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

[JustBe]

Originally Posted by Moonglow

Hello JustBe,

Thank you. For me what you share brings an important point. That is Direct Experience.

In these forms of discussion word only describe and express the person and/or the experience and its influences, IMO. Agree, if someone has not directly experienced whatever it may be, then will only remain an idea or projected image, IMO.

This holds true for me as well. Also, find it a bit of a challenge to describe experiences in which words fall short. In which the influence and integration with in the very being can not be fully described. At times, no need for me to do so and some things are just simply meant for me. Some things I know, but can not say how. Just do. Venture to say others know as well in thier own ways.

Simply put, Once seen can not unsee it and once integrated with in my mind it does not go away. May not always pay attention. That is when something comes along to nudge me to remember to notice.

I relate to Zen Buddhism, although not Buddhist myself. Find it very grounding.

I mainly enjoy the exchanges and see the wide range of outlooks. The rainbow reflected through the prism of life.( to be a bit poetic with it)

Thanks for your sharing moonglow.

I think at times when another has experienced a particular stream of awareness through direct experience, where by they’ve dived from one end of the spectrum of themselves to that point of ‘emptiness’ ‘no self’ the understanding integrates more directly, this often becomes the ‘forefront of experience’ ..Think people like adyashanti, Tolle, and many others of course. They have ‘become’ through their being the ‘no self’ ‘emptiness’ as a direct experience, where everything has dissolved and they no longer ‘feel’ contained or in conflict inwardly and outwardly. For those in this stream, the ‘truth’ has been illuminated to such a degree, they now ‘live’ through this awareness. It’s ‘very clear’..their is nothing more than what they are connected as within. I see many of those ‘types’ teaching through that stream as part of the whole ‘understanding’ of the ‘self aware’ ..living and breathing this. For those in this stream the ‘one self’ is everything. Nothing outside of themselves is separate even as others still perceive through their individuation.


Now we come to those who are opening through a step by step process, building a greater picture through increments, their understanding deepens through ‘self awareness’ of all this, so often they, then build understanding, more as a ‘self inclusive’ awareness. This step by step process as I’ve come to understand it in myself, is that both the steps, the wholeness and the self are important for this particular lived experience. Both ways, supporting the creation of life through the purpose both bring to life.

As we’ve evolved, enlightenment and awakening has and continues to build as a lived experience. Not something removed from itself or life. In the past many gurus and awakened people often moved ‘away’ from everyday life to sustain themselves in the ways they experienced their process. It wasn’t as acceptable as it is today. It was often foreign unless they were confined with others in similar practices or experiences.

As a totality of ‘being’ and through my own awareness it all fits through my direct experience. I’m aware of myself in all streams directly and so in myself it all fits. I have no conflict in myself, have no need to question others as they feel and see.

As far as I see myself now, I feel like the no self part of my experience, is ‘without’ attachment in me, it bears witness without ‘conflict’ or confusion. Those still trying to make sense of themselves through external views deciding for themselves what it all means in them, often are still becoming aware that it all fits ‘the whole’ and the ‘no self’ and ‘emptiness’ is a state of ‘being. The self is still participating but their is no one their suffering, conflicted or confused. Emptiness and non attachment move the mind body ‘more clear’ ..

Think open clear vessel, uncontained, yet fully immersed.

[Dominik90]

Time to enter this conversation :) (from the perspective of the opening statement)

For me all that is / oneness / god / creator experiences everything and nothing and we as individuated aspected of all that is are a fragmented version of that god which also has the same capabilities in essence. However because we choose to be on earth, we choose certain collective limitations we play in and we experience our own individual limitations, which in essence are also just collective limitations. So a huge paradox that can't be answered from questions, the questions have to be lived and experienced.

[MikeS80]

Originally Posted by God-Like

Hi Guy's ..

This seems to be the sticking point in many conversations regarding what you are that experiences life .

There are obviously many levels to what we are but fundamentally speaking from the premise that there is only what you are that can encompass all life as we know it .

All of creation as we know it .

Now what seems to be the case in non duality terms is that there is only ONE .

This is my eyes doesn't mean that there is only ONE Self in a way where ONENESS is one dimensional (excuse the pun).

One is the many and the many is one in this regard, that is why there can be individuality while still retaining fundamentally the sameness that is of all things .

Oneness put across in such a way where anything that relates to twoness must mean separation of oneness is incorrect in my eyes .

There is the incorrect understanding of oneness to begin with which creates a premise of there cannot be twoness .

I welcome your thoughts ...

(I didn't post this in the non duality section in order to captivate a larger audience and perspective).

Of course from a hard core non duality standing pointing there is no one here to have any thoughts on this and yet thoughts do come to the fore within awareness of your very self lol ..

Does anyone else find these type of statements bonkers?


x daz x

All the individual selfs are the same, as a whole/oneness, hence they are not seperate, they are just different.

The individual self, which is the mind and body that is present in the infinite eternal right here and right now, is the only reality there is. All other realities are dreams, illusions and are not real and are created and experienced by the fear conditioned self.

[MikeS80]

Originally Posted by Starman

Oneness in the sense that we are all connected, we are all one, does not necessarily imply the existence of two-ness or the many. In my opinion words could never accurately interpret this.

I used to say that God is me but I am not God, then I went to the Walt Disney example; Walt Disney was Donald Duck, Goofy , Mickey Mouse, etc., but those characters were not Walt Disney; they were only aspects of Walt Disney.

Today I see myself as a Center of Expression from the Primal Will, or Source of Life. A projection that really can not ever be separate from the Primal Source. So I use words like One Source, or Primal Source, in place of us being One. But for me it is beyond words and mental constructs.

This discussed in German, Polish, or some other language, would be a lot different than discussing it in English. I used to converse in five different languages but I have since lost my fluency in all but English because I rarely use those other languages that I once knew.

There are words in some languages that do not exist in other languages, and the language we use, or speak, effects how we think. Thoughts may also effect our perception. Yes, it is bonkers.

A person who takes the twoness of duality and non-duality way to seriously and literally and who never works through it, will never find oneness in the twoness of duality vs non-duality.

Words is not the problem at all, the problem is people calling, and confusing and etc the twoness of duality vs non-duality with oneness. People say non-duality means not two, yet duality vs non-duality is two. This creates conflicting and contradicting mental and emotional conditioning/programming in the self.

Non-duality is non-duality, non-duality is not oneness.

[God-Like]

Originally Posted by Moonglow

Hey daz,

How I see myself greatly influences my perspective upon life. For me it also letting it go. If not for me or don't relate to it, just let it be.

People will bang on about a lot of things.

I don't feel it is that the self does not exist that is being pointed at by some, but that the self is temporary in its existance. What continues and is eternal is what goes on. So the analogies of "dreamlike". Atleast what comes to me at the moment in regard to this. Yeah, can say "what you are foundamentally" and you did Basically pointing at the same thing?

Yes, there are concepts and what may be just an idea to me if I have not experienced such.
There is that which I know, you may not, and you may know, I do not. Neither one right or wrong. You know what you know.

When something is expressed in words it stems from the ego. Which may be the full picture, just a pointer. Yes, there is someone there.

Hey :)

As I see it, self is a thought of oneself within I AM awareness ... So if it is suggested that the thought related self is illusory then I AM awareness is also illusory because they are not separate . They're cannot be one without the other in these instances .

If there isn't really an individuated self within awareness and what is present instead of is simply a dreamy illusion then there really is no self present that exists unto itself.

This is another aspect of being independent within individual existence while still being part of wholeness .. This causes countless issues when peeps don't see that there can be independent existence within wholeness .. and again something that presents issues is the nature of impermanence and permanence relating to what we are ...

Some cannot see that in the short term there can be something just as real as something that outlives time so to speak .

When there is wholeness or oneness it doesn't matter if it rains for 5 minutes or 500 million years, if we are working from a real foundation of what we are it matters not how permanent anything is for it changes nothing fundamentally .


x daz x

[God-Like]

Originally Posted by ketzer

Agreed, now since you brought up the moon, perhaps some day we can discuss whether it is there when we are not looking.

I must warn you I am a black belt at the moon being there when you are not looking at it type of conversation :)

I have had a 6 month ongoing conversation on this with a bunch of non duality guys and it was hilarious at times and at times was completely ridiculous . Again based upon common behavioural patterns had by non duality extremists where normal conversations are extremely hard to come by ..

In regards to the moon however, we must first establish what the moon is in relation to what we are and then take it from there ..

In my eyes the moon exists independently unto itself because it is fundamentally no different from what we are and I don't require you or anyone to look at me in order for me to exist .

This concept of existing through the perception of other's is one of those mental gymnastic exercises that really needs honesty and free flowing exchanges without dodges or morphs or denials in place for it to go anyway ..

My last 6 month exchange in a way ended up reflecting nothing like the original statement because nothing was actually addressed as time went by, all there was, was the repeating of past questions that went unanswered lol .. Similar sort of behaviour that I experience here to be honest .

Do you believe that the moon disappears when you don't perceive it?

Open question to all ..


x daz x

[God-Like]

Originally Posted by MikeS80

All the individual selfs are the same, as a whole/oneness, hence they are not seperate, they are just different.

I agree, this is why the individualised snowflake is unique within it's geometric design as are we, but it doesn't reflect any separation .

This is the biggest flaw in the non duality one not two premise .

There can be a million individual expressions of Self .

Just because there are a million unique expressions doesn't mean they are illusory or dreamy or whatever words suits .

There is no realisation to that effect as I keep saying, it's only a thought had concluded in mind that individuality is illusory or has to imply that there is separation present .

I think that as times have gone by more and more people are questioning this non duality aspect because it doesn't ring true or add up .

When these concepts came out in a more mainstream way it seems as if peeps just got on the non duality cruise ship and became brainwashed without having any understanding .. That being said and done I am sure that there are teachers out there that have had direct realisation of Self and still come up with the dreamworld explanation ..

As discussed with JASG's about integrating both sides of the coin is required in order to understand oneness .



x daz x

[God-Like]

Originally Posted by Dominik90

Time to enter this conversation :) (from the perspective of the opening statement)

For me all that is / oneness / god / creator experiences everything and nothing and we as individuated aspected of all that is are a fragmented version of that god which also has the same capabilities in essence. However because we choose to be on earth, we choose certain collective limitations we play in and we experience our own individual limitations, which in essence are also just collective limitations. So a huge paradox that can't be answered from questions, the questions have to be lived and experienced.

Fragmentation is a word that resonates with many I would say . The individual also in this vein has an oversoul and each incarnation is a fragmented part of the oversoul ..

This is similar in explanation regarding Self as the whole, and the individual being a fragmented part of it while not being separate from it .


x daz x

Originally Posted by God-Like

I must warn you I am a black belt at the moon being there when you are not looking at it type of conversation :)

I have had a 6 month ongoing conversation on this with a bunch of non duality guys and it was hilarious at times and at times was completely ridiculous . Again based upon common behavioural patterns had by non duality extremists where normal conversations are extremely hard to come by ..

In regards to the moon however, we must first establish what the moon is in relation to what we are and then take it from there ..

In my eyes the moon exists independently unto itself because it is fundamentally no different from what we are and I don't require you or anyone to look at me in order for me to exist .

This concept of existing through the perception of other's is one of those mental gymnastic exercises that really needs honesty and free flowing exchanges without dodges or morphs or denials in place for it to go anyway ..

My last 6 month exchange in a way ended up reflecting nothing like the original statement because nothing was actually addressed as time went by, all there was, was the repeating of past questions that went unanswered lol .. Similar sort of behaviour that I experience here to be honest .

Do you believe that the moon disappears when you don't perceive it?

Open question to all ..


x daz x

Such a loaded question. I believe that for me the moon disappears when I don't perceive it. Here I mean perceive in any way. But whether or not it continues to exist, and what exist means in that context is a much more nuanced question to examine. I can see it as it does, or I can see it as it does not, and both seem true.

Now, it may continue to appear for you when I don't perceive it, but then it is hard for me to say, as for me, you disappear when I am not perceiving you (sorry about that pal ). It is perhaps a question of what is meant by is. If I am the all that is, then is what is, disappears when I am not holding it in my perception, the same with any form. Yet, if what is continues to exist, though I am not perceiving it, then as I am all that is, I must be holding its existence somehow, as some part of myself. But what does that mean, where out of my perception do I hold it, and in what form or formless state? Perhaps, the answer may depend on what is meant by "I"?

[God-Like]

Originally Posted by ketzer

Such a loaded question. I believe that for me the moon disappears when I don't perceive it. Here I mean perceive in any way. But whether or not it continues to exist, and what exist means in that context is a much more nuanced question to examine. I can see it as it does, or I can see it as it does not, and both seem true.

So what is the moon in reflection of yourself? We need to establish this first . The moon has to be either fundamentally what you are or something else . Then understand why the moon would disappear and not you when the moon perceives you in someway .

Originally Posted by ketzer

, it may continue to appear for you when I don't perceive it, but then it is hard for me to say, as for me, you disappear when I am not perceiving you (sorry about that pal ). It is perhaps a question of what is meant by is. If I am the all that is, then is what is, disappears when I am not holding it in my perception, the same with any form. Yet, if what is continues to exist, though I am not perceiving it, then as I am all that is, I must be holding its existence somehow, as some part of myself. But what does that mean, where out of my perception do I hold it, and in what form or formless state? Perhaps, the answer may depend on what is meant by "I"?

Again, we need to establish what I AM is in reflection of yourself . If we establish this then there would be no doubt about what disappears and what doesn't in regards to you and I and all things at large .

You say that I AM is all there is, when this is not strictly true . I AM is a point of awareness that is fundamentally the same as everything else .

What you are is all there is, I AM is not all there is, I AM is simply not separate from all there is .

This is why individuality is not the entirety, this is why the finite is not infinite, the wave is not the ocean in entirety blah blah blah ...

The tree exists in it's own right because it doesn't depend on another individual for it's existence . It is an individualised part of the whole . Things don't just disappear when you turn your back ..

You say that I disappear when you no longer perceive me but an individualised I AM conscious perceiver always remains aware of IAMness of the mind .

If I can self verify my own existence then how is it possible to disappear when I can be conscious aware of my solitude / isolation?


x daz x