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

[MikeS80]

Originally Posted by God-Like

Yepper's Mikey Mike ..

It's all mind .. I think some refer to mind as the intellectual wrangling or the busy chitter chatter of thought . The mind is the environment and the foundation for one to be experiencing beyond the chatter within the peace and quietness of mind .

If there was the transcendence of mind, there would be no thought of oneself .

There would be no awareness of oneself .



x dazzle x

I think you and I can repeat all of this until we are blue in the face because people would rather imagine in their minds that they are consciousness and that they are not the mind.....DOH!

Oops! Posting malfunction.

[MikeS80]

Originally Posted by God-Like

I agree. In a way it cannot be anymore simpler than it is, but I dare say one can only relate to what they believe to be true. Many have experienced a different point of self awareness so automatically at times think they have transcended self and mind, but it's simply a different reflection of what you are of it.

What you are (that is all that is) or Self for use of a better word, is the mind, the body, the spirit, the tree, the grain of sand . There is nothing else other than what you are.

Problems arise and confusion arises because one uses their current point of self awareness to measure that with something else .

It's an incorrect view point to start measuring in this way . One cannot measure their self awareness of what they are in a way to nullify a grain of sand.


x daz x

Yes, What makes it even worse is people who deny or ignore that it is their personal point of view or self awareness. Like it's consciousness's point of view.

[MikeS80]

Originally Posted by JustASimpleGuy

Oops! Posting malfunction.

We all received your original posting in our email inboxes LOLZ! And yes, it is nothing more than your mind saying things, I never said lol.

Originally Posted by MikeS80

Wow, do you read anything that you respond to? It seems like I can't have a simple discussion with you, without your imaginative mind putting words in my mouth.

Sure I read what you're saying and I'm not putting words in your mouth.

Originally Posted by MikeS80

When and where did I breakdown Brahman into creator vs created when I have been saying matter is Brahman and everything else is brahman? That makes no sense

How about here?

Originally Posted by MikeS80

Brahman is the source and creator of consciousness, just like brahman is the source and creator of everything else.

If Brahman creates a thing then Brahman can't be that thing which It creates. Furthermore the very act of creating a thing is duality. There's the Creator and the creation.

And then there's this:

Originally Posted by MikeS80

Edit: consciousness is not the absolute or ultimate reality. Consciousness is a third party. Brahman is the absolute or ultimate reality, and as I said plenty of times, brahman is everything, there is not a single thing that brahman is not.

If Consciousness is a third party then it's not Brahman, correct?

Originally Posted by MikeS80

The mind as a whole is not the problem, the problem is a mind that separates any parts or aspects of brahman. If you are not the mind aspect or part of Brahman, then you are not Brahman as a whole.

Isn't that exactly what you are doing? Separating into Creator and created, Brahman and It's created pieces parts? There's Brahman and then there's body, mind and third party consciousness?

Which mind? My mind? Your mind? Someone else's mind? See how that's a limitation? I can identify with one of many minds or I can identify with Consciousness Itself which illumines all minds. So I can either be the limited which is ever changing and suffers birth and death or I can be the limitless and unchanging, not subject to birth or death. By the way, in the non-dualist sense Brahman can't have parts and aspects is a push too and more inline with the qualified monistic view (Brahman with qualities/attributes).

To illustrate and correct me if I'm wrong you would say "I am conscious" whereas I would say "I Am Consciousness Itself", realizing any thoughts of "I am conscious", "I exist", "I think", "I experience", "I like/dislike", "I am happy/sad", "This good or that is bad", "This is mine", "That is yours", yada, yada, yada are but modifications of mind illumined by That which I Am (Consciousness).

Originally Posted by MikeS80

If being one with brahman in the flesh is not the point, then what is the point then? Is the point to escape or ignore your mental and physical problems or issues? Or is the point to push people more down the mental and emotional conditioning rabbit hole?

The point is to transcend the limitations of name, form and usage, thereby transcending the suffering inherent in all that is subject to limitation and change, birth and death.


Even the dualistic and qualified monistic schools of Vedanta as well as Samkhya and Yoga start with the proposition one is not the body and not even the mind. They all posit our true nature is Consciousness itself, the difference being how many Consciousnesses there are and the relationship between Consciousness (Purusha) and mind-body (Prakriti).

The non-dual school (Advaita) posits there's only Consciousness and the multiplicity is merely appearances (name, form & usage) of and within Consciousness.

Body is an appearance. Mind is an appearance. Thoughts are appearances. Emotions are appearances. memories are appearances. Ego is an appearance that grabs all other appearances and slices and dices them into "I", "you", "mine", "yours".

The choice is to live from the perspective of ego or Consciousness, and from the latter perspective my body, mind, thoughts, emotions, ego, etc... are of no more or less import than yours. They are all simply temporary, changing and fleeting appearances of and within Me, Me being Atman which is also Brahman or SatChitAnanda and without a second.

And yes, we are having a discussion here and you initiated it. I made a general post to no one in particular and on the topic of the thread. You chose to engage me in this mini-discussion so I'm just obliging.

Originally Posted by MikeS80

We all received your original posting in our email inboxes LOLZ! And yes, it is nothing more than your mind saying things, I never said lol.

Well then you can look above and see the finished product. I mistakenly hit Submit when I meant to hit Preview, and instead of editing and chopping it into two separate posts I blew it up and created a new and complete post.

My pencils still have erasers...

Originally Posted by JustASimpleGuy

The choice is to live from the perspective of ego or Consciousness, and from the latter perspective my body, mind, thoughts, emotions, ego, etc... are of no more or less import than yours. They are all simply temporary, changing and fleeting appearances of and within Me, Me being Atman which is also Brahman or SatChitAnanda and without a second.

Here's one source supporting what I posted above and it's Sri Krishna teaching Arjuna in the Bhagavad Gita. https://youtu.be/MqfCfD0AfLY?t=3261

This is the non-dual Advaita view and approach and I've been absolutely consistent on this point. For me it's beyond simple intellectual knowing though intellect expressed as language is the only means available in this or any other worldly venue of discourse.

[MikeS80]

Originally Posted by JustASimpleGuy

Sure I read what you're saying and I'm not putting words in your mouth

.You are putting words in my mouth by you misinterpreting what I post, and all you are doing is fishing.

Originally Posted by JustASimpleGuy

How about here?


If Brahman creates a thing then Brahman can't be that thing which It creates. Furthermore the very act of creating a thing is duality. There's the Creator and the creation.

Why can't a thing that is created by brahman be brahman? It is not duality when the created and the creator are one and the same, in fact you saying Brahman can't be that thing which It creates is duality/separation. Duality is separating any aspects of brahman from brahman, and I do not do that.

Originally Posted by JustASimpleGuy

And then there's this:


If Consciousness is a third party then it's not Brahman, correct?

By third party I meant a part or aspect of brahman. You should already know that, because I have said it many times. Again, you are just fishing.

Originally Posted by JustASimpleGuy

Isn't that exactly what you are doing? Separating into Creator and created, Brahman and It's created pieces parts? There's Brahman and then there's body, mind and third party consciousness?

Which mind? My mind? Your mind? Someone else's mind? See how that's a limitation? I can identify with one of many minds or I can identify with Consciousness Itself which illumines all minds. So I can either be the limited which is ever changing and suffers birth and death or I can be the limitless and unchanging, not subject to birth or death. By the way, in the non-dualist sense Brahman can't have parts and aspects is a push too and more inline with the qualified monistic view (Brahman with qualities/attributes).

No, I differentiate but do not separate the many aspects of brahman. I have been differentiating the many aspects of brahman for you, because you are the one whom separates the many aspects of brahman. You are just playing a mind game of trying to turn me trying to speak your language and concepts against me lol.

Consciousness illumines your mind from your personal perspective/view. The Consciousness that illumines your mind from your perspective, does not illumines my mind from your perspective or view. Consciousness also illumines duality and the physical universe from your perspective/view.

Originally Posted by JustASimpleGuy

To illustrate and correct me if I'm wrong you would say "I am conscious" whereas I would say "I Am Consciousness Itself", realizing any thoughts of "I am conscious", "I exist", "I think", "I experience", "I like/dislike", "I am happy/sad", "This good or that is bad", "This is mine", "That is yours", yada, yada, yada are but modifications of mind illumined by That which I Am (Consciousness).

Wrong, I will say Atman or brahman is conscious, not I am conscious, because consciousness is only a part or aspect of brahman.

Originally Posted by JustASimpleGuy

The point is to transcend the limitations of name, form and usage, thereby transcending the suffering inherent in all that is subject to limitation and change, birth and death.

Why do you think that is the point? You have pessimistic negative beliefs/views in your mind that name, form and usage causes suffering, which is false (mithya). Name, form and usage are also brahman, because once again, everything is brahman and brahman is everything Thus you being pessimistic/negative about name, form and usage, is you being pessimistic/negative about brahman. Since brahman is everything and everything is brahman, everything spiritual and physical is equal and relative to brahman.

Originally Posted by JustASimpleGuy

Even the dualistic and qualified monistic schools of Vedanta as well as Samkhya and Yoga start with the proposition one is not the body and not even the mind. They all posit our true nature is Consciousness itself, the difference being how many Consciousnesses there are and the relationship between Consciousness (Purusha) and mind-body (Prakriti).

Our true nature is brahman as a whole. Consciousness is only a part or aspect of brahman, thus our true nature is not only consciousness or of being conscious.

Originally Posted by JustASimpleGuy

The non-dual school (Advaita) posits there's only Consciousness and the multiplicity is merely appearances (name, form & usage) of and within Consciousness.

Body is an appearance. Mind is an appearance. Thoughts are appearances. Emotions are appearances. memories are appearances. Ego is an appearance that grabs all other appearances and slices and dices them into "I", "you", "mine", "yours".

The choice is to live from the perspective of ego or Consciousness, and from the latter perspective my body, mind, thoughts, emotions, ego, etc... are of no more or less import than yours. They are all simply temporary, changing and fleeting appearances of and within Me, Me being Atman which is also Brahman or SatChitAnanda and without a second.

And yes, we are having a discussion here and you initiated it. I made a general post to no one in particular and on the topic of the thread. You chose to engage me in this mini-discussion so I'm just obliging.

Advaita posits there's only ultimate reality aka brahman aka the eternal and infinite right here and right now that is beyond time and space, and that which the physical universe resides/lives in. I think appearance is the wrong word to use, as appearance makes it sound like matter appears out of thin air, when it does not. I think it is more true to say Brahman manifests itself into physical form through the birthing process, being hatched from an egg, as a seed being germinated and on and on and on. Whom or what created all these processes of nature, if it was not brahman?

[FallingLeaves]

Originally Posted by MikeS80

Whom or what created all these processes of nature, if it was not brahman?

at this point in these discussions I don't like to point to this or that random idea I have. I like to say 'I don't know'.

Originally Posted by MikeS80

Why can't a thing that is created by brahman be brahman? It is not duality when the created and the creator are one and the same, in fact you saying Brahman can't be that thing which It creates is duality/separation. Duality is separating any aspects of brahman from brahman, and I do not do that.

1 - If I create something then it's not me.

2 - If Brahman is all there ever was, all there is and all there will ever be what is there to create?

3 - If Brahman creates something which then becomes part of Brahman then Brahman is not eternal and unchanging because the act of creation changed Brahman.

4 - Similarly Brahman cannot be limitless because the act of creation just added something to Brahman so It had to have had some limitation in order for something to be created and added to It.

Originally Posted by MikeS80

I think appearance is the wrong word to use, as appearance makes it sound like matter appears out of thin air, when it does not. I think it is more true to say Brahman manifests itself into physical form through the birthing process, being hatched from an egg, as a seed being germinated and on and on and on. Whom or what created all these processes of nature, if it was not brahman?

Appearance is precisely the right word and from the Advaita non-dual perspective it's the technically correct way to describe Maya/objective reality.

Rope-Snake Analogy Using Logic: How Falsehood Becomes Truth

https://www.yesvedanta.com/rope-snak...danta-analogy/

A teaser...

OBSERVATION 1:

The rope is there: First of all, there is a rope there. If there is no rope there to begin with, the snake would not even appear. The existence of the rope is absolutely necessary for the appearance of the snake.

Applying analysis to Advaita Vedanta:

Brahman IS.

That is why the world gets to appear. It's why any experience is possible.

Without the paper, can there be a world of words? No.

Similarly, the world being mithyā (dependent-reality), it depends on the substratum (Brahman) for it's appearance. While Brahman is independent of the world.