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

[God-Like]

Originally Posted by Greenslade

The sun might be hot to you if you were an eskimo, the sun might not be so hot if you always lived on the equator but the sun itself is not hot - we perceive it as hot. The truth is that scientifically it's in a temperature range that science calls hot but that is comparative to a range that uses the temperature of water freezing or boiling as its basis. It's not the truth that the sun is hot, the truth is that the sun might feel hot to you and in relative terms it's considered as hot by a certain criterion. The truth is that you perceive it as hot if you genuinely feel it is hot. The truth is that you can't feel the hotness of the sun because it's further away than you can touch, but you can feel how what the sun emits feels on your skin.

Hey,

I was thinking more along the lines that the sun itself is fundamentally hot based upon it's composition .

Sure enough we can all have different takes on how hot the sun is and expand on how that effects us or not to varying degrees, but I dare say if a million dudes had to describe the suns fundamental properties they would be very similar .

Agendas in effect could be related to the need to bring forward that perception of the sun that would create an understanding that the sun therefore fundamentally doesn't have a composition where there is coldness in effect .

The secondary agenda of that could be to prove that the sun was hot for another reason . A reason for why the understanding of the hotness was mentioned in the first place .

Not really going anywhere else with this, just trying to illustrate a difference of how I saw an agenda brought forward and a secondary agenda expanded on that .



x daz x

[MikeS80]

Originally Posted by JustASimpleGuy

From https://youtu.be/e9uBaJEKgOw?t=2897

Transcript:

Body-mind complex is the reference of the "I", and Vedanta, Samkhya, Yoga they say this is the problem. "I" does not refer to body-mind. That is the Ahamkara. The real "I" is beyond the body-mind. That is Purusha, Consciousness. That is totally forgotten. That Purusha itself, shining upon the Prakriti, forgetting itself, thinking I am this and uses the "I" which is a product of the proclivity to refer to itself as "I Am" this. As long as it refers to itself as "I Am" this Samsara will continue for it. Pleasure and pain, life after life, seeking to protect this body and mind. To give it a lot of pleasure, to avoid the pain for this body and mind it goes on like that.

Now what is spirituality? It is shifting the reference of the "I" from body-mind to Consciousness, Purusha. Shifting the reference of the "I" from the products of Prakriti back to Purusha.

Back to what I said in my previous post. The core of Advaita is shifting identification (I Am) from mind-body to Consciousness. That's when all the insanity and ridiculousness ends.

I am not the body. I am not the mind. I am Consciousness itself. I am Existence itself. I am Bliss itself. I am Atman and Atman is Brahman. I am Brahman.

Ego is only a problem when we identify it as "I Am". When it appropriates "I Am" as its own.

And yet, consciousness is conscious of both the mind and body. This gives me reason to believe that there is more to it than just consciousness is all there is.

Samkhya philosophy regards the universe as consisting of two independent realities: puruṣa ('consciousness') or non-duality and prakṛti ('matter') or duality. These two realities exist parallel without affecting each other, and thus is dualistic and is not oneness/wholeness. Oneness/wholeness takes place when you combine the infinite eternal right here and right now of puruṣa ('consciousness') or non-duality together with the eternal right here and right now of prakṛti ('matter') or duality. Both purusa and prakrti make up the truth and the objective/absolute/ultimate reality of the eternal and infinite right here and right now. This is what I have been saying many times.

Believing consciousness is all that exists without matter and vice versa is believing in one dualistic side of the coin. When you integrate consciousness or non-duality with matter or duality you get oneness/wholeness.

I have talked about the "more to it" in detail with you before and some of the "more to it" are in post #486 and post #488 of this thread.

Originally Posted by God-Like

I understand the need to process things or make sense of things as it is quite natural to do so at a certain point within oneself, that's why only when one is truly ready one will sincerely self enquire and self realise .

The bolded quote is reflecting G.S.'s quote on I AM because WE are, for there is both self and there is other's in reflection of that .

That reflection allows one to understand the interconnectivity of all things, not just ONE thing .

The man would not be able to see himself in other's if there wasn't a true sense of oneself in the first instance .

To simply see oneself in other's still relates to a self that can see ..

We are back to I AM localised .

There is a difference between I AM that see's other's in the same light as oneself and being all that is beyond the thought of oneself and other's being the same .

That is why the mind is known to be dualities mirror .

Everything can be reflected back to what you are fundamentally .

The man who can see all creatures in himself, himself in all creatures is mindfully reflecting isn't he .

If an individual is an illusion then that reflection cannot be true or real because the foundation of illusion cannot support what is real or true .

This is what I keep pointing out, and it's important to understand this .



x daz x

Interconnectivity of all things implies a second, third, fourth, etc...

If "I Am" is localized what happens to it when mind-body is no more?

I'm not saying there isn't a sense of a localized "I Am". I'm saying that sense of a localized "I Am" is the grand illusion, courtesy of ego and the source of all suffering.

From a purely unqualified non-dual perspective that's what is taught, whether it be Advaita or non-dual Buddhism. It's exactly what Swami said in the video I linked. That is the penultimate realization of self-realization. I Am not mind. I Am not body. I Am beyond (Consciousness, Spirit, Soul, Brahman). Localizing I Am is the proclivity of Ahamkara.

This is the entire foundation of Advaita, shifting "I Am' from mind-body to Consciousness. The rest of Advaita is the philosophy, commentary, practices, etc... to help one's mind to let go of ownership of I Am and realize the truth of that foundation.

Originally Posted by MikeS80

And yet, consciousness is conscious of both the mind and body. This gives me reason to believe that there is more to it than just consciousness is all there is.

Samkhya philosophy regards the universe as consisting of two independent realities: puruṣa ('consciousness') or non-duality and prakṛti ('matter') or duality. These two realities exist parallel without affecting each other, and thus is dualistic and is not oneness/wholeness. Oneness/wholeness takes place when you combine the infinite eternal right here and right now of puruṣa ('consciousness') or non-duality together with the eternal right here and right now of prakṛti ('matter') or duality. Both purusa and prakrti make up the truth and the objective/absolute/ultimate reality of the eternal and infinite right here and right now. This is what I have been saying many times.

Believing consciousness is all that exists without matter and vice versa is believing in one dualistic side of the coin. When you integrate consciousness or non-duality with matter or duality you get oneness/wholeness.

I have talked about the "more to it" in detail with you before and some of the "more to it" are in post #486 and post #488 of this thread.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samkhya

Samkhya is strongly dualistic and has historically been theistic or nontheistic, with some late atheistic authors, such as the author of the Samkhya Sutras.

Why try to turn it into something it's not? Take the systems for what they say they are. If a system doesn't fit, try another.

I suggested this before: It might be worth taking a look at Vishishtadvaita. Some of the debate in these threads takes on the "feel" of some of the arguments contained in "The Seven Great Untenables", the great debates between Advata and Vishishtadvaita and mostly concerned with the nature of Maya.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vishishtadvaita

Originally Posted by MikeS80

As I said before what you say is not pure unadulterated Vedanta. What you say and think is Vedanta adulterated/combined with buddhism. Vedanta and buddhism have 2 different conflicting/opposing views/beliefs of the self-Advaita Vedanta holds the premise, "Soul exists, and Soul (or self, Atman) is a self evident truth". Buddhism, in contrast, holds the premise, "Atman does not exist, and An-atman (or Anatta, non-self) is self evident".

Buddhism doesn't say this. Here is Buddhism's position:

One of the first stumbling blocks that Westerners often encounter when they learn about Buddhism is the teaching on anatta, often translated as no-self. This teaching is a stumbling block for two reasons. First, the idea of there being no self doesn't fit well with other Buddhist teachings, such as the doctrine of kamma and rebirth: If there's no self, what experiences the results of kamma and takes rebirth? Second, it doesn't fit well with our own Judeo-Christian background, which assumes the existence of an eternal soul or self as a basic presupposition: If there's no self, what's the purpose of a spiritual life?
Many books try to answer these questions, but if you look at the Pali canon — the earliest extant record of the Buddha's teachings — you won't find them addressed at all. In fact, the one place where the Buddha was asked point-blank whether or not there was a self, he refused to answer. When later asked why, he said that to hold either that there is a self or that there is no self is to fall into extreme forms of wrong view that make the path of Buddhist practice impossible. Thus the question should be put aside. To understand what his silence on this question says about the meaning of anatta, we first have to look at his teachings on how questions should be asked and answered, and how to interpret his answers.

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/.../notself2.html

Anatta stands on its own, and is worthy of reflection and investigation.

Personally, I don't think JSG is saying anything that is in contradiction, although it is hard to find words to express in the ineffable.

JL

Originally Posted by janielee

One of the first stumbling blocks that Westerners often encounter when they learn about Buddhism is the teaching on anatta, often translated as no-self. This teaching is a stumbling block for two reasons. First, the idea of there being no self doesn't fit well with other Buddhist teachings, such as the doctrine of kamma and rebirth: If there's no self, what experiences the results of kamma and takes rebirth? Second, it doesn't fit well with our own Judeo-Christian background, which assumes the existence of an eternal soul or self as a basic presupposition: If there's no self, what's the purpose of a spiritual life?
Many books try to answer these questions, but if you look at the Pali canon — the earliest extant record of the Buddha's teachings — you won't find them addressed at all. In fact, the one place where the Buddha was asked point-blank whether or not there was a self, he refused to answer. When later asked why, he said that to hold either that there is a self or that there is no self is to fall into extreme forms of wrong view that make the path of Buddhist practice impossible. Thus the question should be put aside. To understand what his silence on this question says about the meaning of anatta, we first have to look at his teachings on how questions should be asked and answered, and how to interpret his answers.

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/.../notself2.html

Anatta stands on its own, and is worthy of reflection and investigation.

Personally, I don't think JSG is saying anything that is in contradiction, although it is hard to find words to express in the ineffable.

JL

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anatta...m_and_Hinduism

While the Upanishads recognized many things as being not-Self, they felt that a real, true Self could be found. They held that when it was found, and known to be identical to Brahman, the basis of everything, this would bring liberation. In the Buddhist Suttas, though, literally everything is seen is non-Self, even Nirvana. When this is known, then liberation – Nirvana – is attained by total non-attachment. Thus both the Upanishads and the Buddhist Suttas see many things as not-Self, but the Suttas apply it, indeed non-Self, to everything.

I don't really see a heck of a lot of difference between the two views. If one takes Neti Neti to its logical conclusion everything is eliminated and all that remains is the ineffable. The Unmanifest. The Unknowable. Emptiness. The void. That which cannot be named.

For lack of a better word it can be called Emptiness or Unmanifest. Buddhism leaves it at Emptiness, however Hinduism has more of a flare and labels it. Atman, Brahman, Existence-Consciousness-Bliss, all unknowable and without attributes, at least in the non-dualistic traditions. Pure existence itself.

Perhaps the dualistic schools of Hinduism subscribe to the real Self being able to be found, but not Advaita. Neti Neti eliminates everything, including any product of mind and even Heavens and Gods. So the best one can do is eliminate everything leaving nothing. The Unmanifest. In other words Emptiness. Sounds kind of like non-dual Buddhism, doesn't it?

P.S. Hinduism is not monolithic. There are lots of schools of thought, from Samkhya to Yoga to Dvaita (Is Yoga a school of Dvaita?) to Advaita to Vishishtadvaita. All my ramblings are attempting to speak to Advaita.

Originally Posted by MikeS80

From a spiritual oneness/wholeness point of view the ego and atman are one and the same, however in order to be healthy mentally and emotionally, we should seperate the 2 while at the same time we are aware that the ego and atman are one and the same because fundamentally they are the same.

Neither Buddhism nor Advaita-Vedanta says that ego and atman are one and the same.

“when there is no ‘I’ there is no karma.”

“He who has renounced (the ‘I-thought’) thus, remains the same whether he is alone or in the midst of the extensive samsara”

― Ramana Maharshi, Collected works of Ramana Maharshi

Jyotir has an excellent post on "ego"

https://www.spiritualforums.com/vb/s...9&postcount=56

Originally Posted by JustASimpleGuy

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anatta...m_and_Hinduism

While the Upanishads recognized many things as being not-Self, they felt that a real, true Self could be found. They held that when it was found, and known to be identical to Brahman, the basis of everything, this would bring liberation. In the Buddhist Suttas, though, literally everything is seen is non-Self, even Nirvana. When this is known, then liberation – Nirvana – is attained by total non-attachment. Thus both the Upanishads and the Buddhist Suttas see many things as not-Self, but the Suttas apply it, indeed non-Self, to everything.

I don't really see a heck of a lot of difference between the two views. If one takes Neti Neti to its logical conclusion everything is eliminated and all that remains is the ineffable. The Unmanifest. The Unknowable. Emptiness. The void. That which cannot be named.

For lack of a better word it can be called Emptiness or Unmanifest. Buddhism leaves it at Emptiness, however Hinduism has more of a flare and labels it. Atman, Brahman, Existence-Consciousness-Bliss, all unknowable and without attributes, at least in the non-dualistic traditions. Pure existence itself.

Perhaps the dualistic schools of Hinduism subscribe to the real Self being able to be found, but not Advaita. Neti Neti eliminates everything, including any product of mind and even Heavens and Gods. So the best one can do is eliminate everything leaving nothing. The Unmanifest. In other words Emptiness. Sounds kind of like non-dual Buddhism, doesn't it?

P.S. Hinduism is not monolithic. There are lots of schools of thought, from Samkhya to Yoga to Dvaita (Is Yoga a school of Dvaita?) to Advaita to Vishishtadvaita. All my ramblings are attempting to speak to Advaita.

I personally don't use Wiki as a source, and have not investigated Hinduism sufficiently to comment extensively.

I do believe one needs to immerse oneself in a tradition to be able to do it justice.

That all said I have a lot of respect for the Advaita-Vedanta schools of thought, and see great commonality in the world's great spiritual traditions.

I do believe that debating with people who have not experientially realized the subtle truth is a waste of time as they cannot relate to that which is beyond intellect, and that through one's own path of enlightenment and innner realization the world is served.

I think that for many they need the ego to be real and whole; the ego wants itself, and so it will argue for itself. But this does not conform to the Greats.

“Although the modes of meditation may appear to be different from one another, in the end all of them become one. There is no need to doubt this. One may adopt that path which suits the maturity of one’s mind.”
― Ramana Maharshi, Collected works of Ramana Maharshi

jl

Originally Posted by janielee

Neither Buddhism nor Advaita-Vedanta says that ego and atman are one and the same.

“when there is no ‘I’ there is no karma.”

“He who has renounced (the ‘I-thought’) thus, remains the same whether he is alone or in the midst of the extensive samsara”

― Ramana Maharshi, Collected works of Ramana Maharshi

Jyotir has an excellent post on "ego"

https://www.spiritualforums.com/vb/s...9&postcount=56

Yup, I read that yesterday and agree.

Also neither Advaita nor Buddhism advocate destruction of ego, just recognition of what it is and more importantly what it isn't.

There's nothing inherently wrong with ego. In fact it's quite necessary for survival. It's just not the spiritual aspect of being, and if one believes it is therein lies suffering.

Originally Posted by janielee

I personally don't use Wiki as a source, and have not investigated Hinduism sufficiently to comment extensively.

I do believe one needs to immerse oneself in a tradition to be able to do it justice.

That all said I have a lot of respect for the Advaita-Vedanta schools of thought, and see great commonality in the world's great spiritual traditions.

I do believe that debating with people who have not experientially realized the subtle truth is a waste of time, and through one's own path of enlightenment and innner realization the world is served.

I think that for many they need the ego to be real and whole; the ego wants itself, and so it will argue for itself. But this does not conform to the Greats.

“Although the modes of meditation may appear to be different from one another, in the end all of them become one. There is no need to doubt this. One may adopt that path which suits the maturity of one’s mind.”
― Ramana Maharshi, Collected works of Ramana Maharshi

jl

Yeah, Wiki isn't a great source, but sometimes it has enough of the truth in a very condensed form. That's why I qualified it with the P.S. about Hinduism not being monolithic. It references the Upanishads but so do all the Hindu schools of spirituality and they are all over the spiritual spectrum. So a proper understanding is dependent on the interpretation of a given school.

That's why I suggest anyone interested in Advaita-Vedanta should get a copy of The Ten Principle Upanishads and The Bhagavad Gita and give them a once-through read.

Then find a reputable YouTube channel like Vedanta NY and watch the lectures, all the while having those two books handy as reference because they will be referenced and a lot. I'm always pausing the lectures while finding the appropriate entry being discussed.

Optional is Vivekananda's Yogas and Other Works and the (very dangerous!) Ashtavakra Gita.


Here's the other thing. I don't even consider myself an Advaitan, per se. I'm not big on identity. Never have been. I'm kind of a rebel. However it does seem to resonate and got me past a big hurdle that was in my way for a very long time so I see every reason to continue to delve into its teachings.

I was raised Roman Catholic and attended 12 years of Catholic school. Towards the end it left me with more questions than answers. I'm not saying it's "wrong" or "bad", just that it didn't resonate with me. It does with others and I recognize that and it's all good. Just wasn't my cup of tea. Again probably because of my rebellious nature.