Originally Posted by MikeS80

JASG does not know that and that is his problem.

Originally Posted by Altair

I think the real secret to a proper life is to just get happy chemistry in yourself. Usually, some basic stuff needs to be met, such as decent income, home, and contact with others. Then there are other things that will further increase chances of 'happy chemistry' such as exercising, spiritual practice, being with others in a place of worship, hobbies that keep you occupied, satisfying and healthy food.

Fact is people of all backgrounds, the ones that lack or have faith, do or don't do meditation or other practice, can all still actually be content and happy. None of us actually have to believe or do anything ''spiritual'' whatsoever. People of all walks in life have talked about ''place of love'' in an NDE. They don't all get there, but it doesn't seem to matter how 'spiritual' they were.

Looks to me the secret in life is that we need to find the things that increase our chances to get the happy chemistry. Ain't much of a bigger secret or purpose to our lives than that.

Originally Posted by JustASimpleGuy

Maslow's hierarchy of needs sums up your post, more or less. However I will point out it's transient happiness or contentment. I settled for that most of my life but as of 10 or so years ago started seeking out that which is beyond the transient and that is the purpose of all religion and spirituality.

Originally Posted by JustASimpleGuy

Want to know what JASG knows?

JASG knows "we create our reality" in a non-dual sense has to only be applicable to the One and not the many, because there is only One. If you want to apply logic to it what happens when my individual ego-self wants to create a reality that conflicts with the reality your individual ego-self desires to create? Which one wins out?

I acknowledge and accept the impermanence and impotency of the ego-self and the permanence and omnipotence of the Self. Since there is only One Self it's quite illogical to have a belief in a bunch of tiny and insignificant ego-selfs running around manifesting and mucking up the works. LOL!

And just so I'm absolutely clear on this. Go ahead and believe in LoA and manifesting. I'm okay with that. Just don't try to pass it off as something it's not. That's a disservice to both beliefs.

Originally Posted by Altair

I'm no stranger to religion and spirituality, or to mystical experiences. I wish you good luck with what you do, but you may not find any answer in your search for ''that which is beyond''. Speaking as just one individual, every 'mystical experience' I've had was out of nowhere and did not depend on meditation or other artificial means or practice or infatuation with scripture.

At least many other things in life give real rewards and benefits. I have found stuff like meditation to be far less useful compared to an hour at the gym or swimming pool. We all have unique chemistry but I can't really see this accounted for in any religion or spiritual tradition. They all try to create specific conditions, or have specific beliefs and practices, which is ironically a very rational approach yet they wanna be intuitive and non-rational.

Originally Posted by MikeS80

lemex's comment went over your head because It is obvious that you do not know how we create our reality. You create your reality" in a non-dual sense that you think is only applicable to the One and not the many, because you reject and deny the physical universe, physical objects and the individual ego while you think consciousness has a self/ego, which we discussed before and is insane.

What is illogical is believing the ego is conscious and that counsciosness/oneness has a self. I of the Self is ego, and the ego is ego, no matter how you want to label and conceptualize the ego/self

Originally Posted by JustASimpleGuy

No, it didn't. Again, I'll point out individual "we's" creating our own individual realities can't be any further from non-dualism if one tried to move further away.

By the way, you are the one creating a strawman of the Absolute having a self/ego. Honestly I don't know how you derived that from my posts. You are hung up on self/ego, not me. And no, I of the Self is not ego. Self with a capital "S" is Atman which is Brahman, so in a single post you ridicule the concept (in blue) and then endorse it (in red). The Self is Consciousness with a capital "C". It's the Atman and Atman is Brahman. This is non-dualism.

See, this is the problem with inventing your own version of a well-developed spiritual path. It lacks any internal consistency and is easily refuted with the most casual look at the literature.

Originally Posted by MikeS80

It is not a problem at all. First of all, I only endorse it as a concept until you go beyond that concept, like I said in one of my posts in this thread. Second of all, Atman is only individual consciousness, however Atman has a separate self/I, but Atman is not the self/I. Brahman becomes Atman to become conscious of itself and to create through the Atman. The ego/self of the Atman in conjunction with the consciousness of the Atman creates the reality that the Atman is aware of.

Originally Posted by JustASimpleGuy

Atman is Brahman without qualification. Realization of this is veiled by maya, ignorance. Awakening, realization, enlightenment, liberation or however else it might be labeled is not adding or expanding anything but removing ignorance.

https://www.yogapedia.com/atman-is-b...-saying/2/9896

"So when we say, “Atman is Brahman,” we’re saying that the individual soul is the same as the universal soul. The microcosm is the macrocosm.

We’re saying that our sense of separateness is maya, or an illusion. Atman really is Brahman. It’s the illusion that makes them seem to be separate."

This is the essence of non-dualism. No "Ifs", "Ands" or "Buts" about it. It's really that simple a concept but not so simple to realize because of maya and ego's resistance. I'll use your posts as an example of resistance to a very simple concept.

Originally Posted by MikeS80

It is obvious that Atman is Brahman and Brahman is Atman. Atman and Brahman are not self/ego. Atman exclusively is individual consciousness but Atman does have a ego self though.