Ego/Selfish Is GOOD!

Originally Posted by JustASimpleGuy

Up until fairly recently I never gave ego much thought aside from practicing mindfulness meditation the last decade or so. I've done considerable work on awareness and attention and it has paid off. The territory of mind is very familiar and I'm much less prone to its habits. "I", whichever "I" I'm speaking about, has veto power, so to speak. I chalk it up to neuroplasticity.

As I've said elsewhere I'm only vaguely familiar with Jung's work and I suppose I largely agree except I'm not exactly sure where he places consciousness. I'm more interested in and familiar with the Samkhya model and specifically the Advaita view, so whenever I use ego or ego-self consider it Ahamkara. Most aren't familiar with the latter so I often use the prior in discussion.

I even agree with the reductive materialist view that the mind-body is an extraordinary deterministic biological machine. That from the perspective of the mind-body consciousness and free will are illusions. An emergent quality of the brain's complexity and Ahamkara's function to appropriate, integrate. There are some convincing experiments supporting the view free will is an illusion, however consciousness is still a mystery to the sciences.

Where I will differ with the scientific line is on consciousness. I don't think it's local, an emergent quality of the brain's complexity. I think it's non-local and something much more fundamental and what we perceive as consciousness is just its reflection or illumination, but Ahamkara says "It's mine". "I am conscious". That is the nexus of what I would call the ego-self.

My view is on one level consciousness is an illusion but on another level, a more fundamental level, Consciousness is as real as it gets and therein lies the potential for true free will.

We can discuss and thrash it out ad nauseum and that's okay. I'm the curious type and willing to change my opinion if a counter-argument is convincing enough upon examination and contemplation. That being said the rubber doesn't meet the road until it's put into practice and one can examine the results, and not only for the practitioner but also loved ones, friends, coworkers, acquaintances and even strangers. To me this seems the opposite of dissociation.

After 40+ years of putting Roman Catholicism aside and wandering in agnosticism I recently chose a path, study the underlying philosophy and principles and engage its practices. Let's just say I'm content with the result thus far.

Speaking of Karma and its implication (reincarnation) have you come across the research being carried out at UVA DOPS? https://youtu.be/ZoqNe-U53wA?t=3807

I bookmarked the segment on reincarnation but there are also segments on NDEs, mindfulness and experimental parapsychology.

Initially I came to Spirituality because I wanted to know what made me tick, it was leading that way anyway with lots of synchronicities that I couldn't ignore. Around the same time I was working as a computer trainer in IT and saw a very different side of Life. Here we are today.

To me it doesn't matter what dictionary you use, it's all the same anyway. Either way the understanding is the same, just from a slightly different cultural perspective. I can work with both, anmd Jung based his model of the ego on Ahamkara anyway - apparently he was well-versed in Eastern religion/philosophy.

Free will isn't so much of an illusion, according to one psychology theory any choices you make are made by a committee of sorts in your head, and depending on the factors of the choice will depend on th factors involved. What does happen is that unconscious 'subsystems' are always in play and they can affect your conscious at any given time - one of these being your cognitive behaviour or what Spirituality calls Right Thinking. So while it's unconscious and means we can't access it directly - hence the perceptiuon of a lack of Free Will - it can be influenced via the ego that the conscious and unconscious 'share'. While we may not have as much Free Will as we thought, it is possible to have more.

The jury is very much out on what consciousnes actually is, and there are teams of very well educaterd people studying it both scientifically and Spiritually. The one thing that most agree on is that they can't agree on it. Jung's take on consciousness is that it comes from nowhere, he doesn't actually specify any single source. What he does say is that it's an activity or function that maintains the relationship between the psychic contents - both conscioius and unconscious - and the ego. Other than that science is at odds with itself on what consciousness is or isn't. Just to add something else into the mix, Hamerof and Penorse seem to think consciousness is quantum and Hamerof has discovered quantum-capable microtubules in the brain that have been shilded from the electircal signals.

Personally I think that consciousness is both local and non-local, emergent, fundamental and all-encompassing at the same time. I've experienced some very stange things as regards consciousness and it's difficult to say "Consciousness is this ..." when I've had a few contradictory experiences. According to Jung the ego (and therefore Ahamkara) can say that consciousness is mine because the ego/Ahamkara is at the centre of consciousness. That's not the full story though, because the self includes the ego and it's conscious, as well as the unconscious and its contents. In Jung's model the ego and the self are two very different beasties. The question is, what do you consider as non-local? Non-local to the ego or non-local to the self? Because if you are not taking the unconscious into account here then you're talking about ego-consciousness and not the self.

This is why I don't use the term "ego-self", because it only confuses me when the ego and the self are stuck together. My question is what is the self conscious of, if that is the right word? If we go beyond 'normal' consciousness of the ego, are we becoming conscious of the self?

For me consciousness seems to be both fundamental and epiphenomenal, it's the source, end result and what's always present in another 'layer' of our existence. And consciousness itself comes in layers, because every time I think "OK consciousness, I've nailed you tail," it moves one layer up and what I've thought was consciousness was what I'd become conscioous of. What I want to know is, what is Jungian self/Atman 'aware' of, if 'aware' is the right word? I am conscious that there are unconscious 'subsystems' at work and I'm aware of their 'results' because they [lay their part in my ego. I can influence them somewhat because there's a feedback loop between my ego and those 'subsystems' but for the most part they are beyond the ken of my ego, but what of the Jungian self/Atman? How oes 'he' perceive that 'bigger picture me?'

In Africa there's a saying -"Ubuntu." It means "I am because we are." There's much Spirituality to gain in understanding that saying that is often missed in these forums, in the heat of the theoretical and ideological discussions that's where the rubber meets the road. becoming besties with ourselves first and foremost would be a good place to start, because what often comes though in the discussion of the ego is that it's a 'measure' of how much we like ourselves. Or not.

There's been a lot of activity around what's oftenj regarded as Spiritual by the scientific community, there's a critical mass building up that is becoming increasingly more difficult to ignore. What's often been fringe/bonkers science is becoming more mainstream, so maybe sometime in the future someone will invent a Spiritometer. I've seen that video before but thanks anyway, and way back I saw the video of the little guy who had the experience and his talk with the pilots who flew with 'him' on that mission. They were convinced. Not long after that he calmed down and became less obsessed, as though the ghost of his previous incarnation was at peace.

Originally Posted by Greenslade

Initially I came to Spirituality because I wanted to know what made me tick, it was leading that way anyway with lots of synchronicities that I couldn't ignore. Around the same time I was working as a computer trainer in IT and saw a very different side of Life. Here we are today.

To me it doesn't matter what dictionary you use, it's all the same anyway. Either way the understanding is the same, just from a slightly different cultural perspective. I can work with both, anmd Jung based his model of the ego on Ahamkara anyway - apparently he was well-versed in Eastern religion/philosophy.

Free will isn't so much of an illusion, according to one psychology theory any choices you make are made by a committee of sorts in your head, and depending on the factors of the choice will depend on th factors involved. What does happen is that unconscious 'subsystems' are always in play and they can affect your conscious at any given time - one of these being your cognitive behaviour or what Spirituality calls Right Thinking. So while it's unconscious and means we can't access it directly - hence the perceptiuon of a lack of Free Will - it can be influenced via the ego that the conscious and unconscious 'share'. While we may not have as much Free Will as we thought, it is possible to have more.

The jury is very much out on what consciousnes actually is, and there are teams of very well educaterd people studying it both scientifically and Spiritually. The one thing that most agree on is that they can't agree on it. Jung's take on consciousness is that it comes from nowhere, he doesn't actually specify any single source. What he does say is that it's an activity or function that maintains the relationship between the psychic contents - both conscioius and unconscious - and the ego. Other than that science is at odds with itself on what consciousness is or isn't. Just to add something else into the mix, Hamerof and Penorse seem to think consciousness is quantum and Hamerof has discovered quantum-capable microtubules in the brain that have been shilded from the electircal signals.

Personally I think that consciousness is both local and non-local, emergent, fundamental and all-encompassing at the same time. I've experienced some very stange things as regards consciousness and it's difficult to say "Consciousness is this ..." when I've had a few contradictory experiences. According to Jung the ego (and therefore Ahamkara) can say that consciousness is mine because the ego/Ahamkara is at the centre of consciousness. That's not the full story though, because the self includes the ego and it's conscious, as well as the unconscious and its contents. In Jung's model the ego and the self are two very different beasties. The question is, what do you consider as non-local? Non-local to the ego or non-local to the self? Because if you are not taking the unconscious into account here then you're talking about ego-consciousness and not the self.

This is why I don't use the term "ego-self", because it only confuses me when the ego and the self are stuck together. My question is what is the self conscious of, if that is the right word? If we go beyond 'normal' consciousness of the ego, are we becoming conscious of the self?

For me consciousness seems to be both fundamental and epiphenomenal, it's the source, end result and what's always present in another 'layer' of our existence. And consciousness itself comes in layers, because every time I think "OK consciousness, I've nailed you tail," it moves one layer up and what I've thought was consciousness was what I'd become conscioous of. What I want to know is, what is Jungian self/Atman 'aware' of, if 'aware' is the right word? I am conscious that there are unconscious 'subsystems' at work and I'm aware of their 'results' because they [lay their part in my ego. I can influence them somewhat because there's a feedback loop between my ego and those 'subsystems' but for the most part they are beyond the ken of my ego, but what of the Jungian self/Atman? How oes 'he' perceive that 'bigger picture me?'

In Africa there's a saying -"Ubuntu." It means "I am because we are." There's much Spirituality to gain in understanding that saying that is often missed in these forums, in the heat of the theoretical and ideological discussions that's where the rubber meets the road. becoming besties with ourselves first and foremost would be a good place to start, because what often comes though in the discussion of the ego is that it's a 'measure' of how much we like ourselves. Or not.

There's been a lot of activity around what's oftenj regarded as Spiritual by the scientific community, there's a critical mass building up that is becoming increasingly more difficult to ignore. What's often been fringe/bonkers science is becoming more mainstream, so maybe sometime in the future someone will invent a Spiritometer. I've seen that video before but thanks anyway, and way back I saw the video of the little guy who had the experience and his talk with the pilots who flew with 'him' on that mission. They were convinced. Not long after that he calmed down and became less obsessed, as though the ghost of his previous incarnation was at peace.

I think of consciousness in the Advaita sense. That fundamentally it's non-local and locally epiphenomenal in the sense what we experience as consciousness is just a reflection or manifestation of the fundamental aspect. Now whether that's microtubiles entangled with collapse of the wave function who knows, but my intuition is if that is the case that's even epiphenomenal of something more fundamental. How far down the rabbit hole it goes is anyone's guess and I suspect it can never be fully know, just like the search for a Theory of Everything. That being said it's still worthy of investigation.

Free will... I understand the issues with Libet’s work and I'm more inclined to subscribe to what you described. That is much of what we think of as conscious volitional activity has a very large component of the subconscious involved, so much of it is actually conditioned habit orchestrated below the level of consciousness before integration. It's why I've devoted a good amount of time to mindfulness because in my opinion at the very least it gives the conscious aspect more volition. There's less habitual reactivity. In neuroscientific terms call it taking advantage of neuroplasiticty. In Vedantic terms call it reshaping the Samskaras. Smoothing out the old impressions and laying down new impressions.

Getting back to the topic of this thread, I don't thing ego, Ahamkara, whatever we want to use is bad or good. It's both. So is neuroplasticity as it conditions, reconditions and unconditions. I suppose a good approach is to simply be in wiser relationship but that begs the question of the nexus of the components of that relationship. Again I take the Advaita perspective and because it suits me and quite well. It works for me and the results are tangible and not only for me.

Advaita, at least of the Ramakrishna school, views all paths as valid. That's another aspect that resonates with me and why I took up a traditional system after over 40 years of agnosticism. All roads lead to Rome. Eventually.

Originally Posted by JustASimpleGuy

I think of consciousness in the Advaita sense. That fundamentally it's non-local and locally epiphenomenal in the sense what we experience as consciousness is just a reflection or manifestation of the fundamental aspect. Now whether that's microtubiles entangled with collapse of the wave function who knows, but my intuition is if that is the case that's even epiphenomenal of something more fundamental. How far down the rabbit hole it goes is anyone's guess and I suspect it can never be fully know, just like the search for a Theory of Everything. That being said it's still worthy of investigation.

Free will... I understand the issues with Libet’s work and I'm more inclined to subscribe to what you described. That is much of what we think of as conscious volitional activity has a very large component of the subconscious involved, so much of it is actually conditioned habit orchestrated below the level of consciousness before integration. It's why I've devoted a good amount of time to mindfulness because in my opinion at the very least it gives the conscious aspect more volition. There's less habitual reactivity. In neuroscientific terms call it taking advantage of neuroplasiticty. In Vedantic terms call it reshaping the Samskaras. Smoothing out the old impressions and laying down new impressions.

Getting back to the topic of this thread, I don't thing ego, Ahamkara, whatever we want to use is bad or good. It's both. So is neuroplasticity as it conditions, reconditions and unconditions. I suppose a good approach is to simply be in wiser relationship but that begs the question of the nexus of the components of that relationship. Again I take the Advaita perspective and because it suits me and quite well. It works for me and the results are tangible and not only for me.

Advaita, at least of the Ramakrishna school, views all paths as valid. That's another aspect that resonates with me and why I took up a traditional system after over 40 years of agnosticism. All roads lead to Rome. Eventually.

There are still a lot of things that rattle around in my noggin so I just keep an open mind, even thought there have been some great advances in neuroscience and other areas of human understanding the consciousness is still a huge area of mystery.

After my car accident I was gievn two rounds of cognitive behaviour therapy, what that does is takes one idea/thought/concept at a time and dismantles the framework peice by piece. Not only does it take you down the rabbit hole of everything in your head, it also puts the rabbit hole and the reasons you've dug it to the question. The basic idea is to see things from a different perspective and change perceptions of it to something more constructive. Whgat it does is it dismantles both the old impressioins and allows you to see them from a very different perception, that can help you recreate the frameworks to produce something entirely different. So you're not recreating impressions you're rebuilding the machinery that makes them.

Your cognitive behaviour - yes, everybody has their own frameworks - is essentially how you think about things and the reasons you think it. What you're saying about giving your conscious more volition is positive/constructive cognitive behaviour - Jung said that when you make the unconscious conscsious you become more conscious. An example of negative/destructive cognitive behaviour would be you saying that psychology has nothing to do with Spirituality yet you psychoanalyse the ego anyway like you're an expert. What so many awake and aware Spiritual people haven't quite worked out yet is that the discussion of the ego is psychoanalysis. It's also negative/destructive cognitive behaviour.

Neuroplasticity is what happens when you use the brain in the same way over and over again - like learning to ride a bike or drive. The brain has to figure out how to coordinate both arms and legs to create balance or get the timng right so the gears don't crunch. Those take the creation of new neural pathways and with enough muscle habit the pathways become established, riding and driving become second nature. Mindfulness is creating new pathways if it's not a usual practice for you and in time neuroplasticity will establish new pathways, you'll be doing it without thinking. Mindfullness - and more specifically "Right Thinking" as the ancients called it - is coming into positive/constructive cognitive behaviour patterns. Chitta or Lower Mind is roughtly parallel to negative/destructive cognitiver behaviour.

Getting back to this thread, strictly-speaking there is no such 'thing' as the ego and it is what it is, good or bad are individual judgements and (if applicable) prejudices of individual expression. Jung says that the ego is "A sense of I am" so your ego is how you perceive yourself - same for everybody. That's the most simple way of understanding it. When you understand that in a Spiritual context it completely changes how you perceive yourself, because it completely changes your perspective. You are YOUR creation so if you don't like your ego very much then......


If there's something wrong with someone else's Spirituality then there's something wrong with ours, we're all the same "What?" but a very different "How?" If we can't see that then how Spiritual are we really?

Originally Posted by Greenslade

If there's something wrong with someone else's Spirituality then there's something wrong with ours, we're all the same "What?" but a very different "How?" If we can't see that then how Spiritual are we really?

Before entering the cave on Dagobah Luke asks Yoda "What's in there?" and Yoda answers "Only what you take with you.".

From the Advaita perspective the "What" is consciousness (Sat-Chit-Ananda) and the "How" is Maya. Different traditions have different perspectives as does science and they're all valid in and of themselves and from their own perspectives. The details are but models and incomplete models at that. Different paths delving for the same truth each in their own way, because of and within the limitations of Maya.

[MikeS80]

Originally Posted by JustASimpleGuy

Up until fairly recently I never gave ego much thought aside from practicing mindfulness meditation the last decade or so. I've done considerable work on awareness and attention and it has paid off. The territory of mind is very familiar and I'm much less prone to its habits. "I", whichever "I" I'm speaking about, has veto power, so to speak. I chalk it up to neuroplasticity.

As I've said elsewhere I'm only vaguely familiar with Jung's work and I suppose I largely agree except I'm not exactly sure where he places consciousness. I'm more interested in and familiar with the Samkhya model and specifically the Advaita view, so whenever I use ego or ego-self consider it Ahamkara. Most aren't familiar with the latter so I often use the prior in discussion.

I even agree with the reductive materialist view that the mind-body is an extraordinary deterministic biological machine. That from the perspective of the mind-body consciousness and free will are illusions. An emergent quality of the brain's complexity and Ahamkara's function to appropriate, integrate. There are some convincing experiments supporting the view free will is an illusion, however consciousness is still a mystery to the sciences.

Where I will differ with the scientific line is on consciousness. I don't think it's local, an emergent quality of the brain's complexity. I think it's non-local and something much more fundamental and what we perceive as consciousness is just its reflection or illumination, but Ahamkara says "It's mine". "I am conscious". That is the nexus of what I would call the ego-self.

My view is on one level consciousness is an illusion but on another level, a more fundamental level, Consciousness is as real as it gets and therein lies the potential for true free will.

We can discuss and thrash it out ad nauseum and that's okay. I'm the curious type and willing to change my opinion if a counter-argument is convincing enough upon examination and contemplation. That being said the rubber doesn't meet the road until it's put into practice and one can examine the results, and not only for the practitioner but also loved ones, friends, coworkers, acquaintances and even strangers. To me this seems the opposite of dissociation.

After 40+ years of putting Roman Catholicism aside and wandering in agnosticism I recently chose a path, study the underlying philosophy and principles and engage its practices. Let's just say I'm content with the result thus far.

Speaking of Karma and its implication (reincarnation) have you come across the research being carried out at UVA DOPS? https://youtu.be/ZoqNe-U53wA?t=3807

I bookmarked the segment on reincarnation but there are also segments on NDEs, mindfulness and experimental parapsychology.

Ahamkara is the identifying with or attachment to one's false and imagined ego or sense of self/I am. An ego/sense of self/I am that is lined up with atman, thus brahman is not ahamkara/a false imagined sense of ego/I am.

[MikeS80]

Originally Posted by JustASimpleGuy

Up until fairly recently I never gave ego much thought aside from practicing mindfulness meditation the last decade or so. I've done considerable work on awareness and attention and it has paid off. The territory of mind is very familiar and I'm much less prone to its habits. "I", whichever "I" I'm speaking about, has veto power, so to speak. I chalk it up to neuroplasticity.

As I've said elsewhere I'm only vaguely familiar with Jung's work and I suppose I largely agree except I'm not exactly sure where he places consciousness. I'm more interested in and familiar with the Samkhya model and specifically the Advaita view, so whenever I use ego or ego-self consider it Ahamkara. Most aren't familiar with the latter so I often use the prior in discussion.

I even agree with the reductive materialist view that the mind-body is an extraordinary deterministic biological machine. That from the perspective of the mind-body consciousness and free will are illusions. An emergent quality of the brain's complexity and Ahamkara's function to appropriate, integrate. There are some convincing experiments supporting the view free will is an illusion, however consciousness is still a mystery to the sciences.

Where I will differ with the scientific line is on consciousness. I don't think it's local, an emergent quality of the brain's complexity. I think it's non-local and something much more fundamental and what we perceive as consciousness is just its reflection or illumination, but Ahamkara says "It's mine". "I am conscious". That is the nexus of what I would call the ego-self.

My view is on one level consciousness is an illusion but on another level, a more fundamental level, Consciousness is as real as it gets and therein lies the potential for true free will.

We can discuss and thrash it out ad nauseum and that's okay. I'm the curious type and willing to change my opinion if a counter-argument is convincing enough upon examination and contemplation. That being said the rubber doesn't meet the road until it's put into practice and one can examine the results, and not only for the practitioner but also loved ones, friends, coworkers, acquaintances and even strangers. To me this seems the opposite of dissociation.

After 40+ years of putting Roman Catholicism aside and wandering in agnosticism I recently chose a path, study the underlying philosophy and principles and engage its practices. Let's just say I'm content with the result thus far.

Speaking of Karma and its implication (reincarnation) have you come across the research being carried out at UVA DOPS? https://youtu.be/ZoqNe-U53wA?t=3807

I bookmarked the segment on reincarnation but there are also segments on NDEs, mindfulness and experimental parapsychology.

Samkhya is about observing facts and truth about the physical universe/the right here and right now and everything in the physical universe/the right here and right now, including the false, imagined and/or true and correct sense of self/I am/ego/body and Advaita is the way of life based on the facts and truth one learned from samkhya- one observing/experiencing and learning from the physical universe/the right here and right now .

Sat-Chit-Ananda is "experience" of the ultimate unchanging reality of the right here and right now, also known as brahman is based on subjectivity/the imagination-allows one to internally subjectively imagine ultimate reality before he/she actually observes and experiences ultimate reality outside of him/her self, which Samkhya will lead him/her to.

Edit: the above brings us to the topic of atman. Atman is not just or only consciousness (if you want to use that word). Atman includes/ is also the ego, mind and body, and consciousness, ego/mind, and body makes atman whole/one. Atman is not whole/one when you omit/dismiss any of the above.

Originally Posted by MikeS80

Samkhya is about observing facts and truth about the physical universe/the right here and right now and everything in the physical universe/the right here and right now, including the false, imagined and/or true and correct sense of self/I am/ego/body and Advaita is the way of life based on the facts and truth one learned from samkhya- one observing/experiencing and learning from the physical universe/the right here and right now .

Sat-Chit-Ananda is "experience" of the ultimate unchanging reality of the right here and right now, also known as brahman is based on subjectivity/the imagination-allows one to internally subjectively imagine ultimate reality before he/she actually observes and experiences ultimate reality outside of him/her self, which Samkhya will lead him/her to.

Edit: the above brings us to the topic of atman. Atman is not just or only consciousness (if you want to use that word). Atman includes/ is also the ego, mind and body, and consciousness, ego/mind, and body makes atman whole/one. Atman is not whole/one when you omit/dismiss any of the above.

Samkhya is one of the Hindu schools of philosophy as is Advaita. One is not the other and Advaita just uses Samkhya's model of psychology as do the other Hindu schools of philosophy. Aside from that it's apples and oranges. Samkhya is dualistic and Advaita is non-dualistic. They are fundamentally different philosophies.

Sat-Chit-Ananda is Brahman.

Atman is Brahman.

In Advaita philosophy Atman/Brahman/Sat-Chit-Ananda is whole. No need for jivas, gross bodies, subtle bodies or causal bodies which are all of Maya. The prior is the "real" and the latter the "unreal". Maya projects the "unreal" and veils the "real" from it. Another way to think of it is there's nothing more or less in waking and dreaming reality than there is in deep dreamless sleep.

Space and time are also Maya and from that we can conclude so is the here and now, the present moment. Everything is Maya including the universe, galaxies, stars, planets, us, experience, all of it. It's all a movie playing for an audience of One. That's the Advaita perspective. It's unqualified non-dualism, meaning Brahman without attributes.

It's an uncomfortable perspective for the I-maker, but that's okay because there are many philosophies to choose from, they are all beneficial and all can lead to same end and that's liberation. It's my opinion the most important thing is to find the philosophy that best suits the individual and go with it because there's less chance for cognitive dissonance and a greater chance of realizing liberation.

[MikeS80]

Originally Posted by JustASimpleGuy

Samkhya is one of the Hindu schools of philosophy as is Advaita. One is not the other and Advaita just uses Samkhya's model of psychology as do the other Hindu schools of philosophy. Aside from that it's apples and oranges. Samkhya is dualistic and Advaita is non-dualistic. They are fundamentally different philosophies.

Sat-Chit-Ananda is Brahman.

Atman is Brahman.

In Advaita philosophy Atman/Brahman/Sat-Chit-Ananda is whole. No need for jivas, gross bodies, subtle bodies or causal bodies which are all of Maya. The prior is the "real" and the latter the "unreal". Maya projects the "unreal" and veils the "real" from it. Another way to think of it is there's nothing more or less in waking and dreaming reality than there is in deep dreamless sleep.

Space and time are also Maya and from that we can conclude so is the here and now, the present moment. Everything is Maya including the universe, galaxies, stars, planets, us, experience, all of it. It's all a movie playing for an audience of One. That's the Advaita perspective. It's unqualified non-dualism, meaning Brahman without attributes.

It's an uncomfortable perspective for the I-maker, but that's okay because there are many philosophies to choose from, they are all beneficial and all can lead to same end and that's liberation. It's my opinion the most important thing is to find the philosophy that best suits the individual and go with it because there's less chance for cognitive dissonance and a greater chance of realizing liberation.

Advaita using Samkhya's model is exactly my point, and no, the right here and right now is beyond mental time and space. This means the right here and right now is neither the past or the future. Both the past and future is mental time. Mental time of the past and the imagination of the future are the illusions. The contents of the mind observes the night and day cycles, and then the contents of the mind identifies/thinks it has a relationship to everything based on the past day and night cycles.

As I said, Sat-Chit-Ananda is a imagination subjectivity view of brahman.

Well, Your unqualified non-duality implies duality/separation (like when you talk about the ego-mind), because when there is non-duality, it's opposite duality always follows. Duality implies separation, non-duality implies individuality that is not separate from non-duality. Non-duality does not reject or dismiss the individual that is an individual but not separate from atman/brahman. This is what atman is and atman is conscious, the ego/mind and the contents thereof and the body. Atman is brahman in physical form. This is how and why everything and everyone is one, not two.

Your imaginary collective view of non-duality is not non-duality because it leaves out the individual (and the individual is a part of non-duality/oneness/wholeness), and all the parts of the individual ie the ego/mind, personality and body is atman as a whole/one. The individual is what observes, learns and experiences as atman/non-duality/oneness/wholeness, the collective does not learn, observe and experience as the individual atman does.

It all boils down to collectivism vs individualism. Collectivism only benefits and empowers a small group of people, while individualism benefits and empowers the masses, so of course the collectivism group of people will think and promote the individual as being selfish and etc to give a reason for their existence and benefit and empowerment at the expense of the individual. It is nothing but an emotional mind game/scam. Rejecting and dimissing the intellect, reason, logic and common sense is propaganda to get people to not use their intellect, reason and common sense, so they do not dismiss and reject collectivism to stop the collective group of people from benefiting and empowering them at their own expense.