Ego/I/self/Ahamkara is the Self that thinks he/she is separate from oneness....

[God-Like]

Originally Posted by Still_Waters

Those who understand will note the distinction.

You have probably noticed that there are many teachers, including Jesus, who use the word "I" freely and, in context, one becomes aware of which "I" is being referenced.

No worries, I won't ask any questions lol .

x daz x

Originally Posted by Still_Waters

I just took an online MOOC course on "Vital Signs - Understanding What the Body is Telling Us" offered on www.coursera.org by the University of Pennsylvania Medical School. There were modules on the anatomy of the heart, blood pressure, the neural and electric signalling in the cardiac system, and so on. Your point is very well taken as I had previously no idea of how complicated the cardiac and neurological systems were.

The more you look into the body and how it works, the more you realise what an amazing bit of kit we are.

[ajay00]

Originally Posted by MikeS80

.....while the Self/true Self/Atma or Atman is the Self whom knows and is aware he/she is not separate from oneness.

"Ego/I/self/Ahamkara is the Self that thinks he/she is separate from oneness...."

I disagree with the thread title. There is the false self and the true Self.

The ego is the false self distinct from the higher or true Self. 'S' here is capital or upper case for the true Self and lower case for the lower self. This is done for easy distinction between the two.

[MikeS80]

Originally Posted by ajay00

"Ego/I/self/Ahamkara is the Self that thinks he/she is separate from oneness...."

I disagree with the thread title. There is the false self and the true Self.

The ego is the false self distinct from the higher or true Self. 'S' here is capital or upper case for the true Self and lower case for the lower self. This is done for easy distinction between the two.

In the context of duality, which is separation, the title of this thread is just fine. The meaning of the concept of non duality is non separation. My op of this thread is in the non duality/non separation section of the forum.

Separating Self from self in a non duality/non separation section of a forum makes no sense to me, even if your idea of non duality is of the non-physical/non-material/ultimate reality/the afterlife against the superficial on the surface objective physical/material reality aka the eternal and infinite right here and right now, does not make sense because they are not separate from each other. They are both the eternal and infinite right here and right now, so there is no point in separating the eternal and infinite right here and right now in any way, shape or form, whether you see the eternal and infinite right here and right now as being physical/material or not.

The non-physical/non-material/ultimate reality aka the eternal and infinite right here and right now is objective too, people do not want to believe that the non-physical/non-material/ultimate reality aka the eternal and infinite right here and right now is objective because believing that the non-physical/non-material/ultimate reality is not objective, does not fit their internal narrative, beliefs or agenda.

Originally Posted by ajay00

"Ego/I/self/Ahamkara is the Self that thinks he/she is separate from oneness...."

I disagree with the thread title. There is the false self and the true Self.

The ego is the false self distinct from the higher or true Self. 'S' here is capital or upper case for the true Self and lower case for the lower self. This is done for easy distinction between the two.

The ego is differentiated consciousness and since this is the non-duality thread - which is a contradiction in terms, by the way - creates Duality. It makes distinctions between the various selfs/Selfs and identifies with which one offers the most status. It considers its Self better than the self but has no real idea of what either is, but needs something to identify itself with because it has redefined itself. After redefinition and declaration of its own non-existence it superimposes on the Self and the self thinks it's the Self. And has gone bonkers.

[MikeS80]

Originally Posted by Greenslade

Psychology and the nervous system are two very different beasties and both are quite complicated systems. Did you also know that the heart has its own neural network and sends as many signals to the brain as the brain sends to it? Every time the heart beats it sends out a pulse that is small but measurable, and the human body is 'designed' to sense that pulse.

To be honest I've heard of things like this before and seen posts where Spiritual people have stated that things such as the energy fields talked about in the link you provided were going to revolutionise mental health or psychiatry. The issue is that the people who made the declarations didn't have the first clue about either mental health or psychiatry and ignored any questions I had. As for my own experiences, they had nothing to do with Assemblage points and everything to do with cognitive behaviour.

Ok, does cognitive behaviour animate our bodies (which includes our minds) or give our bodies life? Does the mind animate itself/give itself life? The answer to those questions are simple. There is more to spirituality than just cognitive behaviour, and mind, they are important though.

We also have soul/spirit. How does soul/spirit animate our bodies? Is soul/spirit energy that animates our bodies out of thin air? Did our physical bodies just appear/was created out of thin air, or was our bodies and our souls/spirits created and animated through the natural birthing process? How does our soul/spirit animate our bodies, including consciousness, awareness etc etc?

Just so you know soul/spirit is interchangeable with atman thus brahman.

Originally Posted by MikeS80

In the context of duality, which is separation, the title of this thread is just fine. The meaning of the concept of non duality is non separation. My op of this thread is in the non duality/non separation section of the forum.

Non-separation is an acknowledgement that separation exists, and separation and non-separation is Duality and therefore ego/Ahamkara. Similarly with non-Duality. Non-separation and non-Duality is acknowledging that they exist then arguing that they don't exist, and most people use Duality to argue the case for non-Duality.

Ego is differentiated consciousness and creates Duality and separation. Jungian Self is undifferentiated consciousness and doesn't try to argue the cases of non-Duality or non-separation, but resolves the paradoxes that the ego simply can't deal with.

[MikeS80]

Originally Posted by Greenslade

The ego is differentiated consciousness and since this is the non-duality thread - which is a contradiction in terms, by the way - creates Duality. It makes distinctions between the various selfs/Selfs and identifies with which one offers the most status. It considers its Self better than the self but has no real idea of what either is, but needs something to identify itself with because it has redefined itself. After redefinition and declaration of its own non-existence it superimposes on the Self and the self thinks it's the Self. And has gone bonkers.

Non-duality is only a contradiction when misinterpreted/taken out of it's context of separation.

[MikeS80]

Originally Posted by Greenslade

Non-separation is an acknowledgement that separation exists, and separation and non-separation is Duality and therefore ego/Ahamkara. Similarly with non-Duality. Non-separation and non-Duality is acknowledging that they exist then arguing that they don't exist, and most people use Duality to argue the case for non-Duality.

Ego is differentiated consciousness and creates Duality and separation. Jungian Self is undifferentiated consciousness and doesn't try to argue the cases of non-Duality or non-separation, but resolves the paradoxes that the ego simply can't deal with.

acknowledgement that separation exists for other people, is not an acknowledgement that separation exists for you, the person that see's/acknowledges it.

Originally Posted by MikeS80

Ok, does cognitive behaviour animate our bodies (which includes our minds) or give our bodies life? Does the mind animate itself/give itself life? The answer to those questions are simple. There is more to spirituality than just cognitive behaviour, and mind, they are important though.

We also have soul/spirit. How does soul/spirit animate our bodies? Is soul/spirit energy that animates our bodies out of thin air? Did our physical bodies just appear/was created out of thin air, or was our bodies and our souls/spirits created and animated through the natural birthing process? How does our soul/spirit animate our bodies, including consciousness, awareness etc etc?

Just so you know soul/spirit is interchangeable with atman thus brahman.

Cognitive behaviour is one of the 'prime movers' in the creation of your reality, and your putting so much store/believing in the material you sent me had nothing to do with your Assemblage, and everything to do with your cognitive behaviour - and a few other unconscious aspects.

You cognitive behaviour was at work when you wrote that post.

As to your questions, what reasons did you have for posting them? Those reasons, whatever they are, is your cognitive behaviour in action.