To Vilify the Ego

page: 18
17
<< 15  16  17   >>

log in

join

posted on May, 24 2013 @ 12:31 PM
link   
reply to post by LesMisanthrope
 


Originally posted by LesMisanthrope
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.
I have not denied any piece of it, nor ever villified the body-mind, nor do I think the ego should be destroyed. I agree with you that the body-mind (ego-I) is process - i.e., change, observable from a point-of-view, etc., etc.

But the question is, is there being, not just process? You say awareness or consciousness is process-based, whereas others say that fundamental awareness is beyond process only - and is being, our very condition, even prior to conditions. The latter is obviously not self-evident to you, AfterInfinity, and others - but it is to myself and others as well.

As an example, I will assume that you or your wife is pregnant with your unborn son as you at least indicated yesterday. You also asked me yesterday where is the awareness of your unborn son?

Do you not feel that new being inside her? (I am now assuming you are male.) If not, then persist in your feeling love for him and you may even feel his being in her. When my wife and I decided to have a child there were several attempts, but on one particular night it was utterly obvious to both of us that some force of being moved into her from beyond this physical realm. A few weeks later, no period, she was pregnant. That same energy was obvious throughout her pregnancy.

Some of your posts, and one that AfterInfinity posted yesterday about his seeing awareness as a tool (in fact, he preferred the adjective "aware" for his definition), helped me to see further the difference relative to process as defined by the adjective "aware" vs. being as indicated by the noun "awareness".

I did consider this a good idea for a thread, but unfortunately given your post, I think not.


Originally posted by LesMisanthrope
I'd hate for you to have to interact with a mind-based observer any longer.
That is mean and uncalled for, LesMis, especially given how much I have participated in so many of your threads.

Of course, you are welcome to you own views about me, but if after all this time and consideration, you, AfterInfinity, and who knows who else, still think I am just some naive believer, allowing you to discount everything I have spoken about, then it must be time to say goodbye as well.

The best to you and yours.

edit on 5/24/2013 by bb23108 because: Reversed order of my last two posts.




posted on May, 24 2013 @ 05:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by bb23108
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?




Originally posted by LesMisanthrope
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

After re-reading your post quoted above and also my post you responded to, I am wondering if you misunderstood what I was getting at. I think you did and I can now see why. So my apologies for my part in this misunderstanding.

I was not trying to insult you by my little comment at the end of that post. I was simply going into some depth about the Witness when responding to mysticnoon about his observation - and I realized at the end of writing all that about the Witness Consciousness, that it was going to probably be difficult to integrate all that I said into a further definition of Awareness!

So I only meant to rib you a little about the near impossibility for a definition that would suit you and I. That is all I meant by that comment at the end. I can now see you took it differently, and also why.

However, I also now see given the two quotes above, that you missed that I clarified what I was saying in that final line - that it was regarding the definition of the Awareness.

*******

Also, I do think a thread concerning Awareness: Being and/or Process? could be interesting. But at this point I have no time to tend to a thread, nor any inclination to do so. Maybe someday, who knows.

I do feel a bit disappointed that you seem to liken me to some kind of naive believer after all that I have written - but maybe I am also misunderstanding your communication here. Anyway, I have always appreciated our dialog and wanted to say as much again to you, before moving on to what is next for me.

I sent you a U2U with this message, but also wanted to post it here given it appears we had a communication mishap!

Best,
bb
edit on 5/24/2013 by bb23108 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 25 2013 @ 11:05 AM
link   
reply to post by bb23108
 




Some of your posts, and one that AfterInfinity posted yesterday about his seeing awareness as a tool (in fact, he preferred the adjective "aware" for his definition), helped me to see further the difference relative to process as defined by the adjective "aware" vs. being as indicated by the noun "awareness".


I said the body is a tool. The awareness is the user of that tool. I am both the tool and its wielder.



posted on May, 25 2013 @ 12:44 PM
link   
reply to post by AfterInfinity
 


So if I ran over you with a car, and somehow you survive but are rendered completely paralyzed from the neck down... you still identify with your body?



posted on May, 28 2013 @ 05:51 PM
link   
reply to post by HarryTZ
 




So if I ran over you with a car, and somehow you survive but are rendered completely paralyzed from the neck down... you still identify with your body?


Without my body, I am nothing. Without me, my body is nothing. We are in a symbiotic relationship in which each defines the other's identity. I am synonymous with my body because in my experience and the experience of others, I have never had nor will ever have another body. This body is a precise embodiment of the life I have lived and the person I have become. My physicality is an organic mascot, a three dimensional trademark, for my identity.

Can you prove otherwise?



posted on May, 28 2013 @ 08:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by HarryTZ
 




So if I ran over you with a car, and somehow you survive but are rendered completely paralyzed from the neck down... you still identify with your body?


I have never had nor will ever have another body. This body is a precise embodiment of the life I have lived and the person I have become. My physicality is an organic mascot, a three dimensional trademark, for my identity.

Can you prove otherwise?


Can you prove that you have never had nor will ever have another body? That is a belief, just as believing that you DID have another body or WILL have another body is a belief. It is all beliefs and none of them can be known for sure with absolute certainty. Even if you say "the evidence appear to be this way than that way" a person with the opposite beliefs can find whatever evidence out here to justify theirs and then the arguments begin trying to dismiss each other's evidences as "not sufficient".



posted on May, 29 2013 @ 10:09 AM
link   
reply to post by arpgme
 



Can you prove that you have never had nor will ever have another body? That is a belief, just as believing that you DID have another body or WILL have another body is a belief. It is all beliefs and none of them can be known for sure with absolute certainty. Even if you say "the evidence appear to be this way than that way" a person with the opposite beliefs can find whatever evidence out here to justify theirs and then the arguments begin trying to dismiss each other's evidences as "not sufficient".



My argument here is that the ego is a natural part of us. Even psychology says so. In fact, psychology labels the ego has the intermediary between our animalistic instincts and our higher functioning cognition.

Vilifying the ego is about as productive as hating your left hand for having four fingers and a thumb. If you were more productive with yourself, you might have less reasons to hate yourself. And that's exactly what vilifying the ego is.





top topics
 
17
<< 15  16  17   >>

log in

join