To Vilify the Ego

Originally posted by AfterInfinity

Not if this universe is one of the longer-lasting failures in an infinite series of failures. Something of an inconstant multiverse where every universe is randomly composed of a randomized assortment of principles and particles. All will likely be failures, some will last longer than others. This universe appears to have been a success because we have nothing to compare it to in our relative ignorance. Your theory requires that we possess a complete knowledge of everything that exists, has ever existed, and ever will exist. You lack the comprehension by which to establish an objective comparison. We all do.

But there still has to be some form of intelligence in order for 'principles' and 'particles' to even hold any sort of existence. They have to be based on something. Your claim of an inconsistent multiverse does not conflict with my theory as much as you think it does. It simply states that 'God' or first cause is not as intelligent as I theorized. Even if we are just an 'apparent success' in an infinite line of failures, the fact that such a success has even the tiniest probability of occurring shows that there must be some sort of intelligence. Not to mention the fact that the possibility of any universe, success or failure, has ground to exist in the first place.

reply to post by bb23108

That you simply are the witness of whatever arises and that this one does not age?

Ahh yes I recall. I will accept this definition: "Witness to all that is arising".

If you don't mind giving me just a little more info, as it somewhat begs the question: What does it mean to witness? What is "all that is arising"?

This helps me understand a bit.

Originally posted by bb23108
You are once again assuming that I am saying the body-mind does not have these functions of observing and knowing. It most certainly does have these other functions! See my definition. Regarding awareness, it is self-evident and does not observe itself. How would that work? How could one even as an observer, observe the observer?

If the observer is unaware of another aspect of themselves observing themselves, then this unknown observer can be said to be observing the observer.

I believe that the state of non-dual awareness being discussed in this thread is yet another aspect of ego, or what I consider the observer ego. It is still within the realm of mind, but removed from identification and participation with bodily and mental functions of waking consciousness.

Originally posted by LesMisanthrope
reply to post by bb23108

 

That you simply are the witness of whatever arises and that this one does not age?

Ahh yes I recall. I will accept this definition: "Witness to all that is arising".

If you don't mind giving me just a little more info, as it somewhat begs the question: What does it mean to witness? What is "all that is arising"?

This helps me understand a bit.

Witness is experiencer and all that is arising is experience. You are not the experience, but you are experiencing it. That is why it can be said that you are not the ego, because you are experiencing it. This would hold true, even if consciousness was a neural process.

Here's how I see it:

I am sure everyone has heard of the theory of dark matter. Dark matter is like 'God' or intelligent first cause; It cannot be observed directly, however we assume that it exists because of the effect (or, in God's case, the cause) it has on the universe. Objectively, both theories are equally plausible, however many scientists have developed biased opinions on the matter and reject any idea of a creator all together (probably due in part to the stereotypical fanaticism of many theologists). In that, they have successfully deflected possibly the most important and fundamental question in science, which is, "what caused the universe".

reply to post by LesMisanthrope

Originally posted by LesMisanthrope
Ahh yes I recall. I will accept this definition: "Witness to all that is arising".

Actually, a few posts later during the "definition phase", I said this:

"Awareness is simply the witness regardless of what arises. It is not separate or abstracted from what arises, as the observer or knower is."

Originally posted by LesMisanthrope
If you don't mind giving me just a little more info, as it somewhat begs the question: What does it mean to witness? What is "all that is arising"?

To simply be aware of whatever conditions are arising (in terms of objects and others). It is being or consciousness itself - not an adjective as AfterInfinity was defining the term "aware".

reply to post by mysticnoon

Originally posted by mysticnoon
I believe that the state of non-dual awareness being discussed in this thread is yet another aspect of ego, or what I consider the observer ego. It is still within the realm of mind, but removed from identification and participation with bodily and mental functions of waking consciousness.

Yes, the observer function is of the mind - to know or observe an object in order to seek knowledge. This is definitely a mental function and concentration as the observer frequently leads to becoming abstracted from the physical and emotional aspects of the whole body-mind. This is the intent of some eastern techniques.

The observer function is commonly confused with the Witness Consciousness, which is Reality Itself, or Awareness. This is what the actual realizers of the truth of non-dualism speak of - not the observer function of mind.

The Witness Consciousness is Reality and when associated with the body-mind via attention at the causal root, it becomes apparently individuated awareness. True realizers of non-dualism understand this association at the causal root, and the heart is flooded with the love-bliss of Reality when such true recognition occurs.

A true realizer always emanates this inherently recognizable love that practitioners of the mind-based observer function do not, because the latter have not fully transcended the knot of egoity at the causal heart, and tend to remain fixed in the head, perhaps having insight into the truth of non-duality, but mainly at the level of mind, not altogether transcendentally, spiritually, and whole bodily - beyond the causal root of egoity.

You got all this (relative to the definition of awareness), LesMis?

reply to post by HarryTZ

Originally posted by HarryTZ
Witness is experiencer and all that is arising is experience. You are not the experience, but you are experiencing it.

What you are describing sounds more like the observer function of mind that is separate from what is arising and thus experiences what is arising, as an experiencer.

The witness consciousness or awareness simply abides as witness, not separate from all arising, not an experiencer. Ultimately, there is only one event - Reality Itself or Awareness and what arises is a non-separate modification of that very Reality which simply acausally witnesses.

reply to post by bb23108


Yes, however I am explaining it in a way that will make it more obvious that one is not the ego. Of course, if one is everything, that 'everything' must also include ego, but the, shall we say, 'ownership' over ego is no greater or less than the 'ownership' of anything else in existence.

reply to post by HarryTZ

Originally posted by HarryTZ
...however many scientists have developed biased opinions on the matter and reject any idea of a creator all together (probably due in part to the stereotypical fanaticism of many theologists). In that, they have successfully deflected possibly the most important and fundamental question in science, which is, "what caused the universe".

Scientists are right - there is no grand Creator-God, nor Creative Design, nor First-Cause-Creator.

Absolute Consciousness is Unconditional and does not have a causal relationship to any conditions. Conditions create more conditions in an endless pattern of replication, flushing out what works and what does not work, as science tells us. What Perfectly Loving Creator-God would have created this place? No way such a Creator-God or some Intelligent Design(er) created a world that can wipe out thousands of innocents with a single act of nature.

Regardless, the most important question for everyone (rationalists, creationists, and esoteric spiritual practitioners) is what is awareness or consciousness, not what created all these conditions. Once the unconditional Reality is realized, or even recognized with some depth, conditionality as an unnecessary modification of the unconditional Reality (or Consciousness) becomes obvious.

reply to post by HarryTZ

Originally posted by HarryTZ
Of course, if one is everything, that 'everything' must also include ego, but the, shall we say, 'ownership' over ego is no greater or less than the 'ownership' of anything else in existence.

One is not everything. That is a grandiose idea of the ego. Everything arises in Consciousness and is simply witnessed. The "one" you are referring to is utterly transcended in Consciousness. This is why actual God-Realization is extremely rare - few can let it ALL go altogether, and it is Grace-given regardless.

Anywho... more than enough talk from me for now!

reply to post by bb23108


What I was referring to as 'God' is simply another word for Absolute Consciousness as you described it. While it may be independent of any condition, it still created the universe in which conditions seemingly (however illusory they may be) exist. Life was allowed to question and even doubt its origin as Absolute Consciousness.

Originally posted by bb23108
reply to post by HarryTZ

 

Originally posted by HarryTZ
Of course, if one is everything, that 'everything' must also include ego, but the, shall we say, 'ownership' over ego is no greater or less than the 'ownership' of anything else in existence.

One is not everything. That is a grandiose idea of the ego. Everything arises in Consciousness and is simply witnessed. The "one" you are referring to is utterly transcended in Consciousness. This is why actual God-Realization is extremely rare - few can let it ALL go altogether, and it is Grace-given regardless.

Anywho... more than enough talk from me for now!

edit on 5/23/2013 by bb23108 because: (no reason given)

As I have made clear, I do know this, however words are limited and I am using vocabulary that makes it easiest to understand.
It is still acceptable to say 'one' however, because each of the experiences that is labeled as 'you' and 'me' are fundamentally separate, while at the same time fundamentally connected. Ultimate reality is very paradoxical, if I may say so myself.

reply to post by bb23108

A true realizer always emanates this inherently recognizable love that practitioners of the mind-based observer function do not, because the latter have not fully transcended the knot of egoity at the causal heart, and tend to remain fixed in the head, perhaps having insight into the truth of non-duality, but mainly at the level of mind, not altogether transcendentally, spiritually, and whole bodily - beyond the causal root of egoity.

You got all this, LesMis?

I'm lost. I feel like I'm walking through an abstract forest, appealing to my imagination to invent some sort of meaning to these words. We are not going to get anywhere I'm afraid.

But I do understand the psychology behind the paragraph I quoted:

You choose to gravitate towards "true realizers"—which I can only fathom are gurus, or more specifically, ones you enjoy listening to and being around because they speak a certain way in a certain language—thus you translate and express your reality how he would, simply because it satisfies your emotions, thoughts and desires, as do mine when I speak and see the world a certain way. There's nothing wrong with that.

But all egotism aside. Though we talk with different language, using different terms, we're still seems we are talking about the same thing: the body, the mind, consciousness, transcendental spiritual awareness, the ego—all abstractions together in one continuous experience—that of the human organism. To deny a piece of it, is to deny a piece of yourself. I cannot see it any other way.

Anyways, we should stop this here; I'd hate for you to have to interact with a mind-based observer any longer.

*Exit

reply to post by InTheLight


It's only temporal. We fall, fractioning ourselves, to enter into this testing ground. And if you knew all your life that having to even use washroom facilities is a primitive horror, and that no one had to argue, for they knew each other through the universal understanding, inside out, connected and plugged in, and no one would ever harm or ignore another for any reason, not even a small insect, and you cannot wait to go home, then this temple is a temple because we have a bungee cord, our third eye, to our Creator/Source and Higher Self, if we purify and become Love.

The way of the sorcerer, forcing your third eye open on a lower frequency on the other hand is dialing wrong numbers. This needs to be done on high frequency of giving.

The part about the temple simply means, that your Life Force Within Comes From the Divine, and that you are Connected To The Divine/Family and Higher Self, not that anyone would wish to be fallen in this state, and not all souls are in this state, many do not fall. This is a like unto like school for those who believe in warfare. Spirit/Soul on higher levels do not need this body suit to connect to Source.


Sarah Brightman - The Journey Home

I'm going back to where my heart was light When my pillow was a ship, I sailed through the night

Here's a very interesting paper which talks about the potential for an infinite amount of phenomena, existing as consciousness. It was translated from Portuguese:

English translation

Original Portuguese version

Basically what it describes is that the math behind any phenomena that exists must have been predetermined. It makes it close to impossible to refute the existence of an intelligent creator.

Originally posted by Kgnow
reply to post by LesMisanthrope

 

...

And then when we understand that ego is needed in order for there to be 'difference' amongst the unity,... we are able to be free of conditioning and embrace our individuality. We rejoice in the difference of others.

Before any reaction, unconscious or not, you first have to accept what is in this moment, right now, only then can you find that understanding that it is a useful thing, whatever it is, that we call Ego's.

remember, its been running on autopilot for as long as you have been alive in this realm of forms,

if you have come to the awareness of its cunning forms and how they effect your experiences, then you are close to realizing how you can use it for your own deeper learning.


consider this with a sense of light humor,

perhaps it is considered a separate entity in a way that "Being" (that higher intelligence in the background) is held within the container, the container (your body of form) comes with its own, low level software (ego's), its up to you to figure out that the software isn't you, and that it doesn't control your experience throughout this colorful ride of what we call life or "realm of forms".



Muzz

reply to post by bb23108

This is the fundamental difference between the materialistic definition and the self-evident definition of many spiritual practitioners. As I have said innumerable times, the twain ain't gonna meet on this one!

You really can't help it, can you? You are too frustrated and too disrespectful to too many of us for me to continue with you. Adios.

Disrespectful? No. I just have no patience for something that can be described thus:

You choose to gravitate towards "true realizers"—which I can only fathom are gurus, or more specifically, ones you enjoy listening to and being around because they speak a certain way in a certain language—thus you translate and express your reality how he would, simply because it satisfies your emotions, thoughts and desires, as do mine when I speak and see the world a certain way. There's nothing wrong with that.

But all egotism aside. Though we talk with different language, using different terms, we're still seems we are talking about the same thing: the body, the mind, consciousness, transcendental spiritual awareness, the ego—all abstractions together in one continuous experience—that of the human organism. To deny a piece of it, is to deny a piece of yourself. I cannot see it any other way.

Anyways, we should stop this here; I'd hate for you to have to interact with a mind-based observer any longer.

The practice described above is a cycle designed purely for emotional satisfaction. Emotional satisfaction, to me, bears little meaning if it does not feature some sort of significant anchor in our physical reality. It must play into the pattern, I suppose you could say. Otherwise, it's a futile distraction. And, quite frankly, you've failed to substantiate your claims in even the slightest degree. Gurus don't count for substantiation, as you haven't substantiated their claims either.

It is self-evident, eh? Clearly not. Anything that is self-evident is there to be seen by anyone who is not mentally incapacitated. And no, I'm not incapacitated. Your term of "self-evident" feels like little more than a thin veil to protect you from having to present any significant evidence, of which you have none. Without evidence, I am unable to determine where in the pattern of scientific reality your theories are supported, and without that, we are at an impasse. Again.

That's where I'm coming from on this, and where we clearly differ. LesMis, as shown above, has clearly expressed my feelings in the matter, albeit with a more distinct undertone of respect, and I have nothing more to say here. Adieu.

Originally posted by AfterInfinity

The practice described above is a cycle designed purely for emotional satisfaction. Emotional satisfaction, to me, bears little meaning if it does not feature some sort of significant anchor in our physical reality. It must play into the pattern, I suppose you could say. Otherwise, it's a futile distraction. And, quite frankly, you've failed to substantiate your claims in even the slightest degree. Gurus don't count for substantiation, as you haven't substantiated their claims either.

Of course, the followers were never actually meant to become emotionally reliant on their gurus, yogis, masters, etc.. It was never their desire to have such a thing occur. In fact, and this would be evident if you were to spend 5 minutes or more researching their teachings, their goal is to render as many people as possible absolutely independent. I think the issue here is that you are making judgements without any real prior knowledge of the subject. I invite you to not.

Also, did you read my posts above? I think you would find them interesting.

Originally posted by HarryTZ
What I was referring to as 'God' is simply another word for Absolute Consciousness as you described it. While it may be independent of any condition, it still created the universe in which conditions seemingly (however illusory they may be) exist. Life was allowed to question and even doubt its origin as Absolute Consciousness.

I do not see God or Consciousness as causally related to the world, but simply as Witness in which all arising is a modification of that indivisible unconditional Conscious Light. The cause-and-effect laws of conditionality endlessly cause more and more conditions...