The self/I is not ego-mind. The ego-mind is not the sense of I/self.

Originally Posted by MikeS80

Absolute existence and Pure being are to be taken in the same context. Absolute existence and pure being are in 2 sentences that are in relation to each other. Pure being is synonymous with (absolute) existence.

Pure being is being/living consciously in absolute existence/the right here and right now, and what did I say existence was in my post? Existence/the right here and right now is both duality and non-duality, the material and the non-material-this is why and how all is one and one is all.

What you quoted above confirms what I posted to be true. You just want to see and believe what you want to see and believe and you don't see and believe what you do not want to see and believe. This is what happens when you subjectively "absorb what is useful, reject what is useless and add what is essentially your own". If I was you, I would do more research on the Bruce Lee quote you quoted in your signature.

If pure being is synonymous with (absolute) existence then there's never non-being or non-existence. The only thing that ceases to be is mind-body and since you're not that then from your perspective there should never be non-being. Death of the body is not death of being.

What happens to pure being, pure existence, pure consciousness when there is no material universe, galaxies, stars, planets, living beings? Is it changed? Does it cease to exist? Cease to be? You're looking at it from the perspective of relative reality, transaction reality and not absolute reality. From the perspective of the ego-self which is imminently perishable. I'm looking at it from the perspective of Self which was never born; will never die. Has never changed; can never change. Unborn, eternal, immutable, immemorial, does not die when the body dies.

Water is water regardless if it's a river, lake or ocean, whether it's flowing or still, calm or tumultuous. Brahman is Brahman whether unmanifest or manifest. Appearance and disappearance of the unmanifest as the manifest have no impact whatsoever. Existence is still existence. Being is still being. Consciousness is still consciousness. That's what that quote points to.

I'm pointing at the Moon. You're pointing at its reflections. https://youtu.be/UkjMTrOQf5Y?t=4058

The Heart of Bhagavad Gita | Swami Sarvapriyananda https://youtu.be/AwSb7mqx2I4

[MikeS80]

Originally Posted by JustASimpleGuy

If pure being is synonymous with (absolute) existence then there's never non-being or non-existence. The only thing that ceases to be is mind-body and since you're not that then from your perspective there should never be non-being. Death of the body is not death of being.

What happens to pure being, pure existence, pure consciousness when there is no material universe, galaxies, stars, planets, living beings? Is it changed? Does it cease to exist? Cease to be? You're looking at it from the perspective of relative reality, transaction reality and not absolute reality. From the perspective of the ego-self which is imminently perishable. I'm looking at it from the perspective of Self which was never born; will never die. Has never changed; can never change. Unborn, eternal, immutable, immemorial, does not die when the body dies.

Water is water regardless if it's a river, lake or ocean, whether it's flowing or still, calm or tumultuous. Brahman is Brahman whether unmanifest or manifest. Appearance and disappearance of the unmanifest as the manifest have no impact whatsoever. Existence is still existence. Being is still being. Consciousness is still consciousness. That's what that quote points to.

I'm pointing at the Moon. You're pointing at its reflections. https://youtu.be/UkjMTrOQf5Y?t=4058

The Heart of Bhagavad Gita | Swami Sarvapriyananda https://youtu.be/AwSb7mqx2I4

You are just going in circles chasing your own tail.

There is non-being but there is never non-existence, non-existence does not exist. Non-existence is an oxymoron.

I am looking at it from the perspective of relative reality, transaction reality and absolute reality-Because relative reality, objective reality, and transaction reality is/are one and the same right here and right now, which you seen to not want to see, experience and understand for yourself.

So the self is not born or manistfests itself in physical form through birth/the sex act? The self just appears in physical form out of nothing/thin air? That makes no lick of sense what-so ever. Common sense and intelligence be darned!

Edit: One should never separate, divide and pit relative reality, transaction reality, absolute reality ect against oneness/wholeness because oneness and wholeness are exactly those realities and more.

You pointing to concepts, ideas, metaphors and analogies of the moon in your head/mind, is not you directly pointing to the moon with your physical fingers.

Heaven and Earth are one and the same right here and right now.

Originally Posted by MikeS80

You are just going in circles chasing your own tail.

There is non-being but there is never non-existence, non-existence does not exist. Non-existence is an oxymoron.

I am looking at it from the perspective of relative reality, transaction reality and absolute reality-Because relative reality, objective reality, and transaction reality is/are one and the same right here and right now, which you seen to not want to see, experience and understand for yourself.

So the self is not born or manistfests itself in physical form through birth/the sex act? The self just appears in physical form out of nothing/thin air? That makes no lick of sense what-so ever. Common sense and intelligence be darned!

Edit: One should never separate, divide and pit relative reality, transaction reality, absolute reality ect against oneness/wholeness because oneness and wholeness are exactly those realities and more.

You pointing to concepts, ideas, metaphors and analogies of the moon in your head/mind, is not you directly pointing to the moon with your physical fingers.

Heaven and Earth are one and the same right here and right now.

Yup, that's Advaita non-dualism. It's easy to mouth the words "All is Brahman" but not so easy to understand and harder still to realize. But hey, nothing good comes easy, right?

[MikeS80]

Originally Posted by JustASimpleGuy

Yup, that's Advaita non-dualism. It's easy to mouth the words "All is Brahman" but not so easy to understand and harder still to realize. But hey, nothing good comes easy, right?

No, that is what you want Advaita non-dualism to be, so you are able to dismiss logic, common sense and intelligence. By dismissing logic, common sense and intelligence, you are dismissing brahman/atman/the right here and right now.

Both Non-duality and duality are man made concepts of the mind inside duality (inside the same mind and duality you claim needs to be transcended). There are no real such things as duality and non-duality, because there is only the oneness/wholeness of the right here and right now.

[snowyowl]

Originally Posted by MikeS80

Both Non-duality and duality are man made concepts of the mind inside duality (inside the same mind and duality you claim needs to be transcended). There are no real such things as duality and non-duality, because there is only the oneness/wholeness of the right here and right now.

Hi all

What I don't get here is why dispute over what name we are using for the Absolute - aren't they all "man made concepts" as you say, not just duality/nonduality but surely also oneness/wholeness is a concept or abstraction, once we have put it into thoughts & words? Could be why mysticism is perhaps the most misunderstood subject! Eg we can't define 'here and now' without also implying 'there and then'.

I gave up Christianity when I realised I didn't believe in God, as I thought it was just a concept without any existence. But now, from the mystical perspective, I can see it's just an alternative name for the sacred presence (like all these other terms) which is a matter of preference rather than a matter of belief.

Originally Posted by snowyowl

Hi all

What I don't get here is why dispute over what name we are using for the Absolute - aren't they all "man made concepts" as you say, not just duality/nonduality but surely also oneness/wholeness is a concept or abstraction, once we have put it into thoughts & words? Could be why mysticism is perhaps the most misunderstood subject! Eg we can't define 'here and now' without also implying 'there and then'.

I gave up Christianity when I realised I didn't believe in God, as I thought it was just a concept without any existence. But now, from the mystical perspective, I can see it's just an alternative name for the sacred presence (like all these other terms) which is a matter of preference rather than a matter of belief.

I view it as a discussion and not a dispute. All roads lead to Rome, so to speak.

Also consider reading, hearing and even contemplating only go so far, but writing helps one flesh it all out, especially when it's subject to critical review. I often find when writing I'm also examining and scrutinizing my own understanding. If I can't put it in my own words or if I can and a logical refutation is presented then my understanding is lacking and needs to be revised. I think the back-and-forth is beneficial to all involved.

There was a great debate between the Buddhists and dualist schools of Vedanta that went on for a thousand years and both schools of philosophy benefited. There's also the great debate between Advata Vedanta and Vishishtadvaita over the nature of Maya that lasted for hundreds of years and is summarized in "The Seven Great Untenables".

Take what I post with a grain of salt. If it resonates, it resonates. If it doesn't, it doesn't. It's just my understanding bolstered by my perception and experience, and as Swami Vivekananda was fond of saying "Be fearless". That's especially true of open and honest intellectual discussion, even of the spiritual.

[MikeS80]

Originally Posted by snowyowl

Hi all

What I don't get here is why dispute over what name we are using for the Absolute - aren't they all "man made concepts" as you say, not just duality/nonduality but surely also oneness/wholeness is a concept or abstraction, once we have put it into thoughts & words? Could be why mysticism is perhaps the most misunderstood subject! Eg we can't define 'here and now' without also implying 'there and then'.

I gave up Christianity when I realised I didn't believe in God, as I thought it was just a concept without any existence. But now, from the mystical perspective, I can see it's just an alternative name for the sacred presence (like all these other terms) which is a matter of preference rather than a matter of belief.

Concepts, metaphors etc. which are abstract ideas or subjective ideas or personal individuality subjective mental information are used to communicate things to people who do not personally experience and know that thing. This is why people whom dismiss individuality while talking in concepts, dreams, illusions, metaphors and analogies run in circles chasing thier own tail. And they wonder why people like God-like and I keep repeating ourselves lol.

Concepts are a subjective personal and individual thing, thus are left wide open for misintrepertation/misconstruing/misunderstanding intentionally or not intentionally.

"there and then" is also a mental concept, when used in the context of time, There is no "there and then" because the right here and right now is all there is.

Edit: The right here and right now is not a concept, metaphor or analogy for anything. The right here and now is literally both the physical/material and the spiritual/non-material at the same time, in the right here and now.

[MikeS80]

Originally Posted by JustASimpleGuy

I view it as a discussion and not a dispute. All roads lead to Rome, so to speak.

Also consider reading, hearing and even contemplating only go so far, but writing helps one flesh it all out, especially when it's subject to critical review. I often find when writing I'm also examining and scrutinizing my own understanding. If I can't put it in my own words or if I can and a logical refutation is presented then my understanding is lacking and needs to be revised. I think the back-and-forth is beneficial to all involved.

There was a great debate between the Buddhists and dualist schools of Vedanta that went on for a thousand years and both schools of philosophy benefited. There's also the great debate between Advata Vedanta and Vishishtadvaita over the nature of Maya that lasted for hundreds of years and is summarized in "The Seven Great Untenables".

Take what I post with a grain of salt. If it resonates, it resonates. If it doesn't, it doesn't. It's just my understanding bolstered by my perception and experience, and as Swami Vivekananda was fond of saying "Be fearless". That's especially true of open and honest intellectual discussion, even of the spiritual.

"If it resonates" or not is a subjective personal, individual, ego-mind thing. What you posted above is the type of thing that makes a person, like myself question your honesty, sincerity and authenticity.

[Godspark]

I agree with you Mike, in fact I had a similar conversation with my friend one day talking about being pure awareness (that 'I am' presence) and becoming enlightened. How we label everything "this is a tree, that's a cat" and use words to communicate which is just agreed meaning to describe things and utterly pointless when everything 'just is' there is nothing left to do, be or say other than to simply exist 'as is' within the present moment. When you recognize and realize you are the awareness within everything that is when true peace and enlightenment happens. The problem is many people awaken but don't become enlightened (myself included), you can know all this intellectually and even from a personal experience, but realization is different to just knowing the truth, it's like an "ah hah" moment where instead of believing it to be the truth you actually incorporate it and become the truth, start walking in this truth. Similar to when you realize you are dreaming whilst still in a dream, a dream character could even tell you that you are dreaming, you might even believe them, but unless you have that 'ah hah' moment where you realize it yourself, then you won't become lucid. What I'm trying to say is people often throw around the word realization when it's more than just becoming aware of something, its a process or act in and of itself. Like having a sudden realization of leaving your keys in the car when you were thinking about something entirely different. Enlightenment can also take many reincarnations until it actually happens, and isn't something you can just make happen yourself, it's more like a predestined event or at least that's what they say.

Personally, I would rather understand it all from an intellectual perspective and hold onto my ego, so I can use it for self-empowerment and retain my sense of individuality and personality, and be able to have fun exploring and experiencing things. Ignorance is bliss, and besides I would rather become godlike and control things (not in a bad way) similar to a demigod.

I wanted to mention as well that in the bible it says "God made man in his own image" and this is true both literally and metaphorically. You could even reword it as "God made man in his own imagination" because we are God inside of God, everything is God. It's impossible for something to not be God when you really think about it, for God is creator of all things.

[MikeS80]

Originally Posted by Godspark

I agree with you Mike, in fact I had a similar conversation with my friend one day talking about being pure awareness (that 'I am' presence) and becoming enlightened. How we label everything "this is a tree, that's a cat" and use words to communicate which is just agreed meaning to describe things and utterly pointless when everything 'just is' there is nothing left to do, be or say other than to simply exist 'as is' within the present moment. When you recognize and realize you are the awareness within everything that is when true peace and enlightenment happens. The problem is many people awaken but don't become enlightened (myself included), you can know all this intellectually and even from a personal experience, but realization is different to just knowing the truth, it's like an "ah hah" moment where instead of believing it to be the truth you actually incorporate it and become the truth, start walking in this truth. Similar to when you realize you are dreaming whilst still in a dream, a dream character could even tell you that you are dreaming, you might even believe them, but unless you have that 'ah hah' moment where you realize it yourself, then you won't become lucid. What I'm trying to say is people often throw around the word realization when it's more than just becoming aware of something, its a process or act in and of itself. Like having a sudden realization of leaving your keys in the car when you were thinking about something entirely different. Enlightenment can also take many reincarnations until it actually happens, and isn't something you can just make happen yourself, it's more like a predestined event or at least that's what they say.

Personally, I would rather understand it all from an intellectual perspective and hold onto my ego, so I can use it for self-empowerment and retain my sense of individuality and personality, and be able to have fun exploring and experiencing things. Ignorance is bliss, and besides I would rather become godlike and control things (not in a bad way) similar to a demigod.

I wanted to mention as well that in the bible it says "God made man in his own image" and this is true both literally and metaphorically. You could even reword it as "God made man in his own imagination" because we are God inside of God, everything is God. It's impossible for something to not be God when you really think about it, for God is creator of all things.

Yes, exactly!

I struggled with my own I am present/presence, conflicts and contradictions for years, until I realized that I was creating my own subjective internal struggling, conflicts and contradictions more and more by escaping, dismissing and ignoring them.

Spirituality starts and "ends" in the ego-mind, and includes all the conscious and unconscious beliefs, feelings/emotions, programmng/conditioning and ect we have. The mental/ego-mind effects the physical is a big way. Some people (spiritual or nor not) have learned how to exploit people by those things. This is why I might seem to be rude and/or insulting to people, but I realy am not. Well, I guess, I reveal the tool they use to try to exploite people, which they do not like lol.

Mainstream spirituality puts, divides, separates and fragments the ego, mind, intellect etc in opposition to people's I am present individual/personal selfs, and thus to "god", intelligence and etc. This line of thinking/believing, if you ask me, is foolish, outdated and creates more ignorant submissive docile weak snowflake people than it creates strong wise people ( I was the biggest snowflake I have known, and when I think about it, it makes me sad). I am not saying the spiritual teachings are wrong/false. I am saying the way people subjectively interpret those teachings are subjective thus are false. Instead of people using subjectivity as a tool to learn, people use subjectivity as a way to escape, ignore, dismiss and negate their intelligence, I am present/presence, individuality and (universal/ultimate/pure) intelligence/intuition, which is a fool's errand/an ignorant thing to do.

Edited to make changes