When the ego falls away

[SalixIncendium]

When ego is no longer there self can not exist

This is dependent on how one is defining "self." Per advaita, there are two "selves"...the jiva which is the ego-self...and the Atman which is the true Self.

When one realizes the Atman, one realizes one's true immortal nature and that the jiva is impermanent, but does not deny that impermanent self's existence, but realizes that self (the jiva) is illusory.

 

[SalixIncendium]

Can you point at consiousness and see this is self? can you see consiousness?

Per advaita, one's true Self is pure consciousness. One cannot "see" consciousness, as the eye cannot gaze upon itself.

 

[SalixIncendium]

Who is saying it?

Why do you assume one is "saying" anything?

 

[Spirit of Light]

This is dependent on how one is defining "self." Per advaita, there are two "selves"...the jiva which is the ego-self...and the Atman which is the true Self.

When one realizes the Atman, one realizes one's true immortal nature and that the jiva is impermanent, but does not deny that impermanent self's existence, but realizes that self (the jiva) is illusory.

I understand the teaching of atman, But as you know in buddhism there is no permanent self and that means also the atman can not exist unchanged. But i have no problem with other teachings like the one in Advaitist Hindu

 

[Spirit of Light]

Why do you assume one is "saying" anything?

It was not an assumtion It was a question directed to Shantanu but i asked only to know if it was the person or the consiousness that was giving answer

 

[SalixIncendium]

I understand the teaching of atman, But as you know in buddhism there is no permanent self and that means also the atman can not exist unchanged. But i have no problem with other teachings like the one in Advaitist Hindu

I completely understand Buddhism's understanding of no permanent self. I, in no way, was attempting to refute or undermine that in what I wrote. Just sharing my understanding.

 

[Spirit of Light]

I completely understand Buddhism's understanding of no permanent self. I, in no way, was attempting to refute or undermine that in what I wrote. Just sharing my understanding.

I totally understand that my answer was only to gain access to the two ways of thinking

 

[Shantanu]

To focus requires thought. As I alluded to in a previous post, thought is an aspect of ego. In my experience, it's more about letting to of the thought and focus and just being that facilitates the transcendence of ego.

Focussing does not require thought. Focus is evaluation.

 

[SalixIncendium]

It was not an assumtion It was a question directed to Shantanu but i asked only to know if it was the person or the consiousness that was giving answer

I won't speak for @Shantanu, but in my understanding, once one experiences simply being in pure consciousness, there is no need of an answer, let alone the need for one to speak it.

 

[SalixIncendium]

Focussing does not require thought. Focus is evaluation.

Evaluation requires judgment; judgment requires ego.

 

[Shantanu]

I won't speak for @Shantanu, but in my understanding, once one experiences simply being in pure consciousness, there is no need of an answer, let alone the need for one to speak it.

Consciousness responds to all questions upon evaluation of the merits of the question because Consciousness is Nature and as Nature Consciousness is not only the witness it is the doer. There is nothing other than Consciousness.

 

[Shantanu]

Evaluation requires judgment; judgment requires ego.

Consciousness does the evaluation.

 

[SalixIncendium]

Consciousness responds...
Consciousness...is the doer.

Consciousness does...

You are, of course, free to define and understand consciousness as you desire. It is not mine to judge. But this is not my understanding of pure consciousness, and unless I'm mistaken, is not advaita's perspective either.

Normally, I would say nothing and move on, but since you have, once again, chosen to identify as "advaitin," I will do my due diligence for to afford others who read this an understanding of what advaita truly is, as Adi Shankara consolidated the philosophy, so they are not misled.

 

[sayak83]

The question that arise is how to explain what happen when the ego is no longer with in what we call the Me Mine, I and so on. It is not possible to understand non self full before the ego has been full detached. But when non self has been understood, it is not easy to explain to those who still cling to a sellf

Its a bit like how one feels looking far into the horizon, or into this

 

[Spirit of Light]

Its a bit like how one feels looking far into the horizon, or into this

Yes i found your answer full of wisdom

 

[Shantanu]

You are, of course, free to define and understand consciousness as you desire. It is not mine to judge. But this is not my understanding of pure consciousness, and unless I'm mistaken, is not advaita's perspective either.

Normally, I would say nothing and move on, but since you have, once again, chosen to identify as "advaitin," I will do my due diligence for to afford others who read this an understanding of what advaita truly is, as Adi Shankara consolidated the philosophy, so they are not misled.

There is no difference between me and Consciousness: that is the realisation of an advaitin.

 

[BSM1]

The question that arise is how to explain what happen when the ego is no longer with in what we call the Me Mine, I and so on. It is not possible to understand non self full before the ego has been full detached. But when non self has been understood, it is not easy to explain to those who still cling to a sellf

Can we experience the non-self in this life without the ego? Even at our highest level of awareness isn't the ego at least somewhat responsible for us to keep drawing air into our lungs thus allowing us to exist on this plane of awareness to even talk about our experience?

 

[Spirit of Light]

Can we experience the non-self in this life without the ego? Even at our highest level of awareness isn't the ego at least somewhat responsible for us to keep drawing air into our lungs thus allowing us to exist on this plane of awareness to even talk about our experience?

That is a good question, i would think it is possible to experience non self in this life time yes. Buddha did it when he got enlighten as far as i can understad, But if a non enlighten person actually can experience true non self , that i can not yet answer

 

[ajay0]

I understand the teaching of atman, But as you know in buddhism there is no permanent self and that means also the atman can not exist unchanged. But i have no problem with other teachings like the one in Advaitist Hindu

I would say that they all point to the same thing. The ego or false self is also similarly considered impermanent in Hinduism and blurs the Self by its compulsive thinking and emoting.

The Self (pure consciousness) of Advaita, Void or Buddha nature in Buddhism and Fana in Sufism all point to the same state.

 

[Vinayaka]

When the ego falls away, this question won't exist.