Ego is a good thing

[freebird]

Originally Posted by JustASimpleGuy

I too look to science for insights into or signposts for the spiritual, however I tend to stay away from 'bending' science to fit a spiritual agenda. You know, the "woo" factor and especially quantum woo. For instance I do think about what electroweak unification might imply for the Advaita concept of appearance or many from one, or what psychology and neuroscience tell us about the thing we perceive vs. how we perceive it. You know, Kant's transcendental idealism.

What I don't think is helpful is scientists making definitive scientific statements about the spiritual and spiritualists making definitive spiritual statements about the scientific.

This sums it up

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=27ZnxgOIqX8

[MikeS80]

Originally Posted by freebird

I think so, I myself am a scientific materialist, I regard matter as fundamental...I don't think the Universe has a grand plan for us. We as humans tend to think about this hierarchies, by thinking we're the pinnacle of evolution...looking for continuation and comfort....I think that most living beings don't remember how it was before being born, not to mention that the sense of I am is strongly related to the brain, hence brain impairments clearly provide us with empirical data that consciousness is indeed affected by that (Case of Phineas Gage), and also due to hormones and personal experiences...so that's it.. the pattern repeats itself...hence individuality vanishes...despite one's own belief or lack of.

Here's my question...for anyone else on the Forums...Assuming the ego survives death...how different would the ego be after one 'loses' the body? My take is that very different, as the ego seems to be related to the brain, hormones, experiences, instincts....etc...upon death all those vanish...so how would someone even think?

I think matter/the material is fundamental too because the non material is inside the material. Hindu's atman or the Self or self has a relationship to and is both the material and the non material, both this material and non material is brahman/oneness/wholeness/source.

This is the reason why the material is just as important/fundamental as the non-material, and why pitting the material against the non-material to cause conflict and confusion, where non exists in the first place, does not work.

[MikeS80]

Originally Posted by freebird

I think so, I myself am a scientific materialist, I regard matter as fundamental...I don't think the Universe has a grand plan for us. We as humans tend to think about this hierarchies, by thinking we're the pinnacle of evolution...looking for continuation and comfort....I think that most living beings don't remember how it was before being born, not to mention that the sense of I am is strongly related to the brain, hence brain impairments clearly provide us with empirical data that consciousness is indeed affected by that (Case of Phineas Gage), and also due to hormones and personal experiences...so that's it.. the pattern repeats itself...hence individuality vanishes...despite one's own belief or lack of.

Here's my question...for anyone else on the Forums...Assuming the ego survives death...how different would the ego be after one 'loses' the body? My take is that very different, as the ego seems to be related to the brain, hormones, experiences, instincts....etc...upon death all those vanish...so how would someone even think?

There is a person on this forum whom will respond to the ego and experiencing part of your post that consciousness does the experiencing/experiencing has nothing to do with the brain/self or Self.

This same person will also say he "knows" instead of knows to disregard/ignore the brain/mind/memory/self/Self that is needed to know. All this is is self induced ignorance because well ignorance really is bliss.

Originally Posted by freebird

So far I can tell that the individual, the sense of "I am" seems to perish with death, unfortunately, even if I don't want to be the case...through some patterns that have to do with recycling and simplicity it seems the case that the ego just vanishes...some might be sad about that and some might be happy knowing that...

Sure it perishes. And if one subscribes to reincarnation eventually a new identity is established.

On the other hand it also perishes for the enlightened and before death of the body, thus breaking the Karmic cycle of birth and death.

https://www.sriramanamaharshi.org/wp...2/who_am_I.pdf

For the mind that has gained skill in concentration, Self-enquiry becomes comparatively easy. It is by ceaseless enquiry that the thoughts are destroyed and the Self realized - the plenary Reality in which there is not even the ‘I’ thought, the experience which is referred to as “Silence”.

Of course this is all from the Eastern non-dual traditions' perspective.

Originally Posted by MikeS80

IThe atman/the Self/conciousness is local and the transcendent/mystical/paranormal is easier for one to reach, the transcendent/mystical/paranormal beccomes the non-transcendent, and there really is no need for this discussion about the transcendent, because the transcendent/mystical/paranormal and the non-transcendent is the one and the same eternal and infinite right here and right now.

Separating the self away from the Self and the non-transcendent away from the transcendent creates a problem of conflict where conflict does not exist to begin with.

What part of Justasimpleguy separates the self away from the Self and the non-transcendent away from the transcendent? The contents that Justasimpleguy has in his mind is what separates the self away from the Self and the non-transcendent away from the transcendent, and like I said before, no content(s) one has in his/her mind is beyond mind, all contents of mind are in the mind and are products/effects of mind.

That's the material reductive view of objective reality where time, space and matter are primary. It's mired deep in the well of duality. Just about all schools of Hindu tradition dismiss that, even the dualist schools, placing Consciousness in Purusha and body & mind in Prakriti (nature). The main difference is the dualist schools subscribe to many Consciousnesses (yet still of Purusha and not Prakriti) whereas the non-dualist and qualified monoist schools subscribe to one Consciousness. The one exception I believe is Nayaya and for all intents and purposes it's nontheist bordering on atheist. What you see is what you get and nothing more.

Originally Posted by MikeS80

There is a person on this forum whom will respond to the ego and experiencing part of your post that consciousness does the experiencing/experiencing has nothing to do with the brain/self or Self.

This same person will also say he "knows" instead of knows to disregard/ignore the brain/mind/memory/self/Self that is needed to know. All this is is self induced ignorance because well ignorance really is bliss.

Not exactly. My position is Consciousness is the witness and it witnesses through mind and by virtue of Its illumination of mind.

From the Kena Upanishad:

http://www.ancienttexts.org/library/...hads/kena.html

2.That which is hearing of our hearing, mind of our mind, speech of our speech, that too is life of our life-breath and sight of our sight. The wise are released beyond and they pass from this world and become immortal.

3.There sight not, nor speech, nor the mind. We know It is not nor can distinguish how one should teach of It: for It is other than the known; It is there above the unknown. It is so we have heard from men of old who declared That to our understanding.

That's why I use "known" in quotes. It's neither known nor unknown but "known". It can't be intellectualized or explained but has to be directly realized. All the teachings and all the practices are the finger pointing at the Moon. If one stares at the finger one will never "see" the Moon.

Originally Posted by JustASimpleGuy

The magic trick is discernment between consciousness/awareness and what consciousness/awareness is conscious/aware of.

If the perception/experience/identification is consciousness/awareness is local then the transcendent is beyond reach. It's God in another realm of existence (Heaven).

If the perception/experience/identification is consciousness/awareness is non-local then the transcendent is right here and right now and in everyone's everyday mundane perception/experience.

Eastern philosophy has several thousands of years of great insight into this and especially the non-dual flavors, however the non-dual traditions are a hard pill to swallow for most (especially the Western mind) because it's a perceived threat to individuality.

Trying to understand with mind is a fool's errand. Mind simply can't comprehend the Ineffable however it can "know" It as consciousness itself. Don't ask me to explain "know" because I can't. It's beyond intellect and language. It just Is and It's self-revealing and self-evident however largely unrealized because we mistake or appropriate It as something mundane, something local. "I am conscious" vs. "I am consciousness" Itself. It might seem like a small and irrelevant difference but it's not.

What ultimately happens when the body dies? How about if one subscribes to reincarnation and enlightenment to escape the cycle of Karma hence no more rebirth/individuation? Who really knows? No one. However that ground-stuff of reality is infinite potentiality. It's all that ever was, all that is and all that can ever be.

It's not something. It's not nothing. It's no thing. So what Is always Is and that includes things that never really were even though they appeared to be for a time before not appearing to be. LOL! So I don't fret over the personal vs. impersonal and I'm perfectly comfortable being the impersonal pretending to be the personal for a time.

Well now, if trying to understand with the mind is a fool's errand, then I have just the errand boy for the job.

Are not local and non-local a dualistic pair. If there is no location but that which the mind creates in its own awareness, then local and non-local are the same place, which is not really a place at all, mealy the perception of one, which as it turns out can be a rather interesting place to perceive.....provided the mind is willing to fool itself into believing that that is where it is located and ignoring for a time that it is really just where it has always been, within itself. And while it is on such a foolish errand, perhaps it could create and then spend some time there by creating some forms, changing those forms, and perceiving that change as going on in that location over time. And then it just might fool itself into believing it has nothing to do with the show and is just watching it happen. A rather foolish thing to do some might say, unless perhaps there is a moral or two to be found and toyed with in its self created and self contained foolish playhouse.

Just perhaps, if the mind were to use the right information with which to write the script for all those forms, another kind of information might just emerge from the kaleidoscopic stereogram of dancing forms it has created within, a kind of meta-information. Or maybe it is just a big foolish waste of time, space, and energy and the foolish mind is left no more informed nor wiser then it was. Who knows?

"The magic trick is discernment between consciousness/awareness and what consciousness/awareness is conscious/aware of."

Perhaps.

Yet perhaps another kind of magic can occur when the mind tricks itself into discerning between its own consciousness and what it is conscious of.

Perhaps then, to the wise and discerning mind, nothing is real, it is all Maya, illusion. Yet, it is the foolish mind that does not believe it.
.

Originally Posted by ketzer

Well now, if trying to understand with the mind is a fool's errand, then I have just the errand boy for the job.

Are not local and non-local a dualistic pair. If there is no location but that which the mind creates in its own awareness, then local and non-local are the same place, which is not really a place at all, mealy the perception of one, which as it turns out can be a rather interesting place to perceive.....provided the mind is willing to fool itself into believing that that is where it is located and ignoring for a time that it is really just where it has always been, within itself. And while it is on such a foolish errand, perhaps it could create and then spend some time there by creating some forms, changing those forms, and perceiving that change as going on in that location over time. And then it just might fool itself into believing it has nothing to do with the show and is just watching it happen. A rather foolish thing to do some might say, unless perhaps there is a moral or two to be found and toyed with in its self created and self contained foolish playhouse.

Just perhaps, if the mind were to use the right information with which to write the script for all those forms, another kind of information might just emerge from the kaleidoscopic stereogram of dancing forms it has created within, a kind of meta-information. Or maybe it is just a big foolish waste of time, space, and energy and the foolish mind is left no more informed nor wiser then it was. Who knows?

"The magic trick is discernment between consciousness/awareness and what consciousness/awareness is conscious/aware of."

Perhaps.

Yet perhaps another kind of magic can occur when the mind tricks itself into discerning between its own consciousness and what it is conscious of.

Perhaps then, to the wise and discerning mind, nothing is real, it is all Maya, illusion. Yet, it is the foolish mind that does not believe it.
.

This errand boy beat his head against the wall for 11 or so years before stumbling into Advaita and then it finally popped. LOL! I admit it was a pleasurable beating as it was consciousness studies and I'm a very curious errand boy, or maybe just a masochist?

Originally Posted by JustASimpleGuy

This errand boy beat his head against the wall for 11 or so years before stumbling into Advaita and then it finally popped. LOL! I admit it was a pleasurable beating as it was consciousness studies and I'm a very curious errand boy, or maybe just a masochist?

Well, I hope you did not hurt this Advaita, or yourself, when you stumbled into them. One really should watch where they are going, but then I suppose it is also good to notice the things along the way as well. Not that I am one to talk as I am apt to walk right by this Advaita and keep right on going, many times, without ever noticing them at all. Then Advaita would come up to me at some later time to say hello and ask why I did not even bother to say hi as I walked by. At which point all I can do is just look at them wondering what in the world they are talking about, apologizing and promising to try to be more mindful of what is along my journey, and not always so focused on where I am headed. Particularly since I generally have no idea where it is I am going, yet nevertheless, I am often in an awful hurry to get there just the same.

Which brings to my mind one of my favorite songs.
I hope you like it as much as I do.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O6hGjSZ2BqM

Damn! I could listen to that all over again!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O6hGjSZ2BqM




.

[MikeS80]

Originally Posted by JustASimpleGuy

That's the material reductive view of objective reality where time, space and matter are primary. It's mired deep in the well of duality. Just about all schools of Hindu tradition dismiss that, even the dualist schools, placing Consciousness in Purusha and body & mind in Prakriti (nature). The main difference is the dualist schools subscribe to many Consciousnesses (yet still of Purusha and not Prakriti) whereas the non-dualist and qualified monoist schools subscribe to one Consciousness. The one exception I believe is Nayaya and for all intents and purposes it's nontheist bordering on atheist. What you see is what you get and nothing more.

Quote me where I said time, space and matter are primary/above the spiritual/god/brahman etc. Being fundamental/important is not the same as being primary. I said matter is just as fundamental/important as brahrman because matter is brahman.

As Ketzer pointed out, your subjective reality has the foundation of the duality of opposites/separation-local vs non-local, self vs Self, consciousness/the paranormal and mystical vs mind, body, ego etc, duality vs non-duality etc etc. How is that oneness/wholeness/one not two? That is an honest question that I want to know.

Duality in the spiritual context is the separation and division of all aspects of Self/atman, thus brahman and that includes mind, body, ego etc. The mind, body and ego is not the problem, the problem is the false contents of mind/contents of mind that are not true.