If you want to understand the dream analogy...

[MikeS80]

Originally Posted by God-Like

The conclusions of the world at large being this and that are conclusions that Ramana eventually negated .

Do you see the inconsistencies here ..

Perhaps Ramana used a poor choice of words, I do not know. But If he got his answers/conclusions from the silence, I doubt that this is true, which you are trying to point out.

Does anyone know if Ramana was a believer in that words can't describe the undescribable/the absolute, and or that logic/the intellect is a negative? Maybe this is the issue here.

Obsession with a thing is usually driven by either desire or fear of a thing.

[God-Like]

Originally Posted by MikeS80

Perhaps Ramana used a poor choice of words, I do not know. But If he got his answers/conclusions from the silence, I doubt that this is true, which you are trying to point out.
.

This is the thing when peeps quote other peeps who are no longer present to answer for themselves .

Drawing from my own experiences, this is why I question what is being proposed ..

It doesn't matter who it is, it could be the pizza delivery guy or one of the wisest sages, I would ask the same questions to them both .

The Silence or the void to some, needs to be established in a way that encompasses the mind and the knowledge of oneself and the universe or it doesn't .

I wonder how many teachers who hadn't studied the teachings in the various scriptures would come out of the silence and start writing books about what was actually realised ..

You know, what comes to mind after my realisations could be written on the back of a postage stamp .

There was no reference to the dream world or what consciousness is or isn't ..

This is why I make a fuss of what is realised and what isn't ..

It's fine to have notions about the world and self based upon experiences had, but the waters muddy somewhat where the line gets crossed and absolutes are created .


x daz x

Originally Posted by MikeS80

But If he got his answers/conclusions from the silence, I doubt that this is true, which you are trying to point out.

Rupert Spira would say that thoughts arise out of awareness and from a Spiritual perspective that is true because at the point of awareness they appear in the conscious. Psychology would say that thoughts are created by the unconscious and 'sent' to the conscious. That process doesn't actually stop and we are only conscious of so many things after the unconscious has processed it. When you get yourself out of the way it allows the thoughts top arise - that self being the same self that thinks the unconscious is memory.

[MikeS80]

Originally Posted by Greenslade

Rupert Spira would say that thoughts arise out of awareness and from a Spiritual perspective that is true because at the point of awareness they appear in the conscious. Psychology would say that thoughts are created by the unconscious and 'sent' to the conscious.

Awareness is one being aware of knowledge. Knowledge is one knowing something to be true or not-aka beliefs, this something/beliefs can be either true or not. Knowledge effects how one percieves something with one's mind that is either true or not true.

Ahamkara is pretty much false and misleading knowledge/beliefs/information that the I creates, which the I perceives to be true, when it is not true. Believing that physical reality is a dream or illusion is ahamkara that the I creates to create fantasy land for it's self to feel all warm and fuzzy or bliss.

Originally Posted by MikeS80

Awareness is one being aware of knowledge.

You can be aware not have knowledge, the same as cavemen were aware of gravity and its effects long before Newton's knowledge of its nature. Not to mention Einstein's knowledge. A child can be aware of the rain and not have knowledge of a weather system. Awareness is just being aware and we can become aware of ourselves to a certain degree and not have any psychology knowledge. Being aware does not require knowledge because our sense are there to make us aware of an external reality.

What is true or not true is the differentiated conscious of the Ahamkara/ego, and people can believe anything they like regardless of knowledge. Believing that the unconscious is memory is also a part of an Ahamkara' created fantasy that reinforces its own status. Without the karas the 'I' doesn't exist, which is both the Spiritual and psychological understanding.

It is the understanding behind the question of "Who are you, when you are not?"

Take away the karas/invented things and who/what are you?

[MikeS80]

Originally Posted by Greenslade

A child can be aware of the rain and not have knowledge of a weather system. Awareness is just being aware and we can become aware of ourselves to a certain degree and not have any psychology knowledge.....

What is true or not true is the differentiated conscious of the Ahamkara/ego, and people can believe anything they like regardless of knowledge.

A child and everyone else is conscious of or observes it raining NOW, there is no thinking/thoughts required in the process.

Consciousness is just conscious of what exists NOW, aka the what IS-that it IS raining NOW. A child and everyone else is aware of it raining when a child and everyone else senses and perceives that the rain is wet, cold etc etc, this sensing and perceiving the rain as being wet, cold, etc leads one to wanting to know why and how the rain is wet and cold, and this requires one to learn the knowledge/information of weather.

It raining, and the rain being cold and wet are facts that the naturally internally warm and externally dry body senses, The body being wet and cold from the rain is not an illusion/dream or invented thing of the I/ahamkara. All of the above applies to spirituality and psychology as well, I am conscious and aware of the NOW inside and outside of myself, instead of being conscious of some fantasy land inside my head, with my imagination. Truth is neither differentiated or indifferentiated because consciousness is just conscious of reality, this reality is truth, existence. the NOW and just exists/IS, whether we like the reality or not.

A person whom says reality is a dream, illusion, maya, ahamkara, etc etc does not like reality, and therefore, the truth that much. They hide and escape from reality inside their heads with images, concepts, biases, and dogma of some fantasy land, which they learned from someone else in the past.

It is impossible for consciousness to be differentiated or indifferentiated because consciousness is just conscious of what exists/just IS NOW. Differentiated and indifferentiated is an awareness and perception, not a consciousness, that implies that there are opposites, and opposites implies that there is separation. Consciousness is not separate from the thing and NOW it is conscious of. Oneness-wholeness implies that there is no separation at all, with zero exceptions, even when the separation is convenient. One pays for conveniences, with one's freedom from separation.

All separation is an invented thing of the I or ahamkara, this is the only context, in which the concept of ahamkara should be used, so instead of calling ahamkara by it's concept name of ahamkara, which is mostly misunderstood and therefore is used out of context, call ahamkara what it really is, and that is one's awareness, senses and perceptions separating oneness-wholeness. This is the closest you are going to get to the Advaita Vedanta's version of ahamkara, that is, if Advaita Vedanta had a version of ahamkara.

[Still_Waters]

Originally Posted by JustASimpleGuy

Obsession with a thing is usually driven by either desire or fear of a thing.

In Pantanjali's Yoga Sutras, there is a sutra to that effect.

Asmita avidya ragas dvesas abinivesha.

Loosely translated, ignorance (avidya) begins with asmita (separate I-am-ness) from which arise ragas (attractions ... or desire in your post) and dvesas (aversions ... or fear in your post) ... leading to a clinging to life (abinivesha).

Originally Posted by MikeS80

Differentiated and indifferentiated is an awareness and perception, not a consciousness, that implies that there are opposites, and opposites implies that there is separation.

So you know what I had for breakfast this morning? There is no 'true self' or 'false self'? No truth nor lies? No conscious or unconscious?

We become conscious of what we are aware of, because if you are not aware of what I had for breakfast then it's not in your conscious and therefore your conscious is separate to mine. Frankly, I'll stay with separation if you don't mind and I have my reasons.

[MikeS80]

Originally Posted by Greenslade

So you know what I had for breakfast this morning? There is no 'true self' or 'false self'? No truth nor lies? No conscious or unconscious?

Is it spiritually/mentally important what you had for breakfast or you doing anything else that does not have anything to do with me? Nope. For all I know, you could have not of eaten breakfast, when you implied that you did eat breakfast, by asking me the question.