Giving up The Ego to become a slave...

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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...

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.

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.