If not else, with the help of your talent for expressing your thoughts very clearly with details, I now completely understand your theory and what people here are preaching. That's very useful.
I have to admit that your theory is flawless, I mean it does make sense if we accept certain things, ideas to be true, it's a well built theory. However if we do not accept these certain things,ideas, to be true, then this theory just disappears. These certain things and ideas, in this theory easily fall into the category of assumptions, isn't that right? If it's not right, can you test them or show some evidence or show that they are not just assumptions, somehow?
The substance, which is awareness, is one and non-dual, the form is multiplicity; the entire universe.
Alright, so is awareness a substance? From the other things you say I understand it's not, or may be I lack knowledge in English, which is probably the case here.
What do you mean by the substance, which is awareness?
Because from what I understand, for you, awareness, the one you believe in, is an idea that cannot be defined anyhow, we can say what it's not but we cannot say what it is. It's an idea, generated by your mind, an idea that cannot be defined.
I don't see anything wrong with the notion of multiplicity of awareness
It can only be an assumption, and it's also illogical. It can only be an assumption because there is no way of testing for the existence of multiple awarenesses, due to the fact that all testing and evidences must necessarily be object to the (subject) awareness itself. There is nothing outside of awareness, the limitations we impose upon it are due to conflating and superimposing the body and its attributes (such as sense perception etc) onto it- which is fallacious because the body and its attributes, including the mind, are all objects of knowledge to awareness itself, not the other way around.
Actually, you are right, that's why I don't believe this 100%, but your theory can also be taken as an assumption since there's no way that we test this or we cannot have any evidence, am I not right?
Awareness can only be assumed to be many, and this is solely on the basis of placing it inside an object, namely the body.
Yes, yes, absolutely, that's right.
You might still insist 'there are multiple awarenesses, however' - but there is simply no evidence for this.
You are right again, there is simply no evidence for this, but I can say the same thing about your theory and it is still valid, isn't it? Or is there any evidence for this theory?
We also conclude that because each body has a unique subjective experience, awareness must also be individual, being a product of or combination of the elements which make up the subjective experience. Therefore, awareness begins to be identified with the mind (intellect, thoughts, memory, imagination etc), thence comes the ideas of ownership (my body, my mind), doership (I think, I feel, I did this, I did that') and eventually Ego - individual sense in a concrete form 'I am the body' 'I am different from this, I am not you, you are not me' etc. This conclusion is the bedrock of most western philosophy, religion, and worldview and also the subsequent trend of reactionary views and materialism.
It's possible that, awareness is individual but it's absolutely the same with everybody. But why do you have to identify it with the mind? I cannot just connect these two. If we accept that they are both in the brain, why do we have to identify the one with the other. Also I can't find anything wrong with the ideas of doership and I am different from this, I am not you, you are not me , what's wrong with that? it doesn't bring any negativism and lead towards any negative action or thought. It's just a fact. You are not me, I am not you, I know this as a fact, but it doesn't do anything negative to me or provokes any destructive thoughts or anything. What's wrong with that?
Furthermore, how did we turn bodily identification in ego?
Bodily identification is ego. The body is individual, separated from other objects in time and space. Composed of multiple parts, is born and will die, and performs actions and experiences the subsequent result. Identifying the Self with this is the cause of such statements 'I am fat, I am thin, I am stupid, I am ugly, I was born on this day, I will die soon, I am old, I am young, I am ill, I need to do this, I did that, this happened to me' -all of this is ego, bodily identification, it's cause being ignorance due to superimposing the qualities of objects (body) onto the subject (awareness).
What means bodily identification? I personally do not know a single person and I am sure that no person on this planet will ever say that he/she is his body? Do you know such a person? I am not my body. Do you think that when I say - I am fat, I am thin, I am clever this equals bodily identification?
And how did we turn the Ego into suffering
Ignorance causes suffering, and ego is a product of ignorance. By identifying the Self as the body we claim ownership of every action, of every reaction, of every thought and feeling. We try to control the experience, desire is the result, disappointment is the result, clinging to experiences and anticipation of future ones is the result, greed is the result, hatred of (perceived) others is the result, a feeling of lack is the result, self-image is the result, misery is the result. This whole cycle of results is the inherent suffering in egoic existence, and it is all based on a mistake, on lack of inquiry. Self-inquiry is the cure for this imagined disease.
Ego is a product of ignorance, only if we apply your theory, if we apply another theory, Ego is not a product of ignorance.
Things are really not so over simplified as you describe them:
We try to control the experience, desire is the result, disappointment is the result, clinging to experiences and anticipation of future ones is the result, greed is the result, hatred of (perceived) others is the result, a feeling of lack is the result, self-image is the result, misery is the result.
This is way too simple and I think, not true. Not everybody tries to control experience, the results are many, not only negative, all these results.....I cannot agree with these, have you personally experienced all of this exactly the way you describe it ? How did you come up with these conclusions? I haven't, I think nobody has, I think that this formula cannot describe completely - feeling of lack, greed, hatred of others etc.
There is also one thing that bothers me. According to your theory and beliefs I have to be suffering somehow in some way. I am stepping over many lines that should cause suffering according to you. I have many beliefs that according to your theory should put me in the suffering zone. However, I'm not suffering or at least I'm not consciously aware of my suffering. Everything is pretty fine with me and I do feel very content and happy. Moreover I do experience what you experience at least from what I saw in your posts, how you describe everything, I'm the same way but I have different beliefs. My case has to be a very special one...It's just very contradictory...Do you think you can come up with some explanation for this ?