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: 6
6
<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 18 2011 @ 02:42 PM
link   
reply to post by arpgme
 


Sorry bro, i didn't mean to direct that at you, i did agree with what you said.

Need to remember to hit Post Reply instead of just Replying to the latest poster!




posted on Jan, 18 2011 @ 03:30 PM
link   
reply to post by arpgme
 



For someone who claims they hate the ego, you sure are in tune with yours, which is absolutely lovely. You are starting your opinion loud and proud and even laughing at my post, and while I may dislike it, I'm happy you are intouch with your self... that is... your ego.

please do share where i said that I hate ego ....
if I am tune with my own ego ...then thats a beautiful thing because then its easier to let it go (which by default would be absolutely lovely)
Of course I laughed at your post ....after over a decade of studying ego ......to come across your post which is completely contrary to everything I have not only learned about in the past decade, but also experienced directly .......resulted in alot of humor. Im not laughing at you, but I am laughing (in an innocent way) of not only your understanding of the ego, but also that your own ego fears its own demise sooo much so that it needed to justify this post.


As for the person who said "right, so I should be a slave to my ego instead ?" This person has no understanding of the ego. The ego is just another word for the self. How can you be a slave to yourself when you are you. That doesn't make sense.

Ego is not self. Ego is what you think yourself to be, the likes and dislikes, the personality construct, and a number of other factors none of which is the real you. In fact awareness is aware of all of these aspects and so you are either awareness or you are those things that you are aware of.

ego is different when your 10, and then fully established and still different in our teens, and then in mid-life its still different again....... please do read some philosophical books on what ego is because ego is clearly not the Self.



Poor Ego being slaughtered by today's religions and the sheep who follow religion without thinking...

ego = no enlightenment. Ego is a filter for pure infinite consciousness. Ego is fake. Ego is just a thought and not real. When you were a child before your ego was even established and active ...there was just awareness by itself ....crystal clear and crystal pure.

Everyone who is un-enlightened and operates from ego is a sheep (myself included).

Your view of the ego being the true self goes against thousands of years of knowledge, goes against thousands of books, and goes against what has been experienced by thousands of people around the world (that ego is not who we are)

You are a lone wolf in this matter and Im sorry to say you really wont find many people who can side with you on this one.

To be a slave is to be under the influence of the ego, its likes/dislikes, its biases, its own little subjective bubble, a slave to lust, a slave to whatever the ego wants.

To be ego-less is pure freedom. When there is no longer ego than who can be a slave to anything? When that who is dead (ego death) ...then there is the unobstructed and unfiltered freedom of the present moment.



posted on Jan, 18 2011 @ 04:22 PM
link   
reply to post by dominicus
 




My....



May I use this post as an example? I'm gathering posts like this for teaching purposes.

Oh...and this one too

reply to post by dominicus
 


The kids will just love this stuff.

edit on 1/18/2011 by NorEaster because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 18 2011 @ 04:36 PM
link   


To be a slave is to be under the influence of the ego, its likes/dislikes, its biases, its own little subjective bubble, a slave to lust, a slave to whatever the ego wants.
reply to post by dominicus
 


It is not until you embark on a dedicated mission to subdue the ego that you become aware the extent to which you are enslaved by it. The ego becomes your greatest obstacle in the way of freedom.



posted on Jan, 18 2011 @ 04:37 PM
link   
It doesn't matter if there was study on this subject for hundreds or even thousands of years, if it's wrong then it's wrong. Truth is truth. You said "my ego" is afraid of it's own demise so much that blah blah blah.

Well guess what. The word ego only means the self so I am my ego. I'm not afraid of any demise nor am I afraid of death...

Ego is your self. It contains your likes, dilikes, and basically your emotion. Ego is basically your SELF, it is the container of your personality. If you want to destroy it you would have to destroy your SELF. Become emotionless and live without any likes or dislikes or desires but even if you do that you are still your SELF so I guess the only way to detach from sense of self is to be non existent.



posted on Jan, 18 2011 @ 04:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by mysticnoon



To be a slave is to be under the influence of the ego, its likes/dislikes, its biases, its own little subjective bubble, a slave to lust, a slave to whatever the ego wants.
reply to post by dominicus
 


It is not until you embark on a dedicated mission to subdue the ego that you become aware the extent to which you are enslaved by it. The ego becomes your greatest obstacle in the way of freedom.


If your version of ego is that same as that other guy's version - ego being the likes and dislikes and active beliefs and all that comes from learning whatever it is that you learn and making judgments about that stuff - then what's this mission to subdue the ego if the ego is going to be what you use to subdue it? Seriously. In what dimension do you have to be in to willfully use your will to subdue what has become your will as a result of having crafted that will over the course of a lifetime?

Do you even know what it is that I'm asking?

Your ego is (from whatshisname's description) the sum total of what a person has learned and determined through the business of rumination and exposure to new and reiterated information. It's the thoughts and reactions of a person that combine to amplify and mitigate the larger trend aspects of that person's view in service of developing a Primary Expression that will allow that individual a unique and inimitable Identity.

Correct me if I have this wrong.

So, how can subduing this EGO result in anything other than a new (and possibly improved) version of an EGO that rejects the idea that it is an EGO at all? After all, whatever one thinks, whatever one strives to learn, whatever one comes upon as a result of "over 12+ years" of dedicated effort, is exactly what you guys claim the EGO is. It's the sum total of a person's thoughts and committed intellectual development.

You can claim that it's not, but you have to do better than you've done to debunk this assessment of what it is that you're so aggressively describing.



posted on Jan, 18 2011 @ 06:25 PM
link   
reply to post by NorEaster
 



So, how can subduing this EGO result in anything other than a new (and possibly improved) version of an EGO that rejects the idea that it is an EGO at all? After all, whatever one thinks, whatever one strives to learn, whatever one comes upon as a result of "over 12+ years" of dedicated effort, is exactly what you guys claim the EGO is. It's the sum total of a person's thoughts and committed intellectual development.

Yes you do have a point ...who is it that is subduing the ego.....? ..... however it doesnt exactly work that way. Ego death is possible in a number of ways, many of them methods, techniques, devices, even shamanic trips using substances to do so.

I myself have had tons of experiences of a state where there is no 'I'. there is nothing you can do to get there, however you can make the environment right by studying these exact subjects, looking within, self inquiry, and dropping all of your ideas, biases, likes and dislikes about things. Then the state of No 'I' seems to do its own thing as far as when it is or isn't revealed.

The point being; ...you said "whatever one strives to learn, whatever one comes upon as a result of "over 12+ years" of dedicated effort, is exactly what you guys claim the EGO is.

Well now we can go somewhere. After 12+ years of study and all of that ...now we can unlearn, unstrive, be effortless, unthink, undo ...and find out what exactly is it that remains when all of that is removed ...and can you guess what we are left with? Uninhibited, thought-less, effortless awareness ...crystal clear and devoid of judgements. It just is and does not need to say anything. This is the one common and constant factor of the 'Self' that is always there and unchanged no matter how many times the Ego itself changes, it is there when One is sleeping and the ego is not in play, it is there when there is no thought.

Then upon further examination of the root of 'Self' ....it reveals many more secrets. Such as the truth that there is no such thing as outside vs. inside (all constructs of thought), that there is no such thing as us & them (all construct of thought) and many other Truths that are beyond words.



You can claim that it's not, but you have to do better than you've done to debunk this assessment of what it is that you're so aggressively describing.

Your right in the whole game of Ego undoing itself. It can't. But what it can do is begin to become interested in the possibility of being free from it and how exactly that might look and feel. Investigate it, see what its all about, meditate on it, and see if its possible. Doing those things alone is enough to warrant a situation where one slips out f One's make believe self and sees without seeing, or the Beingness thats in the state of no 'I'.
_________________________________________________________________________________
In reply to arpgme,



It doesn't matter if there was study on this subject for hundreds or even thousands of years, if it's wrong then it's wrong. Truth is truth. You said "my ego" is afraid of it's own demise so much that blah blah blah.

What is truth? Please do share. Also please do share your sources and proof that the ego is actually and really who and what we are ...and that ego death means to be a slave to a Bible with a cure.... Of course you did originally state the following:


This is a trap to take away your self worth and to turn you into a mindless slave. The Bible is a book for enslavement, give up the Ego and you'll be lost and then they'll pretend to give you the cure but really control you with religion.

If you give up your ego ...then there is no one who is lost and no one who needs a cure. There is not a single section in the Bible that talks about losing your ego = being lost = giving you a cure.


Well guess what. The word ego only means the self so I am my ego. I'm not afraid of any demise nor am I afraid of death...

What is the self? Do you really know that what you think is the self is true?


Ego is your self. It contains your likes, dilikes, and basically your emotion. Ego is basically your SELF, it is the container of your personality.

Well that sure doesnt make sense because I thought I kew myself when I was 18 and found out I was wrong. I changed since then. And also when I was a baby I had no personality and no ego ...and yet I still existed.....strange!!! How could I have existed then when your telling me that who I really am is a container for likes/dislikes, emotion, and personality if non of that was there when I was a baby?


If you want to destroy it you would have to destroy your SELF. Become emotionless and live without any likes or dislikes or desire

BOOM!!!!! No you're getting somewhere. Not necessarily destroy the self buy to Be beyond the self. Not to become emotionless but to be Beyond emotions. Not to have likes/dislikes but to Be beyond likes/dislikes. Not to have desires but to Be beyond desire.



but even if you do that you are still your SELF so I guess the only way to detach from sense of self is to be non existent.

Exactly !!!! If there is a going beyond all of that ...you are still your SELF ...however now you are a Self that is completely beyond any of those things that make up a Self. So you become non-existent ..and yet still there is a body there, there are eyes that see, a mind that thinks, emotions that emote ....

.....but you are no longer subject to any of them. This is complete freedom, this is self mastery, this is the real and true original Self.
edit on 18-1-2011 by dominicus because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 18 2011 @ 07:14 PM
link   


If your version of ego is that same as that other guy's version - ego being the likes and dislikes and active beliefs and all that comes from learning whatever it is that you learn and making judgments about that stuff - then what's this mission to subdue the ego if the ego is going to be what you use to subdue it?
reply to post by NorEaster
 


Ego, as I understand it, is the sense of self that is created from the identification with all that defines us as separate indivuals.

I am my body, I am intelligent, I am single, I am an atheist, I have aspirations, I am a parent, and so forth, and so on.

It is not that any of these things with which we idenditfy are invalid, it is the perception that the self comprises the objects of identification that is placed into question.




In what dimension do you have to be in to willfully use your will to subdue what has become your will as a result of having crafted that will over the course of a lifetime?


Initially, the ego is used to help subdue the ego, we do need to use the will of the ego to a certain extent. It is a matter of converting the enmity of the ego into cooperation. We have to enlist the ego's help, as it were, to start us on the way.





edit on 18-1-2011 by mysticnoon because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 18 2011 @ 07:22 PM
link   


So, how can subduing this EGO result in anything other than a new (and possibly improved) version of an EGO that rejects the idea that it is an EGO at all?.
reply to post by NorEaster
 


That is an excellent question, and really underscores the challenge all those face who embark on such a journey.

One of the first things which tends to happen when the ego is subdued to a small extent is the emergence of the spiritual ego, the identification of the self to all things spiritual: ascending, blessed, above the carnal lusts, etc.

Most of us, I think, are caught up at some stage of the above, just struggling with the ego in another form.



posted on Jan, 18 2011 @ 07:30 PM
link   
reply to post by mysticnoon
 




Initially, the ego is used to help subdue the ego, we do need to use the will of the ego to a certain extent. It is a matter of converting the enmity of the ego into cooperation. We have to enlist the ego's help, as it were, to start us on the way.

BINGO!!!!!! Thats it ...thats what I also said ...the initial interest, thrust, and cooperation of said entity for its complete demise....... however in itself it can do nothing to complete that demise.

AWSOME thread!!!!!!!!!!



posted on Jan, 18 2011 @ 09:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by arpgme
It doesn't matter if there was study on this subject for hundreds or even thousands of years, if it's wrong then it's wrong. Truth is truth. You said "my ego" is afraid of it's own demise so much that blah blah blah.

Well guess what. The word ego only means the self so I am my ego. I'm not afraid of any demise nor am I afraid of death...

Ego is your self. It contains your likes, dilikes, and basically your emotion. Ego is basically your SELF, it is the container of your personality. If you want to destroy it you would have to destroy your SELF. Become emotionless and live without any likes or dislikes or desires but even if you do that you are still your SELF so I guess the only way to detach from sense of self is to be non existent.



No, my dear child. Your Ego is subjected to the force of time and space. It differs from one time to the other. Your perception of the Ego is a byproduct of various social complexes generated by your up bringing. The death of your Ego will enhance your emotion without attachments. It will expand your consciousness without thoughts.



posted on Jan, 18 2011 @ 09:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by NorEaster

Originally posted by Tryptych
reply to post by dominicus
 


..but do you see? given)


I think you ego-focused people need to get with each other and stabilize your terminology. Your description of this terrible curse is pretty different than other definitions being tossed about in this forum - even just within this one thread. Once you kids figure it out, then let the rest of us know what you've decided.

Thanks.

Hehehehe....well, what do you expect? Their own ego is defining their own experiences. I seriously doubt that they can even share their spiritual experiences. In fact, they may in fact plotting the demise of one another....



posted on Jan, 18 2011 @ 09:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by arpgme
reply to post by dominicus
 


For someone who claims they hate the ego, you sure are in tune with yours, which is absolutely lovely. You are starting your opinion loud and proud and even laughing at my post, and while I may dislike it, I'm happy you are intouch with your self... that is... your ego.


As for the person who said "right, so I should be a slave to my ego instead
?"

This person has no understanding of the ego. The ego is just another word for the self. How can you be a slave to yourself when you are you. That doesn't make sense.

Poor Ego being slaughtered by today's religions and the sheep who follow religion without thinking...



My dear child, you could....is called psychological complexes dictated by more or less your childhood experiences. You become a slave to your complexes whatever that is. Ask your ego this...why you like certain hobbies? Why you find certain people attractive? Why you are pursuing in certain career type? When you can find a single link that connects all this to a single complex, you would have reached a milestone in your spiritual and psychological development. Depending how gifted you are, this may not happen until you are in your 30s. Given the time we are living, this may happen even sooner. It happened to me when I was 17. I am in my mid 30s now.



posted on Jan, 19 2011 @ 04:10 AM
link   
reply to post by awake_and_aware
 


Agnostic Atheism is my position.


You not so long ago said the following.

Originally posted by awake_and_aware
reply to post by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
I humbly and honestly admit that i am agnostic and therefore Atheist.



Agnosticism is about what you know.
Atheism/Theism is about what you believe.


But yet both Atheism and Theism believe they know.

It's been my opinion that the words "knowledge" and "know" are nothing more for semantic loopholes for mankind to hide in his ever present fear of the unknown. Which is why mankind as a whole tends to be VERY resistant to new ideas in my opinion. I mean seriously, people once "knew" that the world was flat. We classify that as a belief now. Why are we any different? Our descendents will most likely laugh at us as much as we laugh at them now.


I guess you could say i was an "Agnostic Atheist" is regards to there being a invisible jelly monster out of reach of our best telescopes, i can't prove it does not exist. On that grounds, no one can prove it does exist. It's just a guess theory. I would not believe that theory. It would be irrational to believe that theory.

You say omnipotent God, i say theres no evidence, someone else says Tooth fairy, i say no evidence. I don't believe in theories without the necessary conviction of evidence.


What's with the food monster based analogies? The Flying Spegetti Monster... Etc etc etc. Is it too much to ask to see a little creativity please? And even making a mockery via absurd analogy is nothing more than a tactic to sound right. Sorry, just a rant I have...
Anyrate. I am not telling you what you should or shouldn't believe. Merely pointing out that agnosticism does not take a absolute stance. Saying, "I believe god(s) don't exist but I could be wrong." is not agnosticism. It's taking an absolute stance and hedging your bets.


You seem unnecessarily rude towards me because i share my opinon and argue your points.


I could apologise but that would be ingeniune of me. I cannot control what you percieve to be the emotional undercurrent of my comments. I am merely commenting what you choose to believe about my intent is up to you. And if it's about my comments about wishing not to be pidgeon holed. Well, don't make requests for me to attempt to prove Christian Mythology as factual because I am disagreeing with you. I cannot after all prove something I do not believe to be true myself.


You say you're agnostic, therefore you could never prove whether it was a creator that caused our reality or that infinity is our reality, you're as naive as the rest of us and any credited Scientist. Carl Sagan was Agnostic and therefore GNOSTIC Atheist towards any man made religion.


Um no. I say maybe, maybe not or possibly god(s) exist. I do not rule out the possibility as Atheists do. Where I place the probability for or against is not the topic of this conversation or anyone's buisness though, before you ask. I find it funny how many Atheists, militant Atheists, will actively deny their absolute stance even while they speak in the absolute.
edit on 19-1-2011 by Watcher-In-The-Shadows because: (no reason given)

edit on 19-1-2011 by Watcher-In-The-Shadows because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 19 2011 @ 05:54 AM
link   
reply to post by arpgme
 


Well do you care to explain which religions suggest this "giving up of the Ego to become a slave" as it would certainly link or embed sed religions in the context of their religious views. We could then respond in an appropriate manner. At the moment All I see is a lot of free floating arguements
.



posted on Jan, 19 2011 @ 12:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by dominicus
Well that sure doesnt make sense because I thought I kew myself when I was 18 and found out I was wrong. I changed since then. And also when I was a baby I had no personality and no ego ...and yet I still existed.....strange!!! How could I have existed then when your telling me that who I really am is a container for likes/dislikes, emotion, and personality if non of that was there when I was a baby?


Okay, let me tell you the difference between you as you are right now, you as you were when you were 18, and you as you were when you were a baby. And this isn't something that I put together out of whole cloth. This is the result of examining the research of many of the greatest thinkers on this planet. Of course, I did add my own small contribution, but I realize that I haven't crafted anything that wasn't obvious to plenty of people already.

When you were a baby, the primary management information source in your brain was supplied by your corporeal body itself. We call it DNA, and it exists represented redundantly within each cell. This is to ensure that the corporeal organization's inimitable Identity will remain intact regardless of what's lost by way of damage or disease. After all, Identity is primordial when you're dealing with existence. If something cannot be delineated within the environment that contains it, then it can't be defined as having existence. In short, Identity is existence in a one-hand-washing-the-other sort of arrangement.

A human baby's brain is just getting its land legs together. Simple functionality, and stabilizing the fundamentals; it's enough that the whole thing works and has ten fingers and ten toes. Forget the complicated thoughts and responses to the barrage of images and stimulations. Crying helps block out all that stuff until that brain becomes mature enough to even take it in. And it's as that brain begins dealing with data management - especially incoming data management - that the personality begins to reach back from the gathered mass of generated Intellect to see what it can do to get a better handle on what's being generated in response to all of this being alive business.

Around age 3 or maybe 4, the human brain has had enough time and experience to begin real data triage, and this is where we begin to notice a personality that isn't simply a reflex response (with a few twists here and there) to being a human child in whatever world it finds itself within. Hell, most of us don't even remember what it was like to be that little kid. Like it was bits and pieces of this and that - nothing that really resembles having experienced it as a thinking person. This is because the DNA is still in command of the data management effort. The generated Intellect hasn't become sophisticated enough yet to seize control of the process. Over the next ten years or so it gets more and more capable, with extended periods of taking the wheel (so to speak), as the DNA information constantly keeps a close eye on things. Unique, but not that unique. Pre-teens are just a lot easier to deal with, and this is the main reason why.

When the human being hits the beginning of puberty all hell breaks loose. The DNA shifts from survival to full scale physical transformation, and this is when the Intellect makes its move on the brain's information generation and management processes. And it never hands it back again. This is when the human being begins its search for itself - what it might be that makes it unique and irreplaceable. When you were 18, you were still deep in the throes of this Identity establishing effort. Not surprising that you've shed that version of yourself. Most of us have.

The reason for this intense effort on behalf of the generated Intellect, is that (like I stated already) Identity equals existence, and if the Intellect (your eternal self) wishes to exist, it must establish a contextual composition (as a complete mass of generated Intellect information) that cannot be duplicated. In fact, for some humans, being unique is not enough. They are driven to be UNIQUE, and we all remember those kids in high school. Also, unique does not demand a level of quality to be associated with it. Unique can be horrific and succeed nicely in being unique. And the human Intellect's pursuit involves clear uniqueness - regardless of what it takes to achieve it.

So, now you're a transcendent ego-less person who honestly believes that he has shed all vestiges of Identity. The ironic thing is that this is what your Intellect has chosen for its own inimitable Identity - this person who has shed all vestiges of ego-centric Identity. In fact, it's a very clear and definitive Identity, and one that you aggressively display with little encouragement. The assertion of having overcome this difficult transformation is like a uniform that your Intellect dresses your corporeal body in, and then your Intellect marches that body around to the approval of others that it has decided to associate with as further evidence - to itself and to all that exists with the same realm - that this Identity that it has chosen is valid and perfectly plausible.

This, of course, is pretty skeletal in layout, but I think you can get the basic gist of it. I'm perfectly happy with whatever anyone reaches for in their quest for existential identity. Just so long as no one gets hurt. And this is where the claim that one must and one actually can rid oneself of what you guys refer to as ego causes me problems. Let me see if i can explain why this pesters me.

Anyone can make any claim if that claim can't be completely verified one way or the other. No big deal, unless it causes anyone to strive honestly for something that can't actually be achieved. I remember when I was a kid, that there were guys that would claim that they'd been diving off Butts Bridge for years, and every now and then some kid would believe it, and wrack himself up on the iron structure that sat only about 10 feet or so beneath the water when he went to be just like those guys. Truth was that those guys hadn't ever dove off Butts Bridge. No one did - well, except for the ones who died trying. Still, there was no way to really verify the talk if other guys backed their claims. No way to see those irons under that muddy water either. Just no way to tell until you went and tried it for yourself. Then - of course - no one ever took the dive and came back to debunk those guys.

When claiming something like killing off the ego, the definition is so vague, and the evidence is nonexistent. This can cause young Identity-seeking humans to struggle mightily in an effort that they may not be able to see for what it really is - just another version of Identity establishment by another normal human being who's no more or less than they are themselves. When presented as the holy grail of happiness and enlightenment, the fact that it's a carrot that'll always be inches in front of their face will seem a lot more like abject failure, and further proof that they aren't valuable as the honest and self-aware people that they are. In my eyes, that's just a negative thing to do to anyone; to set them up for failure, or worse yet, self-deception.

Others can see this as they wish, but this is how I see it.
edit on 1/19/2011 by NorEaster because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 19 2011 @ 01:57 PM
link   
reply to post by NorEaster
 

While there are no qualms on my behalf for everything you have written up to the point that I have quoted of yours below, as far as all the inherent structures and systems working and establishing together what is the identity ....the biggest refuge in all of it ...and for me undoubtedly something that is impossible for me to exclude, is that a few years ago I remember pre-existing before taking on a body, before being born here on earth. It wasn't something that the mind made up ...it was a fundamental and crystal clear memory of the root of what I am having pre-existed and discussed with others ...being born here and taking on a body (something that was completely outside the realm of understanding when I was asked to come here) ...there was no knowing what "born" or "body" or "earth" is...... this alone has tremendous ramifications on all of this.....


So, now you're a transcendent ego-less person who honestly believes that he has shed all vestiges of Identity. The ironic thing is that this is what your Intellect has chosen for its own inimitable Identity -

It has nothing to do with that. There is a knowing that the mind, what-ever it says, what-ever it thinks ....is not me. There is also a knowing that the intellect is not me either ...it is within this experience here, another faculty that can be picked up, used, then set aside when not needed. There is no need here what-so-ever for any identity.


In fact, it's a very clear and definitive Identity, and one that you aggressively display with little encouragement.

There is no way to discuss, communicate, act, do without any of these being seen without the ego ...because most think they are the ego, and most think that this is the natural and normal state. On my part there was originally a display of tremendous humor on behalf f the original post, a display of facts being that there is thousands of books and individuals in many circles of knowledge and highly respected that say the ego is not who we really are, there was a sharing of my own experiences, there at times is a need to be relentless with others, direct, to the point, and seemingly brash. But is any of that 'me' ? No ...its forms of communications and the minds expression.


The assertion of having overcome this difficult transformation is like a uniform that your Intellect dresses your corporeal body in, and then your Intellect marches that body around to the approval of others that it has decided to associate with as further evidence - to itself and to all that exists with the same realm - that this Identity that it has chosen is valid and perfectly plausible.

But the thing is ...thats not what the experience is here for myself.... there is no need for any of that. No need for others approval, no need for intellect except for certain discussion, then put away, no need to associate, and no need for identity. If any part of me needs any of that it is from the ego ...and yet nowhere will you ever find that I directly have ever said that 'I' am enlightened and that I have successfully made through the journey of ego death ....it is a misnomer, a paradox, an over-standing ...as enlightenment = no 'I' as a permanent reality.

However I can claim that there is definitely lots of energy and full force of this 'I' heading towards that direction and having even been melted into the place where there is no 'I' ....making leaps and bounds to get there ...but they are not on my part alone. It is merely a clear seeing from the perspective of Awareness itself that what isn't awareness begins to slip away and dismantle ...including who we think we are and we think everything is or should be.


Just no way to tell until you went and tried it for yourself. Then - of course - no one ever took the dive and came back to debunk those guys.

Exactly my point ...the only way to prove this is to try it yourself and see directly the outcome ...which in this case happens to be that 'I' isn't real ad whats left is a free-floating nondual state of no 'I' which leaves no One to come back and say anything about it. And yet mysteriously ...a body remains, a mind that can formulate sentences remains, communication abilities remain ...albeit from the view that non of those has any root identity ...and so from that perspective ....it alone can still try to formulate into words that which can only be experienced directly.....


When claiming something like killing off the ego, the definition is so vague, and the evidence is nonexistent.

The definition is vague only if you want it to be vague and evidence is nonexistence if thats what you want to project. ANd yet we experience life everyday undoubtedly ...and yet can you prove to me that you experience life...? You can only say you do, try to back it up with MRI's, philosophically, etc ....but at the end of the day you know that you are and that you experience.

See for myself all of this was at first an intellectual understanding that the possibility of ego death may indeed be true. That the only proof I can ever have is for myself to go there and see if its real. Well little by little these intellectual understandings ....some of them in due time transform into experiential knowings ....

for example you can read about the taste of strawberry ice cream, and have an intellectual understanding of it ...but the direct experience of having that ice cream just knocks everything else out of the water.

Same deal in ego death.


This can cause young Identity-seeking humans to struggle mightily in an effort that they may not be able to see for what it really is - just another version of Identity establishment by another normal human being who's no more or less than they are themselves.

But its so far from that ......there are genuine individuals who have had their own egos die permanently and are now communicated from a state of No ego.... amongst other things also saying how free and awesome and truthful that state is. It doesn't make them any different from others in the case that there is still a body with senses there and a mind to formulate, intellect etc....

But whats different is this. There are those who read about something and there are those who experience that something directly. That is where the separation is ......those that have only an intellectual understanding of something cannot fathom the direct experience of that something which beyond anything you can even fathom about its true nature.


When presented as the holy grail of happiness and enlightenment, the fact that it's a carrot that'll always be inches in front of their face will seem a lot more like abject failure, and further proof that they aren't valuable as the honest and self-aware people that they are. In my eyes, that's just a negative thing to do to anyone; to set them up for failure, or worse yet, self-deception.

hats the beauty of it ...... while ego death is presented as both something that can be instant as well as gradual ..here for myself it has been the gradual path ...and as more and more of what I am is stripped away and/or seen as not I ...what starts coming into view is new faculties and transcendence and timelessness and this child like freedom and happiness that doesn't rely on anything and is not relative to anything ...and this starts in creasing more and more and more.... it is the mystery of the Now, of infinity, of transcendence....

To the ego ..its own demise seems counter productive ...until what is gained in its loss is seen as the better alternative. Of course this is seen by the ego and starts the path for it to agree to cooperate in its own demise ...which then later comes the state where it is no more.


Others can see this as they wish, but this is how I see it.

Yeah you know I saw all of this once the same way you do. Not only that but I also went as far as to say that ego death is bonkers, leaves one in a vegatative state, counter productive, and absolute madness .....

....but upon further examination it was not to be so. However this implies one should leave one's self open to being wrong and open to any possible possibility. For you to say that this is how you see it ......leaves your current perspective shackled to a limit.

WHat is required is to take every perspective into consideration, examine everything, see for yourself if there is such a possibility ....not just by having an conceptual understanding of it, but my really dipping your experience into it directly. I acknowledge I may be wrong in all of this .....however in the same breath I acknowledge that I want to experience the ultimate absolute truth that is the root cause for all truths. I want to see behind the curtain if this possible, to see if there is a God (not by reading and conceptualizing) but by coming face to face with said Being. I want to know myself not by merely reading what others have to say about me, but digging in deep and finding where thoughts come from, how is it that I even am ...what makes me up. WHat is it about me that isn't relative to anything if there even is such an aspect.

And in this decades looooong grind to get to the absolute bottom of things .....a person will come across certain insights, truths, knowings that are beyond the intellectual/conceptual scope of things.

Even these conversations are alone worthy of complete dismantling and critical examination of every said subject, word, semantics ...dismantle and reassemble.

If you get a chance check out some books on nonduality, try Rupert Spira, Gred Goode, check out Advaita Vedanata, Nisargadatta ..... I really have to say the way you think and word things ...you would really get a kick out of these authors.



posted on Jan, 19 2011 @ 03:29 PM
link   
reply to post by arpgme
 


I can't think of anything good that ever came out of having an out of control ego. The ego is one of mankind's biggest obstacles to overcome....when you start realizing that it is not all about me me me, you will live a much more fulfilled and content life...



posted on Jan, 19 2011 @ 03:50 PM
link   
One who lives only for himself is truly dead and one who dies for God is truly alive.
~ Meher Baba

By "God" here, he means consciousness or awareness of truth and reality as it really and truly is.
Thus, in light of the realization that who and what we really are isn't at all who and what we thought we were, the "ego" then becomes nothing but the material for good comedy.

But woe to those who take themselves and their ego seriously, who, blinded by ego, are unable to see clearly enough to have a good laugh at themselves and their own folly. What a predicament that would be, and then to have to face oblivion? - NOT fun.



posted on Jan, 19 2011 @ 08:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by dominicus
reply to post by NorEaster
 

While there are no qualms on my behalf for everything you have written up to the point that I have quoted of yours below, as far as all the inherent structures and systems working and establishing together what is the identity ....the biggest refuge in all of it ...and for me undoubtedly something that is impossible for me to exclude, is that a few years ago I remember pre-existing before taking on a body, before being born here on earth. It wasn't something that the mind made up ...it was a fundamental and crystal clear memory of the root of what I am having pre-existed and discussed with others ...being born here and taking on a body (something that was completely outside the realm of understanding when I was asked to come here) ...there was no knowing what "born" or "body" or "earth" is...... this alone has tremendous ramifications on all of this.....


No one can possibly address this claim. Due to that, how can it be a debate point? My youngest brother had a moment that he sees as transcendent. In that episode he claims to have levitated off his chair, hovered in the air and passed through the closed window (without breaking the window glass) and stretched out in the rain as Jesus spoke to him about his destiny as "one who knows" and how he will never taste death. I know him, and in my experience of him, the most likely thing that he experienced was a psychotic break. I don't know you, and I'm not suggesting that you experienced a psychotic break when you suddenly remembered being pre-existent. What I am suggesting is that I don't know you, and therefore your claim to have remembered something that I honestly believe to be literally impossible is as valid as my brother's claim to have levitated through the wall into the air above his front yard, where he had a meeting with Jesus.

Maybe you did experience this memory, but it doesn't add anything to the discussion. Perception is what it is, and while it's valuable in its own right, it doesn't affect reality.




So, now you're a transcendent ego-less person who honestly believes that he has shed all vestiges of Identity. The ironic thing is that this is what your Intellect has chosen for its own inimitable Identity -

It has nothing to do with that. There is a knowing that the mind, what-ever it says, what-ever it thinks ....is not me. There is also a knowing that the intellect is not me either ...it is within this experience here, another faculty that can be picked up, used, then set aside when not needed. There is no need here what-so-ever for any identity.


I'm sorry, but you can say what you like, but I challenge you to defend these two assertions with logic or any version of unrelated empirical data. You are only the generated information from your brain, and within each burst of generated information (Intellect) your Primary Expression acts like the DNA in your cells to absolutely Identify that burst as having been authored by your brain. Yes, I can prove this claim by laying out a very precise logic and empirical data structure that makes it inescapable, and in my book TAKING DOWN THE CURTAIN this is what I do. Believe what you want, but if you want to offer it as fact, you'll need to be able to defend it with something. Anyone can state whatever they want to state, but none of it changes what's real.




In fact, it's a very clear and definitive Identity, and one that you aggressively display with little encouragement.

There is no way to discuss, communicate, act, do without any of these being seen without the ego ...because most think they are the ego, and most think that this is the natural and normal state. On my part there was originally a display of tremendous humor on behalf f the original post, a display of facts being that there is thousands of books and individuals in many circles of knowledge and highly respected that say the ego is not who we really are, there was a sharing of my own experiences, there at times is a need to be relentless with others, direct, to the point, and seemingly brash. But is any of that 'me' ? No ...its forms of communications and the minds expression.


Must be quite a defense in traffic court. Dude, when you open your mouth, when you type a board post, when you hit reply, it's you that's doing it. What you're claiming simply doesn't make any sense, and like I keep saying, making a claim isn't the same thing as proving it. Even a basic logical defense would be helpful, but I've yet to see anything that resembles logic associated with this notion that someone can actually shed their own existential nature at will.





The assertion of having overcome this difficult transformation is like a uniform that your Intellect dresses your corporeal body in, and then your Intellect marches that body around to the approval of others that it has decided to associate with as further evidence - to itself and to all that exists with the same realm - that this Identity that it has chosen is valid and perfectly plausible.

But the thing is ...thats not what the experience is here for myself.... there is no need for any of that. No need for others approval, no need for intellect except for certain discussion, then put away, no need to associate, and no need for identity. If any part of me needs any of that it is from the ego ...and yet nowhere will you ever find that I directly have ever said that 'I' am enlightened and that I have successfully made through the journey of ego death ....it is a misnomer, a paradox, an over-standing ...as enlightenment = no 'I' as a permanent reality.


Everything that you claim is related to your assertion that you've become enlightened and have overcome the dread ego. If your claim that you can assume the "I" in order to post here, and then immediately shed it to resume your ego-less existence isn't claiming that you've mastered the battle to conquer the ego, then I have no idea what you think such a claim is. I used to work in the entertainment industry. For 30 years I had to deal with "humble showboats", so it's not as if I don't recognize it when I run into it. The real pros are gifted at that one ability, and for the most part, that's what separated the pros from the wannabes. Talent and creativity isn't anywhere near as important as being able to self-promote without seeming full of yourself. It's a delicate balance, and no, I never mastered it (obviously).




Just no way to tell until you went and tried it for yourself. Then - of course - no one ever took the dive and came back to debunk those guys.

Exactly my point ...the only way to prove this is to try it yourself and see directly the outcome ...which in this case happens to be that 'I' isn't real ad whats left is a free-floating nondual state of no 'I' which leaves no One to come back and say anything about it. And yet mysteriously ...a body remains, a mind that can formulate sentences remains, communication abilities remain ...albeit from the view that non of those has any root identity ...and so from that perspective ....it alone can still try to formulate into words that which can only be experienced directly.....


I'm sorry, but this post completely contradicts itself. I don't know which part of the contradiction to deal with, so I'll pass. If anyone does agree with what you've posted here, it won't matter what I respond with anyway.




When claiming something like killing off the ego, the definition is so vague, and the evidence is nonexistent.

The definition is vague only if you want it to be vague and evidence is nonexistence if thats what you want to project. ANd yet we experience life everyday undoubtedly ...and yet can you prove to me that you experience life...? You can only say you do, try to back it up with MRI's, philosophically, etc ....but at the end of the day you know that you are and that you experience.


Try the kind of logic that serves the existential structure that allows you to even have a thought about any of this. Empirical data in helpful and so is philosophy (as long as it doesn't run you into a blind alley), but the fundamental tool is the same logical constant that the rest of everything is anchored on. What any of us wants doesn't matter. Reality is what it is.


See for myself all of this was at first an intellectual understanding that the possibility of ego death may indeed be true. That the only proof I can ever have is for myself to go there and see if its real. Well little by little these intellectual understandings ....some of them in due time transform into experiential knowings ....

for example you can read about the taste of strawberry ice cream, and have an intellectual understanding of it ...but the direct experience of having that ice cream just knocks everything else out of the water.

Same deal in ego death.


If you change the word "knowings" to "perceptions" in your section here then I think we can agree on what it is that transformed your perception of the concept of ego death. Really. Try it. What you describe is what makes Intellect different from data-centric information. It's human perception, pure and simple.




This can cause young Identity-seeking humans to struggle mightily in an effort that they may not be able to see for what it really is - just another version of Identity establishment by another normal human being who's no more or less than they are themselves.

But its so far from that ......there are genuine individuals who have had their own egos die permanently and are now communicated from a state of No ego.... amongst other things also saying how free and awesome and truthful that state is. It doesn't make them any different from others in the case that there is still a body with senses there and a mind to formulate, intellect etc....


My point was that they make this claim, but there's no way to validate their claims. Not a single way to verify any of it. They could be literally drowning in their own lies and there's no way to know. You say that you believe them, but that only means that you believe them. It doesn't mean that they're being honest. Also, there's that tricky issue of delusion and ignorance. Good luck trying to navigate that nightmare in the world of the transcendental.


But whats different is this. There are those who read about something and there are those who experience that something directly. That is where the separation is ......those that have only an intellectual understanding of something cannot fathom the direct experience of that something which beyond anything you can even fathom about its true nature.


Experience involves perception. The development of perspective is what occurs as a direct result of experience. Good luck with that one.




When presented as the holy grail of happiness and enlightenment, the fact that it's a carrot that'll always be inches in front of their face will seem a lot more like abject failure, and further proof that they aren't valuable as the honest and self-aware people that they are. In my eyes, that's just a negative thing to do to anyone; to set them up for failure, or worse yet, self-deception.

hats the beauty of it ...... while ego death is presented as both something that can be instant as well as gradual ..here for myself it has been the gradual path ...and as more and more of what I am is stripped away and/or seen as not I ...what starts coming into view is new faculties and transcendence and timelessness and this child like freedom and happiness that doesn't rely on anything and is not relative to anything ...and this starts in creasing more and more and more.... it is the mystery of the Now, of infinity, of transcendence....

To the ego ..its own demise seems counter productive ...until what is gained in its loss is seen as the better alternative. Of course this is seen by the ego and starts the path for it to agree to cooperate in its own demise ...which then later comes the state where it is no more.


These are good riffs, but nothing that you claim is even fully described. None of it. I don't know if you can tell, but I have a pretty good ability to connect dots and find the whole within a gathering of presented parts. I've read these posts and run the links down to be honest, none of it presents a coherent whole. It reminds me of lyrics to David Bowie songs - just a collection of phrases that don't really amount to anything in the end. No big deal when it comes to pop songs, but when basing one's approach to reality on riffs...I don't know....I wouldn't choose to.




Others can see this as they wish, but this is how I see it.

Yeah you know I saw all of this once the same way you do. Not only that but I also went as far as to say that ego death is bonkers, leaves one in a vegatative state, counter productive, and absolute madness .....

....but upon further examination it was not to be so. However this implies one should leave one's self open to being wrong and open to any possible possibility. For you to say that this is how you see it ......leaves your current perspective shackled to a limit.

Even these conversations are alone worthy of complete dismantling and critical examination of every said subject, word, semantics ...dismantle and reassemble.

If you get a chance check out some books on nonduality, try Rupert Spira, Gred Goode, check out Advaita Vedanata, Nisargadatta ..... I really have to say the way you think and word things ...you would really get a kick out of these authors.


If you'd like to better understand why I see things as I do, then I invite you to try taking my book on. The link is in my signature and at least you'll know exactly why reality looks as it does to me. Yes, I will look into these authors. This is my year for doing that work. Thank you for those names.
edit on 1/19/2011 by NorEaster because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics


active topics

 
6
<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in

join