Ego/I/self/Ahamkara is the Self that thinks he/she is separate from oneness....

[FallingLeaves]

Originally Posted by MikeS80

I am pretty sure Tao Te Ching called it the "nameless", so people will not call the "nameless" the wrong name/label.

in taoism, it isn't as much about using the 'wrong' label as it is learning not to apply labels at all... of course they agree with your point too, while you are still using labels it does you no good to use blatantly 'wrong' labels... you just get lost in the weeds when you do that. The sages though eventually seem to learn that all labels are in some way wrong...

[MikeS80]

Originally Posted by FallingLeaves

in taoism, it isn't as much about using the 'wrong' label as it is learning not to apply labels at all... of course they agree with your point too, while you are still using labels it does you no good to use blatantly 'wrong' labels... you just get lost in the weeds when you do that. The sages though eventually seem to learn that all labels are in some way wrong...

Yes. Not using labels helps one to learn to just be conscious and aware of something, without putting a label on it (as Jiddu Krishnamurti said: the word/label is not the thing, the thing is the thing.) Not using labels has a lot to do with not getting attached to labels, having an attachment to labels that have an opposite and labels that separates something from oneself.

The nameless is a good example of a label that one cannot get attached to and not separate oneself from. The nameless is a neutral label, and the self and the eternal and infinite right here and right now are also neutral labels, which we are able to be just conscious of, aware of, and perceive. Giving something a label/name that is neutral in nature, is just as good as not using labels/names.

Edit: the self and the eternal and infinite right here and right now are self-explanatory, which one does not need to think about that much to understand what they are.

[God-Like]

Originally Posted by MikeS80

Yes. Not using labels helps one to learn to just be conscious and aware of something, without putting a label on it (as Jiddu Krishnamurti said: the word/label is not the thing, the thing is the thing.) Not using labels has a lot to do with not getting attached to labels, having an attachment to labels that have an opposite and labels that separates something from oneself.

The nameless is a good example of a label that one cannot get attached to and not separate oneself from. The nameless is a neutral label, and the self and the eternal and infinite right here and right now are also neutral labels, which we are able to be just conscious of, aware of, and perceive. Giving something a label/name that is neutral in nature, is just as good as not using labels/names.

Edit: the self and the eternal and infinite right here and right now are self-explanatory, which one does not need to think about that much to understand what they are.

And that's another label

It's like were not going to call Mike, Mike

There always has to be an association to that which we don't label as such .

There are definite benefits for keeping it simple .

Depends on always about the context of that which is labelled .

If it's all on the same level then it's no problems calling a spade a spade .


x daz x

[MikeS80]

Originally Posted by God-Like

And that's another label

It's like were not going to call Mike, Mike

There always has to be an association to that which we don't label as such .

There are definite benefits for keeping it simple .

Depends on always about the context of that which is labelled .

If it's all on the same level then it's no problems calling a spade a spade .


x daz x

That is what happens when you communicate with a descriptive language like english.

Yes, the way one labels things (describe things) and define meaning of words in spiritual concepts, analogies and metaphors is important, as the way a person labels (describe things) and define words in his/her head/mind, create personal beliefs, experiences, perceptions, and awareness for said person in his/her mind. This is why experience by itself don't mean much. Most experiences people have are based on their personal subjective beliefs, perceptions, and awareness, by subjective I mean experiences, perceptions, and awareness based on a person's personal feelings, wants, needs and desires (for something to be true/truth), for mental comfort etc etc.

I am aware, as i am sure you are aware too, that most, but not all spiritual people seems to make up their own definition of words, sometimes the complete opposite of what the word means, like for an example objective and subjective. A subjective person will swear up and down that subjective reality is truth while he/she swears up and down that the mind is not his/her true nature.

[Still_Waters]

Zen Master Seung Sahn:

"Open your mouth and you are already mistaken."

(Some teachers teach in complete and utter silence.)

[Mak6831]

Originally Posted by inavalan

I'm honestly wondering, this isn't to argue against your beliefs.

If there were "oneness", then how could anything be separate?

How could a part of "oneness" perceive itself to be separate? That means, at least, that that part's awareness isn't part of the "oneness", doesn't it? So it would negate the concept of "oneness".

I assume you mean "oneness" as in "everything is one", and not as in this oneness, that oneness, the oneness over there, ...

If you affirm that there is an ego, and there is a true-Self, then you don't have "oneness" anymore, because you talk about two different entities, don't you?

Agreed, when you realise the ego doesnt exist its like realising that santa clause doesnt exist. santa clause arises as a thought in oneness.

[MikeS80]

Originally Posted by Mak6831

Agreed, when you realise the ego doesnt exist its like realising that santa clause doesnt exist. santa clause arises as a thought in oneness.

When you say/ believe the ego (separation) doesnt exist, All you are doing is saying/believing that separation in your mind does not exist, saying that is not a problem if you do not have one bit of separation in your mind, but saying that when you do have separation in your mind does create problems.

[FallingLeaves]

never mind...

Originally Posted by Mak6831

Agreed, when you realise the ego doesnt exist its like realising that santa clause doesnt exist. santa clause arises as a thought in oneness.

So you don't exist? Saying the ego doesn't exist is the classic way that ego fools itself.

Originally Posted by MikeS80

When you say/ believe the ego (separation) doesnt exist, All you are doing is saying/believing that separation in your mind does not exist, saying that is not a problem if you do not have one bit of separation in your mind, but saying that when you do have separation in your mind does create problems.

Ego is not synonymous with separation and believing one doesn't have an ego is not Spirituality. And ego is not the self. Saying that the ego doesn't exist is acknowledging the ego exists in the first place, non-existence is nonsensical.

Originally Posted by MikeS80

.....while the Self/true Self/Atma or Atman is the Self whom knows and is aware he/she is not separate from oneness.

The Self/true Self/Atma solves the paradoxes by not creating them in the first place and realises that without the ego the Self/true Self/Atma would be lessened.