Comparing the ego and true self

page: 2
16
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 14 2013 @ 01:16 PM
link   

Bleeeeep
reply to post by purplemer
 


You've misunderstood what I said.

I agree - you are not your thoughts, but you are the thinker of the thoughts; and to stop the thinker, to remove his thoughts, you would be removing the thinker. A thinker is not a thinker without his/her thoughts.

Nor can there be awareness without a concept of what you are aware of. You may not have a fixed concept, or idea, of what it is you are observing, but you do have the thought that you are observing, or are being aware, of something. Without that thought of your awareness of something, you are not aware of something.





I disagree.

Thoughts - have a life of their own. Yes, many are 'willful' or 'intentional' but the least practise of mediatation will prove that some thoughts just 'appear' without any such volition.

Thoughts, in the form of language, do not occur in pre-verbal children, it is nearly pure and unedited senory input. The first three years of life are all about creating a 'filter' for this flood. Then the rest of like is learning to communicate (from this self-created bubble) with the rest of life - LOL.

Much of the content of MIND is non-verbal, kinesthetic, and below conscious awareness.

Mind and ego are conditioned constructs created by circustances, biology and only eventually by habitual thought/feeling patterns.

There is awareness - consciousness - without any of the above.

Naked awareness is the watcher of the drama of Mind, Ego and Self.




posted on Sep, 14 2013 @ 01:36 PM
link   
reply to post by SadistNocturne
 


No hard feelings, I understand concept reproduction better than almost anyone. You sense that your good concept is being rejected, or is not being reproduced, so you've become aggressive. You just want to reproduce what you think is good so you can feel good.

We're the same - just different concepts of good.

What if I said, okay, I agree with everything you've said? I accept your concept. Happy happy?

My point is, we need to think, we need to produce concepts - it is who we are; and what is in the OP, is wrong.

Elizabethian? Don't know, don't care.



posted on Sep, 14 2013 @ 01:53 PM
link   

Bleeeeep
reply to post by SadistNocturne
 


No hard feelings, I understand concept reproduction better than almost anyone. You sense that your good concept is being rejected, or is not being reproduced, so you've become aggressive. You just want to reproduce what you think is good so you can feel good.

We're the same - just different concepts of good.

What if I said, okay, I agree with everything you've said? I accept your concept. Happy happy?

My point is, we need to think, we need to produce concepts - it is who we are; and what is in the OP, is wrong.

Elizabethian? Don't know, don't care.


How about....wait for it......

WINDEX ?



- SN



posted on Sep, 14 2013 @ 02:07 PM
link   
reply to post by FyreByrd
 



Thoughts - have a life of their own. Yes, many are 'willful' or 'intentional' but the least practise of mediatation will prove that some thoughts just 'appear' without any such volition.


Thoughts without volition, without thinker, no. Only the will of consciousness can create thought.


Thoughts, in the form of language, do not occur in pre-verbal children, it is nearly pure and unedited senory input. The first three years of life are all about creating a 'filter' for this flood. Then the rest of like is learning to communicate (from this self-created bubble) with the rest of life - LOL.


Crying and all other forms of motion is the communication of, or the language of, will. So, again, no.


Much of the content of MIND is non-verbal, kinesthetic, and below conscious awareness.


Below consciousness, umm kind of, but not really, because you can't separate motion from willed concept or the body in which it is formed and carried by.


Mind and ego are conditioned constructs created by circustances, biology and only eventually by habitual thought/feeling patterns.


Yeeeaaaa-No. It's really concept creating concept. Mind creating mind. Circumstances and biology and all the stuff mind uses to create mind are just willed concepts.


There is awareness - consciousness - without any of the above. Naked awareness is the watcher of the drama of Mind, Ego and Self.


All of the above are the willed body of concepts, created by consciousness - the holy trinity - Consciousness, Will, and Body - Father, Spirit, Son. You can't separate stuff like you're trying to do. Consciousness, or thought, can not be without out a form/body or the will to create thoughts and concepts.
edit on 9/14/2013 by Bleeeeep because: fix



posted on Sep, 14 2013 @ 02:12 PM
link   

Subconsciously Correct




The true self:
- "Knows"
- Observes thought
- Deals only in facts
- Is objective without personalizing
- Loves all people and things unconditionally
- Is non-judgmental
- Allows the process of life to naturally occur
- Stays in the present/lives in the moment
- Makes decisions based on intuition
- Sees the self as being seperate yet connected to all people and things
- Is always content
- Sees no right or wrong, but instead sees gained knowledge, wisdom, and experience
- Creates unity by accepting all situations
- Sees "mistakes" as learning experiences, forgives, and moves on



Some of the points in this list are simply unreliable in measuring, creating, or understanding reality.



posted on Sep, 14 2013 @ 09:32 PM
link   
reply to post by Bleeeeep
 


So you say that separating ourselves from thoughts causes us to lose ourselves? What causes people to lose their self is listening to thoughts.

I'm not going to beat a dead horse, but your thoughts are not you. Once you break through that ego that is convincing you that it's you and that you know all the things you know (which you were conditioned to think you know in the first place), then you find that you are a lot more receptive to God. Consequently, you would come to understand all those thoughts that paint the world in belief sets and paradigms as a kind of demon.

Of course, you have to discern the symbolic nature of religious teachings. It may help if you think about how most of these teachings were handed down... You wouldn't teach a bunch of sheep herders some complex form of metaphysical psychology if you wanted them to listen to you, would you? Not if you a) wanted to be taken seriously, and b) wanted the teachings to survive. So how would you do it? Simple, you would tell them in parables and metaphors.

That being said, I would like to address what you think the "demons" are convincing some of us of. I believe you said it was that we are God?

Well, you do believe in modern science, right? It just so happens that science says some shocking things when put in a metaphysical lens. However, one has to ask themselves what could be thought of as God in modern science.

The answer is simple; Energy. It is the one thing that has omnipresence, being everywhere all the time, and even being all things. Modern science says two very important things concerning Energy; 1) The law of conservation of Energy states that no energy is created nor destroyed. Meaning that all energy that is here now has always been here (I am the alpha and the omega, etc.) and will never be non-existent. (No destruction in a lake of fire) . 2) Everything in this physical, material reality is in fact energy vibrating at different rates or frequencies which gives the appearance of solid matter. Meaning that everything around you is in a constant state of flux, and in its most fundamental state is nothing but pure energy.

So how does this all tie into God? Well, since we are told that God is the creator of all things, we are created in his image, he created all with the word (sound vibration = energy), then we can see God as the source of all energy. Since everything is energy, including us, and we are created in his image, then God is energy also. Which means that we are all a part of God, he is in us and we are in him. You know, the bible clearly states that the kingdom of heaven lies within.

Seek and ye shall find, my friend.

Sorry OP, not trying to hijack your thread.



posted on Sep, 14 2013 @ 10:43 PM
link   
reply to post by Subconsciously Correct
 


At last a post explaining Ego and attachment of thought etc that tells it straight, without tying itself in knots with riddles and metaphors or trying to sound so mystical and "cosmic" it becomes laughable. Star anna' Flag.



posted on Sep, 14 2013 @ 10:46 PM
link   
reply to post by Subconsciously Correct
 


The ego, id and super-ego -- Freud would have a field day in this thread.



It seems as if you're confusing id with your version of a hybrid id/ego "true self."

Psychoanalysis, aside, it's the id that one should be worried about. The proverbial monster under the bed, if you will. I wouldn't go so far as to refer to them as demons, but base impulses are what they are nonetheless.

Those who are amoral have no problem allowing their id to run wild without personal repercussions. Scary, indeed!

Our ego/super-ego are what we use to give our id a reality check.

What you're describing seem more akin to to how we would handle personal moral dilemmas. Makes introspection all the more interesting.



posted on Sep, 14 2013 @ 10:51 PM
link   

southofheaven
reply to post by Bleeeeep
 


So you say that separating ourselves from thoughts causes us to lose ourselves? What causes people to lose their self is listening to thoughts.

I'm not going to beat a dead horse, but your thoughts are not you. Once you break through that ego that is convincing you that it's you and that you know all the things you know (which you were conditioned to think you know in the first place), then you find that you are a lot more receptive to God. Consequently, you would come to understand all those thoughts that paint the world in belief sets and paradigms as a kind of demon.

Of course, you have to discern the symbolic nature of religious teachings. It may help if you think about how most of these teachings were handed down... You wouldn't teach a bunch of sheep herders some complex form of metaphysical psychology if you wanted them to listen to you, would you? Not if you a) wanted to be taken seriously, and b) wanted the teachings to survive. So how would you do it? Simple, you would tell them in parables and metaphors.

That being said, I would like to address what you think the "demons" are convincing some of us of. I believe you said it was that we are God?

Well, you do believe in modern science, right? It just so happens that science says some shocking things when put in a metaphysical lens. However, one has to ask themselves what could be thought of as God in modern science.

The answer is simple; Energy. It is the one thing that has omnipresence, being everywhere all the time, and even being all things. Modern science says two very important things concerning Energy; 1) The law of conservation of Energy states that no energy is created nor destroyed. Meaning that all energy that is here now has always been here (I am the alpha and the omega, etc.) and will never be non-existent. (No destruction in a lake of fire) . 2) Everything in this physical, material reality is in fact energy vibrating at different rates or frequencies which gives the appearance of solid matter. Meaning that everything around you is in a constant state of flux, and in its most fundamental state is nothing but pure energy.

So how does this all tie into God? Well, since we are told that God is the creator of all things, we are created in his image, he created all with the word (sound vibration = energy), then we can see God as the source of all energy. Since everything is energy, including us, and we are created in his image, then God is energy also. Which means that we are all a part of God, he is in us and we are in him. You know, the bible clearly states that the kingdom of heaven lies within.

Seek and ye shall find, my friend.

Sorry OP, not trying to hijack your thread.


By no means has the thread been hijacked. In fact, that was a beautiful explanation of the creation/creator. Thanks to all who have posted in this thread thus far. No matter what resonates with one at this time, topics such as these provide a different perspective that gives one the choice of accepting or discarding. That's why we are all here after all. To gain experience



posted on Sep, 14 2013 @ 11:02 PM
link   
Cool story bro.

But you are juxtaposing a fabrication of "true self" against the philosophical construct ("ego").

Neither are known to exist anywhere beyond abstract philosophical concepts. "True self" especially.

Knowing if there is a true self, and who that is....this is an obsession of mine. So I am not poopooing insomuch as challenging.



posted on Sep, 14 2013 @ 11:19 PM
link   
reply to post by southofheaven
 

I never meant to imply that you could actually separate yourself from all thought, just that if you did, then you would lose the thinker - the you. Basically, I was emphasizing the negative aspect of even trying to stop thinking... Not that you could actually stop thinking, because you can't - you are the thinker, the concept reproducer; it is who you are, and you cannot escape it.

And yes, I do realize you guys think that by "clearing your mind", you're actually removing thought, but you're not - you're still thinking of what your brain is telling you, thereby creating an observation, or state of awareness.

More

Your job does not dictate your level of understanding of reality, so the mention of sheep herders does nothing but show arrogance. I assume the mind is as it has always been, in that it learns to understand by comparing and contrasting differing attributes of forms; and just as you have made the comparison to Word or energy, they too would have understood the basic premise of Word. The only difference would then be our level of conceit for our understandings.

More

Then you mention science as if you could somehow use it to understand God better than those who walked with God themselves. That you could possibly learn God's nature through your means and not his. Do you not see the absurdity in that notion? No matter what science, nor what metaphorical form, you use to draw comparisons to his likeness, you will still only come to know him in the manner he allows, and that is if he even allows it.

p.s. I'm well aware of the science based concepts of energy and its correlations to Word. And sorry to speak so boldly, but I felt I needed to emphasizing your lack of respect towards God's will, or the spirit of understanding - as if God would allow you to circumvent his will because you use science. Blah.
edit on 9/14/2013 by Bleeeeep because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 15 2013 @ 01:10 AM
link   
reply to post by Subconsciously Correct
 
My experience of Higher Self is as much from the heart as head. I experience HS as a loving relationship, as the Presence of One who is very dear and wise. After years of being somewhat confused by its existence, I had the big idea to simply love It. Then, it all became much easier on my part. So, I now do two primary things, (1) go to It with my problems and related things, and (2) nurture my relationship with It through an attitude of Love. Maybe this is why Jesus called It Father, assuming we're talking about the same or similar Thing. How else can you communicate about It? I read of a Yogi who lived alone in an empty cave for a long period of time. He said it was no problem because he had his Divine Friend with him. Each one of us is on a path to experience this in our own unique way. Gurdjeif said there are two primary things needed in equal amounts on the path: Knowledge and Being. This is the Being part.



posted on Sep, 15 2013 @ 01:41 AM
link   

Bleeeeep
reply to post by FyreByrd
 



Thoughts - have a life of their own. Yes, many are 'willful' or 'intentional' but the least practise of mediatation will prove that some thoughts just 'appear' without any such volition.


Thoughts without volition, without thinker, no. Only the will of consciousness can create thought.


Thoughts, in the form of language, do not occur in pre-verbal children, it is nearly pure and unedited senory input. The first three years of life are all about creating a 'filter' for this flood. Then the rest of like is learning to communicate (from this self-created bubble) with the rest of life - LOL.


Crying and all other forms of motion is the communication of, or the language of, will. So, again, no.


Much of the content of MIND is non-verbal, kinesthetic, and below conscious awareness.


Below consciousness, umm kind of, but not really, because you can't separate motion from willed concept or the body in which it is formed and carried by.


Mind and ego are conditioned constructs created by circustances, biology and only eventually by habitual thought/feeling patterns.


Yeeeaaaa-No. It's really concept creating concept. Mind creating mind. Circumstances and biology and all the stuff mind uses to create mind are just willed concepts.


There is awareness - consciousness - without any of the above. Naked awareness is the watcher of the drama of Mind, Ego and Self.


All of the above are the willed body of concepts, created by consciousness - the holy trinity - Consciousness, Will, and Body - Father, Spirit, Son. You can't separate stuff like you're trying to do. Consciousness, or thought, can not be without out a form/body or the will to create thoughts and concepts.
edit on 9/14/2013 by Bleeeeep because: fix


I encourage you to do more research - both reading people who have studied thought and consciousness as well as practices, consistantly over a period of time, and see for yourself.

I'd also suggest looking into child development. Crying in an infant is not intentional it is instinctual.

Yes, any writing is a creation of intentional thinking (perhaps not for automatic writing - no conscious volition there).



posted on Sep, 15 2013 @ 07:15 AM
link   
reply to post by Subconsciously Correct
 

it was your ego that posted this



posted on Sep, 15 2013 @ 09:03 AM
link   

bottleslingguy
reply to post by Subconsciously Correct
 

it was your ego that posted this



Fingers posted this. There was no ego involved in the post.



posted on Sep, 15 2013 @ 04:28 PM
link   
reply to post by Bleeeeep
 



Your job does not dictate your level of understanding of reality, so the mention of sheep herders does nothing but show arrogance.


You misunderstood what I was trying to say. It has nothing to do with arrogance, nor what job one held when it comes to understanding things as they are. It has to do with relative experience.

To understand this, you must first understand that to each individual, reality is subjective. This is to say that what is perceived as reality is based upon one's collective life experiences that make up his or her frame of reference. Now, if you had something really important to teach someone and you wanted them to understand it, you would explain it to them within their frame of reference. This is not arrogance, but simply acknowledging that everyone has a different perspective on what they consider to be reality and when sharing important concepts with someone, it is important to work on their level of reference or perspective. In that way, the concept transcends what we think of as reality.

For Example: You cannot teach an infant how to drink out of a cup, but if you throw a nipple over it (with which he or she is familiar) then the infant will drink from it.


Then you mention science as if you could somehow use it to understand God better than those who walked with God themselves. That you could possibly learn God's nature through your means and not his.

Here, you speak as if you know me. You assume that my understanding comes from ego (I, the flesh). How do you know that I haven't learned of God through his means?

The thing is, truth is a hard and bitter pill to swallow. Ego does not like to think of itself as such. When religion is thrown in, it takes on a spiritual garb (from whence derives dogma and doctrine). From here it tries to convince us that religion is even a thing. Jesus spoke out against organized religion. He emphasized the importance in retreating to one's prayer closet to go before the Lord. Digressing, religion is only something that further divides us and separates us from unity. We are not to judge one another, that is reserved only for God, yet when we subscribe to a religion (which is someone else's interpretation of spiritual matters) we judge that others who do not follow our prescribed doctrine are not fit to enter the kingdom and have knowledge of our God (as if God is only reserved for us, when in all realities, God is there for everyone, not just one segment of the population.).

The point is this, religion creates a division between other forms of itself and the rest of humanity. To say that science and religion is a separate thing is absurd. The reason why progress is so slow coming is because of that attitude. The thing about science is that it is the study and observation of natural laws. Yes, it is misguided, but so is religion. However, those natural laws are authored by the Most High. This is the manner in which He has allowed for modern man to more comprehensively know Him, but as you are exemplary of, too often God is ignored for what we think we know of God. When you stop thinking that you know everything of God (which comes from ego based understanding), then you will find out that you really know nothing, save for what God will show you once you reach this understanding (pure self, in absence of ego).


No matter what science, nor what metaphorical form, you use to draw comparisons to his likeness, you will still only come to know him in the manner he allows, and that is if he even allows it.


Here you speak as if you know the will of God. How do you know that he hasn't allowed it? How do you know that God isn't trying to speak to you of the truth but your ego is blinding you to it?

I make no judgments of you, friend. I do not know you and it is not my place to judge. But I would be careful of going around professing to know the will of God and claiming that others lack respect for God when you do not know them or know of their experiences.

Regardless of whether you perceive what I have delivered as truth or not, I love you friend, or I wouldn't be taking the time to try and tell you all of this.

Love is the key to understanding.



posted on Sep, 15 2013 @ 07:45 PM
link   
reply to post by Subconsciously Correct
 

where did the intention to write it come from?



posted on Sep, 15 2013 @ 09:18 PM
link   

bottleslingguy
reply to post by Subconsciously Correct
 

where did the intention to write it come from?


There was no intention other than sharing information that one may or may not resonate with. The information is here so the intention is indeed something factual and it either resonates or does not resonate. If I took a differing viewpoint personal or posted this for some sort of self-gain, then ego would be involved. People can believe as they choose. If shared information alone was ego, then Jesus, Gandhi, Buddha, Eckhart Tolle, you name them, would be falsely labeled 'egomaniacs.' In fact, if shared information and gained experience alone are ego driven, then I have no idea why communication exists at all.
edit on 15-9-2013 by Subconsciously Correct because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 15 2013 @ 10:33 PM
link   
reply to post by Subconsciously Correct
 


Your ego conscience told you it was a good concept, so you want to reproduce it. It is concept reproduction. All motion, language, and thought is a part of concept reproduction, so there is no use in trying to escape your conscience by calling it ego.

Instead, the self created by the image of thinker, is what an ego should be thought of. (As-in alter-ego.)

What you're actually doing is shaming the thinker for using his conscience to think about his thoughts, by comparing the ego/self image to egotism.

Oh and I probably need to tell you that your conscience is the emotional response to how you think about your thoughts, and it, like the ego, is not an entity or separate of the thinker - they're just different results that the thinker produces while thinking of his thoughts. Seems like I should spell that out too - idk. Debating Buddhists/Taoists here, so I'm not sure what needs to be explained and what is understood, sorry.
edit on 9/15/2013 by Bleeeeep because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 16 2013 @ 12:41 AM
link   

Bleeeeep
reply to post by Subconsciously Correct
 


No.

You're trying to break consciousness apart, and if done, you would lose the self.

You cannot separate the thinker from his thoughts without losing the thinker.

To even suggest awareness, you are suggesting thought. You cannot be aware of something without a thought of something.

You should stop listening to demons and actually think for yourself.
edit on 9/13/2013 by Bleeeeep because: (no reason given)




Hi guys,

Bleeeeep, I can understand what you are trying to express here my friend, and if I may, I will use your post to demonstrate a valid point to everyone who reads this thread.


Comparing true self and the ego.


To compare something would imply that you have already surrendered to the twins or as I know them, the three ego’s and that you are already unconsciously, ready to pass judgment between these separate forms.

I understand what you’re trying to do here but to observe these kinds of forms perhaps you could observe it this way.

To completely witness the reactions both consciously and unconsciously flowing through you, you have to first improve your mental stamina if you like, so that you can maintain a high level of avid awareness or presence to this moment.

Only then can you see the true battle, more or less, between the twins and self.

The more present you are, the more “self” as you identify it becomes dominate within each moment.

Most people don’t have the mental stamina to maintain avid awareness or presence to this moment and surrender quickly to the distractions of the twins, in turn they become unconscious again in their actions and reactions towards “what is” in this moment.

Bleeeeps reply to Subconsciously Corrects thread suggests the twins in immediate defense mode.

This happens to everyone all the time, As an example to me this line speaks volumes.


“You cannot separate the thinker from his thoughts without losing the thinker.“


From my understanding when you read that line, it’s almost as if the twins are speaking directly to you.

Eg: “You cannot stop thinking!! That would mean we would lose control of this empire!!”

But then this line,


To even suggest awareness, you are suggesting thought. You cannot be aware of something without a thought of something.


This seems like a valid comment on the surface, but don’t be fooled, if you’re present you will see the twins trying to reinforce themselves all the time.


If you could imagine a creepy king’s councillor leaning in to whisper in your ear,

“How dare they suggest awareness!! Trust me, things do not exists unless you are thinking about them all the time, if you stop thinking then you become dumb and die.”

Quite the opposite,

If you just are, in this moment, right now and can just accept “what is” that is all you need. When you start digging deeper about which came first, chicken or the egg in regards to thinking and thoughts etc. then you’re already unconscious and back to square one.

Complete acceptance, or surrendering to “what is” in this very moment is the hardest skill if you like, to relearn.


You should stop listening to demons and actually think for yourself.


Thinking or thought is only good if it is used as a conscious constructive tool or mechanic after that, put it down and don’t let it rule your life.. Randomly.

Practice being present to “what is” in this very moment and regain control from the twins only then will you observe the pure difference between true self and ego,

and witness for your self, "Being".



Ps: Bleeeep, this post was not specifically intended to offend your valid insight and comments.





Muzz





new topics

top topics



 
16
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join