It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Perhaps it's just a matter of growing the sense of self beyond the weights of emotion tangles that keep us limited to a narrow point of view.
Originally posted by Ian McLean
reply to post by TravelerintheDark
Yes. Sometimes I think of ego as referring more to an emotional attachment to sense of self, rather than just the localized perspective of a human individual.
Originally posted by TravelerintheDark
While it may be true that the word 'ego' can be defined in many different ways, the primary definition is a sense of self (according to the American-Heritage Dictionary). And I don't see this as being any different from the definition of ego in spiritual circles. Because isn't the goal of most spiritual paths to reach a sense or being of one with the universe? And to do so doesn't that at least imply there can be no 'self'? To be one, there can be only one and therefore no self.
It has dawned on me lately, meditating on the Metro, thoughts silenced so completely that I can hear every page being turned by passengers up and down the car (I am above reading — I am present to myself) that being fully in the moment, all senses turned on, feeling your hands in your lap and the ground under your feet, is a very good way of not being there at all.