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.
Originally posted by Ian McLean
I think it more true that the ego acts as a focal point for strength: that which affects persistent change to reality.
Think of our individual egos like the dust particles high in the atmosphere, around which water vapor condenses. Those particles might be the heart of every raindrop, but it is the water that is the rain.
Spot on, OP, about the 'battle against the ego' being counter-productive.
Originally posted by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal
What reality are you talking about? Subjective or objective? Change is persistent regardless of ego, although ego is a part of reality.
It's not ego alone that brings about change, change is a constant, it can't be stopped. Change is the result of interaction, all things will always interact.
Spot on, OP, about the 'battle against the ego' being counter-productive.
It varies on what weapons are brought into the battle. If our ego is conducting espionage on itself then it is not counter-productive at all. There is a lesson in everything, unfortunately some people don't always learn. This statement also depends on what you mean by counter-productive.
Originally posted by Ian McLean
Well I wouldn't draw a hard-and-fast line between 'subjective' and 'objective' reality.
Consider two examples of change: first, choosing to perceive and define the world differently, and second, choosing to physically change your environment, such as moving to a new location. I'd say that in both of those examples, the change effected by us is via action expressed through ego.
And ego is a focal-point, or mediator, of the possibility of such change.
Yet I feel we should never be afraid to say 'these are currently my goals'! I guess such considerations themselves are an expression of the ego.
Where it leads, to 'growth' or 'happy stagnant contentment', or 'miserable subjugation'; who's to prove what's what and what's 'better'? I know I have my opinion.
Originally posted by Ian McLean
...the 'struggle against ego', rather than being uselessly self-destructive, can be considered the 'birth pangs' of spiritual growth.
Originally posted by Skyfloating
A radio-dial tunes into different programs. In between those programs is a static nothingness which some confuse with identityless enlightenment.
Originally posted by TravelerintheDark
A conversation I had once.
"If one is who, who is one?"
"I."
"And who are you?"
"I am..."
"No you're not."
Originally posted by TravelerintheDark
"If one is who, who is one?" is both a statement and a question because it must be in expressing the duality inherent in all communication.
No truth without fallacy. No answer without a question.
The denial of "I am" is the denial of the self's sense of being. "Am" implies being.
"I" alone has no tense.
If we are all and all is one then you are you but not the you that is/was/will be.
But all existence is duality so to deny one is to define the other.