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.

 

To Vilify the Ego

page: 8
17
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 22 2013 @ 10:50 AM
link   
reply to post by dominicus
 



The real you is inherently without ego. In deep sleep, before you took up a body, and after the body dies, you will remain without ego.

Without the ego there is everything and it is One


"The real me is inherently without ego". This is incorrect because without ego, there is no me at all. I do not exist. I am absolutely indistinguishable from what surrounds me. Therefore, I am not alive at all because there is no me to be alive.




posted on May, 22 2013 @ 10:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
"The real me is inherently without ego". This is incorrect because without ego, there is no me at all. I do not exist. I am absolutely indistinguishable from what surrounds me. Therefore, I am not alive at all because there is no me to be alive.


That is still correct; without the illusion of the body there is just the infinite field of consciousness. This is not an 'identity' because what I am describing is Absolute reality, absolute emptiness. This emptiness is so empty that it had no choice but to sink into self-awareness. 'You' are this. 'All' of it.



posted on May, 22 2013 @ 10:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by dominicus
 



The real you is inherently without ego. In deep sleep, before you took up a body, and after the body dies, you will remain without ego.

Without the ego there is everything and it is One


"The real me is inherently without ego". This is incorrect because without ego, there is no me at all. I do not exist. I am absolutely indistinguishable from what surrounds me. Therefore, I am not alive at all because there is no me to be alive.

There is no me separate to this - there is only this.
'Me' is a projection, an illusion. 'Me' plays in time but it does so presently. It is the dream of separation.

The 'me' is a believed in entity that does not actually exist but because it is believed in it causes all the suffering in the world. It is absolutely crazy.
edit on 22-5-2013 by Itisnowagain because: Added second bit.



posted on May, 22 2013 @ 11:09 AM
link   
reply to post by HarryTZ
 


Originally posted by HarryTZ
In a way, solipsism is a truth. I am the entirety of the infinite field of consciousness.
In no way is solipsism the case because in Reality there is absolutely no "I". We console ourselves with notions that somehow absolute Enlightenment is equivalent to an "I" realizing that IT IS ALL, but this is not the case - there is no "I" left over to enjoy "being" Reality, as our ego likes to think in terms of.

This is the very reason that ultimate Realization is extremely rare. Releasing the last vestige of ego-I at the causal root of attention itself, is almost never realized and confessed - and is rarely even understood as a necessary aspect of the process. Rather, some form of ego-I, albeit extremely subtle in various cases, is still maintained for any number of reasons.



edit on 5/22/2013 by bb23108 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 22 2013 @ 11:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by bb23108

Originally posted by HarryTZ
In a way, solipsism is a truth. I am the entirety of the infinite field of consciousness.
In no way is solipsism the case because in Reality there is absolutely no "I". We console ourselves with notions that somehow absolute Enlightenment is equivalent to an "I" realizing it IS ALL, but this is not the case - there is no "I" left over to enjoy "being" Reality, as our ego likes to think in terms of.

This is the very reason that ultimate Realization is extremely rare. Releasing the last vestige of ego-I at the causal root of attention itself, is almost never realized and confessed - and is rarely even understood as a necessary aspect of the process. Rather, some form of ego-I, albeit extremely subtle in various cases, is still maintained for any number of reasons.


I know this, of course, however I am limited by words, and in this case and the last, I have no choice but to use the word 'I'.



posted on May, 22 2013 @ 11:16 AM
link   
reply to post by bb23108
 




Where is everything? Where is all space? Or where is That in which everything arises and is a modification of?

Such questions have no answer that will satisfy the mind in its need to objectify, know, and contain anything and everything.


So it is akin to asking "where is nothing"? I think we all know the answer to this question fundamentally.



posted on May, 22 2013 @ 11:18 AM
link   
reply to post by HarryTZ
 



Exactly correct. Nothing is objective and can never be objective, because the very definition of nothing is subjectivity. You cannot observe nothing, you are all of nothing.


Remind me what your degrees are? Because all you've done is make these wild assertions without a single scrap of evidence to back them up. I want to know that you have the education and experience necessary to make these claims with any kind of credibility. And quite frankly, you've given us nothing.



posted on May, 22 2013 @ 11:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by LesMisanthrope
reply to post by bb23108
 




Where is everything? Where is all space? Or where is That in which everything arises and is a modification of?

Such questions have no answer that will satisfy the mind in its need to objectify, know, and contain anything and everything.


So it is akin to asking "where is nothing"? I think we all know the answer to this question fundamentally.

Everywhere and nowhere.



posted on May, 22 2013 @ 11:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by LesMisanthrope
So it is akin to asking "where is nothing"? I think we all know the answer to this question fundamentally.


Take out the 'where' and you are left with... is nothing...



posted on May, 22 2013 @ 11:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by AfterInfinity

Exactly correct. Nothing is objective and can never be objective, because the very definition of nothing is subjectivity. You cannot observe nothing, you are all of nothing.


Remind me what your degrees are? Because all you've done is make these wild assertions without a single scrap of evidence to back them up. I want to know that you have the education and experience necessary to make these claims with any kind of credibility. And quite frankly, you've given us nothing.


What else is there for me to give you... but nothing?

My degrees? You mean, a piece of paper proving my ignorance? I think not.

What I speak of is an experience. It's not something you can 'study' or 'learn about'. You must experience it, as I have. If you really want to know, stop asking for external evidence and look in yourself.
edit on 22-5-2013 by HarryTZ because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 22 2013 @ 11:25 AM
link   
reply to post by LesMisanthrope
 


Look what you've done, LesMis. You have unleashed a torrent of armchair mysticism stating that we are nothing and we are everything and everything is us and nothing is us. We are the universe, there is no 'we', we are figments of a nonexistent imagination belonging to the nothing that we are.

It's a bunch of cockamamie rhetorical.



posted on May, 22 2013 @ 11:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
Look what you've done, LesMis. You have unleashed a torrent of armchair mysticism stating that we are nothing and we are everything and everything is us and nothing is us. We are the universe, there is no 'we', we are figments of a nonexistent imagination belonging to the nothing that we are.

It's a bunch of cockamamie rhetorical.


'Armchair mysticism' that has not withered away for tens of thousands of years but that has grown exponentially, in harmony with the sciences of today. If you have a better explanation for everything, please, I would like to hear it.



posted on May, 22 2013 @ 11:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by LesMisanthrope
reply to post by bb23108
 




Where is everything? Where is all space? Or where is That in which everything arises and is a modification of?

Such questions have no answer that will satisfy the mind in its need to objectify, know, and contain anything and everything.


So it is akin to asking "where is nothing"? I think we all know the answer to this question fundamentally.

What answer do you think we all know fundamentally, in your opinion?
Where is nothing?
edit on 22-5-2013 by Itisnowagain because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 22 2013 @ 11:41 AM
link   
reply to post by AfterInfinity
 



Look what you've done, LesMis. You have unleashed a torrent of armchair mysticism stating that we are nothing and we are everything and everything is us and nothing is us. We are the universe, there is no 'we', we are figments of a nonexistent imagination belonging to the nothing that we are.

It's a bunch of cockamamie rhetorical.


The funny thing is, all of this "knowledge" is acquired through that which they say they aren't. "Knowing" (still not quite sure what they mean by this) involves first physically existing. "Realizing" involves first physically existing. "Exploring inner worlds" requires first a thinking agent. Believing their own insights involves first desire, an aspect of the ego. Knowing, realizing, and believing is the product of existing physically. Every "truth" they've arrived at has been done so as they've been living human organisms, something they claim they aren't.

If it wasn't their thoughts, their mind, or their bodily presence that led them to believe as they believe, we must infer that they were somehow touched by the divine through revelation. We all know what that's about.



posted on May, 22 2013 @ 11:42 AM
link   
reply to post by Itisnowagain
 




What answer do you think we all know fundamentally, in your opinion?
Where is nothing?

Nowhere.



posted on May, 22 2013 @ 11:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by LesMisanthrope
reply to post by Itisnowagain
 




What answer do you think we all know fundamentally, in your opinion?
Where is nothing?

Nowhere.

Now and here = nowhere.
Presence is all there is - it is not a thing - it is nothing.
Nothing is happening.
Emptiness is forming.
edit on 22-5-2013 by Itisnowagain because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 22 2013 @ 11:47 AM
link   
reply to post by LesMisanthrope
 


'Belief' is irrelevant, however I know what you mean and I will go along. Of course it was my bodily presence that lead me to what I believe. If it were not for my body, I would not have stopped knowing absolute truth. Knowing is the natural state; the body is unnatural. I am not rejecting the body, it is a wonderful tool of realization, of becoming unconsciously that which you are consciously. The grand experience of becoming, that is why we are here.



posted on May, 22 2013 @ 12:04 PM
link   
reply to post by Itisnowagain
 




Now and here = nowhere.
Presence is all there is - it is not a thing - it is nothing.
Nothing is happening.
Emptiness is forming.


No where = nowhere.

Why are you talking about it if it is nothing?



posted on May, 22 2013 @ 12:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by LesMisanthrope
reply to post by Itisnowagain
 




Now and here = nowhere.
Presence is all there is - it is not a thing - it is nothing.
Nothing is happening.
Emptiness is forming.


No where = nowhere.

Why are you talking about it if it is nothing?

What is it then?



posted on May, 22 2013 @ 12:09 PM
link   
reply to post by HarryTZ
 




Knowing is the natural state; the body is unnatural.

This sounds to me like "non-existence is the natural state" or "death is the natural state". If this was the case, there would be no living body, there would be no humanity, no you or I. Of course, nature herself says the opposite.




top topics



 
17
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join