It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Leggo My Ego

page: 8
86
<< 5  6  7    9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 3 2010 @ 01:26 AM
link   
reply to post by schrodingers dog
 


really nice video. i understood it at the end when she said:
"i hope you're getting this down."


everything prior to that was a little confusing.




posted on Sep, 3 2010 @ 01:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by EnlightenUp
reply to post by Esoteric Teacher
 


How would it be selfless if it would function for you to be selfless?


(bold and underline added by me)

could you re-phrase this question, please? i'm not sure if i know what you are asking. it seems pardoxical in nature.

are you asking:
"How would enlightenment be selfless if enlightenment would work for one to be selfless?"

how can there be selflessness if "you" is in the question, also?

an answer to that question would make any response to that question no longer selfless, thus mooting and negating any answer i may provide. given that ego can be synonymous with self.



[edit on 3-9-2010 by Esoteric Teacher]

[edit on 3-9-2010 by Esoteric Teacher]



posted on Sep, 3 2010 @ 01:59 AM
link   
reply to post by schrodingers dog
 

S'dog,

You know that I spend a good amount of time yesterday trying to figure out what kind of jargon the term "leggo" is....


My self defined identity has no problem admitting this....

I do get it now...



Originally posted by EnlightenUp
If Astyanax is a spiritual master, he's the new U.G. Krishnamurti.

EnlightenUp,

He?? That would be "she". A female spiritual master, I know some self defined identities that wouldn't agree with that...


Peace



posted on Sep, 3 2010 @ 04:51 AM
link   
reply to post by EnlightenUp
 



Interesting 2 video clips you have presented. Don't think I have seen this person before.

Can you tell me briefly what he is trying to say in these 2 short clips. Is he actually proving in these clips that he is truly enlightened?



posted on Sep, 3 2010 @ 05:31 AM
link   
reply to post by schrodingers dog
 


In other venues, it is called projection and shows itself in language of attribution. Consider this:

It may perhaps surprise you if a stranger you should meet
And later learn it was your self that you had chanced to greet
It happens to us every day but we're blinded to the fact
That what we see out in the world is just our self, reflected back.

What I seem to have observed in discussions of consciousness raising is a lack of identifing who is doing what to whom. There is throughout the consciounesss raising movement an almost total absence of identity. I have my own notion of that progression but I'd rather leave it with just the thought.



posted on Sep, 3 2010 @ 05:48 AM
link   
reply to post by schrodingers dog
 


Originally posted by schrodingers dog
...Todays satsang will focus on the suffering caused by the mind's dependence and attachment to the possessive … or more simply put, the 'my/mine' construct.


My name
My thread
My post
My thoughts
My life
My idea
My past
My ...


When the mind attaches itself to thought and personalizes it, it strips that which it is trying to express of all truth. For when a thought becomes a personal possession it becomes part of the mind's self defined identity. When a human identifies him or her self through what the mind possesses it is in fact defining everything but what we are as living beings.


After getting rid of all the 'My' (eg; your examples above) from within yourself, is the question/topic to your post along the lines of....

Ask yourself, Who is it you are referring to when you say - "I"?

Is the above kinda what you are getting at? Coz I find that a tricky question.

[edit on 3-9-2010 by CitizenNum287119327] spells and formats

[edit on 3-9-2010 by CitizenNum287119327]



posted on Sep, 3 2010 @ 07:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by Esoteric Teacher

Originally posted by tribewilder

Originally posted by keepingtheblade
I believe, IMHO, that the key to all of this is balance.


Exactly, balance is what is needed.


we are conditioned to think (judge) in a linear way.

left or right
up or down
frontwards or backwards
right or wrong

there are only two places on the scales:



and if there are only two places on the scales, then why are there three components to the psychi to place on the two scales for judgment???

ego, superego, and id

just a thought,
et


The Ego is the balanced result of the battle between the ID and the Superego. Two for each dish on the scale and the third is how the scale balances out. I don't know. I think that a good glossary of terms needs to be established for this field of inquiry. One man's "ego" is another man's "arrogance", and another man's "competition" and another man's "possessiveness". It's like listening to a half dozen nonsequitors pretending to be a conversation as a group of people, who aren't really listening to each other, wait for their turn to be brilliant. Like hanging out with scenesters at a CD release party.

Fascinating irony here, by the way.



posted on Sep, 3 2010 @ 09:22 AM
link   
reply to post by EnlightenUp
 

u guys should cautiously take heed how you interpret Krishnamurti in those videos. He is not saying that there is no such thing as Enlightenment ...but he simply saying to give up the search for it because it is the seeker of enlightenment that gets in the way of enlightenment.

He's using a well known teaching style of negation.

what does one do with enlightenment? I'll tell you what, enlightens others, completely and selflessly at service to humanity's crying, and longing, and depression and so forth.

Its not about starting an enlightenment business afterwords, but about helping those who need help completely selflessly since the self is completely destroyed in enlightenment anyway then there's only helping others, waking them up, giving them money/food if they need it, hugs, kind words, etc.

Astyanax said earlier:


A word about Buddha, Christ, Krishnamurti and all the rest. They are merely emergency-exit ushers. Their ways are for those who find reality too much for their tender hearts and minds, or who have come to the end of striving. The solutions proposed by the gurus and god-men work, but they are all forms of self-delusion and self-harm. They all demand, as their price, the sacrifice of a greater or lesser part of one's humanity and potential.

that to me is all bunk. Before I started down the path of spirituality, I did it all, hookers, drugs, money, sex, music, clubs, world travel, world success .....but their was this inner feeling that it was all dead to me..... I had to keep those things up to be happy, to keep the phasad of this character going........

There was this inner knowing/feeling that philosophy/spirituality is something that seems to have this inner hidden truth. Like those guys that leave everything to live in a cave for a decade to meditate ....those are the types that know the absolute truth.

After being down this path for 10+ years now .....I finally see how ignorant and lacking and blind I was prior to going down this path. I've found God to be more real then this plane everyday reality that all of us are operating on, found enlightenment to be a real living breathing truth and reality that is available for all of us, yet to get there it costs you yourself. But the sacrifice is well worth it.



posted on Sep, 3 2010 @ 09:38 AM
link   
reply to post by Esoteric Teacher
 


Enlightenment cannot be selfless if there is "one" in the question either, "one" meaning any possible individual, often colloquially substituted with "you".


an answer to that question would make any response to that question no longer selfless, thus mooting and negating any answer i may provide. given that ego can be synonymous with self.


Neither the question nor the answer are selfless.


If enlightenment is useful to and for others, there a something that is not "others".

"Enlightenment" isn't selfless for it is conceptual since it demarkates "not-Enlightenment".

 


reply to post by dominicus
 


I get him and what he's doing. I also like the cranky style.

[edit on 9/3/2010 by EnlightenUp]



posted on Sep, 3 2010 @ 09:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by operation mindcrime

Originally posted by EnlightenUp
If Astyanax is a spiritual master, he's the new U.G. Krishnamurti.

EnlightenUp,

He?? That would be "she". A female spiritual master, I know some self defined identities that wouldn't agree with that...


I didn't know since the question was irrelevant enough so far to have not been asked, thus not answered. I needed a 3rd-person pronoun and went with the usual default. Avoiding that in language is like playing a difficult game of Frogger.



posted on Sep, 3 2010 @ 09:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by JohnySeagull
reply to post by EnlightenUp
 

Can you tell me briefly what he is trying to say in these 2 short clips. Is he actually proving in these clips that he is truly enlightened?


He's not saying anything and he'd call you foolish just for asking! He's not proving anything either. It is just you turning it into all that "proof", "saying", and "enlightenment".



posted on Sep, 3 2010 @ 10:02 AM
link   
reply to posts by kosmicjack, bigfatfurrytexan and others
 

Originally posted by schrodingers dog
Imagine if you will all the physical possessions you accumulate throughout your life ... all the clothes, electronics, books, all the stuff. And imagine you don't ever throw anything away ... you keep storing it in the attic every time you move. It's called hoarding. Well the mind often does the same thing, but because it isn't physical stuff that you can see or touch, unless one stops and notes it, the mind will hoard everything unconsciously. Resulting in a 'heavy' mind full of stuff it doesn't need.

I have a friend--we'll call him Nigel--who treasures possessions, both real and metaphorical. What I mean by metaphorical possessions are the little quirks and idiosyncracies he prizes, like not being able to enjoy reading a magazine he's bought if he lets somebody else crack the covers first. He's proud of these quirks; together with his toys--his MacBook, his Oakley shades, his Ferrari jacket and all the rest--they define his whole personality. I'm not kidding; he really thinks they do. He's an adman by trade, and like most admen, he believes the spiel. He's bought the whole nine yards. He thinks 'image' is personality.

Right now, he's at a low point in his life. No job, no income, no savings. His situation is getting pretty desperate. And these possessions--these things he needs to have and do to feel happy about himself--are crippling him. They force him to spend money he doesn't have. They force him to spend precious time and energy on trivial rituals. They obscure his vision, giving him a distorted picture of life and values--and of the basics he needs to focus on at this critical time.

But it's no good telling Nigel to let go his ego. If he did, he wouldn't have anything left. He doesn't see life in terms of the bigger picture; he's not ambitious for achievement, he's not religious or spiritual, he's not philanthropic, he sees no value in simplicity and travelling light. For him, the confines of the simple life would be irksome; for him, freedom means being able to buy the stuff he covets, treat his girlfriend to a slap-up weekend, go on vacation to Bali or Koh Samui.

I said to Nigel, the other day, 'you carry a lot of karma, don't you?' He asked me what I meant and I tried to explain how the values and quirks he prized so much were really deadweight, dragging him down and making him less adaptable at a time when he needs to be flexible and willing to try anything. He couldn't grasp it; he just said, 'I'm a Christian, I believe in God, not karma,' and that was that.

Transcending the mundane, getting out of the rut of possession and consumption, is simply not for everybody. It isn't for anyone, really: I agree with Cobra 5000 about the falsity of western representations of Eastern religion (I'm from that mysterious East myself) but he is wrong in saying that egostitical I-me-mine ways of thinking are foisted on us by the putative powers that be. Oh no, the concepts of possession, and of self-definition through possession, are as old as history. As old as mankind, rather; for anyone who wants to argue that they didn't exist in prehistory, that our Paleolithic ancestors were some kind of natural Communists, will find himself arguing purely from speculation. There isn't the slightest grain of factual evidence for that idea. It's true that society, especially capitalist society, exploits and exacerbates our natural urges to possess and acquire status. Still, the origin of these traits lies not in 'society' but in our genes.

Getting rid of them isn't really possible. As v01i0says, even the god-men have egos and self-definitions (they're both the same thing, by the way, that's all ego is--a self-construct). And even if you could get rid of them, which you can't, it wouldn't really cure the problem. If everyone were to become a Jesus or a Buddha, the human race would come to an end.

The point is moot anyway, because not everyone can rise above the mundane and stay there. Only a few can, and they are very special people--people with the talent or resources to somehow transcend the rat race. If others try the same trick, they will simply fall through the cracks of society and vanish.

As a naturalist, I believe the purpose of life, as set for us by evolution, is simply to survive and reproduce, to make the best bid for genetic immortality we can. Evolution has shaped us to that end, and part of that shaping is an instinctive drive to gain security and status. The 'ego' we create, the self we define, is a product of that quest. Unless you're a born saint or bodhisattva, you need it to stay alive, well and sane.

No-one can really 'depersonalize all the stuff in the attic that is your mind,' as SchrodingersDog puts it. All that stuff is personal--and it is vital to our continuance. This applies even to the lucky ones, the grown-up ones--it's just that they have learnt to define themselves in realistic terms, have learnt better how the world works and where they fit into it. But even the lucky and grown-up ones have relationships they prize, ethical values and personal philosophies and views they call their own, ways of doing things that they are accustomed to and so on. They, too, have things they call 'mine'. It's just that their egos are better adapted to the realities of life and don't hold them to ransom the way my friend Nigel's does.

To abandon ego altogether--to transcend the self and apprehend what Buddha called the suchness of things--is a way forward that only works for mystics and bodhisattvas. Such people represent a vanishingly small fraction of humanity. Their prescriptions and insights are really not that helpful to the rest of us; nor are they, indeed, appropriate. Considering the lilies of the field, repudiating your parents and your family to follow the Way may have been right for Jesus, but it's not possible for the vast majority of us. Reality will chew us up and spit us out if we try.



posted on Sep, 3 2010 @ 11:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by Astyanax

As a naturalist, I believe the purpose of life ...


I suppose sitting on a conceptual "naturalist" chair is as virtuous as any other "ist" chair ... here's the thing though.

A naturalist who observes nature should be aware more than most of its a-personal disposition. To paraphrase a Stanley Kubrick quote "It's not that the universe is cruel, it is that it is fundamentally indifferent."

Nature is the greatest teacher of the futility of possessive thought for it contains none. Most of all it doesn't exist in relative dualistic terms other than in the context of our inadequate interpretation of it.

Where's North?



In closing, I'm not quite sure why you insist on basing your argument pitted against the premise that the ego should be discarded since I for one have not suggested anything of the kind. I suppose duality dictates that your take requires an opposite, even if it is built with straw and not the thought of this thread.

Anyhoot, there's obviously no right or wrong here, just slightly perplexed I suppose that someone who guides themselves through nature seems to resist its virtues ... but then again, personalized thought often does that.



posted on Sep, 3 2010 @ 12:19 PM
link   
Originally posted by schrodingers dog

Imagine if you will all the physical possessions you accumulate throughout your life ... all the clothes, electronics, books, all the stuff. And imagine you don't ever throw anything away ... you keep storing it in the attic every time you move. It's called hoarding. Well the mind often does the same thing, but because it isn't physical stuff that you can see or touch, unless one stops and notes it, the mind will hoard everything unconsciously. Resulting in a 'heavy' mind full of stuff it doesn't need


Very interesting post SD, let me tell you a personal story, in Judy 2000 I was living in Berkeley, Ca and got a phone call from daughter and son in law to inform me I was going to have my first grandchild, what I did next and what made me do it at the time was beyond me, I gave two weeks notice to my boss, I got rid of 95% of my possessions, left my home with a Broker to sell and only took basically what would fit in my car with the exception of a few UPS boxes I sent out. What I kept were my beloved books, over 2000 of them, personal items, my PC, clothes and some valuables, got into my car and headed East. Had no idea where I was going to live, stayed with my single son for a short time until I found a place to live, made the decision not to buy another home and have rented since. The bottom line is I have no regrets, friends and family still ask me how I could have done that, my answer is always the same, simple.

Over these past ten years I have accumulated what I need to live, no more no less, I truly believe I have finally figured out what is important, that would be family not things, I didn't want to miss the birth of my first grandchild.



posted on Sep, 3 2010 @ 01:54 PM
link   
I think I am, therefore I think I am!

This reminds of:


That song rocks by the way.

For those not familiar with the epic tale of the little red engine who thought it could!



Now after you finish listening to and watching these I don't want you kids wasting your whole day on ATS, let's clean up our rooms, do our homework and get ready for supper.

Because I sure don't want to hear at 5 minutes before bed time after a long three day holiday weekend you forgot to do your homework.

Now everyone mind your Proto!



posted on Sep, 3 2010 @ 02:16 PM
link   
reply to post by Astyanax
 


Outstanding post.

It is in line with what I was trying to convey with the borrowed backpack analogy from Dan Millman.

Me, personally...I do not seek to emulate the Eastern philosophies. I seek to make my own path, using the logic that was gifted to me. I cannot speak for others, but I believe that I cannot know anything that I do not discover personally. So while I may take inspiration from a Buddha, Krishna, or even a Jesus, I will only allow it to inspire me in my own thoughts, and my own discoveries. I would suspect this is what has happened with regards to any perceived bastardization of Eastern philosophies. Western minds have adapted the principles to match Western understandings, often with laughable results (but that is another story).

I think you hit on a number of solid points. Good post.



posted on Sep, 3 2010 @ 02:35 PM
link   
Late to the party..., but driven to reflect...

Stream of conscious thought follows:

I found myself first in the mindset of the mundane... as so eruditely generalized by the participants in this treatise; I found no way to get from where you all are to where I am...

You and I - pronouns and concepts of distinction between the immediate and the conceptually removed.

And therein lies the nature of rational gamesmanship.

Insofar as ego is concerned, and in as much as I understand the sense of the prevailing definition being discussed, I suppose a great debate could occur between you and I....

For the ego - as a virtual substitute for concrete identity - is as much a matter of perceptual predilection as is the notion of programming and meta-programming of the human mind. Axioms and paradigms are simply game rules with which we accommodate one anothers differences of perceptual resolution.

I have been compelled by inner pressures to resolve the concepts behind the maxims that "nothing unreal exists" and "anything which cannot be perceived is not real."

In essence, I suspect that we are simply lenses for a removed perceiver; an apparently multifaceted, a sometimes cracked and fractured crystal, which absorbs that which exists into cognition for a distant force of reason. The nature of that reason is outside the reach of the crystal lens' range of perception; yet without the cognizant primal source it may as well not exist.

The approach we have taken as entities is to evaluate reality based on the sum total of the perceptions and experiences we collect. Naturally, we tend to collect these as possessions, to retain and control, or use and abuse, be they physical or emotional.

Yet it has been rightly deduced by ancient wisdom across many cultures and many philosophies that such possessions are as transient as we are; thus the notion of ownership is a grand illusion made tragic by prideful vainglory or obnoxious gluttony.

We attribute much weight to the exchange of ideas insofar as they aggrandize our own satisfaction and comfort with existence. When the point comes where we realize and internalize the truth of our only logical purpose - to witness reality - we either reject it as outside the realistically achievable, or as a path which can only lead to a life of aesthetic hermitage.

There must be more value to existence than simply to reject the ego and embrace a zero-sum existence; why? Because we want there to be.

"Choice" is the key to humanity. It is our power and our weakness. Ego, or the notion of singular relevance to oneself is simply a facet of perception; one platform among many with which we can manipulate the information and experiences we undergo as linear time passes through our minds.

We are connected to all things and each other. We are human, and require the structure of an ego, or its equivalent, to express the act of creating more than the sum of our parts. In doing so the ego becomes a launching point for creatively synthesizing that which did not exist prior to the egos appearance on the scene.

___________________________________

I humbly submit this as a seed of debate....

And I star and flag the OP to satisfy MYSELF, not the author. I was at least bright enough to believe that I appreciate the concepts you are playing with here. Playing ... another manifestation of ego.... not a negative thing in and of itself, much like the ego...

ahem ...



posted on Sep, 3 2010 @ 03:39 PM
link   


I am everything, yet nothing at all
I linger between heaven and hell
I am words that were formed from within
Yet the meanings mean nothing at all
I am solitude in the grandest form
I am the wearer of simplicity's best
I am grace in its glorious form
I am a baby bird flying from the nest
I am adventure travelling the world
I am the harvest of creative best
I am everything, yet nothing at all

- Lady Syndra




In the secret cave of the heart, two are seated by life's fountain. The separate ego drinks of the sweet and bitter stuff, Liking the sweet, disliking the bitter, While the supreme Self drinks sweet and bitter Neither liking this nor disliking that. The ego gropes in darkness, while the Self lives in light.




Like two golden birds perched on the selfsame tree, intimate friends, the ego and the Self dwell in the same body. The former eats the sweet and sour fruits of the tree of life while the latter looks on in detachment. As long as we think we are the ego, we feel attached and fall into sorrow. But realize that you are the Self, the Lord of life, and you will be freed from sorrow. When you realize that you are the Self, supreme source of light, supreme source of love, you transcend the duality of life and enter into the unitive state.

- Both Hindu verses

And many more.

You are both an individual and the all.

It is the realization that you are BOTH an individual and EVERYTHING that you become humbled.

It is okay to claim ownership of your self because you are an individual but you are a part of Self. Life and the universe is a paradox.



posted on Sep, 3 2010 @ 06:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by schrodingers dog
Here's the thing though. A naturalist who observes nature should be aware more than most of its a-personal disposition. To paraphrase a Stanley Kubrick quote "It's not that the universe is cruel, it is that it is fundamentally indifferent."

I am deeply, humbly and resentfully aware of this, SDog.


Nature is the greatest teacher of the futility of possessive thought for it contains none.

Yet Nature is the unbending rulemistress that demands we possess. And yet you say?


Most of all it doesn't exist in relative dualistic terms other than in the context of our inadequate interpretation of it.

Dualist a big word that. In philosophy it means one who believes in a separate mind and soul realm contrasted with the brain and body realm. Someone who believes in souls and angels. Nature she don't demand that.


Where's North?

Follow the handle of the Big Dipper till you hit the Pole Star. That's North.


I'm not quite sure why you insist on basing your argument pitted against the premise that the ego should be discarded since I for one have not suggested anything of the kind.

It says Leggo My Ego in the thread title, la.

ETA: to add an 'l' to 'angels'. Gah.

[edit on 3/9/10 by Astyanax]



posted on Sep, 3 2010 @ 06:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Astyanax

Dualist a big word that. In philosophy it means one who believes in a separate mind and soul realm contrasted with the brain and body realm. Someone who believes in souls and anges. Nature she don't demand that.


Perhaps therein lies the misunderstanding ... the context within which I use the word dualistic is not specific to the philosophical, much like the way I use the word ego isn't based on the psychological ego/id/superego interpretation.

Dualism, which can also be referred to as relativism, is simply the minds way of processing its environment and universe. The process goes a little like this ... the mind creates abstract and relative opposites (such as north/south, good/bad, etc) so that it can position and orient itself. But nature itself has no such positions, it is as it is, and it is as we agree, indifferent.

All that I was pointing to is something that we all witness every day even on a venue as innocuous as ATS. Folks develop personal attachments to things like flags, stars, and points. They get vexed if someone duplicates their thread, or moves their thread, it becomes a real personal affront to them. And this is with personalizing stuff they know doesn't really matter or have any meaning other than that which their mind places on it, you know what happens with the real stuff. Hundreds of millions of people have killed each other on this little planet simply because their thoughts become so personal that an attack on their beliefs is an attack on their identity. Wars are fought over personalized positions.

Again, none of this is good or bad, simply unnecessary. So the point of this little observation is simply to note the consequential ripples of personalizing every thought. It isn't a matter of dropping one's ego for trying to drop it is the opposite side of the same dual coin of living and defining one's self solely through it.

It is simply allowing one's self to be in harmony with an indifferent universe as opposed to struggling against it with the mind. And the end result of this is the mind, the ego, and everything about us is left free to exist in its natural state ... in fact, naturalism.

Does any of that make sense?



new topics

top topics



 
86
<< 5  6  7    9  10 >>

log in

join