No ego = bullshit

[divine focus]

DF: If there is a need for differentiation (an action), what is being differentiated?

Are you saying differentiation = action?

What I’m saying is…. differentiation takes pace much before any “action” comes into the picture.

Hmm...maybe we need a different word to describe what you mean, because differentiation implies an action. It's the noun form of a verb (differentiate). Do you mean identity exists before anything else?

Why would I say unconsciousness comes BEFORE consciousness? And are you saying unconsciousness = knowledge = differentiation? And are you asking how “unconscious” can “unconsciousness” be? ...because you see ‘unconsciousness’ as the BASIS of knowledge (=differentiation)?

Do you believe consciousness springs out from some fundamentally unconscious state of affairs?

No. You called the lack of ability to differentiate unconsciousness. I agree, but there is an aspect of consciousness that is more suited towards non-differentiation, as the differentiation it creates is somewhat illusory (subjective). The non-differentiation allows a clarity of mind where another aspect of consciousness may differentiate more accurately and wholly.

If we consider a first-person perspective before it interacts with any other first-person perspective (self/world rather than self/other), the self is the world. Anything 'else' in the world must have its own perspective, and acknowledging that other perspective creates the second-person perspective (I/you). The second-person is where knowledge of self arises, since there is nothing to know when all is all (the first-person).

Think of a baby in the womb. From its perspective, it is the whole world. When it is born, it sees that it comes from something larger than itself. It then begins to know itself as an entity through that relationship (child/mother). Whether or not it is "conscious" before it is born is a matter of definition.

[Sapius]

DF: If there is a need for differentiation (an action), what is being differentiated?

Sap: Are you saying differentiation = action?

What I’m saying is…. differentiation takes pace much before any “action” comes into the picture.

DF: Hmm...maybe we need a different word to describe what you mean, because differentiation implies an action. It's the noun form of a verb (differentiate). Do you mean identity exists before anything else?

May be… or may be we need to understand what you mean by “action”. To me no “action” is necessary for ‘differentiation’ to take place, for ‘action’ implies intention, and no intention is necessary to be conscious, and to be conscious means there has to necessarily be any two things around, and hence a thing is able to sense its SELF AGAINST THAT which it itself is NOT. There cannot be a sense of self to begin with if there were not already something else against which it could at least feel/sense the DIFFERENCE, before any “action” is intended.

The above is already what a sense of Identity means, and it already implies the capability of differentiating between one thing and the other without any actual effort, and that itself means and is none other than consciousness itself. Identity itself cannot exist without a sense of differentiation already in place, otherwise there can be no such thing as "identity"; they necessarily go hand in hand.

No. You called the lack of ability to differentiate unconsciousness. I agree, but there is an aspect of consciousness that is more suited towards non-differentiation, as the differentiation it creates is somewhat illusory (subjective).

The “illusory” one is the ONLY ONE, and any other “aspect” that does not include the sense of differentiation, is necessarily unconsciousness, and although you seem to agree, but on the other hand are hell bound to blindly believe those that easily influence a mind full of hopes and wishful dreams.

The non-differentiation allows a clarity of mind where another aspect of consciousness may differentiate more accurately and wholly.

IMHO, non-differentiation cannot allow absolute anything at all, including a “mind”, let alone its clarity or accuracy so to speak. Good luck!

If we consider a first-person perspective before it interacts with any other first-person perspective (self/world rather than self/other), the self is the world. Anything 'else' in the world must have its own perspective, and acknowledging that other

Right… enjoy, my friend.

Think of a baby in the womb. From its perspective, it is the whole world. When it is born, it sees that it comes from something larger than itself.

No, it does not and cannot see that it is ‘coming from something “larger” than itself’, but it most definitely can sense (but not “think” over) the difference between its self and its immediate environment which is not its self and interact accordingly, and so can a sperm sense, otherwise how could it sense the right direction in which it has to frantically move? Unless it can sense the chemical messages, which are DIFFERENT than what it itself is, it couldn’t SENSE it.

It then begins to know itself as an entity through that relationship (child/mother). Whether or not it is "conscious" before it is born is a matter of definition.

Sure, I cannot help but agree to what you say about the definition of “consciousness”, but a sense of relationship is already there even from the very first cell stage, for that too has to already sense a difference to operate coherently with its environment.

Hence, no ego, or non-duality, or non-differentiation means absolutely nothing, except wishful thinking. Enjoy it in any case.

[divine focus]

[Hence, no ego, or non-duality, or non-differentiation means absolutely nothing, except wishful thinking. Enjoy it in any case.

I prefer 'imaginative thinking.' :)

There is definitely something to be said for clarity of perception as opposed to hierarchical judgment. Whatever you want to call that, that's what I was referring to.

[Sapius]

[Hence, no ego, or non-duality, or non-differentiation means absolutely nothing, except wishful thinking. Enjoy it in any case.

I prefer 'imaginative thinking.' :)

Me too, but like yourself, I like to admit it where need be.

There is definitely something to be said for clarity of perception as opposed to hierarchical judgment. Whatever you want to call that, that's what I was referring to.

Of course, absolutely; but to me that simply means a different perspective, that's all, which remains in and off duality however; no giant leap into some egotistically imaginative non-dual realm. Its simple... to me at least... consciousness is a slave of dualism one likes it or not, or claims any other "aspect" to it.

The only problem it seems is, that one looks beyond consciousness and concludes that since there could be nothing beyond consciousness, (or Totality), hence "it" is not dependent on absolutely anything other than its self, but fails to recognize that since that is indeed a fact, the idea of "it",or "beyond", or "within", or "dependent" does not even arise or apply, so what remains is purely a dualistic system or process.

Now one can christian that to whatever names or attributes one likes, but that fundamental process remains dynamically in action all the while, irrelevant of how egotistic one can be about such a simple and fundamental system/process. I personally like to call it existence, and it is impossible for it to not exist, and I CAN think and talk about it... no magic.

[divine focus]

There is definitely something to be said for clarity of perception as opposed to hierarchical judgment. Whatever you want to call that, that's what I was referring to.

Of course, absolutely; but to me that simply means a different perspective, that's all, which remains in and off duality however; no giant leap into some egotistically imaginative non-dual realm. Its simple... to me at least... consciousness is a slave of dualism one likes it or not, or claims any other "aspect" to it.

Exactly. A different perspective. That perspective, though, is there whether you're focused there or not. We actually agree, of course. Our perspectives are different, is all. Because of that, we may interpret words differently in certain contexts. This has been the history of our interaction.

Now one can christian that to whatever names or attributes one likes, but that fundamental process remains dynamically in action all the while, irrelevant of how egotistic one can be about such a simple and fundamental system/process. I personally like to call it existence, and it is impossible for it to not exist, and I CAN think and talk about it... no magic.

Well, sure. Because it is simple, however, does not mean there are not useful complexities to explore. The usefulness may be temporary, but so? Everyone is not learning the same thing at the same time, so it makes sense to speak on what you know at whatever time (especially on a message board, and especially now).

[yana]

Egolessness - It's total bullshit. Dalai Lama.... hmm say that again: The Lie Lama. Enlightenment is something completely different. The cosmos shines directly on you.