Dissolving the "I". Becoming "ONE"

Originally Posted by davidsun

Heavy emphasis? You must be 'imagining' things! LOL The neti-neti 'nihilism' is often used as a 'perfect' way to 'dodge' inconvenient/unpleasant truths (a/k/a thoughts and feelings) IMO.

From my importance-of-'self' personally choosing to 'I'dentify with Life Itself (including all other 'selves' as important and functionally creative in their own right) treatise:

When a soul reaches the point where it truly grasps and fully embraces the fact that it really is an integral aspect of The Entity of (all!) Life, as Jesus (clearly!) did, it just ceases to psychospiritually ‘i’dentify with the physiosocial constellation of its personal self and/or whatever galaxy of affiliated selves (or philosophical constructs pertaining thereto) it may currently have the most immediately consequential involvement with and affiliation to, and so (logically then) stops being egotistical (i.e.selfish in the ‘petty’ sense of the word) and commits itself to living with the aim of maximally fulfilling its Love and Joy imperative in relation to others in the context of The Flow of Life-at-Large, doing whatever it can (given its present situational context as a self) to optimize and augment not just its own or any particular set of associates’ immediate Love and Joy processes, but environmentally (hence ethically in the most comprehensive sense of the word) taking into account any and all ‘ripple effects’ which might conceivably stem from its ‘doings’ in ways that (ultimately) impact the Love and Joy processes of everyone around, the well‑being of future generations also being included in said calculus of course!

Speaking of "including all other 'selves' as important and functionally creative in their own right," I experience your "Don't hold anything back, let it all out. LOL! It is not a philosophy of nihilism" etc. comment to be unconscionably condescending and unduly dismissive - I hope you will one day take me and others like me seriously, though I definitely won't hold my breathe in said regard.

I regard "Don't hold anything back, let it all out. LOL!" a fairly mild and light-hearted response to

"Hence my personal opposition to and advocation against all 'neti-neti' attitudinalities and positionalities which I personally regard and suggest as just being 'vain' (and ultimately ill-fated as in SD's case, for example - there are many others here) attempts to jump off of Life's 'I' ship.

You do realize how unfavorable a light you cast hundreds of millions of people (and possibly some on this very forum?), and simply because they subscribe to a philosophy you personally disagree with?

Does that really fit into "taking into account any and all ‘ripple effects’ which might conceivably stem from its ‘doings’ in ways that (ultimately) impact the Love and Joy processes of everyone around"?

Mind you it's okay with me whatever you post. That's your prerogative, however it does seem inconsistent with that snippet of philosophy excerpted from your blog.

EDIT: By the way, from a Vendatic perspective there's an entire path (1 of 4) of morality. That's 25% of the practices.

https://vedanta.org/yoga-spiritual-practice/

The Path of Work: Karma Yoga

“Karma-Yoga is the attaining through unselfish work of that freedom which is the goal of all human nature. Every selfish action, therefore, retards our reaching the goal, and every unselfish action takes us towards the goal; that is why the only definition that can be given of morality is this: That which is selfish is immoral, and that which is unselfish is moral.”

[davidsun]

Originally Posted by JustASimpleGuy

I regard "Don't hold anything back, let it all out. LOL!" a fairly mild and light-hearted response ..

Yah - I 'get' that - people also make condescending and dismissive sexist and/or racist remarks thinking, and when challenged, saying that they were just making a 'light-hearted' joke, also implying that anyone who takes them 'to task' for that is being unduly/excessively sensitive/serious.

Originally Posted by JustASimpleGuy

You do realize how unfavorable a light you cast hundreds of millions of people (and possibly some on this very forum?), and simply because they subscribe to a philosophy you personally disagree with?

Yes, I do. And I mean to. Do you realize how 'unfavorable a light' MLK's various comments such as "Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter“ cats on "hundreds of millions of people" "simply" (as you choose to frame it, simple guy!) "because they subscribe to a philosophy he personally disagrees with?" Same logic applies here, Bro. IMO a great many (there are always exceptions) neti-neti-ers unconscionably abandon and betray Life (you/anyone doesn't have to but you/anyone would have to grok what I say in my treatise to begin to fully comprehend what I personally mean by when I personally use the term Life.

Originally Posted by JustASimpleGuy

Does that really fit into "taking into account any and all ‘ripple effects’ which might conceivably stem from its ‘doings’ in ways that (ultimately) impact the Love and Joy processes of everyone around"?

Danged tootin', it does! Because there is a 'dearth' in this regard (in my view), my aim is to create as many waves and ripples along these lines (though not just along these lines) in this regard as I possibly can /

Originally Posted by JustASimpleGuy

Mind you it's okay with me whatever you post. That's your prerogative, ..

How every generous of you, condescending fella. But I think/feel/believe that you still don't take my point(s) seriously and relate to them in a way which gives them appropriate 'credit'.

Originally Posted by JustASimpleGuy

however it does seem inconsistent with that snippet of philosophy excerpted from your blog.

I can ;see; how you would regard it as being inconsistent. I hope what I have said above opens your eyes to there being a certain degree of consistency in my attitudinality and positionality, however.

Originally Posted by JustASimpleGuy

EDIT: By the way, from a Vendatic perspective there's an entire path (1 of 4) of morality. That's 25% of the practices.

https://vedanta.org/yoga-spiritual-practice/

The Path of Work: Karma Yoga

“Karma-Yoga is the attaining through unselfish work of that freedom which is the goal of all human nature. Every selfish action, therefore, retards our reaching the goal, and every unselfish action takes us towards the goal; that is why the only definition that can be given of morality is this: That which is selfish is immoral, and that which is unselfish is moral.”

You are conflating issues (illegitimately, IMO) to 'support' your acceptance/embrace of "neti-neti" arguments by brining Vedanta into tghe disucssion , IMO. My 'criticism' (i.e. opposition to and advocacy against) the "neti=neti" philosophy is specific to that. Not to the entirety of Vendantism which I personally hold in fairly high regard. My treatise includes (and lauds!) several pithy quotes from The Bhagavad Gita, for example.

[Shivani Devi]

Originally Posted by JustASimpleGuy

Isn't it also a way of saying anything that can be identified or pointed to with language, isn't It? It's just another object? Kind of like you were saying that it's not the end of the journey? More to come?

EDIT: Another way to look at it is experiencing the Source is indescribable in terms of thinking and language.

Yes, this is another way of looking at it but for all practical intents and purposes (and having studied under many gurus in Rishikesh), it was only a way to subdue the ego from thinking it has found or discovered anything new that it should, in any way, feel "proud" of and have the brain's reward system and dopamine surges activated at the expense of Moksha.

I also have my own definition of what it takes to be an "ignorant person".

They are the ones who "don't need" to be educated about a certain topic in order to have an opinion about it.

Originally Posted by Shivani Devi

Yes, this is another way of looking at it but for all practical intents and purposes (and having studied under many gurus in Rishikesh), it was only a way to subdue the ego from thinking it has found or discovered anything new that it should, in any way, feel "proud" of and have the brain's reward system and dopamine surges activated at the expense of Moksha.

I first heard 'neti neti' from everyone's "favorite" guru, but recently I've been researching non-dual and Vedic meditation techniques, seeing if there's anything I might want to add to my repertoire. Based on what I found and what you explained it seems like it serves at least two purposes, one a method of inquiry by negation for the aspirant and another a method used by gurus to disempower an aspirant's drowning ego further by not allowing it to grasp at any straws. I haven't come across that last one in my research but first-person experience is a better resource than the interweb.

If I'm understanding the inquiry by negation method of meditation it goes something like this: It begins with a question - "Am I the body?", "Am I the mind?", etc.. - followed by an answer - "No." - and turned into a meditation. This is just what I found online and I'm curious if you were ever instructed in this particular form of meditation and is this an accurate understanding?

[davidsun]

Originally Posted by JustASimpleGuy

I first heard 'neti neti' from everyone's "favorite" guru, but recently I've been researching non-dual and Vedic meditation techniques, seeing if there's anything I might want to add to my repertoire. Based on what I found and what you explained it seems like it serves at least two purposes, one a method a inquiry by negation for the aspirant and another a method used by gurus to disempower an aspirant's drowning ego further by not allowing it to grasp at any straws. I haven't come across that last one but first-person experience is a better resource than the interweb.

If I'm understanding the inquiry by negation method of meditation it goes something like this: It begins with a question - "Am I the body?", "Am I the mind?", etc.. - followed by an answer - "No." - and turned into a meditation. This is just what I found online and I'm curious if you were ever instructed in this particular form of meditation and is this an accurate understanding?

'I' have never simply 'taken' and 'followed' instruction(s) from any scripture or person. 'My' personal 'sense' is that many have (foolishly, IMO) expanded the 'method' you mention to include any and all aspects of Life except what they reference as and (IMO, mistakenly) believe to be 'pure' 'awareness' to the point where they believe (pretend?) that they and others really have no 'I'.

See Unseeking Seeker's thread of quotes from Robert Adams in the Non Duality section for exemplary illustration. Many 'students' and committed 'followers' of Advaita and Buddhism make this the 'cornerstone' of their personal stance in and philosophy of Life.

Life, however, is always personal (IMO) - even experiences of what is called depersonalization (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depersonalization) are very personal experiences, albeit many experience these as being blissfully 'liberating' and 'refreshing'.

There often is (again, IMO) a downside to 'immersion' in such experience of and attitude towards Life, however, as personal/relational response-abilities are then (often) 'seen' and related to as being more or less superfluous (for want of a better) descriptive.

I very much appreciate the nature of your exploration and (above) inquiry, Guy. Please note that what I share here is (IMO) just a function of my personal synthesis vis-a-vis what I have I personally grown to view and experience Life as Being (and Becoming!). One last addition (excerpted from my treatise and already quoted elsewhere in this forum) touching on the kinds of convolutions that souls who buy into the notion that there is no real 'self' that (may) get into:

Any and every soul’s developmental ‘journey’ merits ongoing introspective review and reevaluation and, when and where appropriate, the refinement – this is what conscious evolution is all about! – not just of the ‘content’ of what one personally thinks, feels, believes and does in relation to others and Life‑at‑Large, but also of the ‘significance’ one places on and so ‘ascribes’ to one’s self and other selves, in your case the very ‘self’ that thinks, feels, believes and does so. To possibly help expedite such process, here’s a discussion of some often overlooked (because of ‘innocent’ ignorance) but just about as often (for personal expediency) swept under the rug details and issues which, when and as overlooked and/or ignored, often result in folks who don’t yet fully grok what actually happens when a soul transcends selfhood (by whole-mind-n-heart-edly acknowledging and embracing the fact that it and others are [really/actually!] integral aspects of The Entity of Life’s, i.e. of Christ’s, Being-n-Doing) being bamboozled by as well as bamboozling others.

For one thing, one’s selfhood doesn’t then just evaporate into insubstantiality or dissolve into inconsequentiality as many have historically, apparently self-effacingly and seemingly humbly, for supposedly unselfish reasons, self-deludingly imagined and other-misleadingly proclaimed. Take the words of anyone who speaks, preaches, or acts in ways which imply that he or she (or his or her ‘kind’) is so self-abnegating as to therefore be especially holy and (so) especially worthy of devotion, reverence, obedience, generosity, etc. with a grain of salt. A posture of personal insignificance may indeed be adopted as a result of a person’s genuinely loving and enjoying and so wishing not to in any way detract from the glorious Magnificence and mind-boggling Grandeur of Life-at-Large, in contrast to which the gestalt of his or her present self as well as the gestalts of other selves may indeed appear – to him or her, that is – to be relatively unimportant. But obsequious, Cosmic Presence or Persona ‘adoring’ stances and corollary behaviors may also be consciously or unconsciously coat‑tail‑rider ‘gain’ motivated, and sometimes even downright wolves-in-sheep’s-clothing predatory in relation to unwitting others!

To put any self or other generated razzle-dazzle that may presently be interfering with your clearly seeing what’s really what in this regard into perspective, let me point to and emphasize the implications of the obvious (to those who really wish to 'see' truth) fact that genuinely devoted husbands and wives – ‘lovers’ of all kinds, really! – recognize that their lives are far from being insignificant in relation to those they love and ‘espouse’. They live and act with consummate awareness of the fact, as well as experience and evince a certain degree of self-appreciation as a result of knowing, that their personal presence and relational engagement functionally complements and enriches their spouse’s lives in ways which they could not and would not be otherwise. This, even as they acknowledge and are deeply grateful for the fact that their own lives are also complemented and enriched in ways that they otherwise would not be by virtue of their having been ‘espoused’ (as a self!) themselves. Similarly, Cosmically ‘awakened’ souls continue to live and make choices as personally response-able, choice‑implementing selves who are well worth every ‘bit’ of their ‘salt’, albeit they do so so ‘sacrally’, without putting themselves on any kind of ‘pedestal’, knowing that they are [personally] vital components of Life’s Grand Being‑n‑Doing, in other words knowing that they are Love and Joy experiencing and expressing ‘buds’, ‘leaves’, ‘flowers’ and potentially ‘seed’ bearing ‘fruit’ [etc.] on ‘the Tree’ of Life Itself!

Best wishes youward - you personally (as an 'I'), that is!

Originally Posted by davidsun

knowing that they are [personally] vital components of Life’s Grand Being‑n‑Doing, in other words knowing that they are Love and Joy experiencing and expressing ‘buds’, ‘leaves’, ‘flowers’ and potentially ‘seed’ bearing ‘fruit’ [etc.] on ‘the Tree’ of Life Itself![/size][/indent]

I really like this line. Davidsun.

[weareunity]

Hello all.

What is called the "ego" seems like a mechanism of the mind brought into service to provide a necessary affirmation of being/existing when that affirmation has not been felt to have been provided and or found fit for purpose--for some reason--by early years appropriate love and appropriate nurture. This affirmation would have been from a source outside of the mind concerned ie, parent, carer, etc.--but the mind is obviously not able to duplicate that circumstance and so must attempt to provide some sort of compensatory provision of its own accord. using the mechanism which has come to be called the "ego".
This compensatory mechanism is obliged to establish affirmation by utilising relative significance by measure against others as an attempt to experience that necessary affirmation. Doing so is necessarily divisive-sometimes with immediately destructive consequences, and sometimes with destructive longer term consequences. --and in any case begins a life time endeavour to maintain that significance differential.--absorbing much energy and creating a focus for behaviour which deflects the mind from being able to engage with topics which seem to threaten the search and maintenance of self significance.

If, however, the mind concerned comes to find that external source of affirmation freely given by means of becoming the recipient of understanding love and nurturing support, the focus previously and necessarily maintained begins to be replaced and looked beyond. --and ultimately discarded by choice--not annihilated--and becomes able of itself to offer that same affirmation to others, instead of seeking it from measure against others.

There is more to explore along these lines I daresay.

petex

Originally Posted by weareunity

Hello all.

What is called the "ego" seems like a mechanism of the mind brought into service to provide a necessary affirmation of being/existing when that affirmation has not been felt to have been provided and or found fit for purpose--for some reason--by early years appropriate love and appropriate nurture. This affirmation would have been from a source outside of the mind concerned ie, parent, carer, etc.--but the mind is obviously not able to duplicate that circumstance and so must attempt to provide some sort of compensatory provision of its own accord. using the mechanism which has come to be called the "ego".
This compensatory mechanism is obliged to establish affirmation by utilising relative significance by measure against others as an attempt to experience that necessary affirmation. Doing so is necessarily divisive-sometimes with immediately destructive consequences, and sometimes with destructive longer term consequences. --and in any case begins a life time endeavour to maintain that significance differential.--absorbing much energy and creating a focus for behaviour which deflects the mind from being able to engage with topics which seem to threaten the search and maintenance of self significance.

If, however, the mind concerned comes to find that external source of affirmation freely given by means of becoming the recipient of understanding love and nurturing support, the focus previously and necessarily maintained begins to be replaced and looked beyond. --and ultimately discarded by choice--not annihilated--and becomes able of itself to offer that same affirmation to others, instead of seeking it from measure against others.

There is more to explore along these lines I daresay.

petex

There's the Freudian take on ego.

"According to Freud's model of the psyche, the id is the primitive and instinctual part of the mind that contains sexual and aggressive drives and hidden memories, the super-ego operates as a moral conscience, and the ego is the realistic part that mediates between the desires of the id and the super-ego."

My impression of ego in the sense it's used here is either the id or super-ego gaining undue influence.

[Shivani Devi]

Originally Posted by JustASimpleGuy

I first heard 'neti neti' from everyone's "favorite" guru, but recently I've been researching non-dual and Vedic meditation techniques, seeing if there's anything I might want to add to my repertoire. Based on what I found and what you explained it seems like it serves at least two purposes, one a method of inquiry by negation for the aspirant and another a method used by gurus to disempower an aspirant's drowning ego further by not allowing it to grasp at any straws. I haven't come across that last one in my research but first-person experience is a better resource than the interweb.

If I'm understanding the inquiry by negation method of meditation it goes something like this: It begins with a question - "Am I the body?", "Am I the mind?", etc.. - followed by an answer - "No." - and turned into a meditation. This is just what I found online and I'm curious if you were ever instructed in this particular form of meditation and is this an accurate understanding?

How does anybody know when they have reached the goal of enlightenment? Does anybody else have the right to judge another's spiritual evolution according to their own perceptions and standards? Many will do this anyway and say that another is being 'deceitful', 'bogus', 'selfish' or 'pseudo spiritual' based on their own teachings, philosophy, experience and methods... And then they try to convince everyone else of said person's 'ingenuity' as if it were their sworn duty to do so for mankind's own "protection" from being "misled"...this is human nature to be made distinct from Divine nature through negation.

Usually what happens is that one set of Duality is merely exchanged for another set of Duality whereby gross materialism becomes more subtle and turns into spiritual materialism.

What good is knowing "I am that that" or "I am one with the universe" if the actions don't align with the philosophy?

In the strong opinions forum, I had this discussion with another member about the nature of perceived arrogance. When a judgement occurs, the biggest predetermination of a person's moral character is whether the other person is personally liked and approved of by the one who is judging so no matter what they say, it will always be 'wrong' simply because they are disliked (Cognitive Bias).

On the other hand, a friend or loved one can do or say nothing wrong. Rose coloured glasses severely alter perception and seeing things as being bad does likewise.

[iamthat]

Originally Posted by Shivani Devi

Rose coloured glasses severely alter perception ...

So do beer-filled glasses

Peace.