Spiritual Forums

Home


Donate!


Articles


CHAT!


Shop


 
Welcome to Spiritual Forums!.

We created this community for people from all backgrounds to discuss Spiritual, Paranormal, Metaphysical, Philosophical, Supernatural, and Esoteric subjects. From Astral Projection to Zen, all topics are welcome. We hope you enjoy your visits.

You are currently viewing our boards as a guest, which gives you limited access to most discussions and articles. By joining our free community you will be able to post messages, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload your own photos, and gain access to our Chat Rooms, Registration is fast, simple, and free, so please, join our community today! !

If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, check our FAQs before contacting support. Please read our forum rules, since they are enforced by our volunteer staff. This will help you avoid any infractions and issues.

Go Back   Spiritual Forums > Spirituality & Beliefs > Non Duality

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #151  
Old 12-08-2020, 12:37 PM
ketzer
Posts: n/a
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by God-Like
Again lots to your post in entirety but if I address this aspect it may shed some light on the rest --

What happens in regards to the start of non existence is through realising (or being) what you are that is beyond I AM .

I AM only exists when there is awareness of I AM . That's stands to reason doesn't it . Of the mind one is always aware of I AM .

What peeps do is they realise what they are that is beyond I AM and automatically conclude that I AM must be illusory or non existent so to speak .

This is the mistake as I see it .

To pass I AM off as an illusion because it alludes to separation is incorrect .

One cannot give up I AM and then continue to experience as no one lol .

There would be no experience if I AM was absent .

This is why when the world ceases to be I AM ceases to be .

This is beyond the sense of oneself, it is beyond awareness of oneself, it is beyond mind and beyond ego .

It becomes twisted and distorted and misunderstood when peeps start to deny their very own sense of self awareness ..

There is either I AM presence or not . To have such a presence and deny it, is as silly as a silly sausage can be .



x daz x

Hehe, I actually did laugh out loud when I read this line.
"One cannot give up I AM and then continue to experience as no one lol ."

But yes, you have explained that as well I expect as someone, who is not noone, could have explained it.
And now no one can say 'you just don't get it.' But that is what no ones always say...or would say if they existed.
.
Reply With Quote
  #152  
Old 12-08-2020, 12:51 PM
MikeS80 MikeS80 is offline
Master
Join Date: Nov 2019
Posts: 1,644
  MikeS80's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by God-Like
Again lots to your post in entirety but if I address this aspect it may shed some light on the rest --

What happens in regards to the start of non existence is through realising (or being) what you are that is beyond I AM .

I AM only exists when there is awareness of I AM . That's stands to reason doesn't it . Of the mind one is always aware of I AM .

What peeps do is they realise what they are that is beyond I AM and automatically conclude that I AM must be illusory or non existent so to speak .

This is the mistake as I see it .

To pass I AM off as an illusion because it alludes to separation is incorrect .

One cannot give up I AM and then continue to experience as no one lol .

There would be no experience if I AM was absent .

This is why when the world ceases to be I AM ceases to be .

This is beyond the sense of oneself, it is beyond awareness of oneself, it is beyond mind and beyond ego .

It becomes twisted and distorted and misunderstood when peeps start to deny their very own sense of self awareness ..

There is either I AM presence or not . To have such a presence and deny it, is as silly as a silly sausage can be .



x daz x
It seems like spiritual people think that when I AM/the SELF ceases to be, these spiritual people will experience or reach, oneness, bliss, and enlightenment, and this is contradictory and is chasing a dream, which will never happen because it is not possible.
__________________
"Not-being was this in the beginning; From it arose. Self-fashioned indeed out of itself." -Upanishads

Heaven, Earth, and I were produced together; and all things and I are one." -Chang Tzu

"It is from the nameless that Heaven and Earth sprang." -Tao Te Ching
Reply With Quote
  #153  
Old 12-08-2020, 01:06 PM
ketzer
Posts: n/a
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by MikeS80
So you think the ego is only the individuality of the mind? What about physical abuse, and neglect?

I am sure an infant is aware/conscious of his/her individual physical body is wet, soiled, cold and hungry. And an infant believes everything his/her parents say as truth. The individual body is the self/SELF as much as the mental sense of I/self/SELF is, hence the mind-body connection.

Edit: the sense of self/SELF, conditioned or tainted with fear or not is the individual, both physically and mentally.

I expect there is not much to be gained from this interaction as we are operating from two different paradigms. It seems to me that you are envisioning the ego as an integral part of the human at birth. And reflexive reactions of the body as happenings that are the doings of that mind contained in that body, that has or is that ego. Doings of 'choice' of an I, that exists from birth and is that doer. Perhaps even that the ego existed prior to birth and associated itself to the body at birth?? IDK. Almost like the ego is a part of the soul. If so, that is not a wrong paradigm, but is a different one then the one I am using here.

I do not see the body as the self, nor do I see the ego as the self. Both of these things are transitory, always changing. Yes the mind comes to identify itself with first the body and then the ego as a part of the life experience, but that is a process of identification. Those things become identified with the self during life to the point where during the life experience, they may come to feel as if they are only what self is. And many a materialist may argue that indeed they are, that self itself is temporary and transitory and will cease to exist at death. If so, then I suppose at death the self will indeed become no one.

An infant cannot understand nor believe anything it's parents say. It is still at the early stages of pairing auditory nerve signal patters with other nerve signal patterns and trying to look for consistent correlations. Based on which it will build an internal picture of reality, a virtual reality in which it will eventually build a virtual reality avatar of self, that ego model of self from which to view that internal virtual world as a separate self. A virtual reality world in which it will live out its entire life. More often then not, the human will live out its life believing that the ego avatar is itself, and that the self created virtual world it is living as that avatar in, is really something out there, something physical and separate from itself. Believing it to be an objective reality that exists independent of itself. Never really questioning any of it because it seems so much like common sense, and that is the resounding opinion of most of its kind.
Reply With Quote
  #154  
Old 12-08-2020, 02:51 PM
MikeS80 MikeS80 is offline
Master
Join Date: Nov 2019
Posts: 1,644
  MikeS80's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by ketzer
I expect there is not much to be gained from this interaction as we are operating from two different paradigms. It seems to me that you are envisioning the ego as an integral part of the human at birth. And reflexive reactions of the body as happenings that are the doings of that mind contained in that body, that has or is that ego. Doings of 'choice' of an I, that exists from birth and is that doer. Perhaps even that the ego existed prior to birth and associated itself to the body at birth?? IDK. Almost like the ego is a part of the soul. If so, that is not a wrong paradigm, but is a different one then the one I am using here.

I do not see the body as the self, nor do I see the ego as the self. Both of these things are transitory, always changing. Yes the mind comes to identify itself with first the body and then the ego as a part of the life experience, but that is a process of identification. Those things become identified with the self during life to the point where during the life experience, they may come to feel as if they are only what self is. And many a materialist may argue that indeed they are, that self itself is temporary and transitory and will cease to exist at death. If so, then I suppose at death the self will indeed become no one.

An infant cannot understand nor believe anything it's parents say. It is still at the early stages of pairing auditory nerve signal patters with other nerve signal patterns and trying to look for consistent correlations. Based on which it will build an internal picture of reality, a virtual reality in which it will eventually build a virtual reality avatar of self, that ego model of self from which to view that internal virtual world as a separate self. A virtual reality world in which it will live out its entire life. More often then not, the human will live out its life believing that the ego avatar is itself, and that the self created virtual world it is living as that avatar in, is really something out there, something physical and separate from itself. Believing it to be an objective reality that exists independent of itself. Never really questioning any of it because it seems so much like common sense, and that is the resounding opinion of most of its kind.
You are basicly saying that I think fear, pain and suffering are an integral part of the human at birth, when I do think that...

I simply accept that the ego/the mentally, emotionally and physically conditioned sense of self/I am just happens/forms in the self/I am whom has experiences of fear, pain and suffering. Physical pain, suffering and discomfort is both physical and mental for the self/I am.

An infant does not and cannot think I AM because the infant does not know how to use words to speak/talk at all yet, let alone say I AM. The infant can only feel the presence of his/her individual physical presence/existence.

Try and practice feeling your own presence of your individual physical presence/existence in the present moment/eternal right here and right now. You feeling your own presence of your individual physical presence/existence in the present moment/eternal right here and right now is all there is!

Thoughts and thinking requires a person to use words, or to put it in another way, thoughts and thinking are nothing except words in our minds.

It is not a matter if an infant has a sense of physical or mental self or not, it is a matter of the infant learning to speak.
__________________
"Not-being was this in the beginning; From it arose. Self-fashioned indeed out of itself." -Upanishads

Heaven, Earth, and I were produced together; and all things and I are one." -Chang Tzu

"It is from the nameless that Heaven and Earth sprang." -Tao Te Ching
Reply With Quote
  #155  
Old 12-08-2020, 03:06 PM
MikeS80 MikeS80 is offline
Master
Join Date: Nov 2019
Posts: 1,644
  MikeS80's Avatar
Just so everyone knows, Mental and emotional conditioning based on fear, pain and suffering, including that which ignores and escapes your fear, pain and suffering to feel good, pleasure, bliss and etc etc is all subjective/subjectivity and is the same subjective/subjectivity people like JASG preach and promote. The dictionary even tells you this in writing people!
__________________
"Not-being was this in the beginning; From it arose. Self-fashioned indeed out of itself." -Upanishads

Heaven, Earth, and I were produced together; and all things and I are one." -Chang Tzu

"It is from the nameless that Heaven and Earth sprang." -Tao Te Ching
Reply With Quote
  #156  
Old 13-08-2020, 11:08 AM
God-Like God-Like is offline
Master
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 6,731
  God-Like's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by ketzer
Hehe, I actually did laugh out loud when I read this line.
"One cannot give up I AM and then continue to experience as no one lol ."

But yes, you have explained that as well I expect as someone, who is not noone, could have explained it.
And now no one can say 'you just don't get it.' But that is what no ones always say...or would say if they existed.
.

Glad you got a laugh out of it


x daz x
__________________
Everything under the sun is in tune,but the sun is eclipsed by the moon.
Reply With Quote
  #157  
Old 18-08-2020, 10:30 AM
Greenslade Greenslade is offline
Master
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 7,082
  Greenslade's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by MikeS80
Besides, the ego is the fear conditioned/programmed and manipulated self. This is why there is all this negative talk about the ego in spiritual circles, and this is the same spiritual cirlces that do not get it thus misunderstand it.

An infant does not have an ego or sense of self that has been conditioned/programmed and manipulated with fear.
The word 'ego' comes from psychology and it's been well enough documented by both Jung and Freud. Spirituality 'stole' it and redefined it for its own ends, and ended up with a scapegoat to point a finger at so that they could feel better about themselves. That's stereotypical ego. Then comes the psychoanalysis from people who are experts because...... Pick a reason. All that happens is that they become ignorant victims of their own definitions.

If you're going to be Spiritual then the Sanskrit word to use is "Ahamkara," which provided the basis for Jung's work on the ego. Jung was actually well-learned on Sanskrit religious philosophy, more so than the Spiritual people who depict ego as the bad guy. The ancients wouldn't have used a Latin word anyway because it hadn't been invented then. Dontcha just love the irony? In another irony the ancients didn't differentiate religion/philosophy from psychology so the Spirituality of ignoring the understanding of the Jungian ego is not very Spiritual.

Both Aham and ego mean 'I' and Ahamkara is at the basis of this discussion. A kara is an 'invented thing', just like the ego of Spirituality because its basis is the person's false perceptions, agenda or both - https://www.britannica.com/topic/ahamkara

Quote:
Originally Posted by MikeS80
I am sure an infant is aware/conscious of his/her individual physical body is wet, soiled, cold and hungry. And an infant believes everything his/her parents say as truth. The individual body is the self/SELF as much as the mental sense of I/self/SELF is, hence the mind-body connection.
Crying because the child is cold and hungry are largely automatic functions and have little to do with consciousness/awareness, it's not until later in Life that the personality forms and the child becomes conscious/aware that "I am hungry." or "I have a wet backside." Until there is an ego/personality there is no sense of self. Children accept what their parents say because they have not developed a sense of "I am" until later in their childhood - they don't have a personality and their individuation process is very much in the early stages. According to Jung individuation doesn't really occur until much later in life - 20s or 30s. This is why many Spiritual people report an awakening around that time in their Lives, they are 'awake' to their own individuality. In early childhood the individuation process has just begun but the child is just forming their individuality, and as such has no real concept of their own individual beliefs. AS Jung would perhaps describe it, their egos have no 'contents.

Ego death (the 'real one') happens when the ego and its contents 'collapse' into the self, often caused by severe emotional trauma. It leaves the person unable to function so if someone without an ego is functional enough to come into the forum and declare they don't have an ego, they have an ego. This state is what's known in Spirituality as non-differentiated consciousness. It has been achieved by Spiritual adepts in temples as God-like will attest to, but it leaves the adept needing to be spoon-fed and have their nappies changed. Their whole Lives they strive to become what they already were.

If you want to understand this -

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ssuDqtUcKEw
and
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uhAeXyVDDTc


What you do with those links, or not, will give you an insight into your ego. And returning to the OP, doing and happening occur within the sphere of the differentiated ego-consciousness. In doing, the ego-consciousness assumes agency while happening can assume external agency.
__________________
"Take your legacy and understand what has gone before. Make a new tomorrow in Love, Light and Faith."
Reply With Quote
  #158  
Old 09-01-2021, 02:39 PM
no1wakesup no1wakesup is offline
Experiencer
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 290
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Uday_Advaita
Doing and Happening

Eckhart Tolle has famously said in his book – The Power of Now:

1. “Doing and Happening are NOT different.”

More than 2500 years ago, the Master Gautam Buddha said it differently:

2. “Events happen, deeds get done, there is no individual doer thereof.”

It takes a while for the profoundness of the above teachings to sink in. I have been struck with the simplicity and depth of these teachings and if I were to put forth my takeaways / experiential understanding, it would be:


a) Every Doing is a happening because if an Event is to happen, the necessary effort will also happen.
b) Conversely every Happening may not be a doing by someone as Events do happen naturally
c) Events happen, regardless of whatever efforts you may take to prevent them from happening.
d) Events do not happen, regardless of whatever efforts you may take to make them happen.
e) All actions / non-actions, doings or no-doings, that originate from humans do not need to pass the test of Good or Bad, Right or Wrong, as these are part of (but not separate from) the totality of functioning of this phenomenal World.
f) Feeling Guilty, Blaming yourself or the “Other”, Judging the ‘Other” as right or wrong for something done or not done either by you or by the Other – would only lead to strife and disharmony.
g) You will never ever get answer to the question – “Why” something happened or did not happen. The simplest answer is “Why not”, - in other words – acceptance of “what is” at this moment will remove all your doubts
h) Total conviction of the above teaching would lead to lasting peace and harmony.

As I usually say at the end of my post – Easier said than done.

Namaskar

Doing is all physical effort.
Happening is the conceptual interpretation.
Both come together as experience.
An experience assumed and recorded by someone there as identity in time and space. This produces an anchored conditioning unable to see that both are no different.

No effort can be there without observing it as "happening". And no happening can be there without the "effort" necessary to fill in the pages of the story.
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 07:20 AM.


Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
(c) Spiritual Forums