Spiritual Forums

Home


Donate!


Articles


CHAT!


Shop


 
Welcome to Spiritual Forums!.

We created this community for people from all backgrounds to discuss Spiritual, Paranormal, Metaphysical, Philosophical, Supernatural, and Esoteric subjects. From Astral Projection to Zen, all topics are welcome. We hope you enjoy your visits.

You are currently viewing our boards as a guest, which gives you limited access to most discussions and articles. By joining our free community you will be able to post messages, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload your own photos, and gain access to our Chat Rooms, Registration is fast, simple, and free, so please, join our community today! !

If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, check our FAQs before contacting support. Please read our forum rules, since they are enforced by our volunteer staff. This will help you avoid any infractions and issues.

Go Back   Spiritual Forums > Spirituality & Beliefs > General Beliefs

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #231  
Old 22-02-2021, 11:27 AM
JustASimpleGuy JustASimpleGuy is offline
Master
Join Date: Oct 2019
Location: Adirondack Mountains, Upstate NY
Posts: 2,650
  JustASimpleGuy's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Greenslade
I've witnessed pure consciousness a few times, a state where there is nothing but consciousness itself. There was no experiencer and there was no experienced - because there was (since I've watched the YouTube) - no-thing to experience and no-thing to become conscious of other than my consciousness. I also know that consciousness itself is not 'tied' to the body because I've experienced consciousness from outside the body quite a few times, it's weird when you 'see yourself'. But in those instances there was an experience of being outside the body and therefore outside of mind too. I've also witnessed my own mind and frankly that was the worst experience of them all.

Sometimes the extraordinary can masquerade as the ordinary as often happens in Spirituality when people try to leave the human in them behind. The human masquerades as Spirituality because people simply don't know or don't want to know the difference. It's like Spiritual Awakening, which seems to be happening around the same time as coming into the 'prime of Life'. Similarly what are often very human states of mind are re-labelled as Spiritual experiences when they're very 'normal and mundane'.

I want to know, I don't want to fool myself by telling myself that this deeply Spiritual experience was nothing more than the brain protecting itself. It would be easy for me to say "Oh look, I've had all of these amazing Spiritual experiences" but that might not be the case at all. What I do know for sure is that there is 'something' beyond everything I consider as 'me', something beyond the discussion of experiencer vs experience. For me there comes a time when the experiencer IS the experienced, and I've gained that from Life experiences.

I understand what you're saying about being absorbed in the experience of vehicle, road, scenery and music but what you're experiencing is yourself and your own feelings and perceptions. When you take away feelings and perceptions what remains?

If you are Atman and therefore Brahman, is it possible to have anything other than an extraordinary experience and if so, who/what is making that distinction?

I don't use the word 'God' because of its connotations and as for reward and punishment we do enough of that ourselves. Maybe if there is a God he sits there in despair and wants to tell us it doesn't have to be this way, but we don't know how to listen. Would we anyway?

But if we are Atman and therefore Brahman and there is nothing that is not Brahman? Isn't all we are not an extension/manifestation of Brahman? Is Brahman making the distinction between what is effable and what is ineffable? This is the same argument I have with God. If God is all-knowing, beyond human comprehension yadda-yadda then how could we possibly know him? How do we know the difference between the effable and the ineffable if we can't grasp the ineffable anyway?

Does the ineffable make a distinction between what is ineffable and what isn't, does God make the distinction between what is God and what isn't? If there is a distinction, who makes that distinction?

I'm keenly aware how easily mind can deceive itself so I scrutinize its more outrageous ramblings and interpretations, however there are some experiential data points I can no longer ignore or dismiss. Suffice to say I'm convinced beyond a shadow of doubt.

Concerning how can we know God or the Ineffable? We can't know but we can "know". These three verses of the Kena Upanishad explain what I mean by know vs. "know":

https://www.wisdomlib.org/hinduism/b...doc145048.html

https://www.wisdomlib.org/hinduism/b...doc145049.html

https://www.wisdomlib.org/hinduism/b...doc145050.html

It's the ear of the ear, eye of the eye, mind of the mind. In other words Consciousness or the Witness of all experience. If we know It then It's an object of knowledge and therefore isn't Ineffable, hence Neti Neti. It's That which witnesses all, including Neti Neti, can be "known" and is "known", and not only by a select few but everyone. It's just a matter of realization, not only intellectual but more importantly experiential, and understanding its significance and with unshakable conviction. It's what we are, all of us.

I'm not going to get into how the One subject becomes a multiplicity of objects because that's Maya and well beyond my (or anyones'!) intellectual capacity aside from what physics or the cosmological narratives of Vedanta describe. I can't find it now but Swami Sarvapriyananda tells of attending a conference and he was approached by the physicist Brian Greene whose brother is a Hari Krishna monk. They got to talking and Brian made a comment something along the lines of he sees parallels between physics and Vedantic cosmology with the latter being more of a poetic narrative.

I believe it's Alana Watts who tells a story of God getting bored and wanting to spice it up so He comes up with an idea and that's to pretend to be not God. Now God being omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent and all He's very good at everything he does so He forgets He's God hence here we are seeking.

Ah, here's a version of it. https://youtu.be/ckiNNgfMKcQ
__________________
"Research your own experience; absorb what is useful, reject what is useless and add what is essentially your own." ~ Bruce Lee

"Of a certainty the man who can see all creatures in himself, himself in all creatures, knows no sorrow." ~ Upanishads

https://tinyurl.com/y2mxr4s2 My YouTube Channel

JASG
Reply With Quote
  #232  
Old 22-02-2021, 11:51 AM
JustASimpleGuy JustASimpleGuy is offline
Master
Join Date: Oct 2019
Location: Adirondack Mountains, Upstate NY
Posts: 2,650
  JustASimpleGuy's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by winter light
I don't get much out of neti-neti. Or maybe I got it and I already know who I am. What is interesting for me is not to discover myself in layers, but to observe the world and embrace my reactions to it, in order to understand both myself and the world. All at once. And to hopefully find a way to be at peace with that. Because frequently that is not easy.

The eastern perspective becomes difficult for me when people are evangelizing it as a completely universal thing regardless of the context of how others are receiving it. Probably mostly westerners who are new to it. Anyhow when first experienced it is exciting. An ah-ha moment. But after a while it becomes like a drug.

Then I watch as competition forms around differences of opinion. An out of balance situation tries to right itself in response to the stress. That competition is where the world denial takes place. A tool for insight becomes instead, a weapon for attack and defense of territory. Hiding behind the words instead of paying attention to the moment. Then things get tough and you just say "neti neti" again and the argument no responsibility and not my problem. They shoot the messenger and move on.

Back to Jung, I think applying the neti-neti as peeling method would destabilize the psyche. Persisting would erode the ego in a way that is harmful. So his conclusion that western mind could not understand it I would see as his own self-preservation kicking in to prevent him from going psychotic. I recognize these kind of out-of-context interactions because it sparks an "unglued" feeling in me. If I catch it in time I can avoid both the psychedelic auto-tripping and the also the need for an argument to get grounded. So can ride the wave to a more solid place than I could have gotten to by those other paths.

The same for people arguing over non-dualism. It makes no sense to argue about it. But that argument has a grounding effect that becomes necessary if one keeps going down the rabbit hole. So a persion you are arguing with is not really your enemy and is actually doing a service to bring you back into reality by way of your emotions.

For the Shiva prayer. It involves being true to yourself. Taking responsibility for representing yourself authentically to the world. Identifying as Shiva. But why the insistence of distancing yourself from everything as a path to get there? Once you get it, "not that" is way over complicating everything and a kind of distraction from just doing it. Just be yourself.

Then you need to understand the Shiva story in order to get the deeper meaning. That is, his unwavering focus despite distractions from the world. So also the myth background is also essential to the understanding the focused intent represented by the words. And a surface rational out-of-context conclusion based on those same words the meaning may be lost.

Yea. through first-hand experiences totally agree.


Neti Neti is a means and not an end. It's merely a tool of a Self-realization method (Self-inquiry) and in this respect not at all different from a hammer used by a carpenter. The hammer is but a means to an end.

It's a means of direct examination of one's own experience and not a tool to bludgeon others with differing views or opinions.
__________________
"Research your own experience; absorb what is useful, reject what is useless and add what is essentially your own." ~ Bruce Lee

"Of a certainty the man who can see all creatures in himself, himself in all creatures, knows no sorrow." ~ Upanishads

https://tinyurl.com/y2mxr4s2 My YouTube Channel

JASG
Reply With Quote
  #233  
Old 23-02-2021, 08:05 AM
winter light winter light is offline
Knower
Join Date: May 2017
Posts: 233
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Greenslade
I consider myself as an atheist because I have no beliefs in God whatsoever, neither for nor against, but then I adopt that perspective because sometimes I just enjoy participating in the discussion. Being atheist doesn't exclude beliefs and experiences of a non-physical nature though, as some seem to believe. Some atheists believe there is no God and argue their case from that perspective but personally, there's a futility in arguing non-existence. That's a loser before you even begin for the same reasons the arguments within duality vs non-duality non-duality don't begin too well.

Don't forget cognitive behaviour, because that is what perceives paradoxes as a gateway and also 'shapes' Spiritual truths. The pre-Taoists had Triplex Unity which is a paradox/dichotomy on steroids - there is 'this', there is 'that' and there is 'both'. Cognitive dissonance as duality? That could be interesting.

Sometimes people are just people, regardless of the context.
Thanks for the reminder about the importance of cognitive behavior. I know have a habit of imbalanced overreach into the dissonance. I think because oddly for me it gives temporary release from the boxes I feel trapped in. But the dissonance can become a disruption and is not sustainable. So it needs to be balanced with cognitive organization or healthy psychological well being.

I tried to get the nature of that process across in my prior postings. Which may have come across biased as dire or defensive. Which I am a lot of the time. It is to some degree a matter of temperament. And then accepting myself as myself. In the same way that people are people, as you say.

With some balancing of self-acceptance, it is ok to have order within one's self as a foundation, then I would expect the stress and need to defend would become a non-issue. So trying to find that balance as I work through this. I guess that is why we are here together. To offer a space for one another to allow for this to happen. So I appreciate that space.
Reply With Quote
  #234  
Old 23-02-2021, 09:55 AM
Greenslade Greenslade is offline
Master
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 6,732
  Greenslade's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by JustASimpleGuy
I'm keenly aware how easily mind can deceive itself so I scrutinize its more outrageous ramblings and interpretations, however there are some experiential data points I can no longer ignore or dismiss. Suffice to say I'm convinced beyond a shadow of doubt.

Concerning how can we know God or the Ineffable? We can't know but we can "know". These three verses of the Kena Upanishad explain what I mean by know vs. "know":

https://www.wisdomlib.org/hinduism/b...doc145048.html

https://www.wisdomlib.org/hinduism/b...doc145049.html

https://www.wisdomlib.org/hinduism/b...doc145050.html

It's the ear of the ear, eye of the eye, mind of the mind. In other words Consciousness or the Witness of all experience. If we know It then It's an object of knowledge and therefore isn't Ineffable, hence Neti Neti. It's That which witnesses all, including Neti Neti, can be "known" and is "known", and not only by a select few but everyone. It's just a matter of realization, not only intellectual but more importantly experiential, and understanding its significance and with unshakable conviction. It's what we are, all of us.

I'm not going to get into how the One subject becomes a multiplicity of objects because that's Maya and well beyond my (or anyones'!) intellectual capacity aside from what physics or the cosmological narratives of Vedanta describe. I can't find it now but Swami Sarvapriyananda tells of attending a conference and he was approached by the physicist Brian Greene whose brother is a Hari Krishna monk. They got to talking and Brian made a comment something along the lines of he sees parallels between physics and Vedantic cosmology with the latter being more of a poetic narrative.

I believe it's Alana Watts who tells a story of God getting bored and wanting to spice it up so He comes up with an idea and that's to pretend to be not God. Now God being omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent and all He's very good at everything he does so He forgets He's God hence here we are seeking.

Ah, here's a version of it. https://youtu.be/ckiNNgfMKcQ
If you don't know how cognitive dissonance 'operates', if you don't know how cognitive behaviour affects your reality how do you know you are beyond it? If you don't understand the frameworks that constructs your reality - which are more than those of the mind - how can you tell if you are no longer influenced by them? Not understanding cognitive behaviour then telling yourself you are over it is destructive cognitive behaviour. It's on a par with making up a definition of the ego then tyrying to convince others you don't have one. With respect JASG, I've heard things like this before from Spiritual people who are only aware of the tip of the iceberg. Unless you are conscious of what you are not conscious of then there are things that create your reality that are beyond your ken. That much I do know because I've been there.

You are the source of your experiences, they are not apart from you. You created them so what you are witnessing are your own creations. Your experiences are a response to what's going on around you, and since you used the example of driving and music, what you're responding to there is the music, the car, the road you're driving on, the motion...... The experiencer and the experienced is the differentiated consciousness of the ego/Ahamkara, and within Ahamkara your experiences are 'invented things' because they are created by your response to outside influences. If you're going to use na-eti na-eti/neti-neti then you should take that into the equation too.

The Eightfold Path needs to come in here too, because without Right Thinking (AKA constructive cognitive behaviour) neti-neti is just the getting rid of what what doesn't suit you, the stuff that your cognitive dissonance filters through but should be a part of your thinking process anyway.

Where does your experiences come from and what creates them? What happens when there is nothing to experience?

The ego/Ahamkara is differentiated consciousness and that's what decides what is 'I' or is not 'I', it is also the ego/Ahamkara that superimposes onto the self - as both the religion/philosophy and psychology will tell you. That's how duality is created. The self is undifferentiated consciousness and in undifferentiated consciousness there is no distinction between the experiencer and the experienced - and you also make the unconscious conscious. The self doesn't superimpose on the Atman because the self IS Atman. The ego/Ahamkara is not conscious of the unconscious that the undifferentiated conscious of the self is conscious of. That's the big difference. If you are not conscious of the unconscious then you are operating in the differentiated conscious of the ego/Ahamkara - if you think that what you are conscious of is all that there is to be conscious of. neti-neti also means getting out of your own way.

There is a knowing beyond knowing that goes beyond the mind, beyond intuition and beyond conviction. There is no question of it being effable or ineffable, there is no question of it being eternal or not. It just IS, 'you' just ARE and the knowing is no longer knowing, it's the knowing of the knowing that you ARE.

Nassim Haramein said it best - "Spirituality is the "What?" and science is the "How?" but I'd add psychology as the framework for the "How?" How we 'process' is just as important as what we process - and like it or not we do process it. He also said that we are in a consciousness loop with the Universe, and that's observable and can be reproduced. I've often wondered if God was an expert in quantum mechanics but then if you're God then how could you not be? Maybe the knowing beyond knowing is the quantum tubules in our noggins chuntering away at full power.

"If you are Spiritual you are God playing at being not-God."
Alan Watts

I'm not an Alan Watts geek but that one stuck in my mind for a few reasons. Thing is, when there is nothing to be conscious of consciousness isn't very much after all. It's like being in a dark room with no floors, no ceiling, no walls and only your consciousness to be conscious of - and that's not so easy. Maybe it's what God experienced before he had the biggest bang in the Universe.
__________________
"Take your legacy and understand what has gone before. Make a new tomorrow in Love, Light and Faith."
Reply With Quote
  #235  
Old 23-02-2021, 12:32 PM
JustASimpleGuy JustASimpleGuy is offline
Master
Join Date: Oct 2019
Location: Adirondack Mountains, Upstate NY
Posts: 2,650
  JustASimpleGuy's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Greenslade
If you don't know how cognitive dissonance 'operates', if you don't know how cognitive behaviour affects your reality how do you know you are beyond it? If you don't understand the frameworks that constructs your reality - which are more than those of the mind - how can you tell if you are no longer influenced by them? Not understanding cognitive behaviour then telling yourself you are over it is destructive cognitive behaviour. It's on a par with making up a definition of the ego then tyrying to convince others you don't have one. With respect JASG, I've heard things like this before from Spiritual people who are only aware of the tip of the iceberg. Unless you are conscious of what you are not conscious of then there are things that create your reality that are beyond your ken. That much I do know because I've been there.

You are the source of your experiences, they are not apart from you. You created them so what you are witnessing are your own creations. Your experiences are a response to what's going on around you, and since you used the example of driving and music, what you're responding to there is the music, the car, the road you're driving on, the motion...... The experiencer and the experienced is the differentiated consciousness of the ego/Ahamkara, and within Ahamkara your experiences are 'invented things' because they are created by your response to outside influences. If you're going to use na-eti na-eti/neti-neti then you should take that into the equation too.

The Eightfold Path needs to come in here too, because without Right Thinking (AKA constructive cognitive behaviour) neti-neti is just the getting rid of what what doesn't suit you, the stuff that your cognitive dissonance filters through but should be a part of your thinking process anyway.

Where does your experiences come from and what creates them? What happens when there is nothing to experience?

The ego/Ahamkara is differentiated consciousness and that's what decides what is 'I' or is not 'I', it is also the ego/Ahamkara that superimposes onto the self - as both the religion/philosophy and psychology will tell you. That's how duality is created. The self is undifferentiated consciousness and in undifferentiated consciousness there is no distinction between the experiencer and the experienced - and you also make the unconscious conscious. The self doesn't superimpose on the Atman because the self IS Atman. The ego/Ahamkara is not conscious of the unconscious that the undifferentiated conscious of the self is conscious of. That's the big difference. If you are not conscious of the unconscious then you are operating in the differentiated conscious of the ego/Ahamkara - if you think that what you are conscious of is all that there is to be conscious of. neti-neti also means getting out of your own way.

There is a knowing beyond knowing that goes beyond the mind, beyond intuition and beyond conviction. There is no question of it being effable or ineffable, there is no question of it being eternal or not. It just IS, 'you' just ARE and the knowing is no longer knowing, it's the knowing of the knowing that you ARE.

Nassim Haramein said it best - "Spirituality is the "What?" and science is the "How?" but I'd add psychology as the framework for the "How?" How we 'process' is just as important as what we process - and like it or not we do process it. He also said that we are in a consciousness loop with the Universe, and that's observable and can be reproduced. I've often wondered if God was an expert in quantum mechanics but then if you're God then how could you not be? Maybe the knowing beyond knowing is the quantum tubules in our noggins chuntering away at full power.

"If you are Spiritual you are God playing at being not-God."
Alan Watts

I'm not an Alan Watts geek but that one stuck in my mind for a few reasons. Thing is, when there is nothing to be conscious of consciousness isn't very much after all. It's like being in a dark room with no floors, no ceiling, no walls and only your consciousness to be conscious of - and that's not so easy. Maybe it's what God experienced before he had the biggest bang in the Universe.

I'm using "the self" to refer to ego/Ahamkara vs. Self to refer to Atman/Consciousness. And yes, I'm aware of conscious vs. unconscious perception as demonstrated by word lists followed by either a subliminal or supraliminal priming word and then a target word, and how the supraliminal priming word can be more easily corrected for vs. the subliminal priming word.

I'm also familiar with what experience is. Think Kantís Transcendental Idealism (phenomenon vs noumenon) or philosophy of mind (qualia) and how neuroscience and psychology tie in, at least loosely speaking and from a layman's perspective. Beyond that I've been a keen observer of my own mind operating in real-time, observing what bubbles up from the subconscious. It's what I've been doing since 2008 with consciousness studies and meditation.

Here's something for your consideration. Is it at all possible you have a negative perception/cognition of "Spiritual people" bouncing around in your subconscious and that's priming your reactions to what I post? I ask because it seems to me much of what we posted across the last several posts have much more convergence than divergence but since I'm not framing it in the language you are comfortable with you seemingly dismiss it.

I'm not concerned with the system or language used. I'm interested in the underlying concepts and understandings and looking for symmetries.

All that being said and getting back to the heart of the problem: Without a second. That's my core interest. Either It's "knowable" or It's not. If It's not "knowable" then this entire conversation is unproductive. If It is "knowable" than in some way, shape or form It has to be related to experience, common to all and unique to none. I only see one candidate.
__________________
"Research your own experience; absorb what is useful, reject what is useless and add what is essentially your own." ~ Bruce Lee

"Of a certainty the man who can see all creatures in himself, himself in all creatures, knows no sorrow." ~ Upanishads

https://tinyurl.com/y2mxr4s2 My YouTube Channel

JASG
Reply With Quote
  #236  
Old Yesterday, 09:21 AM
Greenslade Greenslade is offline
Master
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 6,732
  Greenslade's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by winter light
Thanks for the reminder about the importance of cognitive behavior. I know have a habit of imbalanced overreach into the dissonance. I think because oddly for me it gives temporary release from the boxes I feel trapped in. But the dissonance can become a disruption and is not sustainable. So it needs to be balanced with cognitive organization or healthy psychological well being.

I tried to get the nature of that process across in my prior postings. Which may have come across biased as dire or defensive. Which I am a lot of the time. It is to some degree a matter of temperament. And then accepting myself as myself. In the same way that people are people, as you say.

With some balancing of self-acceptance, it is ok to have order within one's self as a foundation, then I would expect the stress and need to defend would become a non-issue. So trying to find that balance as I work through this. I guess that is why we are here together. To offer a space for one another to allow for this to happen. So I appreciate that space.
It's not so easy to sustain these things over long periods but baby steps and one at a time. After a while neuroplasticity comes in and you don't have yo work so hard, but in the meantime forgive yourself for being human after all. Sometimes being human is the most Spiritual thing we can do. One of the things that often happens is that 'balanced' becomes polarised and people usually mean preferable vs non-preferable. That only adds to the conflict. When it is what it is at the time there is no polarisation and you don't feel as though your head is bouncing off walls.

The need to defend is your perception but underlying all perception is how we think of ourselves, defence implies the perception of attack or vulnerability. Underneath that again are the reasons you think it's attack or what creates the perception of being vulnerable, and its when you go to those depths that you understand so much more about yourself. What comes next is what you find and how you deal with it.

It's OK to have chaos as one's foundation too, because there is a part of us that can be still amidst the chaos. But the trick is being able to turn things to your advantage, and all you have to do is ask yourself "How can this serve me?".
__________________
"Take your legacy and understand what has gone before. Make a new tomorrow in Love, Light and Faith."
Reply With Quote
  #237  
Old Yesterday, 10:20 AM
Greenslade Greenslade is offline
Master
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 6,732
  Greenslade's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by JustASimpleGuy
I'm using "the self" to refer to ego/Ahamkara vs. Self to refer to Atman/Consciousness. And yes, I'm aware of conscious vs. unconscious perception as demonstrated by word lists followed by either a subliminal or supraliminal priming word and then a target word, and how the supraliminal priming word can be more easily corrected for vs. the subliminal priming word.

I'm also familiar with what experience is. Think Kantís Transcendental Idealism (phenomenon vs noumenon) or philosophy of mind (qualia) and how neuroscience and psychology tie in, at least loosely speaking and from a layman's perspective. Beyond that I've been a keen observer of my own mind operating in real-time, observing what bubbles up from the subconscious. It's what I've been doing since 2008 with consciousness studies and meditation.

Here's something for your consideration. Is it at all possible you have a negative perception/cognition of "Spiritual people" bouncing around in your subconscious and that's priming your reactions to what I post? I ask because it seems to me much of what we posted across the last several posts have much more convergence than divergence but since I'm not framing it in the language you are comfortable with you seemingly dismiss it.

I'm not concerned with the system or language used. I'm interested in the underlying concepts and understandings and looking for symmetries.

What I find confusing is what 'self' we're talking about, because to me there is only one self and the Ahamkara isn't a self. From that perspective we're talking about two very different things as far as I'm concerned. I can talk in terms of philosophy or psychology but I tend to use recognised terms instead of my own, otherwise there's less common ground. If I talk about the self then I'm talking about the Jungian self because he's the expert. I'll use the term 'Ahamkara' for the same reasons. It's not that I don't like it, it's that anything else is less clear. If you use the word 'self' then I think you're talking about the Jungian self, when you could be talking about Ahamkara. Both Jung and Spirituality make that distinction clear for the reasons of understanding. I don't have a negative perception of "Spiritual people" because I don't think in those terms, and Spiritual people are just the same as every other person that makes themselves different from 'regular' people.

The supraliminal priming word is neurological programming, and that's an external source, something that was used in WWII and often in marketing these days.

What I was talking about are the unconscious processes that "Spiritual people" don't seem to want to hear about. What you become conscious of - what bubbles up from the unconscious - is only the 'result' of what's going on in your unconscious. My point in all this is that the less you understand what's going on in your unconscious the more you become an unwitting 'victim' of it, because what you are conscious of is only the tip of the iceberg. What you believe in has an unconscious 'framework' and what you become conscious of - even though it's in meditation - is the 'result' of that framework.

Jung based the ego on the Ahamkara and the self on the Atman. If you go Googling Ahamkara and dig deep enough you'll find cognitive dissonance and cognitive behaviour, only the ancients didn't use those terms. If you have a look through the Eightfold Path that's replete with references to psychology if you can draw the parallels.

You'd be surprised how much the ancients knew about psychology.
[quote=JustASimpleGuy]All that being said and getting back to the heart of the problem: Without a second. That's my core interest. Either It's "knowable" or It's not. If It's not "knowable" then this entire conversation is unproductive. If It is "knowable" than in some way, shape or form It has to be related to experience, common to all and unique to none. I only see one candidate. [/quote[ Not the one candidate, but something so far beyond that it would blow your cotton socks off. When you know what is mind, unconscious and all the constructs you can then go past those constructs. When you do some neti-neti and understand what 'this' is then you can venture into very different territory.

How you experience is 'coloured' by so many things in he unconscious, and likely including your childhood experiences. Experiences are a response to external stimuli and that response is 'filtered' by your unconscious initially. In neuroscience your Limbic System or so-called 'lizard brain' is responsible for survival and as far as Spirituality and beliefs are concerned 'survival' also includes denial of what conflicts with currently-held beliefs and/or thought processes. The word 'knowable' also has connotations with the brain/mind , so "Change the word, change the paradigm."

So in neti-neti and it's not brain/mind-based experience then what can it be? What's left after that?

Did you know that Spirituality and schizophrenia light up the same areas of the brain? Did you also know that when people decide they are no longer 'regular' people but they are Spiritual people, that they can become dissociative of themselves in varying degrees? That's not Spiritually or psychologically clever. Did you also know that cognitive dissonance means that you accept or reject information according to its compatibility with your thought processes? Often information that people reject - such as psychology and how it affects their Spirituality - happens on an unconscious level and they have no control over it?

I could go on, but my point is that when you eliminate as much of the 'human' there can only be more Spirit remaining - and not destructive cognitive behaviour posing as Spirit and ego/Ahamkara posing as self/Atman.
__________________
"Take your legacy and understand what has gone before. Make a new tomorrow in Love, Light and Faith."
Reply With Quote
  #238  
Old Yesterday, 12:34 PM
JustASimpleGuy JustASimpleGuy is offline
Master
Join Date: Oct 2019
Location: Adirondack Mountains, Upstate NY
Posts: 2,650
  JustASimpleGuy's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Greenslade
What I find confusing is what 'self' we're talking about, because to me there is only one self and the Ahamkara isn't a self. From that perspective we're talking about two very different things as far as I'm concerned. I can talk in terms of philosophy or psychology but I tend to use recognised terms instead of my own, otherwise there's less common ground. If I talk about the self then I'm talking about the Jungian self because he's the expert. I'll use the term 'Ahamkara' for the same reasons. It's not that I don't like it, it's that anything else is less clear. If you use the word 'self' then I think you're talking about the Jungian self, when you could be talking about Ahamkara. Both Jung and Spirituality make that distinction clear for the reasons of understanding. I don't have a negative perception of "Spiritual people" because I don't think in those terms, and Spiritual people are just the same as every other person that makes themselves different from 'regular' people.

The supraliminal priming word is neurological programming, and that's an external source, something that was used in WWII and often in marketing these days.

What I was talking about are the unconscious processes that "Spiritual people" don't seem to want to hear about. What you become conscious of - what bubbles up from the unconscious - is only the 'result' of what's going on in your unconscious. My point in all this is that the less you understand what's going on in your unconscious the more you become an unwitting 'victim' of it, because what you are conscious of is only the tip of the iceberg. What you believe in has an unconscious 'framework' and what you become conscious of - even though it's in meditation - is the 'result' of that framework.

Jung based the ego on the Ahamkara and the self on the Atman. If you go Googling Ahamkara and dig deep enough you'll find cognitive dissonance and cognitive behaviour, only the ancients didn't use those terms. If you have a look through the Eightfold Path that's replete with references to psychology if you can draw the parallels.

You'd be surprised how much the ancients knew about psychology.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JustASimpleGuy
All that being said and getting back to the heart of the problem: Without a second. That's my core interest. Either It's "knowable" or It's not. If It's not "knowable" then this entire conversation is unproductive. If It is "knowable" than in some way, shape or form It has to be related to experience, common to all and unique to none. I only see one candidate.
Not the one candidate, but something so far beyond that it would blow your cotton socks off. When you know what is mind, unconscious and all the constructs you can then go past those constructs. When you do some neti-neti and understand what 'this' is then you can venture into very different territory.

How you experience is 'coloured' by so many things in he unconscious, and likely including your childhood experiences. Experiences are a response to external stimuli and that response is 'filtered' by your unconscious initially. In neuroscience your Limbic System or so-called 'lizard brain' is responsible for survival and as far as Spirituality and beliefs are concerned 'survival' also includes denial of what conflicts with currently-held beliefs and/or thought processes. The word 'knowable' also has connotations with the brain/mind , so "Change the word, change the paradigm."

So in neti-neti and it's not brain/mind-based experience then what can it be? What's left after that?

Did you know that Spirituality and schizophrenia light up the same areas of the brain? Did you also know that when people decide they are no longer 'regular' people but they are Spiritual people, that they can become dissociative of themselves in varying degrees? That's not Spiritually or psychologically clever. Did you also know that cognitive dissonance means that you accept or reject information according to its compatibility with your thought processes? Often information that people reject - such as psychology and how it affects their Spirituality - happens on an unconscious level and they have no control over it?

I could go on, but my point is that when you eliminate as much of the 'human' there can only be more Spirit remaining - and not destructive cognitive behaviour posing as Spirit and ego/Ahamkara posing as self/Atman.

Correct me if I'm wrong but you seem to be saying unless one understands psychology and especially Jung in a Western sense and the way you do and undergoes some form of cognitive behavioral therapy one has a greatly diminished chance of Self-realization. From my perspective that seems a very narrow position and closes a whole lot of doors.

The reason I threw in CBT is like in Advaita there's the understanding and the practice. The prior without the latter is just a nifty philosophy and nothing more.

One thing that attracts me to Advaita and specifically the Ramakrishna order is a broad acceptance of all traditions being valid paths to Self-realization and a conviction the four Yogas can have value for any spiritual tradition, East or West.
__________________
"Research your own experience; absorb what is useful, reject what is useless and add what is essentially your own." ~ Bruce Lee

"Of a certainty the man who can see all creatures in himself, himself in all creatures, knows no sorrow." ~ Upanishads

https://tinyurl.com/y2mxr4s2 My YouTube Channel

JASG
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 02:06 AM.


Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
(c) Spiritual Forums