To Vilify the Ego

reply to post by dominicus

The REAL: YOU, is Awareness, the Observer that is within. (Which has a source as well)

The Ego, Thinker of thoughts, is NOT THE REAL YOU.

It is especially easy to simply assert without offering an argument or something that may help verify these claims, but all I see is someone dogmatically expressing an idea in the off-chance someone is impressionable enough to believe him.

Since I am not impressionable, I will simply assert the opposite: you're wrong.

There is a very VERY fine border between the two and the majority 99.9% are wrapped in ego and do not know the Awareness/Observer to be the real self.

It requires a shift, and awakening of various sorts to realize this. If you don't realize this then it is only natural that a person will defend the ego and claim that is a person. But it's not

Once again, I will do as you and simply assert, in the off-chance someone is impressionable enough to have others do their thinking for them.

100% are wrapped in ego because they are the ego. There is no fine line. If you don't realize this then it is only natural that a person will vilify the ego and claim that it isn't a part of them. But it is. Because it is them.

reply to post by LesMisanthrope


Are you the thoughts, the desires, the wants and the needs, that you experience in your head? Is that who you are? That is like saying you are the sound that comes to your ears, the light you see with your eyes. And you would never claim to be those things. You are the witness.

reply to post by HarryTZ


None of that makes any sense. It's all contradictory.

reply to post by LesMisanthrope


That's exactly how I see it. All Harry has done is make claims without substantiating them, assuming that his experiences are all that reality has to offer, or define everything that reality is, when they are simply that: his experiences. His life does not define reality. His claims do not substantiate themselves.

If he can make a case for his beliefs, then let him. But for now, all he has done is bluster.

reply to post by HarryTZ

Are you the thoughts, the desires, the wants and the needs, that you experience in your head? Is that who you are? That is like saying you are the sound that comes to your ears, the light you see with your eyes. And you would never claim to be those things. You are the witness.

No. Big difference. The thoughts, desires, and needs are all REACTIONS. They come from within, unlike the sound that comes to your ears. As a conscious witness with an ego, you have a reaction to such stimuli that you are aware of, that you recognize and acknowledge.

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by HarryTZ

 

None of that makes any sense. It's all contradictory.

The quotes? What is contradictory about them? It is wisdom. That's how I see it, anyways.

Originally posted by AfterInfinity

No. Big difference. The thoughts, desires, and needs are all REACTIONS. They come from within, unlike the sound that comes to your ears. As a conscious witness with an ego, you have a reaction to such stimuli that you are aware of, that you recognize and acknowledge.

The source of the stimuli makes no difference. It is stimuli, either way. Whether it comes from the witnessing of events or memories does not matter. They are all gathered from external situations.

reply to post by HarryTZ

Are you the thoughts, the desires, the wants and the needs, that you experience in your head? Is that who you are? That is like saying you are the sound that comes to your ears, the light you see with your eyes. And you would never claim to be those things. You are the witness.

Where do those thoughts and urges arise from? When you are hungry do you eat? When you are thirsty do you drink? Why would you eat and drink if you are not also your urges?

It is your desire and fears that forces you to think it is the witness only.

reply to post by LesMisanthrope


They arise from the fact that you have a body that needs sustenance. The feeling of hunger or thirst originates as electrical impulses in the brain. You are witnessing the subjectivity of these impulses. You are not them. If I removed the part of the brain that registers hunger, did I 'take away' from you? did you become less conscious? Of course not, you just stopped experiencing hunger.

The realized being knows this, and would never say 'I am hungry'. Instead, he would say 'The body is hungry'.

Originally posted by Itisnowagain

Originally posted by mysticnoon

Originally posted by HarryTZ
reply to post by mysticnoon

 

That is an invalid question.

I could also say that yours is an invalid response, but that would not contribute to any further understanding.

So am I to assume that in your view of creation, there is no reason for it to exist?

Does it need a reason?

So creation just is? Is not ego part and parcel of creation? Then ego just is, is it not?

Perhaps I am misunderstanding your philosophy or point of view, but the only clear distinction I see between your view and the atheist perspective is the primacy of consciousness and your particular method of attaining a serene state of mind.

reply to post by HarryTZ


So you find peace in denying any sort of identity regarding your body. You maintain a distinct division of you and the body, which removes you from the suffering of this existence. I don't see that as being an altogether healthy practice...considering this invites something of a dissociative disorder.

reply to post by mysticnoon


Creation just is. Existence wanted to create the universe. It created it.
And the difference between an atheist and a seeker is that the atheist is stupid. The universe is an accident, they say. How ridiculous is that? The seeker is intelligent.

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by HarryTZ

 

So you find peace in denying any sort of identity regarding your body. You maintain a distinct division of you and the body, which removes you from the suffering of this existence. I don't see that as being an altogether healthy practice...considering this invites something of a dissociative disorder.

I am not 'denying' anything. I am simply seeing what is so. Don't get me wrong, though. I am the body. But I am also everything else in existence.

Again I will ask, did the Buddha have a 'dissociative disorder'? Did Jesus? And if you watched the video of Sadhguru, I am sure you can easily see that he had no such disorder. Disorders are of the mind. These people are beyond the mind.

And you never answered my question. You said something was contradictory, did you mean the quotes?

reply to post by HarryTZ

I am not 'denying' anything. I am simply seeing what is so. Don't get me wrong, though. I am the body. But I am also everything else in existence.

Again I will ask, did the Buddha have a 'dissociative disorder'? Did Jesus? And if you watched the video of Sadhguru, I am sure you can easily see that he had no such disorder. Disorders are of the mind. These people are beyond the mind.

They didn't claim to be the embodiment of the universe. And these people are very much of the mind. They are just as human as the rest of us. You seem to have a very surreal understanding of them, like you have something against being just human.

Something about that irritates me, like being human isn't good enough for you so you have to make up excuses to believe you're something more. That's hubris, right there.

Originally posted by AfterInfinity

They didn't claim to be the embodiment of the universe. And these people are very much of the mind. They are just as human as the rest of us. You seem to have a very surreal understanding of them, like you have something against being just human.

Actually, they did. In fact, most of them directly stated what you are saying they did not.
Did Jesus not say, "The Father and I are not two, but One."?
As goes the old Sufi proverb, "I searched for God, and found only myself. I searched for myself and found only God."

Something about that irritates me, like being human isn't good enough for you so you have to make up excuses to believe you're something more. That's hubris, right there.

What do you believe you are? I tell you, you are not a human being. You are a being, being human. Label this 'hubris' or 'arrogant' all you like. Eventually you will have to wake up to truth. Your judgements will not bring you there.

Originally posted by HarryTZ
reply to post by mysticnoon

 

Creation just is. Existence wanted to create the universe. It created it.
And the difference between an atheist and a seeker is that the atheist is stupid. The universe is an accident, they say. How ridiculous is that? The seeker is intelligent.

edit on 21-5-2013 by HarryTZ because: (no reason given)

In your view, then, existence does have will?

I do not agree that atheists are stupid. Most atheists I encounter ask very reasonable questions, and I assume they remain atheists becasue they fail to receive a reasonable answer to their questions.

reply to post by HarryTZ

What do you believe you are? I tell you, you are not a human being. You are a being, being human. Label this 'hubris' or 'arrogant' all you like. Eventually you will have to wake up to truth. Your judgements will not bring you there.

Prove to me that I am not a human being.

Originally posted by HarryTZ
The realized being knows this, and would never say 'I am hungry'. Instead, he would say 'The body is hungry'.

If he/she is a realized being, then he/she would understand that "I am hungry" is simply a consensual manner of expressing the body's hunger among civilized members of society. The realized being would not find it necessary to use the uncommon expression, "the body is hungry".

reply to post by HarryTZ

If I removed the part of the brain that registers hunger, did I 'take away' from you? did you become less conscious? Of course not, you just stopped experiencing hunger.

I would become less conscious of the fact that I need to eat and that I am starving to death. I become less conscious of my impending demise. You've essentially killed me.

Originally posted by AfterInfinity

Prove to me that I am not a human being.

I would, but I would have to kill you first.
All jokes aside, I cannot prove to you that you are not a human being. You must come to this conclusion on your own.

Originally posted by mysticnoon

If he/she is a realized being, then he/she would understand that "I am hungry" is simply a consensual manner of expressing the body's hunger among civilized members of society. The realized being would not find it necessary to use the uncommon expression, "the body is hungry".

If the realized being was around other people, he would probably say, "the body is hungry", in order to jar their usual identification with the body.