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

[MikeS80]

Originally Posted by Greenslade

I'm really not going into the elf/ego/contents discussion, frankly I've had enough of it already. All I'm going to say is that I already understand that.

Fair enough

Originally Posted by God-Like

Hey ..

The unconscious self or the multilayered self has potentially many understandings of what we are . What would an unconscious aspect of self know about Consciousness if there has never been a thought of it?

This is what I mean by referring to what we are as that and not something labelled that one has been conditioned by .

Everyone is talking like a consciousness expert lol and yet it's just a made up word like banana is .

At least with a banana you can perceive it as that .. with Consciousness it's a man made construct that many can't even agree to what it actually refers to or is .

This is why it's futile to say one has realised pure consciousness .

It's safer to say I have realised what a banana tastes and feels and looks like .



x daz x

The question is does the unconscious even have a thought at all? That's unclear because nobody is quite sure how the unconscious operates, it communicates to the conscious via dreams and avatars/artefacts of consciousness. As for it being man-made, that depends on your perspective but it does seem to be a by-product of the unconscious as much as anything else, which opens up a whole new field of enquiry. From my own experiences consciousness 'stalls' when there is nothing to be conscious of - kind of like total sensory deprivation.

As for 'pure' consciousness, is there such a thing as 'impure' consciousness? Or is that another product of an unbalanced ego?

I'm going bananas, does that count? Experiencing consciousness from a 'normal' mind is one thing, experiencing it from 'not normal' mind or one that is having a psychotic episode is a different thing altogether.

[MikeS80]

Originally Posted by JustASimpleGuy

If the subtle body (mind) is not Atman, neither is the gross body (physical body).

https://www.sivanandaonline.org/publ...section_id=850

Mind is Not Atman

by Swami Sivananda

In the West, the psychologists make a serious mistake in saying that consciousness is a function and attribute of the mind. It is Chit or Atman only that is Pure Consciousness Itself. Mind borrows its light from time to time from its source-Atman, the Light of lights or the Sun of suns and glitters temporarily like consciousness, like the golden gilt in brass. Mind borrows its light and power from Brahman, the source (Yoni), just as the iron-rod borrows its heat and effulgence from fire. Mind is Jada or non-intelligent, but appears to be intelligent by borrowing light from Brahman, just as water exposed to the sun borrows heat from the sun.

Technically speaking Atman is Brahman and mind-body is but a manifestation of Atman/Brahman. Suffering is the result of superimposition of mind-body upon Atman. It's incorrect identification of one's true nature. It's thinking one is mind-body and not Atman. If one identifies as mind-body one suffers all the baggage of mind-body. If one identifies as Atman one is liberated from suffering. This is the core of Advaita teaching.

One part or aspect of oneness/wholeness is neither superior or inferior to any other part or aspect of oneness/wholeness. All the parts or aspects that is oneness/wholeness are good/love, this includes the self, body and the ego-mind.

I have no doubts in my mind that your core beliefs/foundation/conditioning is built on you believing or thinking one aspect or part of oneness/wholeness is superior to or better than other parts or aspects of oneness/wholeness (such as consciousness is better than or superior to ego-mind-body), and you believing/thinking that way, gives you great inner conflict and confusion.

I am also sure that you have had "self-realizations", "experiences" and "knowings" based on you pitting one aspect/part of oneness/wholeness against another aspect/part of oneness/wholeness. And that is the problem. You will never ever transcend the ego-mind with that line of thinking, "self-realization", "experiencing" and "knowing" anyway.

Originally Posted by MikeS80

One part or aspect of oneness/wholeness is neither superior or inferior to any other part or aspect of oneness/wholeness. All the parts or aspects that is oneness/wholeness are good/love, this includes the self, body and the ego-mind.

I have no doubts in my mind that your core beliefs/foundation/conditioning is built on you believing or thinking one aspect or part of oneness/wholeness is superior to or better than other parts or aspects of oneness/wholeness (such as consciousness is better than or superior to ego-mind-body), and you believing/thinking that way, gives you great inner conflict and confusion.

I am also sure that you have had "self-realizations", "experiences" and "knowings" based on you pitting one aspect/part of oneness/wholeness against another aspect/part of oneness/wholeness. And that is the problem. You will never ever transcend the ego-mind with that line of thinking, "self-realization", "experiencing" and "knowing" anyway.

I am sure you believe that and it's okay with me.

Originally Posted by MikeS80

People get confused because the self is beyond ego-mind. The ego-mind is not the sense of self. The ego-mind uses language and other worldly things to describe, experience, express and get to know the self/god or whatever you want to call god.

Just to be clear, the self is an individual, but not separate part or aspect of god or whatever you want to call it.

Edit: The self is the physical manifestation (the self is the heart feeling of I AM) of god. One can not know or directly experience non-duality/oneness or wholeness when one's beliefs does not include the self as being a part or aspect of god. And/or thinks/believes the self is an illusion, not real and/or that the self needs to be transcended.

I'm not going to mention the J-word, but I will say that I'm not confused about the self, the e-word and its 'contents'. As for the self being an aspect of God/something, I don't have a definitive view on that one from any perspective. I'm more of a Gestalt Reality kinda guy because that and a touch of fractal geometry answers quite a few questions that I'd never realised I wanted the answers to. Non-duality is also not all it's cracked up to be and most people use duality to explain non-duality anyway, so after a while it becomes self-defeating. Personally I prefer the Triplex Unity of the pre-Taoist alchemists, that way there is no need to transcend but it makes perfect sense when encompassing.Triplex Unity gives you four dimensional understanding, five if you include another 'layer' of consciousness. Is non-duality one-dimensional?


The person who thinks self is an illusion may not be talking from Spirituality per se. It's easy to use the word 'illusion' as a dismissal but Spiritual wisdom is not always what it reflects.

[MikeS80]

Originally Posted by Greenslade

I'm not going to mention the J-word, but I will say that I'm not confused about the self, the e-word and its 'contents'. As for the self being an aspect of God/something, I don't have a definitive view on that one from any perspective. I'm more of a Gestalt Reality kinda guy because that and a touch of fractal geometry answers quite a few questions that I'd never realised I wanted the answers to. Non-duality is also not all it's cracked up to be and most people use duality to explain non-duality anyway, so after a while it becomes self-defeating. Personally I prefer the Triplex Unity of the pre-Taoist alchemists, that way there is no need to transcend but it makes perfect sense when encompassing.Triplex Unity gives you four dimensional understanding, five if you include another 'layer' of consciousness. Is non-duality one-dimensional?


The person who thinks self is an illusion may not be talking from Spirituality per se. It's easy to use the word 'illusion' as a dismissal but Spiritual wisdom is not always what it reflects.

I hear ya on what you say on the duality/non-duality concept. The problem with the duality/non-duality concept is that duality and non-duality is only oneness/wholeness, when one puts duality/non-duality together to make duality/non-duality one/whole-duality/non-duality are different sides of the same coin, so to speak. A person whom is solely focused on either duality or non-duality is still in duality. In this context duality and non-duality acts as a koan.

I read your other posts where you mentioned the Triplex Unity of the pre-Taoist alchemists, and it makes sense to me, I just did not feel like I had to give my $0.02 worth in the discussion lol.

Originally Posted by 7luminaries

Hey there GS yes..I am still alive though I will be glad to see 2020 wind down, I won't lie...I have come to see the grueling nature of it all as a revelation (of many obvious things which our societies have long denied)...so, the question becomes, at what point do we accept the reality of our humanity...and of Gaia's biology and chemistry and meteorology and epidemiology? When do humanity learn to accept that we must learn to respect all that is, as well as learning to respect one another?

I guess all those rumours flying around about you having been abducted by aliens was just wishful thinking. Ah well.


We're not good about accepting reality, which is why someone came up with the Precipice Principle. We allow ourselves to be pushed until we're on the edge of the precipice until the choice becomes to either turn ourselves around or allow ourselves to be pushed off the edge.

Originally Posted by 7luminaries

Whenever I hear variations on this, I think of the midrash (stories) of Buddha...I don't know what they're officially called. But he was known to say "know the emptiness (transcendent Isness, Oneness, etc) but do not dwell there". Because we are meant to dwell with the immanence of existence, i.e., what is present in this moment...including what we call the "divine" or pure or enduring aspects.

Nietzche called it "Amor Fati" or 'Love of Fate', which meant embracing things as they are and not trying to escape them. The emptiness is fine for a while, but there comes a time when you aren't aware of having gone long past lunchtime.

Originally Posted by 7luminaries

Yes...agreed. Our strengths and weaknesses (or vice-versa, who's to say?)...these comprise our unique self, and that uniqueness of self and mind and voice and action...makes all of us vital, priceless, and irreplaceable.

And to be fully human in this moment...that is the work of a lifetime. Or many lifetimes. And the work is never done but always in process of becoming. Per Hillel, as I said to Daz.

It's the reason there isn't One Self but a myriad of perceptually individuated selfs, it's the difference between an eternally colour-shifting Universe and one that's eternally beige.



But then, if you were fully human in this moment? Perhaps there would be moments of elation as you realised you'd arrived but then when you get there, there isn't there any more so the novelty wears off quickly. What's next? If there is a there then there's always somewhere else to go.

Originally Posted by 7luminaries

Well said...I feel it's rushing toward humanity in the best possible way. I've got a more solid footing on the path over the last few years, so perhaps I'll add more later.

Peace & blessings
7L[/quote]Thank you


'Solid' is not all it's cracked up to be anyway, and sometimes it can be whisked away so easily that it makes you wonder what made it solid in the first place.

Originally Posted by MikeS80

I hear ya on what you say on the duality/non-duality concept. The problem with the duality/non-duality concept is that duality and non-duality is only oneness/wholeness, when one puts duality/non-duality together to make duality/non-duality one/whole-duality/non-duality are different sides of the same coin, so to speak. A person whom is solely focused on either duality or non-duality is still in duality. In this context duality and non-duality acts as a koan.

I read your other posts where you mentioned the Triplex Unity of the pre-Taoist alchemists, and it makes sense to me, I just did not feel like I had to give my $0.02 worth in the discussion lol.

Everything has its raison d'etre or reason to be, perhaps the question is not one of duality/non-duality but are we missing the true nature? The light is the light and it has its existence just the same as the dark has its existence. Does the Universe set one against the other or does it simply allow their existences? Or are they in a symbiotic relationship?


By all means give your $0.02 worth, it makes for a more interesting discussion.

[God-Like]

Originally Posted by Greenslade

The question is does the unconscious even have a thought at all? That's unclear because nobody is quite sure how the unconscious operates, it communicates to the conscious via dreams and avatars/artefacts of consciousness. As for it being man-made, that depends on your perspective but it does seem to be a by-product of the unconscious as much as anything else, which opens up a whole new field of enquiry. From my own experiences consciousness 'stalls' when there is nothing to be conscious of - kind of like total sensory deprivation.

As for 'pure' consciousness, is there such a thing as 'impure' consciousness? Or is that another product of an unbalanced ego?

I'm going bananas, does that count? Experiencing consciousness from a 'normal' mind is one thing, experiencing it from 'not normal' mind or one that is having a psychotic episode is a different thing altogether.

Well from my own perspective the unconscious doesn't think at all .. There is only a conscious thought .

It's true enough to say however that 'stuff' processes behind the scenes I had my fair share of engrams some time ago that were triggers that set off some back pain at certain times, normally xmas time, you could set your watch by it .

I remember laying on my back not being able to walk one xmas time and I said why o why does this keep on happening .. I had engrams shouted out from a guide .

I didn't know what it mean't but it made sense after research, so I needed to do some self healing on these sub routines lol .

Unpure consciousness is just made up isn't it to bolster it^s opposite .

I understand why its made up as an opposite but it just goes to show you what is mindful and what isn't .

Pure Consciousness as something beyond mind or self cannot be directly experienced by the nature of the suggestion itself .

This is why I speak about mind as being the dead giveaway .




x daz x

[God-Like]

Originally Posted by 7luminaries

Thank you kindly good sir

Yes, I did and intentionally so. And that is because this is an illumination that has been received over the ages, even if it may not make sense to the logical, temporal mind.

That is, this is a part of how the mystics in my tradition speak of God...pertainly broadly to two aspects. There is the transcendent aspect of "God" or One, which is the unknowable, and there is the immanent aspect of One, which is "...very near you; it is in your mouth and in your heart..." Both aspects simply are, but clearly the transcendent is opaque and impossible to apprehend in any way intellectually.


7L

Hey

Yes, this is why it make sense to make distinctions about personalisation and beyond that . What I see peeps doing at times is cross dressing them .

Some speak about non conceptual realisations that point to the non conceptual .

But if we are to be picky then that's simply not true .

There is either beyond mindful concepts or there is isn't .

This is why it's strictly not correct for anyone to say the world is a dream or an illusion based upon beyond the concept of what a dream or an illusion is .

It's the mind trap .


x daz x