Does anyone else find it weird that there is no self?

[Jane]

11 hours ago, Phil said:

The Self as in infinite does not equal the self as in finite. Infinite could not know of finite nor of an equal. The Self as in infinite would not know what knowledge or an object of knowledge is, as infinite is self-aware. None of this slips the mind of anyone, as again these beliefs are directly experienced if experienced at all. Therein as well, there is actually no one to accept or not accept any thing at all. 🤷 

Although there is “apparently” within the dream of separation a someone, a character who does not accept things. 
 

I think that’s what Joseph’s message is pointing to. 🤔it’s pointing to the dream realm, which can’t be negated just because it’s a dream, the dream is seen for what it is that’s all.

[Phil]

@Jane

In so far as Being appears as a desert, there is Being, there is not separation or a separate thing such as ‘a desert’.

 

There is Being, appearing as (so to speak) perception, and the thought ‘desert’.

 

So while it might seem to Being in the overlooking of itself that there is a desert, there is never any actuality or reality of there being a desert. 

 

Agree?

[Jane]

1 hour ago, Phil said:

@Jane

In so far as Being appears as a desert, there is Being, there is not separation or a separate thing such as ‘a desert’.

 

There is Being, appearing as (so to speak) perception, and the thought ‘desert’.

 

So while it might seem to Being in the overlooking of itself that there is a desert, there is never any actuality or reality of there being a desert. 

 

Agree?

Yes I agree, insofar as what is the actual truth here, in regards to the Real True Self that is this nondual aliveness.

However, I still think it’s important to act as though the desert as you call it, is real, even though those who have transcended and awoken from the dream of illusory separation, and have come to recognise that their sense of separate selves are nothing more than a mirage within a desert, they still have to act as though they are real bonafide characters in a real world full of other separate people and other things, even though they know they are not.

 

Thats what I think Joseph was attempting to highlight when he mentioned the not to throw the baby out with the bath water analogy.

After all, the dream is all there is that is happening and knowable….right?  
There is nothing happening or known within deep dreamless sleep or death metaphorically speaking. Is there?
 

 

 

[Joseph Maynor]

5 hours ago, Jane said:

I think that’s what Joseph’s message is pointing to. 🤔it’s pointing to the dream realm, which can’t be negated just because it’s a dream, the dream is seen for what it is that’s all.

Yes.  I’m trying to stay strict with Adi Shankara's teachings since I’m currently reading all his commentaries.  The Advaita Vedanta message is there is no duality between Self and not-Self (illusion) because Maya or the Dream World, the world in space and time, actually doesn’t exist.  So there’s just the Self.  And the Self is actually beyond any mental attributes such as real/unreal and true/false.  The Self is nondual because duality only arises when the mind gets involved:  The Self is the Mind of mind (aka Pure Consciousness or Pure Awareness) or That which makes the mind noticeable and “seen” as not-Self aka illusory Maya.  “Brahman is without interior or exterior.” — Adi Shankara

 

One other thing I should point out to be fair to Adi Shankara is he states the Self is the underlying but concealed reality of all sentient creatures.  So the Self is not just the essence of Me it’s the essence of all living organisms.  That’s why Shankara calls the Self the Universal Self sometimes.  All things are in a cycle of Samsara (birth and rebirth) until they reach the top of human karma and Awaken to the Self.  Once this happens, not-Self is seen for what it is and Liberation from Samsara spiritual enlightenment) occurs thereby preventing rebirth as another form of life because illusion is seen through.  He calls this “[T]he total eradication of the seed of worldly existence.”  

What Shankara was trying to do is create a Path for humans to become spiritually enlightened in this lifetime* no matter their Karma through Knowledge and direct experience alone.  (Jnana = Ultimate Knowledge).  Thus, Moksha or spiritual enlightenment doesn't necessarily depend entirely on Karma -- anyone can Awaken in this lifetime if they do the work.  "Brahman is the chief object of knowledge." -- Adi Shankara

*I define Love as helping others Awaken in this lifetime, even though this only occurs in the not-Self or the Dream.

Edited June 25 by Joseph Maynor

[Jane]

3 hours ago, Joseph Maynor said:

Yes.  I’m trying to stay strict with Adi Shankara's teachings since I’m currently reading all his commentaries.  The Advaita Vedanta message is there is no duality between Self and not-Self (illusion) because Maya or the Dream World, the world in space and time, actually doesn’t exist.  So there’s just the Self.  And the Self is actually beyond any mental attributes such as real/unreal and true/false.  The Self is nondual because duality only arises when the mind gets involved:  The Self is the Mind of mind (aka Pure Consciousness or Pure Awareness) or That which makes the mind noticeable and “seen” as not-Self aka illusory Maya.  “Brahman is without interior or exterior.” — Adi Shankara

 

One other thing I should point out to be fair to Adi Shankara is he states the Self is the underlying but concealed reality of all sentient creatures.  So the Self is not just the essence of Me it’s the essence of all living organisms.  That’s why Shankara calls the Self the Universal Self sometimes.  All things are in a cycle of Samsara (birth and rebirth) until they reach the top of human karma and Awaken to the Self.  Once this happens, not-Self is seen for what it is and Liberation from Samsara spiritual enlightenment) occurs thereby preventing rebirth as another form of life because illusion is seen through.  He calls this “[T]he total eradication of the seed of worldly existence.”  

What Shankara was trying to do is create a Path for humans to become spiritually enlightened in this lifetime* no matter their Karma through Knowledge and direct experience alone.  (Jnana = Ultimate Knowledge).  Thus, Moksha or spiritual enlightenment doesn't necessarily depend entirely on Karma -- anyone can Awaken in this lifetime if they do the work.  "Brahman is the chief object of knowledge." -- Adi Shankara

*I define Love as helping others Awaken in this lifetime, even though this only occurs in the not-Self or the Dream.

I totally agree with your post 💯 

 

I am very familiar with the Hindu philosophy and Advaita Vedanta philosophy and personally resonate with it deeply.

 

Thanks for posting your vibe Joseph, it’s a pleasure to read it. 👍🙏🙂

[Phil]

6 hours ago, Jane said:

Yes I agree, insofar as what is the actual truth here, in regards to the Real True Self that is this nondual aliveness.

However, I still think it’s important to act as though the desert as you call it, is real, even though those who have transcended and awoken from the dream of illusory separation, and have come to recognise that their sense of separate selves are nothing more than a mirage within a desert, they still have to act as though they are real bonafide characters in a real world full of other separate people and other things, even though they know they are not.

Can direct experience be scrutinized more, potentially revealing a much deeper profundity of Being?

 

6 hours ago, Jane said:

 

Thats what I think Joseph was attempting to highlight when he mentioned the not to throw the baby out with the bath water analogy.

Throw the baby out, throw the bathwater out, throw awareness out, throw consciousness out, throw you, me, those, a thinker / thinkers, characters, a real world, transcendence, a knower / knowers, Brahman, God and the Self out. Whatever else there seems to be, throw it out. 🙂

 

6 hours ago, Jane said:

After all, the dream is all there is that is happening and knowable….right?  

In that framing the dream would be something known by a knower (something), as opposed to self-aware. Maybe a knower as a self inside of a dream. 

 

6 hours ago, Jane said:

There is nothing happening or known within deep dreamless sleep or death metaphorically speaking. Is there?

“That” is This! ♥️

[Jane]

6 hours ago, Phil said:

Throw the baby out, throw the bathwater out, throw awareness out, throw consciousness out, throw you, me, those, a thinker / thinkers, characters, a real world, transcendence, a knower / knowers, Brahman, God and the Self out. Whatever else there seems to be, throw it out. 🙂

“That” is also This! 

 

 

[Jane]

6 hours ago, Phil said:

Can direct experience be scrutinized more, potentially revealing a much deeper profundity of Being?

Reveal what deeper profundity of being, exactly?

[Jane]

6 hours ago, Phil said:

In that framing the dream would be something known by a knower (something), as opposed to self-aware. Maybe a knower as a self inside of a dream. 

Dream characters know nothing. And so that which is apparently known as a dream character,  can know nothing, because the dream is all there is. That which “appears” to know, that “appears” as in a dream, never actually knows.

 

So  both “That” is This! and “That” is not This! - is also “That” is This! 🙂

[Phil]

7 hours ago, Jane said:

Reveal what deeper profundity of being, exactly?

In regard to this… 

21 hours ago, Jane said:

However, I still think it’s important to act as though the desert as you call it, is real, even though those who have transcended and awoken from the dream of illusory separation, and have come to recognise that their sense of separate selves are nothing more than a mirage within a desert, they still have to act as though they are real bonafide characters in a real world full of other separate people and other things, even though they know they are not.

Throw out the baby and the bathwater. 

 

Is there really any direct experience of that ‘stuff’?  An actor, those who have trancended etc?

Or maybe it’s of no concern as this singularity is spontaneously appearing.

[Phil]

A question for those with ears… can emotion cognitively be or seem to be realized to be maya, yet still be experienced & suppressed nonetheless?

[Jane]

1 hour ago, Phil said:

Is there really any direct experience of that ‘stuff’?  An actor, those who have trancended etc?

Or maybe it’s of no concern as this singularity is spontaneously appearing.

In my personal understanding, that which appears to transcend, never transcended. However,  there is still the thought arising here, that there is a “somebody” ( actor )  who believes it is the one who  transcends the illusion of separation. Even though this believed  “somebody ” can also know the opposite is also true, that there is “nobody” who actually transcends. And that it just appears as though there is a “somebody” who does.
 

The only direct experience I personally know about is the direct experience of simple unknowing mysterious being aliveness. Everything else, to me anyway,  is just a conceptual overlay upon itself. 
 

But what do I know, I’m just a voice full of words that are coming out of nowhere. Like singing birds. Or it could just be the singularity spontaneously arising’  as you’ve pointed out.

 

I don’t really know. I only think I know. 

 

 

[Jane]

23 minutes ago, Phil said:

A question for those with ears… can emotion cognitively be or seem to be realized to be maya, yet still be experienced & suppressed nonetheless?

I would say there’s only the experience of emotions arising. Emotions are appearances of that which is emotionless.

 

In other words, that which has no emotion arises as the experience emotion.

In the same context, that which is without sight arises as the experience seeing…etc 

 

 

[Joseph Maynor]

2 hours ago, Jane said:

I don’t really know. I only think I know.

This is where I think Pure Consciousness factors in.  What you wrote here is the mind questioning itself and kind of eating itself, but something has to Know the mind is limited.  Something is having a meta perspective on the mind that is not the mind or of the mind.  That I suggest is Pure Consciousness or Atman.  There is a Knower that’s not the mind — it puts the mind in the spotlight for what it is.  The Mind of the mind -- the Watcher, Awareness, there are many names for it.  The mind knows it’s full of it because of deeper Knowledge (Jnana) of it that it can no longer continue to deny.  The mind is like I know You got me — I’m still gonna operate, but it’s never going to be the same!  You Know more than the mind knows -- You Know what the mind is and what what its limitations are.

Edited June 26 by Joseph Maynor

[Someone here]

There is no perceiver or knower of experience. 

Experience is one whole undivided field of isness. 

Edited June 26 by Someone here

[Joseph Maynor]

13 minutes ago, Someone here said:

There is no perceiver or knower of experience. 

Experience is one whole undivided field of isness. 

 

Then how could solipsism be true?  I recall you saying solipsism is true.  It would seem to be that solipsism requires a self or mind or something that concludes or otherwise knows/Knows it/It is the only existent thing/Thing.  People try to bury the Self in the Whole which I think is kind of a reaction to the Self.  Nobody likes the Self because it seems like ego at first glance, but it's not.  The Self is the Whole, and the Whole is the Self.  I am nothingness or Nothing is a bad dodge in my opinion.  This is where Indian Buddhism I think gets it very wrong by trying to wipe out the Self/The Divine Individual.  That's too Divine Feminine to the exclusion of the Divine Masculine.  Spinoza said something similar -- the Whole exists as One. but no individual/Individual of any sort exists.  That's Divine Feminine.  The Divine Masculine is only I Exist and the Whole is Me.  I am nothing is Divine Feminine.  The Whole is nothing is Divine Masculine.

Edited June 26 by Joseph Maynor

[Someone here]

7 minutes ago, Joseph Maynor said:

Then how could solipsism be true?  I recall you saying solipsism is true.  It would seem to be that solipsism requires a self or mind or something that concludes or otherwise knows/Knows it/It is the only existent thing/Thing

Solipsism by definition means that ones own experience is the absolute. And that's exactly what I'm saying . this here is the absolute reality .absolute truth or however you wanna called . And it exists without there being a perceived-perceiver duality . A self is not nesscary for solipsism to be true. 

The Wikipedia definition of solipsism says only oneself is real ..and everything else is figments of your imagination.  What I'm talking about is one level ahead ..taking it even further than that ..not only others are not real .but even you .nothing is real in the entire universe right now except this. 

[Jane]

50 minutes ago, Joseph Maynor said:

This is where I think Pure Consciousness factors in.  What you wrote here is the mind questioning itself and kind of eating itself, but something has to Know the mind is limited.  Something is having a meta perspective on the mind that is not the mind or of the mind.  That I suggest is Pure Consciousness or Atman.  There is a Knower that’s not the mind — it puts the mind in the spotlight for what it is.  The Mind of the mind -- the Watcher, Awareness, there are many names for it.  The mind knows it’s full of it because of deeper Knowledge (Jnana) of it that it can no longer continue to deny.  The mind is like I know You got me — I’m still gonna operate, but it’s never going to be the same!  You Know more than the mind knows -- You Know what the mind is and what what its limitations are.

So are you saying  that the mind knows it’s limitations, it being relative to the observer, but at the same time knows there is something beyond the mind of limitation that’s unlimited absolute knowing?

 

Can a relative mind know anything about the absolute ? Wouldn’t the mind be a self-referential, self-sustaining feedback loop upon itself only? The mind only frame of reference would be with itself,  being that this consciousness and the contents of consciousness are one and the same thing.

 

What do you say?