The Battle of Duality

Originally Posted by davidsun

That's what you (i.e. whatever 'you' think your 'self' is) consciously think and assume to be a fact. 'My' thinking is that souls have hierarchies of values - the 'ego' being another consciousness-constructed 'instrument' enabling them to continue their explorations and revisions and refinements thereof.

This is Spirituality, there are no facts and I'm quite aware of that. I'm also with Jung when he said that the ego is a sense of "I am" and everybody has one of those. He also said that it's the centre of the consciousness, which makes sense to me too. You're preaching to the converted there, David. Attaching values is also of the ego, and what value does the Soul have in attaching values?

Originally Posted by davidsun

The author of the book's consciousness was/is so focused. I am with you in terms of relishing and preferring to focus on what's 'imminent'.

I can understand where he's coming from. The mind can have a need for agency, that if something exists then some agent or other must have created it - welcome to Mr Caveman's God. "Something bad happened to me and it was God's Will." It's not hard to imagine the same thing happening with consciousness and consciousness itself seems to be as inexplicable and elusive as God. If you know what consciousness is and you know what God is then I guess you have all the Spiritual status you need.

Frankly, I wonder about the wisdom of trying to undertsand something beyond the mind by using the mind that created it in the first place to figure it out. And the mechanisms that created it have every reason not to figure it out.

Originally Posted by JustASimpleGuy

I'm saying "I" as in my mind-body has no inherent consciousness. It's not my consciousness but simply Consciousness and that Consciousness illumines my mind.

My eyes see the world, my brain processes, interprets and constructs an internal reality of what the eyes see and Consciousness illumines that internal reality, giving mind the impression of being conscious when in fact Consciousness is non-local. The impression of an individual consciousness is ego's appropriation of Consciousness as its own. My consciousness. Separation. Duality.

The very same Consciousness that illumines my mind illumines yours as well. It's not different local instances of consciousness. That's part of the illusion. The non-recognition of Self and instead the recognition of self as one's ultimate nature.



EDIT: Furthermore and you're really not going to agree with this, souls, heavens, hells and even Gods are all part of the multiplicity. That is impermanent. Appearances in the Absolute. Again, this is unqualified non-dualism. One without a second. Gods, souls, heavens and hells are all seconds (and thirds, fourths, fifths, etc...). They are but manifestations of the Unmanifest.

For once,I understood your post and it was well explained.It made sense to me and answered a lot of questions,thankyou.

Originally Posted by JustASimpleGuy

I'm saying "I" as in my mind-body has no inherent consciousness. It's not my consciousness but simply Consciousness and that Consciousness illumines my mind.

My eyes see the world, my brain processes, interprets and constructs an internal reality of what the eyes see

Jung would disagree, one of his definitions of the ego is that it is the centre of consciousness and what you are conscious of is within the 'prism' of your ego and its 'contents'. That's the non-bad guy ego though. If the contents of the ego is that for you "I am Spiritual" then your consciousness comes via that 'prism of reality.' What your eyes see is 'raw data' but what you are conscious of is very highly processed - you eyes can't even see 3D. Oh, and don't forget the so-called lizard brain because it plays its part too. And the Shadow Self.

Originally Posted by JustASimpleGuy

and Consciousness illumines that internal reality, giving mind the impression of being conscious when in fact Consciousness is non-local. The impression of an individual consciousness is ego's appropriation of Consciousness as its own. My consciousness. Separation. Duality.

Conscious itself is epiphenomenal. Depending on the study, there's anything between 90ms and 120ms between the brain 'receiving data' and your mind becoming aware of it. Donald Hoffman reckons more though. It's in that short space of time when things happen, such as the perception of our beliefs as 'having always been there'. It's also been mooted that that is where - from a materialistic perspective - consciousness comes from.

Originally Posted by JustASimpleGuy

The very same Consciousness that illumines my mind illumines yours as well. It's not different local instances of consciousness. That's part of the illusion. The non-recognition of Self and instead the recognition of self as one's ultimate nature.

Again Jung would disagree, he would call it the "collective unconscious." While Spirituality is primarily concerned with consciousness and completely ignore the two unconscious aspects of our reality, the unconscious aspects have more of a part to play in our realities than the consciousness - what we are conscious of is only the tip of the totality of the iceberg.

As an example of how our consciousness might be in retrograde, around 30-45,000 years ago there was a set of 32 symbols that were found in caves across the globe, and at that time humans were still paddling about single logs. That is only a single instance and there have been many since - so many obvious 'signs' that seem to point at something beyond the mind that was shared across the planet. And today, as an example of that, we have...?

Originally Posted by JustASimpleGuy

EDIT: Furthermore and you're really not going to agree with this, souls, heavens, hells and even Gods are all part of the multiplicity. That is impermanent. Appearances in the Absolute. Again, this is unqualified non-dualism. One without a second. Gods, souls, heavens and hells are all seconds (and thirds, fourths, fifths, etc...). They are but manifestations of the Unmanifest.

Unqualified non-Dualism? Isn't that in itself qualified Dualism? Non-Dualism itself is Dualism, as is everything where there is a 'this' or 'that' - qualified/unqualified, Manifest/unManifest, permanent/impermanent, Absolute/relative..... Local, non-local.

What is your consciousness conscious of?

Originally Posted by Greenslade

Unqualified non-Dualism? Isn't that in itself qualified Dualism? Non-Dualism itself is Dualism, as is everything where there is a 'this' or 'that' - qualified/unqualified, Manifest/unManifest, permanent/impermanent, Absolute/relative..... Local, non-local.

What is your consciousness conscious of?

Unqualified non-Dualism is Advaita Vedanta. Vishishtadvaita is Advaita with uniqueness/qualifications. The main difference is the nature of Maya where Advaita posits it's an appearance within Brahman and Vishishtadvaita posits it arises from Brahman. "The Seven Great Untenables" lays out the arguments from both sides.

As I said, there is no "my" consciousness. Consciousness is non-local. That's the Advaita view. That actually agrees with the material reductionist view that individual consciousness is but an illusion, however the scientific view dismisses the possibility of a deeper, underlying consciousness. An unmanifested Consciousness that manifests by illumining mind, thus giving the illusion of an individual consciousness.

[God-Like]

Originally Posted by JustASimpleGuy

Unqualified non-Dualism is Advaita Vedanta. Vishishtadvaita is Advaita with uniqueness/qualifications. The main difference is the nature of Maya where Advaita posits it's an appearance within Brahman and Vishishtadvaita posits it arises from Brahman. "The Seven Great Untenables" lays out the arguments from both sides.

As I said, there is no "my" consciousness. Consciousness is non-local. That's the Advaita view. That actually agrees with the material reductionist view that individual consciousness is but an illusion, however the scientific view dismisses the possibility of a deeper, underlying consciousness. An unmanifested Consciousness that manifests by illumining mind, thus giving the illusion of an individual consciousness.

How is it that there can be both the realised and the unrealised self without individuality?

Just as we have spoken about where Maya doesn't have to be in effect, why does the illusion of individuality have to be in effect .

Individuality doesn't negate oneness if oneness doesn't imply one .

The many are one, one is the many .

Peeps perhaps believe that oneness means one entity or one non entity or one consciousness .. (that's such a linear term that doesn't explain oneness at all).



x daz x

Originally Posted by God-Like

How is it that there can be both the realised and the unrealised self without individuality?

Just as we have spoken about where Maya doesn't have to be in effect, why does the illusion of individuality have to be in effect .

Individuality doesn't negate oneness if oneness doesn't imply one .

The many are one, one is the many .

Peeps perhaps believe that oneness means one entity or one non entity or one consciousness .. (that's such a linear term that doesn't explain oneness at all).



x daz x

There's only Self. Non-recognition of It and identification with self of ego is the error born out of ignorance. There is no self, only Self manifesting as multiple selfs and everything else.

That's Advaita and Buddhism for all intent and purpose says the same thing with no-self and emptiness.

So either we subscribe to one of the two major non-dual traditions or one of the qualified non-dual traditions or we all come up with our own versions and disagree with the other 7 billion versions.

So I'm not putting forth my own interpretation, just the viewpoint of one specific tradition, however for me it is backed up with my own experience and that's what Advaita advocates. Explore one's own experience of one's inner world and It will eventually reveal Itself if one has an earnest desire combined with diligent practice.

It's no different than any other spiritual tradition. Teachings and practices lead to realization. Maybe... Eventually... In this lifetime or another...

[God-Like]

Originally Posted by JustASimpleGuy

There's only Self. Non-recognition of It and identification with self of ego is the error born out of ignorance. There is no self, only Self manifesting as multiple selfs and everything else.

That's Advaita and Buddhism for all intent and purpose says the same thing with no-self and emptiness.

So either we subscribe to one of the two major non-dual traditions or one of the qualified non-dual traditions or we all come up with our own versions and disagree with the other 7 billion versions.

So I'm not putting forth my own interpretation, just the viewpoint of one specific tradition, however for me it is backed up with my own experience and that's what Advaita advocates. Explore one's own experience of one's inner world and It will eventually reveal Itself if one has an earnest desire combined with diligent practice.

It's no different than any other spiritual tradition. Teachings and practices lead to realization. Maybe... Eventually... In this lifetime or another...

Self or what you are, is all there is, I agree . Individuality doesn't reflect separation from what you are .

You are implying that Self is one entity in a roundabout way so they're cannot be two .

This isn't oneness .

Self is all points of awareness, all conscious beings .

Being aware if your individuality while having realised what you are that is everything isn't reflecting ignorance .

Please explain to me how there can be a realised peep and an unrealised peep without individuality .

How can there be different levels of awareness without there being individuality present?



x daz x

Originally Posted by God-Like

Self or what you are, is all there is, I agree . Individuality doesn't reflect separation from what you are .

You are implying that Self is one entity in a roundabout way so they're cannot be two .

This isn't oneness .

Self is all points of awareness, all conscious beings .

Being aware if your individuality while having realised what you are that is everything isn't reflecting ignorance .

Please explain to me how there can be a realised peep and an unrealised peep without individuality .

How can there be different levels of awareness without there being individuality present?



x daz x

There aren't individual conscious beings. There's just Consciousness as in Existence Consciousness Bliss, or if you like there's just Being.

The perception of an individual and conscious "you" is the illusion.

In other words if there are separate individual conscious beings then there are many parts. I suppose that might be Oneness as in the One consists of the sum of all its parts but that's not non-dualism. That's squarely in the ream of dualism.

Even Samkhya, which is the basis of Yoga, is a dualistic tradition and recognizes One consciousness - Purusa - and the natural world is Prakriti.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samkhya

Samkhya regards ignorance (avidyā) as the root cause of suffering and bondage (Samsara). Samkhya states that the way out of this suffering is through knowledge (viveka). Mokṣa (liberation), states Samkhya school, results from knowing the difference between prakṛti (avyakta-vyakta) and puruṣa (jña).[5]

Puruṣa, the eternal pure consciousness, due to ignorance, identifies itself with products of prakṛti such as intellect (buddhi) and ego (ahamkara). This results in endless transmigration and suffering. However, once the realization arises that puruṣa is distinct from prakṛti, is more than empirical ego, and that puruṣa is deepest conscious self within, the Self gains isolation (kaivalya) and freedom (moksha).

[davidsun]

Originally Posted by JustASimpleGuy

I'm saying "I" as in my mind-body has no inherent consciousness. It's not my consciousness but simply Consciousness and that Consciousness illumines my mind.

My eyes see the world, my brain processes, interprets and constructs an internal reality of what the eyes see and Consciousness illumines that internal reality, giving mind the impression of being conscious when in fact Consciousness is non-local. The impression of an individual consciousness is ego's appropriation of Consciousness as its own. My consciousness. Separation. Duality.

The very same Consciousness that illumines my mind illumines yours as well. It's not different local instances of consciousness. That's part of the illusion. The non-recognition of Self and instead the recognition of self as one's ultimate nature.

EDIT: Furthermore and you're really not going to agree with this, souls, heavens, hells and even Gods are all part of the multiplicity. That is impermanent. Appearances in the Absolute. Again, this is unqualified non-dualism. One without a second. Gods, souls, heavens and hells are all seconds (and thirds, fourths, fifths, etc...). They are but manifestations of the Unmanifest.

I think that 'we' may finally [!] be getting clear about our disagreement, I appreciate your 'working' with me to get 'there', JASG.

As I have said, I think that "Everybody in existence is spiritually motivated by a mindfully discriminating intrinsic potency. This (potency) (is what) was termed ‘atman’ or ‘soul’ by sages of old, who recognized everyone and everything as an immediate expression of the universally present, intelligently creative essence which they understood to be the real meaning of ‘Brahman’ and ‘God’."

This means that I think that my 'atman' (which is characterized by my time-space localized 'body' and I]my[/i] 'mind' (and its variable time-space-travel-capable 'consciousness') and my 'spirit' (and its e-motion-al 'waves' or 'intentions') are distinctly mine (and not yours) even though they are extensions, or expressionsm of the same all-inclusive BEING even though they are really ever-changing - as is said BEING all-inclusive BEING. They don't just 'appear' to be changing *in appearance", they - said ALL-INCLUSIVE-BEING, its MIND and SPIRIT in toto as well - are actually i.e. REALLY) constantly changing as well.

THE fabric of past-present-future-inclusive REALITY is that said BEING, of which our being is a 'significant' part, was REALLY (it did not just simply JASG 'appear' to be) different at the time and of the dinosaurs than IT is HERE-NOW. In my view, any idea of there being an ABSOLUTEly constant BEING or ABSOLUTEly constant aspects of BEING of is no more than an imaginative projection on the part of folks who e-motion-ally (or should I say e-static-ally ) prefer to believe, think and feel that that is 'the case', for the same reasons that peeps before Copernicus consciously believed, thought and felt that the 'earth' was ABSOLUTEly stationary (and not in relative co-motion) and peeps before Einstein consciously believed, thought and felt that time and space were ABSOLUTE and not relatively variable depending on the co-motion of observers.

I assume you will continue to believe and think that my view of the constant co-motion of BEING is such that there is nothing about it that is everywhen and everywhere ABSOLUTELY the same - this even though I agree with you that consciousness is capable, if and as it is so directed (by soul) of time-space 'travel'. I just want you to appreciate the significance of my 'seeing' that rvery conscious perception is from a 'point' of 'view' and the logic of my thinking and believing that the capability on the part of souls to consciously perceive what's going on from any 'point' of 'view' doesn't mean that 'consciousness' itself is non-'local' any more than your capacity to travel from one place to another on earth means that your body is non-'local'.

You think 'appearances' are not Reality. I think that Reality consists of what is observed by observers. They (in combination) and their observations/their ex-'peer'-iences, hence 'appearances', are the only REALITY there is. Postulates to the contrary are FICTIONal inventions, albeit these concsequently become part of our conjoint REALITY as well.

Your consciuosness is not mine neverthless, buddy!

This is submitted without review due to time-constraints - I have phone call waiting.

Originally Posted by davidsun

I think that 'we' may finally [!] be getting clear about our disagreement, I appreciate your 'working' with me to get 'there', JASG.

As I have said, I think that "Everybody in existence is spiritually motivated by a mindfully discriminating intrinsic potency. This (potency) (is what) was termed ‘atman’ or ‘soul’ by sages of old, who recognized everyone and everything as an immediate expression of the universally present, intelligently creative essence which they understood to be the real meaning of ‘Brahman’ and ‘God’."

This means that I think that my 'atman' (which is characterized by my time-space localized 'body' and I]my[/i] 'mind' (and its variable time-space-travel-capable 'consciousness') and my 'spirit' (and its e-motion-al 'waves' or 'intentions') are distinctly mine (and not yours) even though they are extensions, or expressionsm of the same all-inclusive BEING even though they are really ever-changing - as is said BEING all-inclusive BEING. They don't just 'appear' to be changing *in appearance", they - said ALL-INCLUSIVE-BEING, its MIND and SPIRIT in toto as well - are actually i.e. REALLY) constantly changing as well.

THE fabric of past-present-future-inclusive REALITY is that said BEING, of which our being is a 'significant' part, was REALLY (it did not just simply JASG 'appear' to be) different at the time and of the dinosaurs than IT is HERE-NOW. In my view, any idea of there being an ABSOLUTEly constant BEING or ABSOLUTEly constant aspects of BEING of is no more than an imaginative projection on the part of folks who e-motion-ally (or should I say e-static-ally ) prefer to believe, think and feel that that is 'the case', for the same reasons that peeps before Copernicus consciously believed, thought and felt that the 'earth' was ABSOLUTEly stationary (and not in relative co-motion) and peeps before Einstein consciously believed, thought and felt that time and space were ABSOLUTE and not relatively variable depending on the co-motion of observers.

I assume you will continue to believe and think that my view of the constant co-motion of BEING is such that there is nothing about it that is everywhen and everywhere ABSOLUTELY the same - this even though I agree with you that consciousness is capable, if and as it is so directed (by soul) of time-space 'travel'. I just want you to appreciate the significance of my 'seeing' that rvery conscious perception is from a 'point' of 'view' and the logic of my thinking and believing that the capability on the part of souls to consciously perceive what's going on from any 'point' of 'view' doesn't mean that 'consciousness' itself is non-'local' any more than your capacity to travel from one place to another on earth means that your body is non-'local'.

You think 'appearances' are not Reality. I think that Reality consists of what is observed by observers. They (in combination) and their observations/their ex-'peer'-iences, hence 'appearances', are the only REALITY there is. Postulates to the contrary are FICTIONal inventions, albeit these concsequently become part of our conjoint REALITY as well.

Your consciuosness is not mine neverthless, buddy!

This is submitted without review due to time-constraints - I have phone call waiting.

I would label it a difference in understanding vs. a disagreement. All roads lead to Rome, so to speak.

I'm simply coming at it from a purist non-dual position.

And no, I don't think appearances are not reality. According to Advaita waking reality is transactional reality.

https://www.advaita-vision.org/can-y...-12/#more-1349

Thus, according to Vedānta’s definition of reality – i.e that which is eternal, not an object of perception, independent – nothing in this universe can be absolutely real! Not even our bodies or minds or feelings! Hang on, says Vedānta, the teaching will not go against experience: of course things exist, but they are not absolutely existent, they are ‘as though’ existent. What you take to be real is not absolutely real at all – it borrows its status of existence from something else, just as a colourless crystal borrows redness from the hibiscus flower near it. And because you take an imposter for reality, you end up in all sorts of trouble. There is, however, something that is really real.

As one would expect of the incisive Vedic thinkers, they don’t crudely divide the universe into real unreal. They postulate three levels of reality.

Vyāvahārika satyam, relative, transactional reality, is what we experience in the waking state. As it is perceptible to others it is said to be objectively real.

Prātibhāsika satyam is the universe we experience in the dream state. Since I alone can experience it within the mind, it is called subjective reality.

Both the above levels of reality are dependent, ‘as though’, mithyā.

‘Real reality’ alone is independent, eternal, absolutely real: it is called absolute reality, pāramārtika satyam.



Sixty something years back my mind-body didn't exist and in another 20 or 30 years it will again not exist. Fourteen or so billion years ago our universe didn't exist and that probably includes time and space too. In another several trillion years it will probably subside back into that same state of non-existence.

Something transcends this level of existence and that's all I'm pointing at and I'm positing it's Consciousness. It's just a word for an underlying Truth that we just can't conceive intellectually. It's simply beyond mind's capacity.