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.

 

Giving up The Ego to become a slave...

page: 4
6
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 13 2011 @ 08:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Passafist

This applies to all factors of the human consciousness/spirit. Even positivity and negitivity. Too much negitive and you become blind. Too much positive and you learn nothing like a brat with a silver spoon in her mouth.


I think that the trick is to remember the negative aspects of life parallel to the positive, from which arises.. gratitude. Being overly optimistic can a be form of blindness too: living a lie. I'd say, realism is something we should thrive to. Although "realism" is pretty much a subjective concept.




posted on Jan, 14 2011 @ 10:13 AM
link   
reply to post by NorEaster
 



The direct ramification of this is that we exist within a contextual environment that was brought into existence, and was brought into existence for a specific purpose.


How did you manage to deduce this from reality?

How do you know that anything had to be "braught" into existence. Have you ever considered the "has and always will be" - "the infinite" "no creator required"?

I mean i have about as much evidence for infinity as others do for God, but i'm definetly not claiming infinity or creator as "TRUTH" or "FACT" - They are two potentials; either universe, (macroverse, multiverse) has and always will exist or some supernatural deity created it, but this begs the question; who created this? What plane of reality do they exist on.

Even when you delve into Multiverse theories it always begs the question, what braught reality into existence, what braught these verses into existence? It's an INFINTE regression.
edit on 14/1/11 by awake_and_aware because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 14 2011 @ 12:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by awake_and_aware
reply to post by NorEaster
 



The direct ramification of this is that we exist within a contextual environment that was brought into existence, and was brought into existence for a specific purpose.


How did you manage to deduce this from reality?


The entire process is pretty hard to detail in a post. It involves gathering every significant body of information that we possess (in general, of course) and setting the major tenets together, side-by-side, and eliminating what can't possibly be true (that was the easy part), separating what may represent what is true (allegory and metaphor) from what is obviously meant to be taken as literal fact-based information (which is harder, but not as hard as you might think), and then comparing these well-established tenets with what we know to be logically and inescapably true. The hard part in describing this process is the amount of logical analysis that is required to establish what can and cannot be seen as metaphoric representation of factual reality. This is not easy by any means, and required a metaphoric "Rosetta Stone" formula to be established by examining the patterns featured in those theological works that feature the most developed and mature metaphoric structures, and finding the common threads within them. They do exist, and to find them you have to be knowledgeable of the kinds of cultural influences that these writers were exposed to, and how those influences affected that overall metaphoric system's formulation.


How do you know that anything had to be "braught" into existence. Have you ever considered the "has and always will be" - "the infinite" "no creator required"?


There is relative logic and there is raw, unaffected logic. Raw, unaffected logic simply doesn't allow for anything that is capable of contextual association with anything that exists as physical to exist without initial emergence. A sub-structural commonality is logically required to exist as the foundation of any two that can contextually associate, and if one of the two "has and always will be" then this aspect is clearly foundational, and that makes commonality impossible between it and the other which came into existence via a form of emergence. This is elemental logic, and the "has and always will be" God violates that logic as soon as it creates the emergent whatever-it-is. Clearly, the act of direct creation forms a contextual association between the creator and the created, and this is where the reality of this form of God breaks down.


I mean i have about as much evidence for infinity as others do for God, but i'm definetly not claiming infinity or creator as "TRUTH" or "FACT" - They are two potentials; either universe, (macroverse, multiverse) has and always will exist or some supernatural deity created it, but this begs the question; who created this? What plane of reality do they exist on.

Even when you delve into Multiverse theories it always begs the question, what braught reality into existence, what braught these verses into existence? It's an INFINTE regression.
edit on 14/1/11 by awake_and_aware because: (no reason given)


Reality is another word for the contextual environment. The contextual environment may include any level of relative similarity shared by all that exists within that environment. Again, this is raw logic as applied to simple existential structure.

Let's say that the similarity that unites what exists within one contextual environment is the presence of the color blue. The result is that whatever exists - within the larger environment of all that exists - that is blue (any shade or hue of blue) is included within this contextual environment. Of course, this contextual environment, and all the blue things within it, are included within the larger confines of the contextual environment that contains all things that possess color, as well as within the even larger confines of the contextual environment that contains everything that exists. This is how relative contextual environments (or sub-environments) work. Simple filing, in a very real sense. This is how the Survival imperative Identity works to isolate and delineate what is unique from what exists around it in a progressive manner. After all, it can't be said to truly exist if it can't be uniquely isolated from what contains it. Again, simple, raw logic.

My last post suggested that we exist within such a sub-environment, and that the creator of this sub-environment initiated it with a clear and definite intent. I also suggested that at the very foundation of all that exists is a sub-structural commonality that everything that exists as physical, regardless of the specific contextual environment, shares with everything else. That shared commonality is adherence to raw, unaffected logic, and the determination of being true as a result of its adherence to that unaffected logic.

This is as simple as I can make it with the parameters of this medium. If you honestly care, the book took me quite a while and a lot of effort to properly stage the information reveal in a way that will answer your questions. There's just no reasonable way for me to blurb it here for you to any level of realistic satisfaction.

If you're actually looking for someone to post a photograph that will answer all your questions, or toss a math formula at you designed to prove the nature of what existed long before math ever came into existence, then you may as well forget ever learning anything with the sort of questions you've presented. Logic is the only tool that exists that will work in your search. If you can come up with a better explanation for reality (I'd read the book first, though, if you do decide to take this on) then I'm very interested in checking it out. I'd even pay 20 bucks to get a copy. Hell, 20 bucks to learn the truth about what's real? That's a bargain.
edit on 1/14/2011 by NorEaster because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 14 2011 @ 12:35 PM
link   
reply to post by NorEaster
 



he entire process is pretty hard to detail in a post. It involves gathering every significant body of information that we possess (in general, of course) and setting the major tenets together, side-by-side, and eliminating what can't possibly be true (that was the easy part), separating what may represent what is true (allegory and metaphor) from what is obviously meant to be taken as literal fact-based information (which is harder, but not as hard as you might think), and then comparing these well-established tenets with what we know to be logically and inescapably true


Cosmological argument

To be honest, i would find a belief in inifinity less irrational than that of a supernatural entity, because this has inifinite regress as a consquence of pre-supposing a creator anyway.

Infinite Regress

Although i find infinty less irrational than a God, i can't be sure whether or not inifity exists, and i can't say for sure that no God exists, i prefer to be agnostic. i think this is a more honest approach to the big question.

We can't be sure that our universe doesn't exist within a multiverse, but scientists work on these types of theories using quantam theory and mathematics to try to work out the fundamental mechanics of our reality, it's goal is to better understand reality and how it functions.

What use is the metaphysical claims of an omnipotent, intelligent entity that originally created the universe, by what means could anyone come to this conclusion? Perhaps because of i current understanding of thermodynamics, you can't have something out of nothing.

It's like the blind watchmaker, any animal or human who discovers a watch understands that this hasn't been put together by natural means, they would understand that this must have a creator, i think it is presumptious to oberve reality and believe therefore there is a creator to this reality. We simply don't know (yet) and may never know. Reality could be inifinty, but i ask, what is the argument for intelligent being creating this? What plane of reality does this entity exist on? And who created it? and it's reality?

These are fundamental questions that seem infinite when pre-supposing a creator.
edit on 14/1/11 by awake_and_aware because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 14 2011 @ 02:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by awake_and_aware

To be honest, i would find a belief in inifinity less irrational than that of a supernatural entity, because this has inifinite regress as a consquence of pre-supposing a creator anyway.

Infinite Regress

Although i find infinty less irrational than a God, i can't be sure whether or not inifity exists, and i can't say for sure that no God exists, i prefer to be agnostic. i think this is a more honest approach to the big question.

What use is the metaphysical claims of an omnipotent, intelligent entity that originally created the universe, by what means could anyone come to this conclusion? Perhaps because of i current understanding of thermodynamics, you can't have something out of nothing.


Why do you insist that what I am describing is a supernatural anything? I also did noit suggest that this creator being is a god. We have created the idea of God (or it was given to us by others) but that doesn't mean that the author of the contextual environment we exist within was initiated by a supernatural or omnipotent being. You're imposing this specific description yourself on the being that I'm suggesting.


It's like the blind watchmaker, any animal or human who discovers a watch understands that this hasn't been put together by natural means, they would understand that this must have a creator, i think it is presumptious to oberve reality and believe therefore there is a creator to this reality. We simply don't know (yet) and may never know. Reality could be inifinty, but i ask, what is the argument for intelligent being creating this? What plane of reality does this entity exist on? And who created it? and it's reality?


I just described the nature of a contextual environment, and you respond as if you're posting this without having read my post. Reality is the word we use to describe the specific contextual association that two or more unique wholes share. That's what reality is. If you are not capable of understanding the concept of contextual association, then I don't think there's aything I can do to explain any of this to you. Not everything can be properly explained in a way that every person can readily comprehend. Some things require the student to put effort into gaining a basis of knowledge that allows for concepts to be understandable. You seem to have difficulty in the fundamentals of logic as they relate to practical application. You may need to expend some effort in that area before taking this issue on.



These are fundamental questions that seem infinite when pre-supposing a creator.
edit on 14/1/11 by awake_and_aware because: (no reason given)


As I said, no one can force you to understand anything. What I have already sketched out for you is based solidly in the fundamentals of applied logic, and while it isn't fully fleshed out, it does provide a basis for further investigation for anyone that is honestly trying to achieve a deeper and more complete understanding of what I am suggesting.

Your questions have a redundant quality to them that suggests that you're not actively trying to find an answer to the questions you pose, but are using them to counter the information I've already provided. You asked how i came about my premise, and I told you. I also told you how you can learn more. I won't engage in worthless reiteration with you. I hope this hasn't wasted too much of your time.



posted on Jan, 14 2011 @ 02:59 PM
link   
reply to post by NorEaster
 



Your questions have a redundant quality to them that suggests that you're not actively trying to find an answer to the questions you pose, but are using them to counter the information I've already provided. You asked how i came about my premise, and I told you. I also told you how you can learn more. I won't engage in worthless reiteration with you. I hope this hasn't wasted too much of your time.


I am looking for an answer, but man can't deal in revealed wisdom, science and knowledge IS inherently always at the edge of the known, science IS willing to persue and learn as am i. I'm open-minded. Willing to entertain possibilities but not absolutes without evidence.

What exists outside of our "contextual enviroment" (as you state) cannot be demonstrated or falsifed, so what gives someone the grounds to make a theory?, if they are agnostic in regards to what is outside of "contextual enviroment" say "Hell" or "Heaven" for instance, or "re-incarnation" it's unprovable, and most probably untrue if we are honest with ourselves.

It's like these charlatans who claim to speak to the spirit world, but you soon find under reasonable experimental conditions they are frauds, and are in fact using cold reading techniques - Unless there is a means to demonstrate a claimed "TRUTH" why should we believe it as truth? Man cannot deal in certainities without KNOWING for certain. This is my concern with religion, and the dogmatic nonsense that is passed on to children, I'm sorry if i'm wasting your time here too.

I really don't know what your position is on God, be it agnostic atheism, gnostic atheism, deism, theism, pantheism, i just don't know what your driving at. Let me know which one it is, each is a particular stance towards the big question - "GOD?" Which one is most appropriate to you, that's all i ask.

My concern in regards to this post is the ego that is a product of religious belief, the belief that you are more righteous because you believe in the immature ancient preachings of MAN, not GOD, they're not "God's words " or why would they be so different in each religion, furthermore, why would we have to improve and abolish these doctrines moral and ethical teachings. It's something i find even a child could see through, and they do.

This is my concern here, nothing else. I'm sorry if i have wasted your time or needlessly argued your points or perhaps even offended but this can't be helped where minds differ. Let me know what best describes your position in regards to "GOD" - And please spare me the vague nonsense of "God can't be explained, God is everything", that is pretty much pantheism, to be honest.

Peace
edit on 14/1/11 by awake_and_aware because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 14 2011 @ 05:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by awake_and_aware

I really don't know what your position is on God, be it agnostic atheism, gnostic atheism, deism, theism, pantheism, i just don't know what your driving at. Let me know which one it is, each is a particular stance towards the big question - "GOD?" Which one is most appropriate to you, that's all i ask.

My concern in regards to this post is the ego that is a product of religious belief, the belief that you are more righteous because you believe in the immature ancient preachings of MAN, not GOD, they're not "God's words " or why would they be so different in each religion, furthermore, why would we have to improve and abolish these doctrines moral and ethical teachings. It's something i find even a child could see through, and they do.

This is my concern here, nothing else. I'm sorry if i have wasted your time or needlessly argued your points or perhaps even offended but this can't be helped where minds differ. Let me know what best describes your position in regards to "GOD" - And please spare me the vague nonsense of "God can't be explained, God is everything", that is pretty much pantheism, to be honest.

Peace
edit on 14/1/11 by awake_and_aware because: (no reason given)


You are obviously not reading my posts. If you were, then you'd know that I don't believe in the traditional concept of "God". Pantheism is an intellectual surrender, and is the same as saying that God is the sum of everything - which is the same as saying the God has no actual existential identity other than the philosophical concept of a sum total of what can't possibly be determined or quantified. I don't believe this, so that should settle that.

I actually do believe that we can know what reality is and what the physical nature of the author of this specific slice of reality is. Doesn't really matter to me what you think of a statement like that. God is a term that people invented to explain a variety of things that they couldn't understand, and then other people took that term and beat everyone over the head with it. The author of this specific contextual environment is not a god. Gods do not exist. The author of this contextual environment is a specific form of intelligent physical existence, and it has its very specific reason for initiating whatever it initiates. Just like all forms of intelligent physical existence.

Please stop suggesting that I am insisting on a traditional notion of God or on any version of reality that includes one. I have tried already to explain this to you, but you are either not able to understand what I am posting, or you are intentionally misrepresenting my assertions. I have published a very different view on what consitutes our own contextual environment, and the place that humanity plays within that environment. Clearly a view that you do not understand if your posts in this thread are any indication. This is my last post in response to whatever you post in this thread. I won't be baited.



posted on Jan, 14 2011 @ 06:07 PM
link   
reply to post by NorEaster
 


I wasn't baiting you i DID state the following on my previous post:-


I'm sorry if i have wasted your time or needlessly argued your points or perhaps even offended but this can't be helped where minds differ. Let me know what best describes your position in regards to "GOD" - And please spare me the vague nonsense of "God can't be explained, God is everything", that is pretty much pantheism, to be honest.


I also asked you your position on God and you responded and i am thankful, that's all i wanted to obtain before i had any misunderstandings on your position, i wasn't tieing you with traditional religious beliefs i was using them to highlight my concerns and why i am in this debate as i have stated, I didn't attempt to cast judgement but i have been responding to your arguments.. It seems your position is best decribed in Deism.

My argument against the Deist position is that you are pre-supposing a creator, humans don't know reality isn't infinity, we are not in a position to say for certain, and blind faith shouldn't be a reason to believe if you value the pursuit of truth.

Also, an omnipotent being has created a rather destructive and capricious reality in which species die out and solar systems are destroyed, gallaxies colliding, seems like a nice being/entity/intelligence/deity/God.



posted on Jan, 14 2011 @ 10:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by awake_and_aware
reply to post by NorEaster
 


I wasn't baiting you i DID state the following on my previous post:-


I'm sorry if i have wasted your time or needlessly argued your points or perhaps even offended but this can't be helped where minds differ. Let me know what best describes your position in regards to "GOD" - And please spare me the vague nonsense of "God can't be explained, God is everything", that is pretty much pantheism, to be honest.


I also asked you your position on God and you responded and i am thankful, that's all i wanted to obtain before i had any misunderstandings on your position, i wasn't tieing you with traditional religious beliefs i was using them to highlight my concerns and why i am in this debate as i have stated, I didn't attempt to cast judgement but i have been responding to your arguments.. It seems your position is best decribed in Deism.

My argument against the Deist position is that you are pre-supposing a creator, humans don't know reality isn't infinity, we are not in a position to say for certain, and blind faith shouldn't be a reason to believe if you value the pursuit of truth.

Also, an omnipotent being has created a rather destructive and capricious reality in which species die out and solar systems are destroyed, gallaxies colliding, seems like a nice being/entity/intelligence/deity/God.


I will admit that my belief in a creator is not based on the need for a creator. The original version of humanity did not have a creator being responsible for its emergence. My own belief in the creator notion is based on the pervasiveness of that specific belief within the whole of humanity as it is clearly present, and has been, on this planet. In fact, with 6/7 of the humanity on this planet theistic in their core view of reality, the belief in a creator "god" of some sort is integral to what it means to be human on Planet Earth.

I would have been imposing my own predetermination upon my initial examination (years ago) if I had begun my research dismissing what the vast majority of humanity has clearly embraced since anyone can determine. I haven't got that kind of authority. I kept the possibility as part of the data suite, and intended to remove it if I could prove it to be illogical or contradictory in a way that crippled any tenet that fit properly within the whole (besides the issue it might have with the notion of an aware and intelligent author). It turned out that not only didn't I find a need to remove that author, but I discovered that several loose ends where tied up nicely when the author tenet was allowed to remain within the data suite.

In fact, the author concept actually launched a specific development trajectory that eventually caused quite a bit of "faith-based" assumptions to become fully rooted in clear logical association with what I had developed, and in a few spots directly linked these previous questions to very well-established knowns that we've all taken for granted. Thereby solidifying the firm plausibility of this entire premise as being even more substantiated than Einstein's Theory of Relativity when it was initially published.

As I said, I believe that I've done my due diligence in this situation. There is no room at all for faith when working to determine the nature of reality. I do not believe in faith, and I do not respect assumption. I certainly don't engage in it.

I hope this helps you understand how I approached this effort I took on. I appreciate your skepticism. I would be very interested in your examination of my work, and would be happy to discuss it with you (off the board) when you've studied it. I share your respect for responsible extrapolation and proper handling of information.
edit on 1/14/2011 by NorEaster because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 14 2011 @ 10:35 PM
link   
reply to post by NorEaster
 


I've just learned that the uncreated or the everything everywhere always is the real God, and the "creator" nothing but a role God plays in order to create a image of himself for recognition in mutual love and devotion, that God might also become self realized as we become self realized, and that then is the communion, the consumation and the new creation in eternity, as above so below.



posted on Jan, 14 2011 @ 10:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by NewAgeMan
reply to post by NorEaster
 


I've just learned that the uncreated or the everything everywhere always is the real God, and the "creator" nothing but a role God plays in order to create a image of himself for recognition in mutual love and devotion, that God might also become self realized as we become self realized, and that then is the communion, the consumation and the new creation in eternity, as above so below.


And where did you learn this?



posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 01:34 AM
link   


I mean i have about as much evidence for infinity as others do for God, but i'm definetly not claiming infinity or creator as "TRUTH" or "FACT" - They are two potentials; either universe, (macroverse, multiverse) has and always will exist or some supernatural deity created it, but this begs the question; who created this? What plane of reality do they exist on.
reply to post by awake_and_aware
 


There may be a third potential - the universe is finite, but was created by an infinitely conscious being.

I believe it is the inability of our mind to grasp the notion of infinity which has us projecting finite bounderies on a Creator. Infinity is our mind's way of saying that it's comprehension has limitations, it cannot see "the whole".

An infinitely conscious being would, on the other hand, see and know everything, all that exists, within time and beyond time. An infinitely conscious being is fully realized, and nothing exists beyond the being's awareness. The question of a creator of the creator does not arise, because there is nothing "before" - all is already know.



posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 01:52 AM
link   


Also, an omnipotent being has created a rather destructive and capricious reality in which species die out and solar systems are destroyed, gallaxies colliding, seems like a nice being/entity/intelligence/deity/God.
reply to post by awake_and_aware
 


"Destructive and capricious" are judgements made on what is most likely a miniscule portion of reality and applied to the whole universe as if everything is known with crystal clarity.

Maybe the focus is on a small portion of a darker patch of color on the canvas of a work of art, and if we could only stand back and see it in proper perspective, we would appreciate it's full splendour and perfection?



posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 02:20 AM
link   


The Ego gives you power. The natural state of being is happiness, it's unnatural to find reasons to be unhappy and keep thinking about it instead of finding what makes you happy and going after that.
reply to post by arpgme
 


I submit that the Ego robs you of the power to experience unfettered happiness and serentiy.

The Ego is always attached to something or someone. When the Ego is free to enjoy it's attachments, it is happy, but when something obstructs the Ego's ability to enjoy those attachments, it becomes frustrated, miserable, angry, despondent, and so forth.

Without the Ego, there is nothing to which to become attached, hence there are also no obstructions to happiness.

The Ego places definite restrictions on the ability to be happy (eg: I'll be happy when I marry the person of my dreams, I'll be happy when Friday comes, I'll be happy when I get my new computer, I'll be happy when I'm over this cold, etc, etc, etc), it robs us of the potential to experience a state of happiness and peace in all circumstances.

Why go about finding what makes us happy and go after it when we have the potential be happy and fulfilled within ourselves in all things?



posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 02:38 AM
link   
reply to post by arpgme
 


I agree with the original post. The word "ego" has been thrown around until no one knows its original intended meaning. I don't use it.

I agree that greater happiness is possible and that this requires, above all, a more aware and better-educated self. It requires a being that has learned to trust itself and to intend its own destiny. A lot of us have a long way to go in this regard! And I don't see that it's really much more complicated than that.
edit on 15-1-2011 by l_e_cox because: to clarify



posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 07:40 AM
link   
reply to post by arpgme
 


I also disagree with you, your shadow self is who you are. a balance is what we are striving for and yes giving up the beast, ego, anti-you is the only way to be born again. You must die, or get rid of the ego part of you, i order to give your self more balance. The Ego part is the Knowledge part, it's what made man -man. It's the apple, it's the Fall in garden of Eden. look up Gnosticism it explains it better than I do. BTW animals have no Ego, they are innocents.



posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 07:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by arpgme
reply to post by eight bits
 


That's true, you don't learn psychology from a dictionary and I understand that different psychologists use it in different ways. That doesn't matter because I'm telling you how I am using it in THIS conversation.



Originally posted by operation mindcrime
reply to post by arpgme
 

You do realize that the self perceived identity is exactly that.....something you perceive, as in, not factual....it's an illusion. To bring it down to basic terms, we are BS'íng our selfs.


Peace


Just because you perceive something doesn't mean that it's not factual. You know that you exist because you can question your existence. If you didn't exist then you wouldn't be able to question your existence, so you are not an illusion you EXIST. Your EGO is existent!


Sure our Ego's exist but giving to your Ego is becoming the Devil. The devil stands for al of our human emotions, Lust, Envy, Jealousy, Pride, and so on. To give in to that side is to be an anti-christ. What is Christ well, he is the love side, perfect and ego free. In order to get to Christ we must kill our Ego's unless you want to be materialistic, and give in to that side, then go ahead.



posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 07:53 AM
link   
reply to post by arpgme
 


Nope. Your is a straw man arguement . The link states that Before religion there was the ego??? When pray was that? Do you expect me to believe all of the religious people have no ego? I you do I would agree with you if you are willing to buy a bridge across the East River or the Thames from me.

Even mystics use the word "I" in describing their experiences.




posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 09:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by tiger5
reply to post by arpgme
 


Nope. Your is a straw man arguement . The link states that Before religion there was the ego??? When pray was that? Do you expect me to believe all of the religious people have no ego? I you do I would agree with you if you are willing to buy a bridge across the East River or the Thames from me.

Even mystics use the word "I" in describing their experiences.



I agree with you that pretending that one has transcended the "I" does not mean that anyone has transcended anything at all. The human brain is self aware, and no matter how one tries to make one's mind free of self, when it's time to take a dump, it's right back to a full immersion within the "I" that needs to take a dump. So much for transcendence.

Now, why would that be? Certainly not because it's the truthful and fully realized state of the human being to not be encumbered by the failure that is self awareness. It's much more likely - and more obvious - that the corporeal, self-aware state exists for a definite and specific reason, and that reason is not for it to be overcome as if it were a persistent speech impediment.

Nothing, that we have examined within the corporeal realm, has ever survived beyond anomaly without having been provided through progressive development with clear purpose and application. Regardless of what that purpose or application is, whatever survives and thrives does so due to its having come into redundant presence displaying both reasonable environmental association and reliable internal consistency. This means that it fits in and it makes perfect sense within itself as a whole. In fact, the only member of the corporeal realm that we have decided (well, some of us have) is inappropriate in both fit and internal consistency is ourselves.

Then again, this is a determination that we have made on our own. Not a determination that was made about us.

Odd that everything else under the sun is in tune - except us. Especially since it's us that is making this determination. Or maybe it's not that odd? Especially considering the potential impetus behind making such a determination. Motivations that include:

* "You are sick and broken, but I....I can heal you!"
* "We are a twisted, dirty beast, but my god...er...um...our god....our god can make us whole and pure!"
* "Send check or money order to the address on the screen, and our prayer warriors will get right to working to lift you out of the carnal pit of evil and darkness you're hopelessly lost within."

The incentive is pretty obvious.

Human beings are - during their corporeal phase of development - fully corporeal in nature and expression. As with everything else that exists and persists within this realm, the human being's corporeal nature exists for a very real and legitimate purpose. The awareness of self - the dread "Ego" - exists, and does so for a very real and legitimate purpose. And like the fins on a fish, or the talons on a hawk, the Ego has its positive and productive contribution to the experience of being human and to the survivability of the human being as a species. Anything that is as complex and sophisticated as conscious awareness is subject to imbalance and inappropriate application, but that is part of what such sophistication brings to the experience table. Learning how to properly apply such a attribute. This is the benefit of possessing such an attribute.

Ironically, it is when one claims to have overcome such a pervasive and fundamentally structural aspect as self-identity and self-awareness, that real egotistical behavior is being actively displayed. "Enlightenment" - the word alone suggesting a personal achievement that most will never realize - associated with having wrestled the Ego demon into submission, as the triumphant spiritual warrior reveals his mastery to those still mired in ego-centric helplessness. I can envision a 4 panel comic strip that would probably illustrate this whole bizarre dichotomy a lot better than I can describe it.

In his own biography, Eckhart Tolle describes a full psychotic breakdown, and offers it as proof that he - at that moment of complete cognitive dissolution - became enlightened, and achieved the spiritual authority to teach the world how to view the nature of corporeal existence. If anyone wants to believe that this is how you become whole and fully perfected, then have at it. However, if anyone thinks that they won't be fully challenged on the merits of such claims and associated instructions, when offered in a public arena (like this board) where such information can affect the lives of people who may be searching for answers and therefore vulnerable to a compelling suggestion, then this should be your wake up call.

Eckhart Tolle is a fool and if he's not still insane, then he's incredibly focused on making as much money as possible off his terrible emotional/psychological ordeal. Either way, he's a fool, and this "ego" mantra is cheap self-help blather that's been repackaged as necessary transcendence by him and the marketing teams his organization employs. Until running into a solid wall of this garbage on this forum, I had no idea how relentless and mindless it really is. The talking points are disciplined, and the refusal to acknowledge anyone but each other as they affirm and reaffirm each other's posts is a dead giveaway. Reminds me of one of those mid-70s cults.
edit on 1/15/2011 by NorEaster because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 09:39 AM
link   
reply to post by NorEaster
 


Wow thanks for the info on Eckart Tolle. I believe that the OP's stance is anti cult. I am certainly anti cult. Enlightment means freedom form slavery from crass materialiasm as well as religious hucksters..

Did you know that the Native American foiund it incongruoss to charge for their ceremonies as did most traditional spiritualities. This new Age stuff has very disturbing elements.

Kind regards

T
edit on 15-1-2011 by tiger5 because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
6
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join