The self/I is not ego-mind. The ego-mind is not the sense of I/self.

[MikeS80]

Originally Posted by JustASimpleGuy

In the non-dual path training the monkey mind so it's concentrated and present is Step 0.5. It's a means and not an end. A necessary preparatory step for Step 1 (Self inquiry).

The fruit of Step 1 is realizing anything that can be identified with limiting attributes is not Self. An untangling of the superimposition of Self (Atman) and self (Anatman). There's (one) Self (Atman) and many selfs (Anatmans). It's not many awarenesses/consciousnesses aware of other awarenesses/consciousnesses, but (one) Self aware/conscious of the many selfs and through them aware of the external world.

I'm not certain we're on the same page because you seem to be interchanging (superimposing) self and Self, attributing the qualities of one to the other. It might just be semantics but I can't peek inside your mind and experience so I'm putting my mind and experience out there the only way I can to see if it resonates, and that's through mind and language, as poor and inadequate as the wording might be. We might very well be attempting to relate the same thing but I'm not certain, hence this discussion.

It might seem like a subtle and unimportant distinction but it's whether one perceives/experiences one's self as the thinker of thoughts or the witness of the thinker, and whether there are many witnesses or just one. If one has a sufficiently concentrated mind and clarity of discernment between self and Self and with conviction then the thinker (mind-body, ego-self, Ahamkara, I-maker, Anatman) isn't a problem whatsoever. I rather like the guy. LOL!

This is why I consider mindfulness (being present in the here and now) as a preliminary. A warm-up for the Main Event, so to speak. There's a lot to be said for it, even if one goes no further, however it is the gateway beyond. The canoe that when one reaches the far shore can be discarded and not carried on one's back. It's necessary for the journey but it's not the destination.

Render unto Caesar (Prakriti, nature) what is Caesar's (Prakriti, nature, mind-body, self) and unto God (Purusha, Consciousness) what is God's (Purusha, Consciousness, Self).

Then Advaita is a three-step process, isn't it, not a 2 step-process. The "0.05" step is the most important step, which is left out more often than not, like you originally did, when you first mentioned the 2 step-process.

Originally Posted by MikeS80

Then Advaita is a three-step process, isn't it, not a 2 step-process. The "0.05" step is the most important step, which is left out more often than not, like you originally did, when you first mentioned the 2 step-process.

Technically it's not. In theory the only solution to ignorance is knowledge and all one need do is rigorous, determined and single-minded Self inquiry. Who am I?

The two step process isn't of my making. It's literally the heart of the Advaita process of Self realization. Step 0.5 is but a subset of Step 1 and in theory can be achieved multiple ways - meditation, devotion, action - however it's the knowledge of Jnana that sets one free.

One can be mindful and yet not Self realized, lacking discernment between the self and Self and still superimposing the self and Self. Mindfulness is of the self and not Self.

The dualist path, the Yogic path would say the opposite. That it's all about meditation and reaching the deepest state of Samadhi. It would say Advaitins talk too much. LOL!

Its view is there are many Selfs, many Consciousnesses and meditation alone takes one from the self to Self.

From a practical perspective both ends seem the same to me. Both liberate one from the self, the difference being a view of one Self vs. many Selfs. Non-dualism vs. dualism. I suppose one can even say though it seems like two different versions of Self realization it's really not because the discernment between the self and Self is present in both approaches.

I am not the mind or the body but Consciousness, however the Yogic view is Purusha (Consciousness, Self) and Prakriti (Nature, self) are distinct and coequal realities whereas the Advaita view is there is only Purusha (Consciousness, Self) and Prakriti (Nature, self) is but an appearance of and within Purusha. They are not coequal realities but a reality of borrowed existence (Prakriti) of and within a reality of inherent existence (Purusha). A temporal reality of and within an Infinite reality. A transactional reality of and within an Absolute reality.

All that being said I'm speaking to the Advaita perspective and approach, and the chance a path has of producing the desired effect is dependent on depth of understanding of the path combined with a determination to put that understanding into practice(s) prescribed by the path.

[MikeS80]

Originally Posted by JustASimpleGuy

Technically it's not. In theory the only solution to ignorance is knowledge and all one need do is rigorous, determined and single-minded Self inquiry. Who am I?

The two step process isn't of my making. It's literally the heart of the Advaita process of Self realization. Step 0.5 is but a subset of Step 1 and in theory can be achieved multiple ways - meditation, devotion, action - however it's the knowledge of Jnana that sets one free.

One can be mindful and yet not Self realized, lacking discernment between the self and Self and still superimposing the self and Self. Mindfulness is of the self and not Self.

The dualist path, the Yogic path would say the opposite. That it's all about meditation and reaching the deepest state of Samadhi. It would say Advaitins talk too much. LOL!

Its view is there are many Selfs, many Consciousnesses and meditation alone takes one from the self to Self.

From a practical perspective both ends seem the same to me. Both liberate one from the self, the difference being a view of one Self vs. many Selfs. Non-dualism vs. dualism. I suppose one can even say though it seems like two different versions of Self realization it's really not because the discernment between the self and Self is present in both approaches.

I am not the mind or the body but Consciousness, however the Yogic view is Purusha (Consciousness, Self) and Prakriti (Nature, self) are distinct and coequal realities whereas the Advaita view is there is only Purusha (Consciousness, Self) and Prakriti (Nature, self) is but an appearance of and within Purusha. They are not coequal realities but a reality of borrowed existence (Prakriti) of and within a reality of inherent existence (Purusha). A temporal reality of and within an Infinite reality. A transactional reality of and within an Absolute reality.

All that being said I'm speaking to the Advaita perspective and approach, and the chance a path has of producing the desired effect is dependent on depth of understanding of the path combined with a determination to put that understanding into practice(s) prescribed by the path.

You twist and misunderstand what I say, then you go around and repeat what I say.

“Self”/atman/brahman uses “mental self”/”ego-mind” and body as a tool to describe, and express “Self”/atman/brahman through language. Language creates thoughts (including the thoughts of I am/who am I?), concepts, metaphors, conditioning, fear, and the rest of it.

Self realization/self inquiry is all about realizing that atman is the heart feeling of I am present/presence, thus is conscious/aware of the body’s presence, which the “mental self”/”ego-mind” and body uses language to describe, and express.

Brahman uses atman as a tool to be conscious of itself (Brahman), while atman uses “ego-mind” and body to describe and express atman.

Since brahman uses atman as a tool and atman uses “ego-mind” and body as tools, atman, “ego-mind” and body are all brahman, thus all is one/brahman and brahman/one is all.

Relating/identifying the body to mental “ego mind” is a grave error, because relating/identifying the body to “ego mind” is separating “Self”/atman from itself, and is placing limitations on “self”/ego-mind”, body and “Self”/atman, thus is placing limitations on brahman! The foundation of relating/identifying the body with the mental “ego mind” is what is having you running around in an infinite mental loop/circle bud!

All I am saying is that when one unites or balances his/her “self”/”ego-mind” and body with his/her “Self”/atman, his/her “self”/”ego-mind” and body is or becomes his or her “Self”/atman, thus his/her “self”/”ego-mind” becomes one/whole with his/her “Self”/atman. When one becomes one/whole with his/her atman-body, he/she becomes one/whole with brahman/the right here and right now. This is why all concepts including “self” and “Self”, and “duality” and “non-duality” are irrelevant!

A person needs concepts, metaphors, analogies and etc to understand truth when a person only has part knowledge of the one/whole brahman (like relating/identifying the body to the mental “ego-mind”).

I do not think that I can make it any more clear than what I posted above.

Originally Posted by MikeS80

Brahman uses atman as a tool to be conscious of itself (Brahman), while atman uses “ego-mind” and body to describe and express atman.

Since brahman uses atman as a tool and atman uses “ego-mind” and body as tools, atman, “ego-mind” and body are all brahman, thus all is one/brahman and brahman/one is all.

Relating/identifying the body to mental “ego mind” is a grave error, because relating/identifying the body to “ego mind” is separating “Self”/atman from itself, and is placing limitations on “self”/ego-mind”, body and “Self”/atman, thus is placing limitations on brahman! The foundation of relating/identifying the body with the mental “ego mind” is what is having you running around in an infinite mental loop/circle bud!

1 - There is only Brahman. Atman and Self (not to be confused with ego-self) are descriptors that are interchangeable with Brahman.

2 - If Brahman uses Atman as a tool and Atman uses the ego-self as a tool that's three, not One.

3 - The ego-self is, by definition, limited by form, space and time and Brahman/Atman/Self is limitless.

It seems to me you keep going back to the ego-self as central to identity. From an Advaita perspective that is the ignorance that is Maya, and Self realization is the knowledge that erases that ignorance. That you are in fact Brahman/Atman/Self and everything of this universe, including body and mind, are but appearances of Brahman and within Brahman.

It works better and is more relatable if one uses Consciousness instead of Brahman. Then it can be worded as everything of this universe, including body and mind, are but appearances of Consciousness and within Consciousness.

It really simplifies the mental gymnastics and what's more it is precisely our experience of reality. The problem seems to be we consider consciousness as rather ordinary when it's quite extraordinary, and that is It is Brahman, Sat-Chit-Ananda, Existence-Consciousness-Bliss.

[MikeS80]

Originally Posted by JustASimpleGuy

1 - There is only Brahman. Atman and Self (not to be confused with ego-self) are descriptors that are interchangeable with Brahman.

2 - If Brahman uses Atman as a tool and Atman uses the ego-self as a tool that's three, not One.

3 - The ego-self is, by definition, limited by form, space and time and Brahman/Atman/Self is limitless.

It seems to me you keep going back to the ego-self as central to identity. From an Advaita perspective that is the ignorance that is Maya, and Self realization is the knowledge that erases that ignorance. That you are in fact Brahman/Atman/Self and everything of this universe, including body and mind, are but appearances of Brahman and within Brahman.

It works better and is more relatable if one uses Consciousness instead of Brahman. Then it can be worded as everything of this universe, including body and mind, are but appearances of Consciousness and within Consciousness.

It really simplifies the mental gymnastics and what's more it is precisely our experience of reality. The problem seems to be we consider consciousness as rather ordinary when it's quite extraordinary, and that is It is Brahman, Sat-Chit-Ananda, Existence-Consciousness-Bliss.

WOW! really? You did not understand what I posted, did you?

Originally Posted by MikeS80

WOW! really? You did not understand what I posted, did you?

No, I didn't. It seems to me you're taking language from Advaita and shoehorning it into your own personally devised system. Pounding square pegs into round holes so to speak. This is why i'm having difficulty reconciling what you say about Advaita with what Advaita says about itself.

[MikeS80]

Originally Posted by JustASimpleGuy

No, I didn't. It seems to me you're taking language from Advaita and shoehorning it into your own personally devised system. Pounding square pegs into round holes so to speak. This is why i'm having difficulty reconciling what you say about Advaita with what Advaita says about itself.

You are here responding to a thread I created that is not about Advaita. I am not here responding to you in a thread you created about Advaita.

You say you are not here to argue, yet here you are following me to argue and running in a mental loop/circle.

If you want to talk about Advaita and relate/identify your body with your "ego-mind" go right ahead on a different relating thread.

Edit: I think you do understand, you just are playing ignorant, because ignorance is(n't) bliss.

[MikeS80]

Originally Posted by snowyowl

I'm only just catching up with this thread, but thanks folks for your replies to my earlier post. Guess I was taking the discussion a little too earnestly!

I've come across before now, the idea that non-existence is impossible, but my thoughts around this subject lead me into paradox. Here goes:

- For me to make a statement like 'unicorns don't exist' I must first define what a unicorn is, and therefore effectively create a unicorn in my imagination.
- So I'm saying unicorns do exist in thought/image but don't exist in another realm like the physical reality.
- The statement 'unicorns don't exist' therefore occupies a dualistic conceptual framework. From a nondualistic framework, presumably there's no split between mind and matter, imagination and physical reality. Imagined and material unicorns are just as real or unreal as each other.

I'm close to saying that there's neither existence nor non-existence of things in the nondual framework, just (being); but the paradox is holding me back. Perhaps the problem is I've dived straight into using the words existence/non-existence before defining what existence means.
[/size][/font]

This is a very important point you made here. Unicorns do not exist in neither physical reality nor ultimate reality (the spiritual world, for lack of a better term). thus you will never directly experience unicorns.

However, If you where to convince yourself or someone else was to convince you enough that unicorns do exist, you will see, perceive and experience unicorns mentally and subjectively quite possibly through hallucinations, illusions and dreams. Perhaps you will create a unicorn thought form that only you are able to see and experience.

Without the ego and intellect, we all would be mindless robots/drones who will believe in unicorns or anything else people tell us to believe, perhaps that is the point/intention. This is why dismissing the ego and intellect does more harm than good. We have the ego and intellect to prevent us from believing in anything and filter out false non-sense like believing in unicorns.

Physical reality and ultimate reality (the spiritual world, for lack of a better term) are the same existence, thus non-existence does not exist, and non-existence is an oxymoron, because of this, favoring or focusing on ultimate/absolute reality (the spiritual world, for lack of a better term), in a spiritual sense/context over physical reality is a contradiction and conflict where non exist in the first place.

But then again, you are right, it depends on how you define unicorn. By unicorn I mean the fictional/mythical animal unicorn :). For all I know, you could mean unicorn to be an average person, which would be weird, but hey, you never know lol

[Ewwerrin]

Yes, all is one and one is all.

Namaste.

Originally Posted by snowyowl

- For me to make a statement like 'unicorns don't exist' I must first define what a unicorn is, and therefore effectively create a unicorn in my imagination.
- So I'm saying unicorns do exist in thought/image but don't exist in another realm like the physical reality.
- The statement 'unicorns don't exist' therefore occupies a dualistic conceptual framework. From a nondualistic framework, presumably there's no split between mind and matter, imagination and physical reality. Imagined and material unicorns are just as real or unreal as each other.

I'm close to saying that there's neither existence nor non-existence of things in the nondual framework, just (being); but the paradox is holding me back. Perhaps the problem is I've dived straight into using the words existence/non-existence before defining what existence means.

A unicorn is a representation of consciousness, an avatar if you like, so it helps to understand how it exists. It is a representation of what the inage means to people, what it conjures in the mind of those that see it. That's the true nature of the unicorn, not that it's a horse with a horn. But then, how can anything that doesn't exist enter your consciousness? Do you create an image of what a unicorn means to you out of your imagination or does it invoke something that already exiswts inside you?