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

Originally Posted by Greenslade

I've had a couple of instances when my consciousness was set apart from everything else, there was just my conscious all on its lonesome. It was dark but a comfortable kind of dark but I guess that was just 'translation' for the mind. There was nothing but my consciousness to be conscious of, no external input and nothing internal - not even body, mind, memories..... There was just an experience of I am, nothing else.

Yes, Samadhi, though allow me to put my own "spin" on it.

It's not set apart but merely brought to the forefront dissolving all else, and it's more an experience of I, not I am.

That very same experience is always present, however mind is superimposed upon it. To me the experience, when I attend it, is one of bifurcation and union simultaneous. That is in one respect I'm chitta but in another more fundamental respect I am Chit, and chitta is experienced by Chit.

EDIT: Without chiita the experience is one of absence. In your words it's "dark but a comfortable kind of dark".

[God-Like]

Originally Posted by JustASimpleGuy

In essence and what it seems to me you are saying is there's only intellectual realization. What I'm saying is there's both intellectual and experiential realization. My experience is intellectual realization comes first, and if sufficiently motivational to the point of dogged pursuit it can be followed by experiential realization. I've heard the reverse is possible but much more rare.

To muddy the waters even further (LOL!) my initial intellectual realization wasn't robust in the sense of traditional spiritual teachings, however the experiential realization that followed, the flash of Awakening, led me to pursue intellectual realization much further and along more traditional lines of inquiry, and that would be Advaita Vedanta.

Why is this is so disturbing?

You again are not explaining or answering BY WHAT MEANS do you realise that what you are is Pure Consciousness .

I can't put it across as a continued question any clearer than I have .

You keep saying what you say without actually answering me what I am asking .

You say you understand what I am asking but you fail to answer

Experiential realisation relates to a self that can experience .

If there is only Pure Consciousness present, there isn't a self experiencing a realisation that what you are is Pure Consciousness .

What is pure and what is consciousness is made up in mind .

Again, I can't put this forward to you any simpler .

You refer to something of the void or beyond mind and yet you speak about a self experience and a conclusion of what we are is Pure Consciousness .

It doesn't work mate .

Honestly, it doesn't, you need to think about what I am saying .

Your welcome to disagree all day long, but it makes no sense to me because I know of what mind and self relates to in regards to what we are and what constitutes a knowing of something ..

Beyond the self and beyond the mind there are no references for consciousness or what you are .

Do you understand?


x daz x

Originally Posted by God-Like

What you are is self aware of the mind . You can call that Consciousness or anything you like . I have always preferred to say simply 'what you are' it may seem vague to some but I say it for a reason, so that there is no association made to what that is .

What about the unconscious 'subsystems' that are beavering away at creating your reality? They are as much as if not more instrumental in building the framework of your consciousness than anything else. Self aware of the mind is what Jung would call ego-consciousness but the self also includes the unconscious. What I've discovered is that consciousness seems to come in 'layers'. There is what we are conscious of (ego-conscious and I'm keeping it simple here) and beyond that there is a 'layer' of consciousness that seems 'set apart' from the mind/brain mechanism. Then there is the conscious of the self, which also embraces both the ego-unconscious and the conscious - and the anima/animus, Shadow Self.... And beyond that there is a layer of consciousness and when you think you've reached an understanding another 'layer' pops into existence. From a Jungian perspective what people are conscious of is ego-consciousness, and few are aware that unconscious subsystems even exist.

This is what's happening with people that make you frustrated, people are conscious of the 'end result' but are completely unaware of how they get there. They are only conscious of what they are conscious of, which is the 'end product' or ego-conscious of what's chuntering away in their skulls under the surface. What most mean by self-aware isn't self-aware but ego-conscious and don't embrace the unconscious.

Certainly, Jungian self/Spiritual Self/consciousness is what we are for the sake of simplicity but there's far more to that story. You are much more than the self awareness of the mind, the mind is only one aspect of all that you are. What you are is the totality of your conscious and unconscious, and the 'layer above' that - and subsequent 'layers' you wish to explore. The understanding here goes back to the visualisation the Vesica Pisces and Triplex Unity provides. Putting a name like 'The Self' on the 'layers' doesn't work because that implies individuality and it's hanging a name on Ruby Tuesday, it's beyond name/definition/individuality.

[God-Like]

Originally Posted by Greenslade

What about the unconscious 'subsystems' that are beavering away at creating your reality? They are as much as if not more instrumental in building the framework of your consciousness than anything else. Self aware of the mind is what Jung would call ego-consciousness but the self also includes the unconscious. What I've discovered is that consciousness seems to come in 'layers'. There is what we are conscious of (ego-conscious and I'm keeping it simple here) and beyond that there is a 'layer' of consciousness that seems 'set apart' from the mind/brain mechanism. Then there is the conscious of the self, which also embraces both the ego-unconscious and the conscious - and the anima/animus, Shadow Self.... And beyond that there is a layer of consciousness and when you think you've reached an understanding another 'layer' pops into existence. From a Jungian perspective what people are conscious of is ego-consciousness, and few are aware that unconscious subsystems even exist.

.

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

[MikeS80]

Originally Posted by Greenslade

What about the unconscious 'subsystems' that are beavering away at creating your reality? They are as much as if not more instrumental in building the framework of your consciousness than anything else. Self aware of the mind is what Jung would call ego-consciousness but the self also includes the unconscious. What I've discovered is that consciousness seems to come in 'layers'. There is what we are conscious of (ego-conscious and I'm keeping it simple here) and beyond that there is a 'layer' of consciousness that seems 'set apart' from the mind/brain mechanism. Then there is the conscious of the self, which also embraces both the ego-unconscious and the conscious - and the anima/animus, Shadow Self.... And beyond that there is a layer of consciousness and when you think you've reached an understanding another 'layer' pops into existence. From a Jungian perspective what people are conscious of is ego-consciousness, and few are aware that unconscious subsystems even exist.

This is what's happening with people that make you frustrated, people are conscious of the 'end result' but are completely unaware of how they get there. They are only conscious of what they are conscious of, which is the 'end product' or ego-conscious of what's chuntering away in their skulls under the surface. What most mean by self-aware isn't self-aware but ego-conscious and don't embrace the unconscious.

Certainly, Jungian self/Spiritual Self/consciousness is what we are for the sake of simplicity but there's far more to that story. You are much more than the self awareness of the mind, the mind is only one aspect of all that you are. What you are is the totality of your conscious and unconscious, and the 'layer above' that - and subsequent 'layers' you wish to explore. The understanding here goes back to the visualisation the Vesica Pisces and Triplex Unity provides. Putting a name like 'The Self' on the 'layers' doesn't work because that implies individuality and it's hanging a name on Ruby Tuesday, it's beyond name/definition/individuality.

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.

[God-Like]

Originally Posted by JustASimpleGuy

My heartfelt condolences

That's nice of you to say mate, much appreciated .


x daz x

[MikeS80]

It seems like most, if not all spirituality has the truth about the self and about the ego-mind all twisted, colored or warped to keep people ignorant/in the dark about the truth of the self, and ego-mind. The self is god/oneness/wholenesss, hence the title of this thread.

This is also why self-realization is also known as god-realization by some people.

Originally Posted by JustASimpleGuy

Yes, Samadhi, though allow me to put my own "spin" on it.

It's not set apart but merely brought to the forefront dissolving all else, and it's more an experience of I, not I am.

That very same experience is always present, however mind is superimposed upon it. To me the experience, when I attend it, is one of bifurcation and union simultaneous. That is in one respect I'm chitta but in another more fundamental respect I am Chit, and chitta is experienced by Chit.

EDIT: Without chiita the experience is one of absence. In your words it's "dark but a comfortable kind of dark".

I really don't have the Spiritual dictionary although I have spent time understanding what resonates with me rather than the gaining of knowledge. I have looked at Samadhi but from all accounts there is still the experiencer/experience going on, an 'I/self' in some shape or form that is aware of things outside of the self. I've had experiences where I've experienced from an almost third-party perspective, as if standing behind my own shoulder like a computer game. Whether that was Samadhi or bot I don't know, the terminology doesn't interest me the same. What I experienced was very different. The term "I am" was borrowed from Mooji, where he defines it as an acknowledgement that consciousness exists, nothing more after that. There was no experience and experiencer but due to the lack of words I don't know if there is a word that goes beyond experience. It was just a complete sense of "I am" in the sense of acknowledging that consciousness exists.

What I 'experienced' was just pure consciousness, using the words for communication purposes but it went far beyond experience, words and definitions. It wasn't even 'pure', it was beyond even that. It was all that there was at the time.

So maybe the experience was 'I am Chit' but there was no thought or consciousness of that at the time, there was simply the acknowledgement that consciousness exists - not even "My consciousness exists." Later the words come to mind as I try to process what happened and brought it into the realms of the mind. I can understand that Chitta is experienced by Chit, it's one of the benefits of having a fragmented personality. As far as I can work out Chitta (lower mind) is very close to Jung's unconscious.

There was no consciousness or experience of absence for me, there was consciousness itself and nothing else - absence is a product of Chitta rather than Chit. There was no 'this' or 'that', there was only this'.

But really, is the experienced not the experiencer?

[Miss Hepburn]

Ha, I thought I was done posting here!

Originally Posted by God-Like

....
Some peeps think self realisation is simply realising that the personhood is an illusion .

I did not know people think this. I have never known anyone that thinks this.

Self realisation is being what you are prior to mind, prior to thought,
prior to knowing, prior to experience direct or indirect lol .

Oh, good, This is my first x seeing you say this. (Sorry there are 900 posts here!)
This, I relate to - a clear definition of what (you think) realisation is.
I don't have any definition of enlightenment or self-realization, (USA spelling, sorry)

It's a mindful conclusion that derives through experiencing what you are from an altered state of mind
and then associates concepts of the mind to that.

It's not a bloody realisation, it's a conclusion based upon an experience of beyond the ordinary self and mind .

Agreed.

And I hope you understand - asking a question is no problem to me.
You are no problem to me. :)
It is the way I have seen you asking it.
This particular teacher-student method wanting a certain answer and only that answer and when they can't give it to you
or it's diff than you are looking for, then they are said to be 'untruthful or dodging like a politician'.

[Miss Hepburn]

God-Like:
I can be overwhelmed with grief of my parents passing over of late, but I know that after I get home,
have a run, do some meditation and self healing I am seeing differently ..
_______________
What? Your parents?
I am so sorry. Oh my goodness.
.
.
.