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

[MikeS80]

Originally Posted by JustASimpleGuy

The ego-self (Ahamakara, I-maker) is at the heart of duality. I, me, mine. Not me, not mine.

I'm not even saying it's necessarily a bad thing as the Ramakrishna order (and Vivekananda) embrace(d) the idea all paths are valid and have as their goal the same end. I'm only saying it's helpful to know one's path otherwise the possibility of getting confused or lost is ever present.

Pick a path, understand the path, follow the path. Following one path and conflating it with another has to introduce a great deal of cognitive dissonance and just doesn't seem a good or helpful approach.

Duality, and non-duality are irrelevant. Duality, non-duality and ego-mind are one. Being one or oneness means being one and oneness is not separate from anything.

You talk about the ego-mind and oneness, yet you keep pointing to the mind's subjective concepts of duality and ego-mind, yes, even ego-mind is a subjective concept/label of mind.

Subjective concepts of truth are for those ego-minds who do not know truth/have not experienced truth for themselves.

[MikeS80]

Originally Posted by Godspark

Simpleguy, I think you misunderstood what I'm trying to say. I'm not trying to know absolutely everything there is to know, that's ridiculous and absurd. Just trying to understand the basics and go from there learning whatever else helps along the way to get the broader idea and see the bigger picture. It's merely a means to make informed decisions, and by understanding some of the fundamental concepts of reality can open a lot of doorways to greater knowledge, power and control over reality. "Some rules can be bent, others can be broken" and I have seen this firsthand multiple times just by understanding some of the basics and implementing that knowledge.

Mike, I would say we only think about the future and past in our mind, but it all exists here and now in the present moment. It's a multiverse, with multiple dimensions and timelines with infinite possibilities but we can only experience one particular thing at any given moment based on our previous frame of reference, and the conditioning and beliefs we hold which limit our potential.

The way I see it is that God is infinite and eternal, and created infinite ways of experiencing himself within existence. Every possible reality and version of reality exists simultaneously, and we are God experiencing just one version. Put it this way, if you were God and you were infinite and eternal, everything there ever is or was, what would you do? what could you do? it would make sense to me, to create infinite realities and explore every possible outcome seeing and experiencing all existence from multiple vantage points.

You are right about mental time, that is all it is-mental time.

Another way to put is that we are "god"/the right here and right now being conscious/aware of "god"/the right here and right now. Physical reality/universe is the way "god"/the right here and right now is conscious/aware of itself. I put god in quotation marks because calling it god puts it above us and us below it, when we are actually equal and balanced to it.

[snowyowl]

[quote=JustASimpleGuy]If pure being is synonymous with (absolute) existence then there's never non-being or non-existence. The only thing that ceases to be is mind-body and since you're not that then from your perspective there should never be non-being. Death of the body is not death of being.

I'm only just catching up with this thread, but thanks folks for your replies to my earlier post. Guess I was taking the discussion a little too earnestly!

I've come across before now, the idea that non-existence is impossible, but my thoughts around this subject lead me into paradox. Here goes:

- For me to make a statement like 'unicorns don't exist' I must first define what a unicorn is, and therefore effectively create a unicorn in my imagination.
- So I'm saying unicorns do exist in thought/image but don't exist in another realm like the physical reality.
- The statement 'unicorns don't exist' therefore occupies a dualistic conceptual framework. From a nondualistic framework, presumably there's no split between mind and matter, imagination and physical reality. Imagined and material unicorns are just as real or unreal as each other.

I'm close to saying that there's neither existence nor non-existence of things in the nondual framework, just (being); but the paradox is holding me back. Perhaps the problem is I've dived straight into using the words existence/non-existence before defining what existence means.

Originally Posted by snowyowl

I'm only just catching up with this thread, but thanks folks for your replies to my earlier post. Guess I was taking the discussion a little too earnestly!

I've come across before now, the idea that non-existence is impossible, but my thoughts around this subject lead me into paradox. Here goes:

- For me to make a statement like 'unicorns don't exist' I must first define what a unicorn is, and therefore effectively create a unicorn in my imagination.
- So I'm saying unicorns do exist in thought/image but don't exist in another realm like the physical reality.
- The statement 'unicorns don't exist' therefore occupies a dualistic conceptual framework. From a nondualistic framework, presumably there's no split between mind and matter, imagination and physical reality. Imagined and material unicorns are just as real or unreal as each other.

I'm close to saying that there's neither existence nor non-existence of things in the nondual framework, just (being); but the paradox is holding me back. Perhaps the problem is I've dived straight into using the words existence/non-existence before defining what existence means.

From the perspective of Advaita philosophy duality is but an appearance of the Absolute and within the Absolute, and within that appearance things exist in the sense they borrow their existence from the Absolute which has inherent existence and they don't exist in the sense they do not have their own inherent existence. The Absolute is infinite and limitless and not bound by space, time or form whereas all that appears as duality is finite and limited by space, time and form.

If we could precisely define inherent existence we could precisely define the Absolute and then because it has definable attributes it's limited by those attributes and no longer Absolute, Ineffable.

It's rather easy to say all is One or there's only Being, but not so easy to understand it intellectually and even less easy to experience it. That's where a solid philosophical foundation with proven practices comes in handy. It doesn't have to be Advaita. There are other options, however they all have their philosophical underpinnings and specific practices and there are some overlaps. The point is they have to be understood and their practices engaged. If it was easy we'd have a world chock-full of Enlightened Beings.

Advaita is basically a two-step process.

Step 1 - Discernment between the real and the unreal. Between That which has inherent existence and that which has borrowed existence. That's the practice of Neti Neti using the teachings, the Vivekas and Vedantic meditation or Self inquiry into Who am I (more aptly What am I).

Step 2 - Realizing their is no separation between the real and the unreal in the sense that the unreal (all objects - name, form & function) is never witnessed apart from the real (Consciousness). The real is the "space" wherein name, form & function arise, for a time exists, then subside.

So duality is the illusion caused by ignorance of one's true nature, and that's called Maya.

The best analogy is a dream. It's Maya and one's true nature is the Dreamer. A lucid dream is a great model for an Awakening experience or Self Realization where one pierces through the veil of Maya and has a glimpse of one's true nature.

Maya has two powers, the power to project and the power to veil. Awakening, Self Realization and even Enlightenment only pierce its power to veil and not its power to project.

Of course this is according to Advaita philosophy, however I have experienced the waking equivalent of a lucid dream. I couldn't even begin to explain it outside of this context and I suppose that's because it's the philosophy that's most familiar and understood.

This is my story and I'm sticking to it. Well, at least if/until I come across a better explanation or slip the surly bonds of Earth... If the prior comes to pass I'll let you know. If it's the latter that will be a bit more difficult. LOL!

[MikeS80]

Originally Posted by JustASimpleGuy

From the perspective of Advaita philosophy duality is but an appearance of the Absolute and within the Absolute, and within that appearance things exist in the sense they borrow their existence from the Absolute which has inherent existence and they don't exist in the sense they do not have their own inherent existence. The Absolute is infinite and limitless and not bound by space, time or form whereas all that appears as duality is finite and limited by space, time and form.

If we could precisely define inherent existence we could precisely define the Absolute and then because it has definable attributes it's limited by those attributes and no longer Absolute, Ineffable.

It's rather easy to say all is One or there's only Being, but not so easy to understand it intellectually and even less easy to experience it. That's where a solid philosophical foundation with proven practices comes in handy. It doesn't have to be Advaita. There are other options, however they all have their philosophical underpinnings and specific practices and there are some overlaps. The point is they have to be understood and their practices engaged. If it was easy we'd have a world chock-full of Enlightened Beings.

Advaita is basically a two-step process.

Step 1 - Discernment between the real and the unreal. Between That which has inherent existence and that which has borrowed existence. That's the practice of Neti Neti using the teachings, the Vivekas and Vedantic meditation or Self inquiry into Who am I (more aptly What am I).

Step 2 - Realizing their is no separation between the real and the unreal in the sense that the unreal (all objects - name, form & function) is never witnessed apart from the real (Consciousness). The real is the "space" wherein name, form & function arise, for a time exists, then subside.

So duality is the illusion caused by ignorance of one's true nature, and that's called Maya.

The best analogy is a dream. It's Maya and one's true nature is the Dreamer. A lucid dream is a great model for an Awakening experience or Self Realization where one pierces through the veil of Maya and has a glimpse of one's true nature.

Maya has two powers, the power to project and the power to veil. Awakening, Self Realization and even Enlightenment only pierce its power to veil and not its power to project.

Of course this is according to Advaita philosophy, however I have experienced the waking equivalent of a lucid dream. I couldn't even begin to explain it outside of this context and I suppose that's because it's the philosophy that's most familiar and understood.

This is my story and I'm sticking to it. Well, at least if/until I come across a better explanation or slip the surly bonds of Earth... If the prior comes to pass I'll let you know. If it's the latter that will be a bit more difficult. LOL!

Neti neti negates all descriptions about the Ultimate Reality, especially subjective mental concepts!

Adi Shankara was one of the foremost Advaita philosophers who advocated the neti-neti approach. In his commentary on Gaudapada’s Karika, he explains that Brahman is free from adjuncts and the function of neti neti is to remove the obstructions produced by ignorance. His disciple, Sureshvara, further explains that the negation, neti neti, does not have negation as its purpose, it purports identity. What produces the identity ignorance Sureshvara stated, you ask? All subjective not true or misunderstood, falsely percieved information, beliefs, conditioning, memories, biases etc etc that we store in our unconscious produces identity ignorance. The ego-mind, duality, individual identity and intellect labels/concepts are not the problem, the problem is all the subjective not true or misunderstood, falsely percieved information, beliefs, conditioning, memories, biases etc etc that we store in our unconscious, which causes identity ignorance/we identify with our subjective conditioning, beliefs, memories etc etc, instead of identifying with our atman/Our I am present/presence. Duality is irrelevant because atman is duality/creates duality.

I stated many times before that it is easy to understand oneness/wholeness intellectually (without being subjective by not using a single mental concept, analogy or metaphor) as The eternal and infinite right here and right now without putting limitations on it and without labeling it any further. Saying oneness/whole is not easy to intellectually understand is completely false subjective conditioning and will make one not intellectually understand oneness/wholeness, which one is able to intellectually understand. If one chooses not to intellectually understand oneness/wholeness that is his/her problem/choice.

Advaita philosophy is about the realization of the individual self/atman, not the dismissing or negation of the individual self/atman.

Originally Posted by MikeS80

Neti neti negates all descriptions about the Ultimate Reality, especially subjective mental concepts!

Adi Shankara was one of the foremost Advaita philosophers who advocated the neti-neti approach. In his commentary on Gaudapada’s Karika, he explains that Brahman is free from adjuncts and the function of neti neti is to remove the obstructions produced by ignorance. His disciple, Sureshvara, further explains that the negation, neti neti, does not have negation as its purpose, it purports identity. What produces the identity ignorance Sureshvara stated, you ask? All subjective not true or misunderstood, falsely percieved information, beliefs, conditioning, memories, biases etc etc that we store in our unconscious produces identity ignorance. The ego-mind, duality, individual identity and intellect labels/concepts are not the problem, the problem is all the subjective not true or misunderstood, falsely percieved information, beliefs, conditioning, memories, biases etc etc that we store in our unconscious, which causes identity ignorance/we identify with our subjective conditioning, beliefs, memories etc etc, instead of identifying with our atman/Our I am present/presence. Duality is irrelevant because atman is duality/creates duality.

I stated many times before that it is easy to understand oneness/wholeness intellectually (without being subjective by not using a single mental concept, analogy or metaphor) as The eternal and infinite right here and right now without putting limitations on it and without labeling it any further. Saying oneness/whole is not easy to intellectually understand is completely false subjective conditioning and will make one not intellectually understand oneness/wholeness, which one is able to intellectually understand. If one chooses not to intellectually understand oneness/wholeness that is his/her problem/choice.

Advaita philosophy is about the realization of the individual self/atman, not the dismissing or negation of the individual self/atman.

If you're going to use a source you should site it and not misrepresent it by presenting it out of context and as your own. The bold red is from the source and the rest is yours. The important thing is not what you added but what you subtracted, and that's the part about the purpose of Neti Neti being that it annihilates ego and the world as non-self (Anatman), it annihilates our sense of self. The purpose is discernment between Atman and Anatman, That's Step 1 described in my above reply.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neti_neti

Neti neti negates all descriptions about the Ultimate Reality but not the Reality itself. Intuitive interpretation of uncertainty principle can be expressed by "Neti neti" that annihilates ego and the world as non-self (Anatman), it annihilates our sense of self altogether.

Your post is an illustration it's not easy to understand on an intellectual basis without some amount of study. In short it's saying the ego-self is not It (Self), and without that discernment the teachings are useless and instead of a proper understanding of Step 2 in my above reply one ends up with superimposition of the ego-self and Self.

In essence you're not disagreeing with me. Your'e disagreeing with the tenets of Advaita. As I've suggested numerous times it requires a good deal of study to even begin to grasp its implications and a good deal of dedication to practice in order to realize them. It's not going to be hashed out and realized here, but I'm more than willing to have civil discourse on the topic.

As presented at SAND (Science and Non Duality): Two Steps to the Not-Two: Swami Sarvapriyananda https://youtu.be/kPdsAPlK2Js

The teaching is given in two steps—first, the well known 'neti, neti' 'not this, not this' leading to the realization of our spiritual nature and second, seeing that this newly discovered spiritual nature is nondual. Clarity about both steps is necessary to realize nonduality (Advaita). My talk will aim at achieving this clarity.

These are not my words but those of an ordained Advaita monk, well-versed in the philosophy and fluent in Sanskrit.

[MikeS80]

Originally Posted by JustASimpleGuy

If you're going to use a source you should site it and not misrepresent it by presenting it out of context and as your own. The bold red is from the source and the rest is yours. The important thing is not what you added but what you subtracted, and that's the part about the purpose of Neti Neti being that it annihilates ego and the world as non-self (Anatman), it annihilates our sense of self. The purpose is discernment between Atman and Anatman, That's Step 1 described in my above reply.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neti_neti

Neti neti negates all descriptions about the Ultimate Reality but not the Reality itself. Intuitive interpretation of uncertainty principle can be expressed by "Neti neti" that annihilates ego and the world as non-self (Anatman), it annihilates our sense of self altogether.

Your post is an illustration it's not easy to understand on an intellectual basis without some amount of study. In short it's saying the ego-self is not It (Self), and without that discernment the teachings are useless and instead of a proper understanding of Step 2 in my above reply one ends up with superimposition of the ego-self and Self.

In essence you're not disagreeing with me. Your'e disagreeing with the tenets of Advaita. As I've suggested numerous times it requires a good deal of study to even begin to grasp its implications and a good deal of dedication to practice in order to realize them. It's not going to be hashed out and realized here, but I'm more than willing to have civil discourse on the topic.

As presented at SAND (Science and Non Duality): Two Steps to the Not-Two: Swami Sarvapriyananda https://youtu.be/kPdsAPlK2Js

The teaching is given in two steps—first, the well known 'neti, neti' 'not this, not this' leading to the realization of our spiritual nature and second, seeing that this newly discovered spiritual nature is nondual. Clarity about both steps is necessary to realize nonduality (Advaita). My talk will aim at achieving this clarity.

These are not my words but those of an ordained Advaita monk, well-versed in the philosophy and fluent in Sanskrit.

I made it my own through realization and I was not taking net neti out of context.

My neti neti context was/is within the same context as Adi Shankara , the foremost Advaita philosophers who advocated the neti-neti approach and my neti neti was is in relation/context to my OP (which, by the way is about the Self, not "ego self") and to other posts I posted in this thread!

Sure I should have quoted the source, my bad. My source was not wikipedia. My source was: https://www.wisdomlib.org/definition/neti-neti


Of course Neti neti does not negate ultimate reality/the right here and right now, That is common sense, especially since I have been discussing it on this forum.

What did I say about labels and mental concepts, such as ego, mind, duality and the rest of it, keeping in relation/context to my OP and to other posts I posted in this thread? None of them matters because all of them is purely subjective information, beliefs, conditioning, biases etc etc, which are left wide open to misunderstanding and none of them is required to intellectually understand/know the right here and right now-none of them are the right here and right now, when you separate and divide the right here and right now, by labeling and by creating a concept for the right here and right now.

If you want to have an honest, sincere and authentic discussion, do not deflect the topic/subject of this thread. Duality, ego-mind, intellect and other labels and concepts are a distraction/deflection away from the truth of the right here and right now., And they make you think more, not less.

Originally Posted by MikeS80

I made it my own through realization and I was not taking net neti out of context.

My neti neti context was/is within the same context as Adi Shankara , the foremost Advaita philosophers who advocated the neti-neti approach and my neti neti was is in relation/context to my OP (which, by the way is about the Self, not "ego self") and to other posts I posted in this thread!

Sure I should have quoted the source, my bad. My source was not wikipedia. My source was: https://www.wisdomlib.org/definition/neti-neti


Of course Neti neti does not negate ultimate reality/the right here and right now, That is common sense, especially since I have been discussing it on this forum.

What did I say about labels and mental concepts, such as ego, mind, duality and the rest of it, keeping in relation/context to my OP and to other posts I posted in this thread? None of them matters because all of them is purely subjective information, beliefs, conditioning, biases etc etc, which are left wide open to misunderstanding and none of them is required to intellectually understand/know the right here and right now-none of them are the right here and right now, when you separate and divide the right here and right now, by labeling and by creating a concept for the right here and right now.

If you want to have an honest, sincere and authentic discussion, do not deflect the topic/subject of this thread. Duality, ego-mind, intellect and other labels and concepts are a distraction/deflection away from the truth of the right here and right now., And they make you think more, not less.

As I see it this is what you're not getting. If one has absolute clarity of the two steps to the not-two the body is irrelevant. The mind is irrelevant. The ego-self is irrelevant.

The discernment attained through the practice of Neti Neti in conjunction with Vedantic meditation/analysis (Self inquiry as described by Ramana Maharshi's book "Who am I?") reveals one's true nature (Consciousness).

If one's mind is sufficiently concentrated and one is well-established in one's true nature the body, mind and ego-self hold no sway. They are merely useful tools. One can sit back and enjoy the show while also being in the driver's seat.

All the things of mind you eschew are but temporary appearances of and within mind and mind and body are but temporary appearances of and within Consciousness. None of it can touch your true nature. This is why Swamiji states clarity about both steps is necessary to realize nonduality (Advaita).

Do you think an Enlightened being has no thought of past or future? No subjective concepts? Is devoid of the ability for abstract thought using metaphor, analogy and simile? If that was the case Adi Shankaracharya's name would not be known because his analysis and commentary are the product of a powerful and concentrated mind capable of abstract thought and analysis.

[MikeS80]

Originally Posted by JustASimpleGuy

As I see it this is what you're not getting. If one has absolute clarity of the two steps to the not-two the body is irrelevant. The mind is irrelevant. The ego-self is irrelevant.

The discernment attained through the practice of Neti Neti in conjunction with Vedantic meditation/analysis (Self inquiry as described by Ramana Maharshi's book "Who am I?") reveals one's true nature (Consciousness).

If one's mind is sufficiently concentrated and one is well-established in one's true nature the body, mind and ego-self hold no sway. They are merely useful tools. One can sit back and enjoy the show while also being in the driver's seat.

All the things of mind you eschew are but temporary appearances of and within mind and mind and body are but temporary appearances of and within Consciousness. None of it can touch your true nature. This is why Swamiji states clarity about both steps is necessary to realize nonduality (Advaita).

Do you think an Enlightened being has no thought of past or future? No subjective concepts? Is devoid of the ability for abstract thought using metaphor, analogy and simile? If that was the case Adi Shankaracharya's name would not be known because his analysis and commentary are the product of a powerful and concentrated mind capable of abstract thought and analysis.

Now you are just repeating what I have said, while you are saying I have not said it.

Who am I? I am the self/atman present/presence in the right here and now, the same exact presence/present brahman is. The "ego-mind" is what describes and experiences the self by using language to think/say I am. The self/atman is just aware/conscious of it's presence in the right here and now, thus is aware/conscious of itself and other selfs/individual atmans, which is itself. The "ego-mind" subjectively describes and experiences the self falsely and identifies with those false subjective descriptions and experiences of the self/atman.

What an enlightened being thinks or does not think is irrelevant, I am not having a discussion with him/her, I am having a discussion with you.

Originally Posted by MikeS80

Now you are just repeating what I have said, while you are saying I have not said it.

Who am I? I am the self/atman present/presence in the right here and now, the same exact presence/present brahman is. The "ego-mind" is what describes and experiences the self by using language to think/say I am. The self/atman is just aware/conscious of it's presence in the right here and now, thus is aware/conscious of itself and other selfs/individual atmans, which is itself. The "ego-mind" subjectively describes and experiences the self falsely and identifies with those false subjective descriptions and experiences of the self/atman.

What an enlightened being thinks or does not think is irrelevant, I am not having a discussion with him/her, I am having a discussion with you.

In the non-dual path training the monkey mind so it's concentrated and present is Step 0.5. It's a means and not an end. A necessary preparatory step for Step 1 (Self inquiry).

The fruit of Step 1 is realizing anything that can be identified with limiting attributes is not Self. An untangling of the superimposition of Self (Atman) and self (Anatman). There's (one) Self (Atman) and many selfs (Anatmans). It's not many awarenesses/consciousnesses aware of other awarenesses/consciousnesses, but (one) Self aware/conscious of the many selfs and through them aware of the external world.

I'm not certain we're on the same page because you seem to be interchanging (superimposing) self and Self, attributing the qualities of one to the other. It might just be semantics but I can't peek inside your mind and experience so I'm putting my mind and experience out there the only way I can to see if it resonates, and that's through mind and language, as poor and inadequate as the wording might be. We might very well be attempting to relate the same thing but I'm not certain, hence this discussion.

It might seem like a subtle and unimportant distinction but it's whether one perceives/experiences one's self as the thinker of thoughts or the witness of the thinker, and whether there are many witnesses or just one. If one has a sufficiently concentrated mind and clarity of discernment between self and Self and with conviction then the thinker (mind-body, ego-self, Ahamkara, I-maker, Anatman) isn't a problem whatsoever. I rather like the guy. LOL!

This is why I consider mindfulness (being present in the here and now) as a preliminary. A warm-up for the Main Event, so to speak. There's a lot to be said for it, even if one goes no further, however it is the gateway beyond. The canoe that when one reaches the far shore can be discarded and not carried on one's back. It's necessary for the journey but it's not the destination.

Render unto Caesar (Prakriti, nature) what is Caesar's (Prakriti, nature, mind-body, self) and unto God (Purusha, Consciousness) what is God's (Purusha, Consciousness, Self).