Intraplanetary

Ego-transcendence by eliminating the first-person-singular pronoun

47 posts in this topic

Catherine of Genoa, an Italian mystic, advanced a transpersonal theory that a person could transcend the ego simply by eliminating the first-person-singular pronoun from his/her speech (Bynum, 1987).

Has anyone heard about this theory? I mean most of us know that language is extremely limited and sometimes can even be a hindrance to spirituality; however, I wanna see what you have to say and your thoughts about how it could be practiced?

It surely would be nearly impossible to communicate with others without using first-person-singular pronoun; but how inner talk could be changed?

Thanks

 

Edited by Intraplanetary

softly into the Abyss...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Eye think she could have a point but eye also think it would be very difficult to do in everyday life as you would have to refer to yourself in the third person a lot and people may be off put

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not gonna work! In Italian, pronouns are often skipped as the verb forms show which person is meant, but Italians aren't any less identified with their egos than anybody else. And i don't know about other particular languages, but i bet there are other languages similar in this respect.

I haven't looked into the theory, but i really don't think it's gonna work. It's almost an issue when the mind gets overly accurate in describing what is, because it inhibits the clear seeing of thought as just thought as opposed to a vehicle for truth. Talking about myself in the third person (judy, she) won't change a thing about the identification. This is because identification with the separate self is an energetic phenomenon, it is based on a psychosomatic misunderstanding, one could say. I hope this helps:)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Tristan12 Seems like it. In detail it might look a bit different, but that's the general idea.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Judy2 said:

In Italian, pronouns are often skipped as the verb forms show which person is meant, but Italians aren't any less identified with their egos than anybody else.

Oo, that's a really good point! 

8 minutes ago, Judy2 said:

This is because identification with the separate self is an energetic phenomenon, it is based on a psychosomatic misunderstanding, one could say.

I agree, 'I' is an energetic phenomenon. That is perfectly put! 

1 hour ago, Intraplanetary said:

I wanna see what you have to say and your thoughts about how it could be practiced?

If you want to look more into the specifics of self-talk, read about intrapersonal communication. It is all about communication with the self. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Our words and thoughts impact the dream mortals consider reality. However, according to our calculations, this practice alone is unlikely to create Ego Transcendence in the vast majority of humans.


Potestas Infinitas, Libertas Infinitas, Auctoritas Infinitas.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Doing so would be in a sense totally beside the point. No one ever does anything — If you feel that you do do things, that’s a dream... and I t’s extremely fundamental to the experience of individuality. It isn’t going to be overcome by any normal means especially just changing your speech. It requires facing fear head-on and self-effacement. Though in retrospect even that is literally completely false — because nothing is true, there is only absolute truth. Sense is merely an appearance. Infinite is infinitely infinite.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What helps it to stop talking entirely. Stop talking to yourself, stop talking to others. 

The reason we feel ourselves and the world to be separated and made of things is because we believe our thoughts about it. Every time we say "I" or "you" or "this" or "that", that belief gets reinforced a little more. And vice versa, when we don't say it, it loses strenght.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Intraplanetary said:

Catherine of Genoa, an Italian mystic, advanced a transpersonal theory that a person could transcend the ego simply by eliminating the first-person-singular pronoun from his/her speech (Bynum, 1987).

Has anyone heard about this theory? I mean most of us know that language is extremely limited and sometimes can even be a hindrance to spirituality; however, I wanna see what you have to say and your thoughts about how it could be practiced?

It surely would be nearly impossible to communicate with others without using first-person-singular pronoun; but how inner talk could be changed?

Thanks

 

She says make a sentence that doesn't include I, mine or My etc. Which is the key point of enlightenment. Because "l" brings entire so called duality. All the knowledge comes from the I including the knowledge of "I".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Tim R said:

What helps it to stop talking entirely. Stop talking to yourself, stop talking to others. 

The reason we feel ourselves and the world to be separated and made of things is because we believe our thoughts about it. Every time we say "I" or "you" or "this" or "that", that belief gets reinforced a little more. And vice versa, when we don't say it, it loses strenght.

@Tim R I'm not quite sure which strategy is best: to 'see' thoughts and to stop believing them, or to stop talking/thinking altogether. What's your take on this?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Judy2 

21 minutes ago, Judy2 said:

'see' thoughts and stop believing them

or

21 minutes ago, Judy2 said:

stop thinking

Can you see that these two strategies, recognizing a thought as a thought & stopping to believe in it, are actually not that different from each other? 

Because a thought is only a thought so long as we think it is! So long as we believe in its reality. When we recognize a thought as a thought, it immediately loses (some of) its power. 

The key is not to have no activity of mind ("thoughts") at all, but to stop being fooled by thoughts. And that, in a sense, is the death of thought. Or rather, the realization that thought was never alive in the first place.

That is the collapsing of mind and no-mind. 

But since I proposed to stop talking/thinking, which I meant quite literally, I'd still advocate for thatxD I find it easier than searching for thoughts and trying to actively dispell them, but that's just personal preference. It can be difficult to stop talking though, especially when one works with people or lives together with people. I did it because I could it, because I lived completely on my own and alone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Tim R said:

@Judy2 

or

Can you see that these two strategies, recognizing a thought as a thought & stopping to believe in it, are actually not that different from each other? 

Because a thought is only a thought so long as we think it is! So long as we believe in its reality. When we recognize a thought as a thought, it immediately loses (some of) its power. 

The key is not to have no activity of mind ("thoughts") at all, but to stop being fooled by thoughts. And that, in a sense, is the death of thought. Or rather, the realization that thought was never alive in the first place.

That is the collapsing of mind and no-mind. 

@Tim R Yes, I can see that. I was asking because in practice I'm struggling with this. But what you're saying here is actually quite helpful:) Thoughts are only thoughts so long as we believe they are, right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Judy2 said:

Thoughts are only thoughts so long as we believe they are, right?

What else would they be?xD

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think nothing can be sayed without identity. Even if you're not using the words like "I", "my", "mine" it is still silently implied in speach somewhere.

For example, if I was to say, "Wow, the Sun is beautiful" then the question would be beautiful to whom? Beautiful to "me", so "I" identity is still there just not articulated.

There're are only two words in dictionary "I" and "not me". If "I" word is not defined, "not me" loses all it's meaning. Duality would collapse also and all definitions along with it.

Without identity nothing can be sayed I'm saying. Or at least I would argue this to be the case. I don't know really 

Edited by Salvijus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Judy2 said:

I'm not quite sure which strategy is best: to 'see' thoughts and to stop believing them, or to stop talking/thinking altogether.

I believe if total disidentification were to happen. In other words, the realization that I'm pure awareness, nothingness dawned in you. Personal identity would collapse. And without identity all thinking would collapse with it. Because identity is the cause of all thinking actually.

So to answer the question, if you achieve one, you get the other aswell. if you disidentify from thinking thoughts will stop, and if you stop thinking, disidentification will happen. They kinda go together imo.

I would argue that to be the case. Don't know really.

Edited by Salvijus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Intraplanetary

Right on, yes. The ‘separate self’ of thought is perpetuated & believed in, by believing, thoughts… lingering on via I, me, my, mine, myself, etc. These thoughts are references to an assumed identity and or entity which does not actually exist in any way. 

Likewise, it can be noticed there is also no ‘thinker’ of thoughts… only the thoughts that there is, and the ‘claiming’ (me, my, mine) and believing of the ‘claiming thoughts’ therein. 

You didn’t hear this from me though. 9_9


MEDITATIONS TOOLS  ActualityOfBeing.com  GUIDANCE SESSIONS

NONDUALITY LOA  My Youtube Channel  THE TRUE NATURE

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Nahm how does one believe in a thought? This is puzzling 🤔. 

Like what is the action behind believing something? 

The thought arises "hotdogs" what happens after that you'd call believing in that thought?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now