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

Originally Posted by MikeS80

Please enlighten me, since you say I am wrong. Does the anatta doctrine say that there is not an individual self or soul that is permanent and which is/remains conscious after death, like the soul in Judeo-Christianity ? I agree, If that is the case and I do not have a problem with that.

Thanks, the teaching I quoted originally gives you Gautama Buddha's position and teachings. You can read it if you're interested.

We are a revelatory, experiential school, not one for speculative assessments and judgements that serve no-one and nothing (except debates).

Thanks,
jl

Originally Posted by MikeS80

I have to agree to disagree. That is the whole entire fundamental point of oneness, wholeness and non-duality. All is one and one is all.

Dear MikeS80,

It may appear so but in my eyes, your presentation lacks nuance and therefore accuracy. It would be like saying elephants and dogs are animals, therefore all animals are elephants and dogs.

Whilst there is some truth, in my opinion, that all is not separate from the Absolute Truth, not utilizing differentiation is also inaccurate.

In particular, in spiritual practice, ego is not the same as so-called "Atman" (used here for conversational and continuity purposes). There are many ways we could talk about it, Mike.

We could say ego is a instrument, but this is not true for over 90% of the population; for most they are an instrument of ego. We could say that if it were not for ego, there would not be enlightenment, for it is the observation and eventual relinquishment of ego that supports enlightenment. We could say that the Light must cast a shadow, and to differentiate would be incorrect; however the reality - in my opinion - in spiritual practice is always ALWAYS to clarify "ego"

In Buddhism, we have a saying, "To study Buddhism is to study the self, to study the self is to forget the self, to forget the self is to be enlightened by the ten thousand dhammas..."

Even anatta, it's not for "study", it's for reflection, realization, transformation and embodiment.

Peace

jl

[God-Like]

Originally Posted by JustASimpleGuy

Try this on for size. Pay particular attention from roughly 19:23 when Swami speaks about an analogy I've used - Dreaming.

https://youtu.be/kPdsAPlK2Js

Transcript:

Just like in a dream. Every person, object, animal that you see in the dream is nothing apart from you, the dreamer. You're appearing in all those ways. Consciousness is appearing as its own object, and this is the festival of consciousness which we call our life, our universe. This oneness is what non-duality is all about. The world, the self; the changing world, body, mind; the experienced world, body, mind; the non-aware world, body, mind is not a second thing, apart from you, the unchanging fear awareness.

The dream analogy refers to something that isn't realised as a foundation . This is why the dream analogies don't work . All peeps are doing in this example is explaining the unexplainable by referring this to a dream . Then the dream/dreamer is born into a reality of sorts were it's actual in relation to life, the universe and non duality and made to be somewhat true .

You spoke about philosophy and theories and not to be hung up on them, but here you are explaining the unexplained and using it as your life's foundation .

This is why I have asked G.S. and asked the forum, what is realised beyond the mind ..

All of what you have pointed to thus far isn't realised is it .

You still don't seem to understand or comment on that there can be what you are that is all there is in such away where I AM because WE are as G.S. touched upon .

All you are doing is saying the objects of the dream are also you .

What you are doing in a way is personalising God or ONE into your point of perception that perceives the dream .

This is what Mike touched upon in regards to Solipsism where there is only ONE .

All you have to do is understand that there can be both a realised and non realised individual walking the planet .

You can call them dream characters if you like, but you need to understand how that is possible .

You talk about these other's are not other's but only appear to be other's and they are illusions .

You don't explain how these illusions can be self realised when you personalise your perception in relation to ONE .

You see from my perspective using your foundation I would be self personalising ONE God through my perception calling you an illusion . G.S would look at Moonglow and say the same, Moonglow would look at the Muffin Man and say the same .

Everyone would be pointing to another saying you are illusory .

It's counter productive and it in a way negates the foundation .

So if you are an illusion and a dream character how can you know the truth about the universe?

The fact that there are many, doesn't mean there are 2 or 3 or 50 what you are's . There is only what you are .

You have created a premise of 1 in a way where they're cannot be 2 .

In my eyes this whole notion of 1 is misconceived and it doesn't allow for there to be many while fundamentally being the same .

Again, this is why I AM because WE are is bang on the money here .


x daz x

[God-Like]

Originally Posted by JustASimpleGuy

This is also why I say a lucid dream is a very good analogy for realization. It's at the point of gaining lucidity within a dream one realizes "Every person, object, animal that you see in the dream is nothing apart from you, the dreamer. You're appearing in all those ways. Consciousness is appearing as its own object"

.

No-one is saying that other's are separate entities from what you are, no-one is implying that these other's constitute 2 of what you are's . Again, you are personalising what that is through a point of your perception and according to you this localised point of perception and individualisation is illusory .

You are in essence trying to pick something out to be true from a foundation that doesn't support it .

It would be good if you can see how your foundation negates your foundation, otherwise it's nothing more than a dream character pretending to be real . It's Pinocchio believing he is a real boy ..

You look at the dream being a dream from a point of perception that is YOU . You then reflect everything perceived based upon this sense of yourself, this I AM awareness, this I AM consciousness . How do you know you are a real consciously aware perceiver being able to point to other's suggesting they are illusory?

If you cannot prove your own existence to be real as an individual then you cannot reflect upon other's as being anything .

Do you understand how and why you cannot?

Your lucid dream analogy in a way is just trying to place something more real as a dream within a dream that isn't .

You cannot have a reality of clarity within a dream that doesn't support anything real ..

Again it's no different than Pinocchio believing he is a real boy .

It doesn't work does it .


x daz x

[God-Like]

Originally Posted by JustASimpleGuy

All the vivekas, eternal and non-eternal, seer and seen, conscious and not conscious, the five sheaths (there are more...) are simply steps to guide one to what Advaita posits is the ultimate reality. They are all part of the first step of the two steps to the not-two. One has to walk before one can run.

And they are all made up theories and made to be ultimately true ..

I don't see a problem in anyone creating an idea about reality and life, I do see problems arising when the unexplained is explained in a way where something is ultimately true .

As our conversations have shown, there isn't really any comeback from admitting that the explained are only theories that become a philosophy of sorts . All are mindful and not realised .

It doesn't matter how grand and wise the words are from the masters, it doesn't matter how fluid the poets words are that slip off their tongues, we basically just have to understand the nature of the mind compared to not and understand that there is something similar to an eternal loop of thoughts and words going round and round ..




x daz x

[God-Like]

Originally Posted by MikeS80

In buddhism atman is the self and is brought up in buddhism discussions of Anatta or no self. There seems to be 2 meanings of Anatta/no self in buddhism The 1st meaning is that there is in humans no permanent, underlying substance that can be called the self. Instead, the individual is compounded of five factors (Pali khandha; Sanskrit skandha) that are constantly changing. And the 2nd meaning of anatta/no self simply is the absence of the sense of self, and includes the objective reality of the eternal infinite right here and right now. Many people take Anatta/no self to mean there is no individual sense of self or atman or the individual self or atman is an illusion or is not real. Which is plain silly.

Hey Mikey,

I don't study anything or follow anything in relation to buddhism or non duality but I dare say across the board that there are lots of differences and similarities presented as being equally true .

That just sums it all up really doesn't it .

Some will say they take a little bit of this and that from various sources and it forms a foundation that resonates for them .

This is quite a reasonable approach rather that digesting the entirety of one sect and making it one's foundation of truth .

As we have discussed previously, for someone to walk around the world pointing to people saying you are not real and you are illusory and you are part of my dream is borderline bonkers ..

It's not how they actually live and these notions are not realised either .

Perhaps some can see the madness in this, perhaps not .

I think living life is the greatest teacher, not living the words of other's (who could be nothing more that dream characters lol) and making it their foundation .

The funny thing is that devoted peeps will defend their beloved/s when their foundation doesn't support them as being real individuals .

That's kinda bonkers .. This is why I keep pointing back to peeps foundations and pointing out what is said that supports their foundations and what doesn't .

That's all peeps have to do, is understand their own foundation .


x daz x

Originally Posted by God-Like

No-one is saying that other's are separate entities from what you are, no-one is implying that these other's constitute 2 of what you are's . Again, you are personalising what that is through a point of your perception and according to you this localised point of perception and individualisation is illusory .

You are in essence trying to pick something out to be true from a foundation that doesn't support it .

It would be good if you can see how your foundation negates your foundation, otherwise it's nothing more than a dream character pretending to be real . It's Pinocchio believing he is a real boy ..

You look at the dream being a dream from a point of perception that is YOU . You then reflect everything perceived based upon this sense of yourself, this I AM awareness, this I AM consciousness . How do you know you are a real consciously aware perceiver being able to point to other's suggesting they are illusory?

If you cannot prove your own existence to be real as an individual then you cannot reflect upon other's as being anything .

Do you understand how and why you cannot?

Your lucid dream analogy in a way is just trying to place something more real as a dream within a dream that isn't .

You cannot have a reality of clarity within a dream that doesn't support anything real ..

Again it's no different than Pinocchio believing he is a real boy .

It doesn't work does it .


x daz x

When the dream ends the dreamer still is. Similarly when the universe dies a heat death, Existence still Is.

Existence isn't dependent on the physical universe, whereas the physical universe is dependent on Existence.

I am because We are.... This implies without We there is no I. To me that's an egoic view and this is what spirituality attempts to overcome, to let go.

I'm fairly certain this is the basis of Advaita's Unmanifest and Buddhism's Emptiness, though I'd like to hear from Janielee on the Buddhist take.

Originally Posted by God-Like

And they are all made up theories and made to be ultimately true ..

I don't see a problem in anyone creating an idea about reality and life, I do see problems arising when the unexplained is explained in a way where something is ultimately true .

As our conversations have shown, there isn't really any comeback from admitting that the explained are only theories that become a philosophy of sorts . All are mindful and not realised .

It doesn't matter how grand and wise the words are from the masters, it doesn't matter how fluid the poets words are that slip off their tongues, we basically just have to understand the nature of the mind compared to not and understand that there is something similar to an eternal loop of thoughts and words going round and round ..




x daz x

Consider what I said about the universe undergoing a heat death. Then there are no thoughts and words going round and round. That is until the next epoch of manifestation.

[God-Like]

Originally Posted by JustASimpleGuy

When the dream ends the dreamer still is. Similarly when the universe dies a heat death, Existence still Is.

Existence isn't dependent on the physical universe, whereas the physical universe is dependent on Existence.

But the foundation of experience and existence is dream related isn't it . For the dream to end what is left as a reality?

You say the dreamer is but the dream isn't . This makes no sense does it? There can only be a dreamer within a dream . What is this dreamer that is left? Still an illusion? Can this illusion lucid dream and entertain clarity?

Another aspect to the dreamer or the illusory dreamer, is that one cannot awaken from it because there is no-one that can actually dream in the first place .

This is why the foundation doesn't make sense when you start to take it apart .

We have to have a foundation of the dreamer being able to awaken or transcend or entertain lucid dreams .

This is key to foundations of this type reflecting reality .

Originally Posted by JustASimpleGuy

am because We are.... This implies without We there is no I. To me that's an egoic view and this is what spirituality attempts to overcome, to let go.

I'm fairly certain this is the basis of Advaita's Unmanifest and Buddhism's Emptiness, though I'd like to hear from Janielee on the Buddhist take.

It's all ego, it's all mind, but human nature at times seems to be drawn to one thing and not another . This is totally fine and understandable isn't it, but it doesn't make sense to imply ego is present within one aspect and not another .

You're understanding of there is only 1 and not 2 is equally egotistical isn't it, and in your words this is what spirituality attempts to overcome ..

How can you're egotistical notions and remarks supersede an ancient African saying?

What's the difference between the two statements?




x daz x

[God-Like]

Originally Posted by JustASimpleGuy

Consider what I said about the universe undergoing a heat death. Then there are no thoughts and words going round and round. That is until the next epoch of manifestation.

So when there are no thoughts going round and round there are no ideas about 1 not meaning 2 . There are no thoughts about the dream or the dreamer being illusory or what lucid dreams are .

There are no grand masters declaring ultimate non duality truths are there .

These peeps are only illusions of peeps that supposedly know the ultimate truths .

Don't you see the madness of it all .


x daz x