It isn't ONE Self it is Self that is all there is ..

Originally Posted by JustASimpleGuy

Since this thread is about non-dualism and my perspective is that of Advaita I'm going to frame my reply in that context.

The concept that unvarnished self is individuated (consciousness, soul, core being, etc) is the ignorance at the heart of all suffering. This is the illusion of the ego-self (Ahamkara), of it appropriating consciousness or being as its own. I am conscious, you are conscious, he and she are conscious and even more fundamentally I am, you are, he and she are. The Advaita view is Consciousness (Chit) just is and doesn't belong to an individuated being but illumines individuated beings. Lends Its Existence (Sat) to them and combined with Its Conscious illumination (Chit) is the feeling of individuated mind-bodies with individuated consciousness. It's the reflection in the mirror assuming the mantle of Face.

Ultimate Reality is that of Sat-Chit-Ananda and what we, as individuated embodied beings, experience is transactional reality which is wholly dependent upon That. One has inherent Existence and the other dependent existence. One is unchanging infinite potentiality and the multiplicity are the changing temporal manifestations of That infinite potentiality. A multiplicity of infinite changing patterns inextricably woven into One fabric of Existence.

"Rise thou effulgent one, rise thou who art always pure, rise thou birthless and deathless, rise almighty, and manifest thy true nature. These little manifestations do not befit thee." ~ Swami Vivekananda

https://excellencereporter.com/2019/...-goal-of-life/

Each soul is potentially divine. The goal is to manifest this divinity by controlling nature, external and internal. Do this either by work, or worship, or psychic control, or philosophy – by one, or more, or all of these – and be free. This is the whole of religion. Doctrines, or dogmas, or rituals, or books, or temples, or forms, are but secondary details.

Man is to become divine by realizing the divine. Idols or temples, or churches or books, are only the supports, the help of his spiritual childhood. The ultimate goal of all mankind, the aim and end of all religions, is but one — reunion with God, or what amounts to the same, with the divinity which is every man’s true nature.

Notice Vivekananda says each soul is potentially divine. This is a distinction between a multiplicity of souls and One Soul (Divinity). The difference between a multiplicity of consciousness and One Consciousness illumining the multiplicity and giving the appearance of individuation.

As gently as possible and with all good intention I ask this one question. If any of this is disturbing I ask what is disturbed? Is it the Divine or one of Its little manifestations?

This question is worthy of deep contemplation and exploration. All the traditions and all the philosophies and all the teachings and all the practices are but the finger pointing. The seeker alone walks in that direction, but with the guidance and support of a chosen path. One needs a map when navigating uncharted territory. A map informs direction but will not carry one to the destination.

Mind blowingly excellent.

Originally Posted by JustASimpleGuy

My heartfelt condolences

Likewise, sincere condolences.

Originally Posted by JustASimpleGuy

In essence and what it seems to me you are saying is there's only intellectual realization. What I'm saying is there's both intellectual and experiential realization. My experience is intellectual realization comes first, and if sufficiently motivational to the point of dogged pursuit it can be followed by experiential realization. I've heard the reverse is possible but much more rare.

To muddy the waters even further (LOL!) my initial intellectual realization wasn't robust in the sense of traditional spiritual teachings, however the experiential realization that followed, the flash of Awakening, led me to pursue intellectual realization much further and along more traditional lines of inquiry, and that would be Advaita Vedanta.

Why is this is so disturbing?

Well said.

Originally Posted by MikeS80

It seems like most, if not all spirituality has the truth about the self and about the ego-mind all twisted, colored or warped to keep people ignorant/in the dark about the truth of the self, and ego-mind. The self is god/oneness/wholenesss, hence the title of this thread.

This is also why self-realization is also known as god-realization by some people.

Gradually it was disclosed to me that the line separating good and evil passes not through states, nor between classes, nor between political parties either -- but right through every human heart -- and through all human hearts. This line shifts. Inside us, it oscillates with the years. And even within hearts overwhelmed by evil, one small bridgehead of good is retained. And even in the best of all hearts, there remains ... an unuprooted small corner of evil.

Since then I have come to understand the truth of all the religions of the world: They struggle with the evil inside a human being (inside every human being). It is impossible to expel evil from the world in its entirety, but it is possible to constrict it within each person.

Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, in 'The Gulag Archipelago 1918-1956'

https://youtu.be/infZSKB5L9I?t=124

Originally Posted by JustASimpleGuy

Since this thread is about non-dualism and my perspective is that of Advaita I'm going to frame my reply in that context.

The concept that unvarnished self is individuated (consciousness, soul, core being, etc) is the ignorance at the heart of all suffering. This is the illusion of the ego-self (Ahamkara), of it appropriating consciousness or being as its own. I am conscious, you are conscious, he and she are conscious and even more fundamentally I am, you are, he and she are. The Advaita view is Consciousness (Chit) just is and doesn't belong to an individuated being but illumines individuated beings. Lends Its Existence (Sat) to them and combined with Its Conscious illumination (Chit) is the feeling of individuated mind-bodies with individuated consciousness. It's the reflection in the mirror assuming the mantle of Face.

Ultimate Reality is that of Sat-Chit-Ananda and what we, as individuated embodied beings, experience is transactional reality which is wholly dependent upon That. One has inherent Existence and the other dependent existence. One is unchanging infinite potentiality and the multiplicity are the changing temporal manifestations of That infinite potentiality. A multiplicity of infinite changing patterns inextricably woven into One fabric of Existence.

Another way to look at this is superimposition. Since Ahamkara assumes ownership of existence and consciousness, all its baggage is superimposed on Existence and Consciousness. It believes it's the Fabric instead of a pattern.

https://youtu.be/_FTpowEr9Ok?t=136

Originally Posted by Miss Hepburn

Ha, I thought I was done posting here!
I did not know people think this. I have never known anyone that thinks this.
Oh, good, This is my first x seeing you say this. (Sorry there are 900 posts here!)
This, I relate to - a clear definition of what (you think) realisation is.
I don't have any definition of enlightenment or self-realization, (USA spelling, sorry)
Agreed.

And I hope you understand - asking a question is no problem to me.
You are no problem to me. :)
It is the way I have seen you asking it.
This particular teacher-student method wanting a certain answer and only that answer and when they can't give it to you
or it's diff than you are looking for, then they are said to be 'untruthful or dodging like a politician'.

Ditto on all points - esp in blue; for the last point, I'd add to it "you need to understand what I'm saying, you are talking in riddles, you don't know what you're talking about, you're clueless" (ad nauseum)

Originally Posted by Greenslade

I really don't have the Spiritual dictionary although I have spent time understanding what resonates with me rather than the gaining of knowledge. I have looked at Samadhi but from all accounts there is still the experiencer/experience going on, an 'I/self' in some shape or form that is aware of things outside of the self. I've had experiences where I've experienced from an almost third-party perspective, as if standing behind my own shoulder like a computer game. Whether that was Samadhi or bot I don't know, the terminology doesn't interest me the same. What I experienced was very different. The term "I am" was borrowed from Mooji, where he defines it as an acknowledgement that consciousness exists, nothing more after that. There was no experience and experiencer but due to the lack of words I don't know if there is a word that goes beyond experience. It was just a complete sense of "I am" in the sense of acknowledging that consciousness exists.

What I 'experienced' was just pure consciousness, using the words for communication purposes but it went far beyond experience, words and definitions. It wasn't even 'pure', it was beyond even that. It was all that there was at the time.

So maybe the experience was 'I am Chit' but there was no thought or consciousness of that at the time, there was simply the acknowledgement that consciousness exists - not even "My consciousness exists." Later the words come to mind as I try to process what happened and brought it into the realms of the mind. I can understand that Chitta is experienced by Chit, it's one of the benefits of having a fragmented personality. As far as I can work out Chitta (lower mind) is very close to Jung's unconscious.

There was no consciousness or experience of absence for me, there was consciousness itself and nothing else - absence is a product of Chitta rather than Chit. There was no 'this' or 'that', there was only this'.

But really, is the experienced not the experiencer?

I find it much better to not try to understand it; and the revelations come over time, rather than box the ineffable/inexplicable in through various understandings that may or may not be accurate, and once boxed, can be hard to unpack.

Alternatively, there are teachers who can enunciate aspects better. Personally, I find JASG on point and accurate for a forum and we're lucky to have him.

Thanks for sharing.

JL

Originally Posted by Greenslade

What about the unconscious 'subsystems' that are beavering away at creating your reality? They are as much as if not more instrumental in building the framework of your consciousness than anything else. Self aware of the mind is what Jung would call ego-consciousness but the self also includes the unconscious. What I've discovered is that consciousness seems to come in 'layers'. There is what we are conscious of (ego-conscious and I'm keeping it simple here) and beyond that there is a 'layer' of consciousness that seems 'set apart' from the mind/brain mechanism. Then there is the conscious of the self, which also embraces both the ego-unconscious and the conscious - and the anima/animus, Shadow Self.... And beyond that there is a layer of consciousness and when you think you've reached an understanding another 'layer' pops into existence. From a Jungian perspective what people are conscious of is ego-consciousness, and few are aware that unconscious subsystems even exist.

This is what's happening with people that make you frustrated, people are conscious of the 'end result' but are completely unaware of how they get there. They are only conscious of what they are conscious of, which is the 'end product' or ego-conscious of what's chuntering away in their skulls under the surface. What most mean by self-aware isn't self-aware but ego-conscious and don't embrace the unconscious.

Certainly, Jungian self/Spiritual Self/consciousness is what we are for the sake of simplicity but there's far more to that story. You are much more than the self awareness of the mind, the mind is only one aspect of all that you are. What you are is the totality of your conscious and unconscious, and the 'layer above' that - and subsequent 'layers' you wish to explore. The understanding here goes back to the visualisation the Vesica Pisces and Triplex Unity provides. Putting a name like 'The Self' on the 'layers' doesn't work because that implies individuality and it's hanging a name on Ruby Tuesday, it's beyond name/definition/individuality.

https://www.britannica.com/topic/alaya-vijnana
https://www.lionsroar.com/what-are-t...nsciousnesses/

Ultimately, I find intellectualizing it only keeps you in an understanding trap unless its matched by a dedicated spiritual practice (including meditation). YMMV

Originally Posted by MikeS80

It seems like most, if not all spirituality has the truth about the self and about the ego-mind all twisted, colored or warped to keep people ignorant/in the dark about the truth of the self, and ego-mind. The self is god/oneness/wholenesss, hence the title of this thread.

This is also why self-realization is also known as god-realization by some people.

Au contraire, most if not all of the spiritual traditions talk about the realness of self and what it is (the potentiality herein for every human life)

Advaita-Vedanta, Mystic Christianity, Buddhism, all talk to the truth of the Whole Self for those whom practice.

Your conception is inaccurate, to say the least.

Where it does differ from the perverted paths, such as Neo-Advaita, and the Do-Nothing schools of thought, is believing one is at Everest when one hasn't even touched base camp. The blog you quoted earlier was quite accurate and at least the guy was honest enough to wake up and realize it wasn't working. Not everyone is so lucky, and the most unfortunate part of that is that they bring other gullible intellectual wannabees into their circle of belief.

jl

Originally Posted by janielee

I find it much better to not try to understand it; and the revelations come over time, rather than box the ineffable/inexplicable in through various understandings that may or may not be accurate, and once boxed, can be hard to unpack.

Alternatively, there are teachers who can enunciate aspects better. Personally, I find JASG on point and accurate for a forum and we're lucky to have him.

Thanks for sharing.

JL

As much as there's an aspect of me that would love to take full and complete credit, I can't.

Nothing I post here is a product of my own intellect. Nor is it Divine Revelation bestowed upon me. It's much more simple and mundane than that.

A short and incomplete list of contributors is Mom, Dad, Sis, Richard Davidson, Jon Kabat-Zinn, Amishi Jha, Peter Russell, John Hagelin, David Chalmers, Donald Hoffman, Sean Carroll, Ethan Siegel, Roger Penrose, Stuart Hameroff, Robert Lawrence Kuhn, Raymond Moody, Bruce Greyson, Jim Tucker, Kim Penberthy, Ed Kelly, Yongey Mingyur Rinpoche, Bruce Lee, Eckhart Tolle, Gary van Warmerdam, Sadhguru, Swamis Vivekananda, Sarvapriyananda & Tadatmananda and many members of this forum and various friends.

I simply juxtapose their musings against my own experience, and where I both understand and experience synergy and it resonates with my understanding and experience, that is the confluence of many streams that informs my posts.

The one thing I will say is a good deal of meditation has brought about enough clarity of mind where the synergistic and resonating confluences stand out. I suppose that might be considered an insight?

I stand on the shoulders of not only Giants, but many ordinary folks too. It's truly a group effort, though at times unruly. LOL!