sent me unto you." (Exodus 3:14)

Edited May 17, 2012 by JudoMinja

[Guest]

Who am I?

I'm Jean Valjean.

[prisonchaplain]

The answer may be nothing. Without my relationships to God, my wife, my children, my parents, my church, my colleagues--even my internet friends, what am I? Hungry? Hot/cold? Tired?

One simplistic understanding of the Buddhist's ultimate goal is to achieve the lack of need--nothingness.

But I need God. Frankly, I want to need God. I choose to need him.

So I am a child of God. Also, I agree with Hijolly--there is something that is very internal about my relationship with God. Without him, I suppose I would be nothing.

[Seminarysnoozer]

This discussion also has to be couched in our knowledge of our dual nature. We are both a physical being and a spiritual being in this life. Our spiritual development and maturity has been cut off in terms of our remembrance and accessibility to that nature. Some people access it more than others. That greatly affects who we are here. That state is summarized in calling us fallen beings. The degree to which we recall and act like our spiritual self over the physical influences driven by "genetics" changes who we think we are and what we know of our true nature.

[Dravin]

Me.

[Dravin]

Who am I?

I'm Jean Valjean.

From now on when you post I will be picturing this guy:

[beefche]

I am Spartacus.

[Dravin]

I am Spartacus.

[Guest]

I yam what I yam.

[Dravin]

I better stop Popeye, or I'll end up completely hijacking the thread.

Edited May 16, 2012 by Dravin

[Seminarysnoozer]

When we ask ourselves the question “Who am I”? it is most interesting to hear responses and how the responses relate to outside of self, influences. For example to an LDS when asking such a question they may answer, “A child of G-d”. But G-d is an external thing. Thus we are not defining our self but rather defining who we are based on our reaction to – and in this case – by your understanding of G-d. In short, although we have identified a powerful influence that we may experience; we have not identified who we are.

But isn't it true that 'who we are' is dependent on who we are with in the end? Otherwise, what is the value of sealings and covenants? Which is based in something external that we may not fully understand.

I would say that we are, at least in part, defined by the covenants that we make with God. There is an importance given to being a covenant people. It changes who we are and how we see ourselves. Is there no difference in who a person is before and after they are born again and take on that covenant?

Elder Bednar said (October 23, 2001); "The grand objective of the Savior’s gospel was summarized succinctly by President David O. McKay (1873–1970): “The purpose of the gospel is … to make bad men good and good men better, and to change human nature.”1 Thus, the journey of mortality is to progress from bad to good to better and to experience the mighty change of heart—to have our fallen natures changed (see Mosiah 5:2)."

[volgadon]

Me.

No. You should have said "I."

Edited May 17, 2012 by volgadon

[mhsmd]

I think this sort of argument is impeded by the limits of verbal language. Who I am is my actions, and what motivates them. If I were to try to answer the question "Who am I?" with words, I would find myself talking for a long time. Thus, when asked the question, I think abstractly about what I do and why I do those things.

[Seminarysnoozer]

The first and main effort in mediation for a Buddhist is awareness and the first awareness is self. What I learned from my Buddhist friend was to become aware of what or who is me and what are the external influences that as me, I react to.

So, you have learned to see beyond the veil through Buddhist meditation? Or are you just talking about physical awareness and not spiritual?

[volgadon]

Traveler, I don't think God is *completely* an external thing. Why else would the Kingdom of God be found within? (Luke 17:21) And Intelligence is what makes it so, IMO.

HiJolly

Jesus is speaking to the Pharisees. Is he really saying that the kingdom of God is in their hearts?

Boring and Craddock's "The People's New Testament Commentary" makes the following pertinent observations. Really changes the whole picture:

(1) "Within you" (KJV,ASV) suggests that the kingdom is an internal, spiritual reality "in the believer's heart," a personal, indivualistic interpretation of the kingdom of God popular in American liberalism, but difficult to find in the Bible. There are no biblical texts that locate God's kingdom "in the heart" (see on 4:43). Jesus is here addressing the Pharisees, in this context it is unlikely that he would say to them that the kingdom is in their hearts. That the "you" is plural also argues against the individualistic interpretation.

(2) Thus the second interpretation "among you" (NRSV; REB) or "in the midst of you" (RSV) is better. It corresponds to Luke's own view that the kingdom was present in this world during the one-year ministry of Jesus (see introduction to Luke: "Jesus as the 'Midst of Time,'" and comments on 4:20-21;11:20). The kingdom of God is present in Jesus' ministry, but the Pharisees do not see it. The kingdom was not the kind of thing that objective observers could validate but a matter of having the believers' "eyes of faith."

http://books.google.... of God&f=false

This is not to say that there isn't an inner world, just that this verse doesn't relate to it.

[bytor2112]

I am evolution....slow, confusing and slightly resembling an ape.

[Gargantuan]

What happened to your genetic code? Well, there are some who do slightly resemble an ape and I suppose possess the human genetic code. There is so much to the world of genetics that we are just barely scratching the surface of it. So, perhaps there is something to some kind of genetic evolution.

[Seminarysnoozer]

What happened to your genetic code? Well, there are some who do slightly resemble an ape and I suppose possess the human genetic code. There is so much to the world of genetics that we are just barely scratching the surface of it. So, perhaps there is something to some kind of genetic evolution.

What happened is that it went further and further away from the original, that is what evolution does. That is part of our corrupted state of being which is further and further away from who we really are.

[Traveler]

How many times have we observed someone from afar to think that we know them but when learning of them intimately we come to think of them differently. In essence, the question I asked was how well do we know ourself?

It is interesting to read the answers or should I say responses without answers. Recently I have had reason to reflect on some of my past experiences of personal reflection. In essence I have forgotten some of what I thought I had learned. Perhaps I am not the only one. It seems to me that a truly inwardly looking person is much more humble than a person that, for what-ever reason does not know themselves very well.

Perhaps if I offered an example some would understand better. An example much better than me; of what happens when a person has learned to look inwardly and does so? One evening at the beginning of Passover, Jesus sat with his beloved apostles. For reasons known to Jesus, he presented his trusted friends with a most important concern. One among them would betray the Christ. I have often pondered why John the Beloved disciple did not lean over to James and remark, “I’ll bet it is Judas – have you noticed how strange he has been acting lately?”

It is my personal belief (and experience) that John had been involved in self-reflection. I believe that in doing so John had come to know himself intimately. Knowing himself – I believe he took a deep breath and pleaded – “Oh L-rd, is it I?”

The Traveler