If you want to understand the dream analogy...

[Still_Waters]

QUOTE 88 EXCERPT:

Originally Posted by Greenslade

We are already the two that is one, the one that is two.
I've never understood the reason Spiritual people use the word 'ego',
The ego does not create separation, the ego is differentiated consciousness

May I ask what led you to the conclusion that you stated in the first of several lines that I quoted above? ("We are already the two that is one, the one that is two.")

Coming from a Roman Catholic background, that would never even have entered my mind ...... until .... I had a mind-boggling, life-transforming NDE over 50 years ago that redirected me eastward and into meditation. During that NDE, I could see the vast panorama of existence from a different perspective (one that can be discovered in meditation) and that is why I often refer to "switching between the two" .

I can understand why spiritual people would use the term "ego" as they attempt to relate to people who think in terms of modern psychology. Ramana Maharshi referred to the mind as "a bundle of thoughts". There is a point where the use of ANY words becomes inadequate.

I agree with you that the "ego" does NOT of itself create separation. My sense is that the IDENTIFICATION with one's "bundle of thoughts" is what creates that limited sense of separation between the "bundle of thoughts" with which one identifies and everything else. One can therefore have the same "bundle of thoughts" but not identify with them in which case there is no perceived separation.

Originally Posted by Still_Waters

May I ask what led you to the conclusion that you stated in the first of several lines that I quoted above? ("We are already the two that is one, the one that is two.")

What I was referring to is -
"That is an interesting point as one starts to rely more and more on the Absolute-Self-conscious-Reality than on the little separatist "ego" (one's role on the stage of Life). One must be able to shift between the two. That is an interesting point as one starts to rely more and more on the Absolute-Self-conscious-Reality than on the little separatist "ego" (one's role on the stage of Life). One must be able to shift between the two."

We are both the ego and the self consciousness at the same time, ego consciousness is a part of the self as is the unconscious. Absolute Reality is both relative/perceptual reality and Absolute reality, the interesting thing is that Absolute Reality can have be conscious of the changing relative/perceptual reality via the ego, and still be Absolute and unchanging. It means the same thing in both Spirituality and psychology, barring translations.

Most think in terms of 'this' and 'that' which is Duality, but there is 'this', there 'that' and there is 'both'. Our 'nature' of you like is both relative and Absolute reality.

In modern psychology there is the ego and its 'contents' and what most people refer to as the ego is the 'contents' rather than the ego itself. There is a difference that's related to Spiritual understandings. What happens usually in a "What is the ego?" thread is that the ego is defined as the bad guy, people need something to identify with and so they create an idyllic self. Yet none of the Self Aware people are aware that the whole process IS their ego. For the most part psychology is shunned by Spiritual people.

Certainly from my perspective understanding the part that psychology plays in Spirituality has made huge difference, Spirituality is the "What? and psychology is the "How?". Understanding which is what and how they are related means being able to separate Spirituality and psychology, u8mderstand them 'individually' then put them back into their relationships.

Depending on how you look at it, the thinker and the thoughts are one and the same or the thinker is the thought that thinks it's the thinker. Or since this is a dream analogy thread the same applies. And yes, it is about identification but if you are not aware of that process? That's where psychology meets Spirituality.

So who are you, when you are not?

[Still_Waters]

QUOTE 90 EXCERPT:

Originally Posted by JustASimpleGuy

From the Mandukya Karika verse 2.32. https://shiningworld.com/wp-content/...kya_karika.pdf

Shankara reportedly said that, if one could read one and only one Upanishad, it should be the Mandukya Upanishad. That was my inspiration (supported by other traditions as well) for practicing "conscious sleep".

Gaudapada's Karika is also very worthwhile, as I discovered at Swami Sarvapriyananda's discourses on it at the Vedanta Society in NYC.

[Still_Waters]

QUOTE 92 EXCERPT:

Originally Posted by Greenslade

Our 'nature' .... is both relative and Absolute reality.

That is precisely the point stated quite concisely.

[God-Like]

Originally Posted by Still_Waters

Ramana has spoken about the legendary Dakshinamurti Shiva who taught in complete and utter silence to his four disciples. When asked about the meaning of teaching in silence, Ramana responded that there is actually nothing to learn, discuss, or conclude. Hence, the silence ... and hence my response.

It's funny when I ask certain questions, I either get ignored, or I get a question rather than an answer Now I am getting the silent treatment from you in reflection of what Ramana said once upon a time ..

You see, it's not so much about there is nothing to learn, it's rather more there is no-one present to learn anything ..

If the foundation doesn't entertain there is anyone present primarily then what becomes secondary is totally irrelevant .

You spent decades learning the teachings of other teacher/s and speak about life and reality in reflection of them but don't answer a fundamental question based upon the foundation of life and self as a complete reflection of each other .

Of each other be it the same, there has to be a fundamental foundation .

Do you see why it makes no sense to me to hear people speak about life and self and reality and promote and quote their favourite teachers and ignore a very straight forward question time and time again?



x daz x

[MikeS80]

Originally Posted by God-Like

It's funny when I ask certain questions, I either get ignored, or I get a question rather than an answer Now I am getting the silent treatment from you in reflection of what Ramana said once upon a time ..

It seems like the issue is that the silent treatment creates more questions and unknowns that it answers for the average non-guru type of people, as in you and I.

It will be more constructive to tell people that they will learn more, from the self and with less resistence in silence/with a still mind than without silence/a still mind, instead of giving people the silent treatment. I do not know why people whom knows this do not want to discuss this and give others the silent treatment. Do they do this because they do not want to get a negative response from others or to keep others ignorant. I mean most people will not learn this on their own.

[Still_Waters]

QUOTE 95 EXCERPT:

Originally Posted by God-Like

You spent decades learning the teachings of other teacher/s and speak about life and reality in reflection of them but don't answer a fundamental question based upon the foundation of life and self as a complete reflection of each other .

I have answered your question, but you have not understood.

My response to you was meant to be a very high compliment, but I am now wondering whether I am mistaken based on your latest post which appears to be quite insulting by insinuating that I just quote others. Nothing could be further from the Truth. Apparently,you need inadequate words to satisfy yourself.

I am responding to this post in silence, but it is a different silence than before.

Attachment 3010

[God-Like]

Originally Posted by Still_Waters

QUOTE 95 EXCERPT: I have answered your question, but you have not understood.. Nothing could be further from the Truth. Apparently,you need inadequate words to satisfy yourself.

I am responding to this post in silence, but it is a different silence than before.

I am sorry to say I didn't see a compliment in your words, I asked several straightforward questions and had no answers to them ..

All I got from your post was a reference to silence .. when an answer to the question/s would of made more sense to me ..

For people to quote teachers and masters and put them on a pedestal when they are simply illusory egoic dream characters that don't actually exist as an real individual makes no sense when they use their teachings as a crutch to lean on .

This is and has been my point all along, but people don't respond in kind and explain themselves other than to quote more teachers and ignore the point made ..

Again, I am sorry if you felt insulted but I would of rather of just had a straightforward answer to my questions rather than a point to silence .. .. (even though it was intended as a compliment) .



x daz x

[God-Like]

Originally Posted by MikeS80

It seems like the issue is that the silent treatment creates more questions and unknowns that it answers for the average non-guru type of people, as in you and I.

Well Mikey Mike, it's pretty obvious who answers questions and those that don't . You see when I engage with folks on the forums I do so because of what they say .

What they proclaim the world to be, what the self is, what the ego is, what a dream actually is etc etc ..

Now some as you know proclaim all of this but don't actually believe it to be true and yet they will say that what anyone else says to the contrary is not correct lol

Some say that the dream and the illusory self is realised and yet when push comes to shove they can't answer questions relating to it ..

I dare say there was misunderstanding on my part regarding Still Waters for reasons already given, but my point still stands ..

People who have invested time and energy into something can find it difficult to let go of it all or admit they were wrong about it . My step nan renounced religion after 60 years of being obsessed with it ... to say that was a load of rubbish ...

So in still waters case, I thought that all her teachings and practice and everything else boiled down to there is actually nothing to learn, discuss, or conclude. Hence, the silence .

It didn't make sense therefore to speak about the world, the teachers, their teachings when there is nothing to learn or conclude ..




x daz x

Originally Posted by Still_Waters

Shankara reportedly said that, if one could read one and only one Upanishad, it should be the Mandukya Upanishad.

It's a good one for sure! Exploring and understanding the three states of mind and their relationship with Consciousness.

There's one viveka - conscious/not conscious (I think it's Sat/Juta or something like that?) - Swami Sarvapriyananda often uses for Self-inquiry. Basically starting out at the gross level which side is consciousness on? Getting down to thoughts...

2+2=4. Are you conscious of 2+2=4 or is 2+2=4 conscious of you? Are we really our thoughts?

Soooo... Are you conscious of mind (waking, dreaming and deep sleep) or is mind conscious of you?