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

[MikeS80]

Originally Posted by God-Like

Well it really does depend on the foundation of truth that is not relative to the individual self .

If we set up a foundation that the relative self experiences relative truth, then regardless of subjectiveness and conditioning, the truth of that can be known experientially .

If we set up the truth being beyond that, it would like saying everything that is relatively experienced is not the truth or is a dream or false in some way .

This is what happens when we create foundations .


x daz x

That is true on the surface. Going deeper into the heart of the matter, truth is always relative and accessable to all individual selfs, that is why it is called truth. Why and how is truth always relative and accessable to all individual selfs? because all individual selfs live in the truth, and that truth is the right here and right now.

A person whom pits duality against non-duality and pits individuality against oneness/wholeness will never know truth because a person will never find something he/she is looking for while he/she is fighting against what he/she is looking for. Yep, that sounds silly because it is silly LOLz! Note: This is the reason why all the previous talk about transcending the ego/mind and intellect is silly. Transcending the the ego/mind and intellect gives people an excuse to escape, ignore what is and to be silly. Imagine if every individual self on planet earth was silly like above, holy moly!

Oneness has to be an individual/duality in order to know and experience itself in physical form. Yep, individual/duality has their pros/purpose

Truth that is not relative to an individual self, is not relative to the individual in the first place because of some other unconscious and conscious junk, conditioning, conflicts, confusions, beliefs, dogma, etc etc.

The truth people know experientially, pretty much know experientially or more precise know experimentally through concepts, metaphors, analogies, dogma, beliefs etc and as you and I know, all these things are more often misunderstood, twisted, and misconstrued, than not, and this is some of the subjective information, junk and conditioning we store in our unconscious.

Originally Posted by MikeS80

That is obvious. And you are still separating and dividing oneness/wholeness. Death does not matter anyway, because we are not able to observe, experience, remember and learn anything after we die and are non-being. But we are able to observe, experience, remember and learn things right here and now in physical form on earth.

What we are able to experience and learn here on earth in the right here and right now is what truly matters. Dreaming or fantasizing about something we can not personally experience and learn about on earth like oneness after death is being in your head/mind way too much and is a total and complete waste of time and a waste of the right here and right now. Why? because life, death, being, non-being, duality, non-duality, and objective, ultimate reality, the right here and right now are all one and the same/whole.

Is dreaming and fantasizing inside your head/mind with subjective information truly experiencing oneness/wholeness that is out there in the right here and now/objective reality/ultimate reality? No it is not!

That's the entire point. Being is not dependent on embodied being. Embodied being is dependent on Being. I'm Being and embodied being is but a temporal appearance, a name, form and function of Being and within Being. Death of the mind-body does not equate to non-being. Death of all mind-bodies does not equate to non-being. Heat death of the universe does not equate to non-being.

By your logic Oneness/Wholeness only exists when mind-body is part of the equation. What I'm speaking to is the ultimate Here & Now, that aspect of us that's always present and unchanging, beyond all modification and state of mind. It's right here and right now in your own experience and not dependent whatsoever on mind. It transcends mind, body, the ego-self and all of objective reality. It witnesses mind, body, the ego-self and all of objective reality. Rooting It in the mind is a function of the ego-self (Ahamkara, the I-maker - I'm conscious) and is limiting It to that which perishes. That's superimposition, confusing the qualities of the mind with that of Self and vice versa. It can't perish. It always was, is right now and will always be.

It's not dreaming or fantasizing but an absolute reality and as obvious to me as the nose on my face, both intellectually and experientially. Consciousness might seem like an ordinary function of mind but in fact it's quite extraordinary. It's beyond mind. Far, far beyond and infinitely so. It's Ineffable. Pure Being. Pure Existence. Call it God, Atman, Brahman, Existence-Consciousness-Bliss, Emptiness, Formless, Unmanifest. But nonetheless it's there, self-revealing and self-evident.

The exercise of self inquiry or Neti Neti (negation) is for the purpose of discernment between the Unchanging and the changing and to shift identification from the latter to the prior. It's only Step 1 but a necessary Step 1. Step 2 is then realizing the changing is but a temporal appearance of name, form and function of the Unchanging and within the Unchanging. Two Steps to the Not-Two. It's explained in some detail in the link in my previous reply.

Of course this is the non-dual Vedantic view. The Advaita view, however it does dovetail with my experience and I do recognize your mileage might vary.

https://www.advaita-vision.org/consc...dge/#more-6881

Due to superimposition, the mind appropriates the ‘l’ of the Pure Consciousness, the Witness. Alongside, Pure Consciousness is identified with the mind and the finiteness of the mind is transferred to the Pure Consciousness, which causes loss of Its infiniteness.

[lemex]

Originally Posted by MikeS80

Death does not matter anyway, because we are not able to observe, experience, remember and learn anything after we die and are non-being. But we are able to observe, experience, remember and learn things right here and now in physical form on earth.

I find this thought, if it is that, very interesting. Where did you get this knowledge from? The aspect of a different experience is correct so that experience would the reality. People most certainly think what they feel here like love, hate, etc is what they will feel as spirit but all we feel here is bio-chemical energy. But what the soul/spirit form will have that is missing is knowledge brought back.

[MikeS80]

Originally Posted by JustASimpleGuy

That's the entire point. Being is not dependent on embodied being. Embodied being is dependent on Being. I'm Being and embodied being is but a temporal appearance, a name, form and function of Being and within Being. Death of the mind-body does not equate to non-being. Death of all mind-bodies does not equate to non-being. Heat death of the universe does not equate to non-being.

By your logic Oneness/Wholeness only exists when mind-body is part of the equation. What I'm speaking to is the ultimate Here & Now, that aspect of us that's always present and unchanging, beyond all modification and state of mind. It's right here and right now in your own experience and not dependent whatsoever on mind. It transcends mind, body, the ego-self and all of objective reality. It witnesses mind, body, the ego-self and all of objective reality. Rooting It in the mind is a function of the ego-self (Ahamkara, the I-maker - I'm conscious) and is limiting It to that which perishes. That's superimposition, confusing the qualities of the mind with that of Self and vice versa. It can't perish. It always was, is right now and will always be.

It's not dreaming or fantasizing but an absolute reality and as obvious to me as the nose on my face, both intellectually and experientially. Consciousness might seem like an ordinary function of mind but in fact it's quite extraordinary. It's beyond mind. Far, far beyond and infinitely so. It's Ineffable. Pure Being. Pure Existence. Call it God, Atman, Brahman, Existence-Consciousness-Bliss, Emptiness, Formless, Unmanifest. But nonetheless it's there, self-revealing and self-evident.

The exercise of self inquiry or Neti Neti (negation) is for the purpose of discernment between the Unchanging and the changing and to shift identification from the latter to the prior. It's only Step 1 but a necessary Step 1. Step 2 is then realizing the changing is but a temporal appearance of name, form and function of the Unchanging and within the Unchanging. Two Steps to the Not-Two. It's explained in some detail in the link in my previous reply.

Of course this is the non-dual Vedantic view. The Advaita view, however it does dovetail with my experience and I do recognize your mileage might vary.

https://www.advaita-vision.org/consc...dge/#more-6881

Due to superimposition, the mind appropriates the ‘l’ of the Pure Consciousness, the Witness. Alongside, Pure Consciousness is identified with the mind and the finiteness of the mind is transferred to the Pure Consciousness, which causes loss of Its infiniteness.

No, my logic is experiencing and observing oneness/wholeness ( all is one) outside of yourself in the right here and right now, meaning not just internally through mental concepts, ideas, dreams, metaphors, analogies etc etc.

The ultimate Here & Now, you spoke of is in front of your nose right here and right now and will be there in front of your spirit's energy nose when you die.

What is or equates to non-being then, since you say death does not equate to non-being?

Being is when we are physically alive and non-being is when we die and "we go back" to source/brahman- we are not physically alive anymore, hence the term being.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/being

Definition of being (Entry 1 of 4)
1a: the quality or state of having existence
a social movement that came into being in the 1960s
artistic form comes into being only when two elements are successfully fused
— Carlos Lynes
b(1): something that is conceivable and hence capable of existing
(2): something that actually exists
(3): the totality of existing things
c: conscious existence : LIFE
2: the qualities that constitute an existent thing : ESSENCE
I knew it was true in the core of my being.
especially : PERSONALITY
3: a living thing
sentient beings
a mythical being
especially : PERSON
a very sexual being

Originally Posted by MikeS80

Yes, that is the way it is now, but it does not mean we can't become conscious/aware of all our our unconscious cognitive behaviour/programming, which is the root cause of how we think/gives us the thoughts we have. The point of meditation if for people to become conscious/aware of all thier unconscious cognitive behaviours/programming, not just for an hour or two here and there when they meditate, but all the time in their day to day life when they are awake.

Rhe onmly way we're going to knw we have cognitiver behaviour in our unconscious is for someome to tap us on the shoulder and say "Hey, did you know about your cognitive behaviourand your cognitive dissonance?" Otherwise we'd be blissfully unaware of it, even if wer were doing meditation because it is an unconscious 'subsystem' after all. The irony is that destructive congintive behavoiour is thinking that because you're Spiritual and that you're awake and aware, cogntive behaviour and the other psychological stuff isn't applicable. What happens then is that the discussion of the self becomes the unbalanced ego on steroids, because people are associating with the self because they define the ego as the 'bad guy'. Destructive cognitive behaviour. As for a Spiritual definition of the self, whatever that is.......


Welcome to Lord of the Flies meets Spirituality.

[MikeS80]

Originally Posted by lemex

I find this thought, if it is that, very interesting. Where did you get this knowledge from? The aspect of a different experience is correct so that experience would the reality. People most certainly think what they feel here like love, hate, etc is what they will feel as spirit but all we feel here is bio-chemical energy. But what the soul/spirit form will have that is missing is knowledge brought back.

I got the knowledge from self, the same self that is in everyone else.

That was my main point in the post, yet JustASimpleGuy decided to deflect and ignore that point.

[MikeS80]

Originally Posted by Greenslade

Rhe onmly way we're going to knw we have cognitiver behaviour in our unconscious is for someome to tap us on the shoulder and say "Hey, did you know about your cognitive behaviourand your cognitive dissonance?" Otherwise we'd be blissfully unaware of it, even if wer were doing meditation because it is an unconscious 'subsystem' after all. The irony is that destructive congintive behavoiour is thinking that because you're Spiritual and that you're awake and aware, cogntive behaviour and the other psychological stuff isn't applicable. What happens then is that the discussion of the self becomes the unbalanced ego on steroids, because people are associating with the self because they define the ego as the 'bad guy'. Destructive cognitive behaviour. As for a Spiritual definition of the self, whatever that is.......


Welcome to Lord of the Flies meets Spirituality.

I agree with you there bud!

Originally Posted by ajay00

The smaller self is considered the ego or false identity, while the higher Self is considered to be awareness or pure consciousness that is one's true identity.

By keeping these two distinct, you will be able to converse or discuss this philosophy without any confusions.

The ego, according to Jung, is the centre of the field of conscious. The self contains both the ego and its 'contents' and the unconscious and its 'contents'. As to whether or not we have a Higher Self, or are we are our Higher Selfs or not is still being debated by the jury - or even if we have one at all. Monad or Overself/Oneself makes more sense. Ultimately in Spirituality there is no Self, because there is no separation and therefore no individuality - really the word is meaningless. The self doesn't exist, it's a concept of the mind/ego. As to whether the (lower case) self exists and what it consits of, it's certainly a long way from what most people think it is.

[MikeS80]

Originally Posted by Greenslade

The ego, according to Jung, is the centre of the field of conscious. The self contains both the ego and its 'contents' and the unconscious and its 'contents'. As to whether or not we have a Higher Self, or are we are our Higher Selfs or not is still being debated by the jury - or even if we have one at all. Monad or Overself/Oneself makes more sense. Ultimately in Spirituality there is no Self, because there is no separation and therefore no individuality - really the word is meaningless. The self doesn't exist, it's a concept of the mind/ego. As to whether the (lower case) self exists and what it consits of, it's certainly a long way from what most people think it is.

I think that is true for normal run of the mill spirituality, and that is the problem. There is individuality of oneness/wholeness without being separate from oneness/wholeness and this is being balanced spiritually and physically.

Originally Posted by MikeS80

Pitting one aspect of oneness/wholeness or unity (in this case the higher self) against another aspect of oneness/wholeness or unity (in this case the lower self) is not oneness/wholeness or unity at all.

At best it's Chitta or 'Lower Mind' but it can be all kinds of personality disorders.

Originally Posted by MikeS80

All is one and one is all and that includes The higher self, lower self

And the rest of it, yes. When Spiritual people think it isn't then it all begins to go sideways.

Originally Posted by MikeS80

It's the ego(lower)-self that resists this conclusion because the ego-self is of objective reality and wants to retain its primacy, the ego-self's ultimate existential crisis.

Sccording to Jung there is the ego and its 'contents' - we all have "A sense of I am" as Jung also described it as but it's what that sense is that makes the difference. A balanced ego can accept itself to be part of the 'bigger picture' while an unbalanced ego wants to be the 'whole picture'. And the ego is subjective/personal reaility, but then according to Donald Hoffman and others the Absolute Reality is that all reality is subjective.

Originally Posted by MikeS80

The separation thingy is part and parcel of self inquiry negation (Neti Neti) as taught by the Vedantic non-dual traditions. It's the first step to the not-two. It inculcates discernment and its purpose is to resolve superimposition of the ego-self and Self. https://youtu.be/linp33m9rIk

It's also good for cognitive behaviour or "Right Thinking" that nobody seems to mention.

Originally Posted by MikeS80

I agree with you there bud!

Wouldn't it be nice to have some objectivity in these discussions?