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

[God-Like]

Originally Posted by JustASimpleGuy

https://www.yogapedia.com/definition...at-chit-ananda

Yogapedia explains Sat-Chit-Ananda
The meaning of the individual words of sat-chit-ananda are as follows:

• Sat: truth, absolute being or existence-- that which is enduring and unchanging
• Chit: consciousness, understanding and comprehension
• Ananda: bliss, a state of pure happiness, joy and sensual pleasure

A common translation of sat-chit-ananda is "truth-consciousness-bliss." Sometimes sat-chit-ananda is considered to be a triple consciousness, where all three elements can be taken separately or considered as one because, in reality, each element is found in everything.

http://nisargadatta.net/

The Sense of "I am" (Consciousness)

When I met my Guru, he told me: "You are not what you take yourself
to be. Find out what you are. Watch the sense 'I am', find your real
Self." I obeyed him, because I trusted him. I did as he told me. All
my spare time I would spend looking at myself in silence. And what a
difference it made, and how soon!

My teacher told me to hold on to the sense 'I am' tenaciously and not
to swerve from it even for a moment. I did my best to follow his
advice and in a comparatively short time I realized within myself the
truth of his teaching. All I did was to remember his teaching, his
face, his words constantly. This brought an end to the mind; in the
stillness of the mind I saw myself as I am -- unbound.

I simply followed (my teacher's) instruction which was to focus the
mind on pure being 'I am', and stay in it. I used to sit for hours
together, with nothing but the 'I am' in my mind and soon peace and
joy and a deep all-embracing love became my normal state. In it all
disappeared -- myself, my Guru, the life I lived, the world around
me. Only peace remained and unfathomable silence.

Nisargadatta Maharaj

https://www.scienceandnonduality.com...eness-the-same

“Awareness is primordial; it is the original state, beginningless, endless, uncaused, unsupported, without parts, without change. Consciousness is on contact, a reflection against a surface, a state of duality. There can be no consciousness without awareness, but there can be awareness without consciousness, as in deep sleep. Awareness is absolute, consciousness is relative to its content; consciousness is always of something. Consciousness is partial and changeful, awareness is total, changeless, calm and silent. And it is the common matrix of every experience.”

Here's my take on this. What he labels Awareness is nothing other that Chit, and what he labels consciousness is the illumination of mind by Chit. That last bit is what Ahamkara makes it's own. My consciousness. That is the error. The illusion. The mistaken identity.

https://realization.org/p/nisargadat...-absolute.html

He taught us to find out for ourselves, to ponder his words, and ask ourselves, “Can this be true?” He said one must find out what the body is, where it came from, study it with detachment, watch it without judging. One soon sees that it is just like a robot which has been programmed by others. We are to turn within to that which lets us know that we are, to become one with that.

Abiding in the “I Amness" (or Consciousness, which is pure love), that Consciousness itself will give us all the answers. At the present time, Consciousness is what we are, not personal Consciousness, but impersonal, universal Consciousness. In course of time, the Consciousness will show us that we are not even this, but we are that Eternal Absolute, unborn, undying.

Tying things together, personal Consciousness is Chit illumining mind and the impersonal, universal Consciousness is Chit. The Eternal Absolute is Sat-Chit-Ananda.

As far as I understand all the traditions arising out of the Vedas point beyond mind, though they are a mix of dualism, qualified non-dualism and unqualified non-dualism. The one common theme is mind & body are of Prakriti (nature) and our true nature is of Purusha (Consciousness).

https://realization.org/p/nisargadat...as-method.html

The only thing which anyone has is the conviction that one exists, the conscious presence. Meditation is only on that sense of presence, nothing else.

I experience therefore I Am.

Not as an individual sitting, but the sense of presence without words. Meditate on that which knows you are sitting here. Your feeling that your body is here is identification with the body, but that which knows that this body is sitting here is the expression of the Absolute.

Pretty much choiceless awareness, resting in awareness, do nothing meditation, just sitting.

It is not necessary for you to concentrate on it, it is always there. Whatever you do, the essence of it is the body-mind. Let the body-mind do its work but understand that what is doing the work is not you, you are the sense of presence.

Whatever efforts you make, either physically or intellectually, will be essentially the effort of the body-mind. There is nothing for you to do. Whatever happens will happen by itself, with your conviction that you are totally apart from body and mind.

And this is basically the Karma Yoga practice of Work as Witness.


This is my philosophical foundation and perspective. I've given this a lot of thought, introspection and contemplation and I do my best to put it into practice and stay with it every waking moment.

There is a lot to that JASG and I haven't got time to digest it all ...

In layman's term what I am trying to understand is by what means do you understand pure consciousness existing ...

What I mean is, there is a knowing of the mind that one is aware of the moon .

In the void as you put it, there is only pure consciousness .

So I am wondering how pure consciousness knows that pure consciousness only exists in the void .

The issue is that consciousness is a made up word and no-one really therefore knows what it is ..

We can speculate of course in regards to what it implies or refers too, but I am trying to get to the nuts and bolts of this for a reason .

The reason is to make a distinction between self knowing, the mind, self awareness and beyond all that .

So when a peep makes a statement that pure consciousness is only present in the void, it leaves me scratching my head as to how one concluded that when no-one is there concluding anything .


x daz x

[God-Like]

Originally Posted by MikeS80

Yes. The problem is we place limits on ourselves with our fear based and scarcity based mental and emotional conditioning, which our minds are programmed with while we are growing up.

I am sure that if I did not have any fear and scarcity based conditioning when I was growing up and my parents told me everything I know now, right from the start, things would be a lot different and I/we would not be on this forum now having this conversation, lol. Just think about that for a minute!

The law of attraction is like energy attracts like energy/ you receive what you see/experience out there in the physical universe. Thoughts, beliefs, feelings, emotions etc are all energy.

I think conditioning can be a hinderance and a blessing, I suppose it depends on what is of the conditioning .

It doesn't matter if it's restricting or freeing one from limitations because it's still a conditioning nevertheless .

I think most would agree that finding stuff out for oneself is always a good thing ..

I see peeps at times speak about anything is possible because God is the absolute Dude and sole creator, but does that mean the rain consist of chocolate buttons, and birds can shoot laser beams out from their eyes?

I would say if there was a d.n.a. blueprint that allowed these things to happen then it's possible ..

In regards to the law of attraction then only what you attract would be attracted .

In that respect it's not possible for anything else to be attracted .

Kinda blows the 'anything is possible scenario outta the window' ..

I think if things were to be different than it is, it would be .


x daz x

Originally Posted by God-Like

There is a lot to that JASG and I haven't got time to digest it all ...

In layman's term what I am trying to understand is by what means do you understand pure consciousness existing ...

What I mean is, there is a knowing of the mind that one is aware of the moon .

In the void as you put it, there is only pure consciousness .

So I am wondering how pure consciousness knows that pure consciousness only exists in the void .

The issue is that consciousness is a made up word and no-one really therefore knows what it is ..

We can speculate of course in regards to what it implies or refers too, but I am trying to get to the nuts and bolts of this for a reason .

The reason is to make a distinction between self knowing, the mind, self awareness and beyond all that .

So when a peep makes a statement that pure consciousness is only present in the void, it leaves me scratching my head as to how one concluded that when no-one is there concluding anything .


x daz x

I didn't say pure Consciousness is only present in the void. In fact it's present right here and right now. It's what experiences and what It experiences is Itself manifest as name and form, including us. Furthermore even if everything we perceive as objective reality was no more, including us, It would still be present and it would still experience, however Its experience would be that of absence.

All meditation practices are designed to reveal this, eventually, but one has to go beyond focused techniques like mindfulness. The purpose of all these systems of meditation is to cultivate that state of being - non-dual awareness - which in fact is hiding in plain sight. In Buddhism the reveal is no-self and emptiness. In Vedanta the reveal is Self (Atman, not ego-self). That end-state is self realization.

This is the view of Advaita Vedanta and as I've said that's my foundation. Is it possible? From my experience I have to say yes, it is.

[MikeS80]

Originally Posted by JustASimpleGuy

It's both and that's what I pointed out in my post. From a neuroscientific perspective it's a construct within mind and from a spiritual perspective it's the question I asked about what's experiencing mind.

Since the ego-self is of mind then it too is the experienced and not the Experiencer. This is why I posit mind-body is a magnificent biological machine and neuroscience and psychology are correct in the assessment from that perspective that consciousness and free will are but illusion. They are both qualities of the Experiencer and what mind-body perceives as consciousness and free will are simply "reflections" and mistakenly appropriated as "mine" by Ahamkara, the I-maker.

Once again, that's the illusion. That's Maya. It's an error, ignorance, mistaken identity and Self realization is realizing this error, realizing one's true nature. Realizing one is not the ego-self but That which experiences ego-self.

EDIT: By the way, the only way you know the universe is within mind. That is you cannot see molecules, atoms, electrons, protons, neutrons, quarks or bosons. Furthermore you touch something and it feels solid, however it's something like 99.99999999999999999999% empty, and even the 0.00000000000000000001% that's not empty is just a probability of observation. Superposition and collapse of the wave function. So I ask again, what's really out there outside of mind?

It has to do more with language than anything else. The mind uses lanquage. "I am" is a thought that we say and think when we learn a language and to speak. We have thoughts, concepts, ideas, metaphors, labels, analogies, judgements, mental and emotional conditioning, duality, biases etc etc, all because of language.

If we were to take away the language we have learned, we will not have any thoughts, mental and emotional conditioning, judgments, biases, duality, concepts, ideas, metaphors, labels, analogies etc etc, and we will simply be aware of the physical universe. The language that is in our mind is key.

A new born baby can not and does not say or think "I am" because a new born baby has not learned a language yet. A new born baby feels his/her physical existence/presence in the right here and right now.

Our inner true or universal self/atman (our heart FEELING of I AM) experiences and is aware of our mind, but our ego (our conditioned thinking of I am) is what experiences and interacts with the physical universe/existence/creation.

Edit: our conditioned thinking of "I am" colors our consciousness and perceptions, thus colors our consciousness that callapses the wave function, this is what the law of attraction is based on-and what like energy attracts like energy means.

[MikeS80]

Originally Posted by God-Like

I think conditioning can be a hinderance and a blessing, I suppose it depends on what is of the conditioning .

It doesn't matter if it's restricting or freeing one from limitations because it's still a conditioning nevertheless .

I think most would agree that finding stuff out for oneself is always a good thing ..

I see peeps at times speak about anything is possible because God is the absolute Dude and sole creator, but does that mean the rain consist of chocolate buttons, and birds can shoot laser beams out from their eyes?

I would say if there was a d.n.a. blueprint that allowed these things to happen then it's possible ..

In regards to the law of attraction then only what you attract would be attracted .

In that respect it's not possible for anything else to be attracted .

Kinda blows the 'anything is possible scenario outta the window' ..

I think if things were to be different than it is, it would be .


x daz x

Haha, one can think about a purple pig flying all his/her life, but a purple pig will never fly in actuality, except in his/her own mind. But if he/she believes in a purple pig flying strong enough, he/she might create a thought form for himself/herself to see/experience.

In regards to the law of attraction, anything is possible as a whole, yes only what you attract would be attracted, but what you do not or can not attract, someone else can or does attract.

P.S I think you are right about awareness. Our brain/mind processes and uses awareness/consciousness.

Originally Posted by MikeS80

It has to do more with language than anything else. The mind uses lanquage. "I am" is a thought that we say and think when we learn a language and to speak. We have thoughts, concepts, ideas, metaphors, labels, analogies, judgements, mental and emotional conditioning, duality, biases etc etc, all because of language.

If we were to take away the language we have learned, we will not have any thoughts, mental and emotional conditioning, judgments, biases, duality, concepts, ideas, metaphors, labels, analogies etc etc, and we will simply be aware of the physical universe. The language that is in our mind is key.

A new born baby can not and does not say or think "I am" because a new born baby has not learned a language yet. A new born baby feels his/her physical existence/presence in the right here and right now.

Our inner true or universal self/atman (our heart FEELING of I AM) experiences and is aware of our mind, but our ego (our conditioned thinking of I am) is what experiences and interacts with the physical universe/existence/creation.

Edit: our conditioned thinking of "I am" colors our consciousness and perceptions, thus colors our consciousness that callapses the wave function, this is what the law of attraction is based on-and what like energy attracts like energy means.

Just like I don't consider the ego-self (Ahamkara, I-maker) a bad thing I also don't consider intellect (Buddhi) a bad thing. Both are tools to be wisely used by Self, however to make that a reality takes a bit of doing and the doing is all of mind. As I've said the path beyond mind is through mind. In Vedanta that path is practice of the four Yogas.

Advaita considers Consciousness pure and unchangeable. It is in fact Self and ever free. Sat-Chit-Ananda. The only thing that's colored is mind and if one is tightly identified with mind then one suffers the coloring of mind. The closer one identifies with Consciousness the less one suffers the coloring of mind and in fact one has greater discretion over the coloring.

Originally Posted by MikeS80

Haha, one can think about a purple pig flying all his/her life, but a purple pig will never fly in actuality, except in his/her own mind. But if he/she believes in a purple pig flying strong enough, he/she might create a thought form for himself/herself to see/experience.

In regards to the law of attraction, anything is possible as a whole, yes only what you attract would be attracted, but what you do not or can not attract, someone else can or does attract.

P.S I think you are right about awareness. Our brain/mind processes and uses awareness/consciousness.

From the perspective of Advaita it's the other way around. Consciousness illumines mind. It uses mind to experience objective reality. Mind-body is just so much non-sentient matter.

Brain constructs its representation of objective reality in mind and Consciousness experiences the contents of mind.

[MikeS80]

Originally Posted by JustASimpleGuy

Just like I don't consider the ego-self (Ahamkara, I-maker) a bad thing I also don't consider intellect (Buddhi) a bad thing. Both are tools to be wisely used by Self, however to make that a reality takes a bit of doing and the doing is all of mind. As I've said the path beyond mind is through mind. In Vedanta that path is practice of the four Yogas.

Advaita considers Consciousness pure and unchangeable. It is in fact Self and ever free. Sat-Chit-Ananda. The only thing that's colored is mind and if one is tightly identified with mind then one suffers the coloring of mind. The closer one identifies with Consciousness the less one suffers the coloring of mind and in fact one has greater discretion over the coloring.

The flaw I see with that view of coloring of/identification with the mind, is that the mind is able to identify with and be one/whole with our true inner universal self, atman, brahman or whatever you want to call it.

You can not be one/whole with your true inner universal self, atman, brahman or whatever you want to call it, when you do not identify with the mind. It is better to say do not identify with your conditioned and separate thinking sense of self/I am.

Originally Posted by MikeS80

The flaw I see with that view of coloring of/identification with the mind, is that the mind is able to identify with and be one/whole with our true inner universal self, atman, brahman or whatever you want to call it.

You can not be one/whole with our true inner universal self, atman, brahman or whatever you want to call it, when you do not identify with the mind. It is better to say do not identify with your conditioned and separate thinking sense of self/I am.

There's no such thing as an unconditioned mind, not even at birth. It undergoes conditioning from the beginning of the brain's development and beyond that has predispositions by virtue of genetics. Nature and nurture.

What I'm relating is the Vedantic view and it's quite clear. Self realization is realizing one's true nature is not of body or mind but of Consciousness. Enlightenment is full and irreversible experience of not being mind-body but Consciousness. Awakenings are experiential glimpses into that reality. Some might quibble about the definitions I used for Self realization, Awakening and Enlightenment, but I believe they are reasonable representations, at least from my perspective and understanding.

What resists disidentification with mind-body is the ego-self (Ahamakara, I-maker). It's simply its nature and Vedanta is clear it is the hindrance to non-dual experience.

[MikeS80]

Originally Posted by JustASimpleGuy

There's no such thing as an unconditioned mind, not even at birth. It undergoes conditioning from the beginning of the brain's development and beyond that has predispositions by virtue of genetics. Nature and nurture.

What I'm relating is the Vedantic view and it's quite clear. Self realization is realizing one's true nature is not of body or mind but of Consciousness. Enlightenment is full and irreversible experience of not being mind-body but Consciousness. Awakenings are experiential glimpses into that reality. Some might quibble about the definitions I used for Self realization, Awakening and Enlightenment, but I believe they are reasonable representations, at least from my perspective and understanding.

What resists disidentification with mind-body is the ego-self (Ahamakara, I-maker). It's simply its nature and Vedanta is clear it is the hindrance to non-dual experience.

Believing there's no such thing as an unconditioned mind is a self limiting belief and misses and ignores the point that our true inner universal self/atman is unchanging, by unchanging I mean is not able to be mentally and emotionally conditioned, manipulated, brainwashed and controlled. Thinking there is no such thing as an unconditioned mind, is not self realization. You must ask yourself why you think there is no such thing as an unconditioned mind.

An unconditioned mind is a mind that is one/whole or aligned with our true inner universal self/atman, and lives, and feels his/her physical presence/existence in the eternal and infinite right here and right now. Our true inner universal self is of the heart, not of the mind. Our true inner universal self is what gives us awareness and consciousness, and animates our bodies, meaning gives our bodies life.