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

Originally Posted by God-Like

So self is only a thought of Self or what you are .

Which is the Jungian definition of the ego

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 was a working medium for a few years, and I always felt the energies/emotions that were happening between Spirit and the person because I was channelling those too. The emotions we feel here are the same that Spirit feels. Yes it's bio-chemical but there's more to that story and science doesn't have all the answers. Neither does Spirituality. It goes through our biological systems, obviously, because we couldn't feel them otherwise but them 'originating' in those systems......

[MikeS80]

Originally Posted by Greenslade

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.

Just so you know, you are responding to JASG with the above but you used my name. I got confused there for a minute lolz

Originally Posted by MikeS80

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

From an Advaita perspective that's the ego-self's point of view. The non-dualist point of view is there's nothing outside of Self and there's nothing to go back to. You are already It. Right here and right now. The Unchanging and there's nothing outside of That and That can't perish. Only that which changes (mind-body and everything else in objective reality) appears, exists for a time and then ceases to exist, and all within Self. That which changes "borrows" its existence (and consciousness for sentient beings) from That which is vast, infinite, without limit and unchanging. Existence-Consciousness-Bliss.

Thinking there's something outside of Self and there's someplace Self goes back to after mind-body dies would be Maya (veil of ignorance). Look at the phrasing. Outside of yourself. We go back to. Those are phrases of separation. Individuation.

My position is the Advaita position of One without a second, hence I didn't come from Source/Brahman and I won't be going back to Source/Brahman because I am already That and nothing is outside of me. Right here. Right now. Always was. Always will be.

This understanding won't be found in Merriam-Webster. It will be found in the Upanishads, Bhagavad Gita, Brahma Sutras and the ultimate and unvarnished version in the Ashtavakra Gita, and for most to fully understand requires the guidance of a scholarly teacher well-versed in these texts and fluent in Sanskrit.

This is the Advaita Vedanta perspective and mine too, so take it with a grain of salt if it doesn't align with yours. I just put it out for your consideration and general discussion.

[MikeS80]

Originally Posted by JustASimpleGuy

From an Advaita perspective that's the ego-self's point of view. The non-dualist point of view is there's nothing outside of Self and there's nothing to go back to. You are already It. Right here and right now. The Unchanging and there's nothing outside of That and That can't perish. Only that which changes (mind-body and everything else in objective reality) appears, exists for a time and then ceases to exist, and all within Self. That which changes "borrows" its existence (and consciousness for sentient beings) from That which is vast, infinite, without limit and unchanging. Existence-Consciousness-Bliss.

Thinking there's something outside of Self and there's someplace Self goes back to after mind-body dies would be Maya (veil of ignorance). Look at the phrasing. Outside of yourself. We go back to. Those are phrases of separation. Individuation.

My position is the Advaita position of One without a second, hence I didn't come from Source/Brahman and I won't be going back to Source/Brahman because I am already That and nothing is outside of me. Right here. Right now. Always was. Always will be.

This understanding won't be found in Merriam-Webster. It will be found in the Upanishads, Bhagavad Gita, Brahma Sutras and the ultimate and unvarnished version in the Ashtavakra Gita, and for most to fully understand requires the guidance of a scholarly teacher well-versed in these texts and fluent in Sanskrit.

This is the Advaita Vedanta perspective and mine too, so take it with a grain of salt if it doesn't align with yours. I just put it out for your consideration and general discussion.

All you did was twist and misconstrue what I posted and you deflected from answering a simple question as usual.

Did you not answer the simple question to the statement you made about death not being equated to non-being because that statement is a bunch of bull/designed to play mind games and you know it?

Edit: I put "we go back" in quotes in my post for a reason. I do not claim to be ego/mind free and I never have. You would not be on this forum if you, yourself was ego/mind free or transcended your ego, transcending your ego/mind will make you a mindless "vegetable". See how a word is a quote works lol?

[MikeS80]

Originally Posted by JustASimpleGuy

I just put it out for your consideration and general discussion.

Whom is this I that you speak of that put it out for my consideration? Is it not your ego/mind and individuality? LOL. According to you and to that logic it should be a contridiction, every time you say and think I. Thinking I am is the ego/mind, the sense of or feeling of I-AM 's presence is atman/brahman. The ego/mind that thinks I am, describes, experiences, expresses and gets to know the sense or feeling of Self/ I-AM in the present, truth, god (or whatever you want to call god), the physical universe and everything in the universe, which includes other ego-minds describing, experiencing, expressing and getting to know the sense of self I-AM/itself/god (or whatever you want to call god), the physical universe and everything in the universe.

[God-Like]

Originally Posted by MikeS80

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.

.

This is why beyond is beyond and there is no truth beyond it's relativeness .

Who can know of a truth beyond the concept of it .

No-one can know excuse the double pun .

So when we talk about falsities and conditioning and subjectiveness of life experience they are only that based upon our foundation of truth in the first place lol .

This is a moving target .. but there are commonalities of truth when peeps experience similar things .

But peeps need to be truthful when speaking about truths that are realised, experienced or are simply theories made up in mind .

Grand ideas about consciousness and such likes are never experienced or realised as that which has been my main point in all this time .

I haven't as yet had one statement / answer to counter this .

This should start bells ringing for some folk .



x daz x

[God-Like]

Originally Posted by Greenslade

Which is the Jungian definition of the ego

He must of got it from me


x daz x

[MikeS80]

Originally Posted by God-Like

This is why beyond is beyond and there is no truth beyond it's relativeness .

Who can know of a truth beyond the concept of it .

No-one can know excuse the double pun .

So when we talk about falsities and conditioning and subjectiveness of life experience they are only that based upon our foundation of truth in the first place lol .

This is a moving target .. but there are commonalities of truth when peeps experience similar things .

But peeps need to be truthful when speaking about truths that are realised, experienced or are simply theories made up in mind .

Grand ideas about consciousness and such likes are never experienced or realised as that which has been my main point in all this time .

I haven't as yet had one statement / answer to counter this .

This should start bells ringing for some folk .



x daz x

Haha, no excuse for the double pun needed.

I think it rings my bells strongly and deeply and irritates me because it insults intelligence, intelligence is becoming god-like in the flesh (and the ego-mind, body and the rest of it is required for us to be god-like in the flesh). Intelligence is truth and the right here and right now or god if you want to use the word god.

Wow, it felt so good to get that out lol!

I am starting to think some spiritual people do not take spirituality as serious and sincere as they should. I think this is how and why people are not being honest and sincere in their discussions.

[God-Like]

Originally Posted by MikeS80

Haha, no excuse for the double pun needed.

I think it rings my bells strongly and deeply and irritates me because it insults intelligence, intelligence is becoming god-like in the flesh (and the ego-mind, body and the rest of it is required for us to be god-like in the flesh). Intelligence is truth and the right here and right now or god if you want to use the word god.

Wow, it felt so good to get that out lol!

I am starting to think some spiritual people do not take spirituality as serious and sincere as they should. I think this is how and why people are not being honest and sincere in their discussions.

haha glad you got it off your chest ...

The whole subject is fascinating to be honest .. I mean, we have what we are perceiving that what is in truth or not from a place of ignorance or not and yet there is only what you are, creating all sorts of premises and concepts that reflect our beliefs .

Honesty is always key, being honest with what has been realised and what hasn't .

What concepts actually make sense and those that don't .

In a way intelligence when orchestrated in a specific way flows in a way that cannot be negated or refuted .

This again will be relative and not an absolute truth that reflects beyond the concept of it, but things can make sense when what is suggested is foolproof for use of a better word .

Concepts that don't make sense or cannot provide any answer to certain questions remain in the 'don't make any sense category'


x daz x