|
Post by andrew on Oct 18, 2013 4:32:17 GMT -5
Here's a video for "contrast". The way I see this video is it seems the baby has recognize that he isn't in the "spirit world" any longer because I wouldn't think paper could "rip" there. So the baby seems to actually be having some kind of "physical enlightenment" i.e. waking up to this physical world where paper CAN rip. No matter it is very sweet. www.facebook.com/photo.php?v=505819052773774/Brilliant! And I like your theory.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 18, 2013 7:21:12 GMT -5
Due to my particular spiritual influences, the ego isn't like a thing in the sense of a noun... it's actually a misnomer in that regard. It's strange that a sense of self pertains to self image which isn't stagnant, but a changing perception of 'who I am', yet there's also a sense in eternal continuity which endures the changing self image. What my influences led me to believe is ego is a collation of reactivity that stems from associating events with 'my-self', and as such, it's a behavior (as in a verb) and not an object (as in a noun). I like how you phrased that: "ego is a collation of reactivity that stems from associating events with 'my-self'"... Do you mean collection instead of collation? I was also trying to get at it being a verb or behavior. The thing that sparked my interest is that some folks report the ego seizing on awakening. I had thought that awakening meant liberation from the ego. Fred Davis talks about the search for awakening, liberation, enlightenment is fundamentally egoic. Basically just a want-driven search for whatever aims. Ego is the wanting, the lust. He phrased it as the 'universe using ego to [fumbling] please itself.' And after awakening, after letting go the belief that he was a separate little guy in the universe and was totality itself, those egoic drives continued in the form of wanting to present his message -- whether it be by teaching or his blog or whatever. He wanted his blog to be slick and elegant and refers to that as egoic. On the other hand, I was listening to David Scoma this morning and he sort of structured his own story as the egoic drive, the searching, was fundamentally irrelevant to what happened (awakening). There was meditation going on, contemplation, reading gobs of stuff, but awakening happened on its own. Anyhoo, it's clear to me that self and ego have no real common definition. But I appreciate it when folks like Fred take on the challenge of talking about it honestly. Like he says, it's sort of taboo cuz peeps think ego is transcended or whatever with awakening.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 18, 2013 7:32:22 GMT -5
I'm not wedded to that little brainfart in my OP, I don't care about it all. I'm just ruminating on these cases where someone has 'awakened' from the dream of being a separate being from the rest of the universe but still they report the movement of ambition and specialness, which they term ego. It seems like this necessarily suggests that self and ego are not the same. Or that the particular 'awakening' from the dream of self was not actually an awakening, but just a shift of some sort. The not particularly caring piece is a vibe I get from you pretty consistently. It seems like you're just sort of pushing words around maybe putting together a solid theoretical understanding of what teachers are saying and/or experiencing. That's not some sort of a problem but it is worlds apart from what people are trying to point out to you. Your interest seems to be a bit like a water bug pushing itself around on the surface of the lake wondering what the big deal about water is. Well I wouldn't make much of my brainfart comment. The reason I said that is so peeps wouldn't waste time pointing out how attached I am to the concepts. That's not really what is happening. I'm just asking questions. What is self? What is ego? How are they related? What happens to them when awakening to their illusory nature (if relevant)? I threw out some ideas in the beginning to help provide some context for the questions not to present a theoretical framework. Q knows I'm not that heavy of a hitter. But I think you're right in a way, I'm just trying figure out basically what folks are saying. It's just figuring out what the pointer is so I can look where it's pointing sort of thing. I wouldn't insult water bugs that way either, I doubt they're cobbled by such silly musings.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 18, 2013 7:36:09 GMT -5
How would you classify vanity, fear, anger -- ego, self, both, or other? If you make the distinction between vanity, on one hand, and limit ego instead to fear and anger, on the other, you can gain an insight into the fallacy of the expectation of permanent abatement of ego. The line of reasoning I'm suggesting brings into question the use of the idea of ego as any sort of metric for measuring or characterizing awakening to begin with. FWIW, that distinction between "awakening to" and "awakening from" strikes me, at this point, as a contrivance. I don't have any kids but if I imagine being a parent then for the life of me I find it hard to imagine somehow remaining free of the potential to project our own self-preservation instinct onto the image of the child. Well, at best, awakening to the shenanigans involved in parenting is happening. Often times I'm fully caught up in the role though (asleep). Seems like Steve is recommending time in the 'from' mode via samadhi. Sounds like a sensory deprivation tank might aid the experience.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 18, 2013 7:47:14 GMT -5
Here's a video for "contrast". The way I see this video is it seems the baby has recognize that he isn't in the "spirit world" any longer because I wouldn't think paper could "rip" there. So the baby seems to actually be having some kind of "physical enlightenment" i.e. waking up to this physical world where paper CAN rip. No matter it is very sweet. www.facebook.com/photo.php?v=505819052773774/Brilliant! And I like your theory. Cause and effect can be pretty fun!
|
|
|
Post by ???????? ???????????? on Oct 18, 2013 7:58:05 GMT -5
I'm not wedded to that little brainfart in my OP, I don't care about it all. I'm just ruminating on these cases where someone has 'awakened' from the dream of being a separate being from the rest of the universe but still they report the movement of ambition and specialness, which they term ego. It seems like this necessarily suggests that self and ego are not the same. Or that the particular 'awakening' from the dream of self was not actually an awakening, but just a shift of some sort. The not particularly caring piece is a vibe I get from you pretty consistently. It seems like you're just sort of pushing words around maybe putting together a solid theoretical understanding of what teachers are saying and/or experiencing. That's not some sort of a problem but it is worlds apart from what people are trying to point out to you. Your interest seems to be a bit like a water bug pushing itself around on the surface of the lake wondering what the big deal about water is. I agree and intuitively I would say it's sort of a lack of confidence, not being arrogant enough, not trusting oneself enough. All this spiritual discernment business is like reading a physics book, okay it's interesting but I don't really care and I don't seriously expect it to get me anything. I think Max is like everyone, he does care, but it seems that the mind has been confused by all the blah blah and the attention/energy is going to some place where it's imagined that some calculated effort will produce some result, but that's not even really believed in, hence it's all half-ássed and half-cooked. That's why I asked why not be honest and acknowledge one's own psychological truth and just say to hell with all that and be 100% a stupid and ignorant ego/self/whatever. One can't reason with or cheat the psychological truth. Spiritual teachers sometimes say that one has to find one's own question (koan). Some people claim that they don't have one, I would say they do have one but it's really ugly and stupid, namely the psychological truth.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Oct 18, 2013 8:01:09 GMT -5
If you make the distinction between vanity, on one hand, and limit ego instead to fear and anger, on the other, you can gain an insight into the fallacy of the expectation of permanent abatement of ego. The line of reasoning I'm suggesting brings into question the use of the idea of ego as any sort of metric for measuring or characterizing awakening to begin with. FWIW, that distinction between "awakening to" and "awakening from" strikes me, at this point, as a contrivance. I don't have any kids but if I imagine being a parent then for the life of me I find it hard to imagine somehow remaining free of the potential to project our own self-preservation instinct onto the image of the child. Well, at best, awakening to the shenanigans involved in parenting is happening. Often times I'm fully caught up in the role though (asleep). Seems like Steve is recommending time in the 'from' mode via samadhi. Sounds like a sensory deprivation tank might aid the experience. Vanity is an interesting rabbit trail because on one hand it's such low hanging fruit -- surely, after "awakening", maintenance of an image should be seen through, right? ... but what if someone simply just doesn't care about the image they project? What if someone projects an image that is deliberately not vain? If the conception of ego is limited to the hijack of imagination by the self preservation instinct then the suspension of imagination is the suspension of ego but while the body draws a breath any potential for imagination would include the potential for ego. Fear is the only leaf you need to brew the TM Tea of ego and of course the definition of fear itself is, in turn, surprisingly controversial.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Oct 18, 2013 9:03:52 GMT -5
Well, yeah, which is why there need not be a harmony balancing mechanism. Creation is already balanced by virtue of this fact of 'no autonomous individual'. Whatever is focused on is already part of creation, and harmony is inherent in that singular movement. The decision to 'manifest' something is already part of the manifestation. Hencely, the choices are already in harmony and cannot be otherwise. Nothing that you said there means that there is no "mechanism" by which it harmony is happens.Your post is bit like responding to a post describing the mechanisms (biology and chemistry) by which a seed becomes a a flower by saying that the biological and chemical processes by which the the seed becomes a flower is not needed because there is already a flower. Just because the flower exists, does not mean there is no "mechanism" to it blossoming :-) If you show a child a seed and a flower, and tell him that the seed becomes the flower, and he asks to see the seed become the flower RIGHT NOW, instantaneously, what will you tell his inquisitive mind? Knowing the natural laws regarding how a seed becomes a flower, can be very useful for someone interested in farming ;-) The analogy doesn't apply. What you're saying is that there is a mechanism by which oneness remains in harmony, but in harmony with what? You must first imagine separation and disharmony before you can imagine your harmonizing mechanism.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Oct 18, 2013 9:34:56 GMT -5
As one becomes more conscious of the dream, the connection between thought and events becomes more clear. However, the apparent ability of the lucid dreamer to manipulate dreams is still an illusion, as the one manipulating is also part of the dream. It's a dream about manipulating dreams, which is why it doesn't happen all the time, even for the lucid dreamer. IOW, even from the 'awakened perspective' the dream character is still a dream character. He never becomes separate from the dream. Yeah, lucid dreaming is, a strange phenomenon. It is concluded that because there was awareness of the character in the dreamstate, then there was influence upon the whole dream. And yet the landscapes, soundscapes and direction of conversations, are all flourishing from indifferent imagination. Yeah, there can be the same sense of control in the lucid dream state as there is in the waking dream state, though it's just part of the dream. As a kid I had lucid nightmares, meaning that I knew it was a dream but I had no conscious control over how the events unfolded. The dreams were constructed of my greatest fears, known only to me, and demanded reconciliation. It could fairly be said that they were my creation over which I had no control. I did, however, have options. I learned to awaken from the dreams by pinching my arm while in the dream. I would wake up in bed to find my self actually pinching my arm. What began happening then was a set of 'false awakenings' in which I would believe I had awakened and go about my day only to find I had awoken from one dream and entered another. I remember clearly the day my nightmares stopped; the very moment when I had quite enough of running and cowering from my own monsters. I stood in the darkness as the monsters taunted me, and I yelled "Okay, come on!" (A 7 year old's version of "Make my day!") Instantly, the growling and bumping stopped, and the nightmares never returned. I 'got it' that day that I was doing battle with my own fears and all that was needed was courage.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 18, 2013 11:32:41 GMT -5
Well, at best, awakening to the shenanigans involved in parenting is happening. Often times I'm fully caught up in the role though (asleep). Seems like Steve is recommending time in the 'from' mode via samadhi. Sounds like a sensory deprivation tank might aid the experience. Vanity is an interesting rabbit trail because on one hand it's such low hanging fruit -- surely, after "awakening", maintenance of an image should be seen through, right? ... but what if someone simply just doesn't care about the image they project? What if someone projects an image that is deliberately not vain? If the conception of ego is limited to the hijack of imagination by the self preservation instinct then the suspension of imagination is the suspension of ego but while the body draws a breath any potential for imagination would include the potential for ego. Fear is the only leaf you need to brew the TM Tea of ego and of course the definition of fear itself is, in turn, surprisingly controversial. I know a guy who used to be a mallrat, obsessed with fashion during his teens and early 20's. Somewhere along the line he got politicized and rejected consumerism and the fashion industry, etc. So he began a new strategy with his clothing -- he'd only shop for things that fit reasonably well at thrift stores. Then he would order them by shirt and pants and try to pick as randomly as possible each day. Plaids with plaids stripes with stripes, all the fundamental no-no's. Of course it was the fashion of no-fashion, of anti-fashion. And he looks great and has his own style haha no escape. I can't wait 'til I'm enlightened and I can start wearring organic cotton tunics and loose yoga pants. Maybe a cap of some sort too. On the fear thing, it hasn't been a big part of my life, except for social anxiety. Ego seems to generate stories of why I'm feeling extremely uncomfortable in those particular social situations. It's useful to be aware of it, though I'd rather take a walk in the woods.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 18, 2013 11:35:01 GMT -5
The not particularly caring piece is a vibe I get from you pretty consistently. It seems like you're just sort of pushing words around maybe putting together a solid theoretical understanding of what teachers are saying and/or experiencing. That's not some sort of a problem but it is worlds apart from what people are trying to point out to you. Your interest seems to be a bit like a water bug pushing itself around on the surface of the lake wondering what the big deal about water is. I agree and intuitively I would say it's sort of a lack of confidence, not being arrogant enough, not trusting oneself enough. All this spiritual discernment business is like reading a physics book, okay it's interesting but I don't really care and I don't seriously expect it to get me anything. I think Max is like everyone, he does care, but it seems that the mind has been confused by all the blah blah and the attention/energy is going to some place where it's imagined that some calculated effort will produce some result, but that's not even really believed in, hence it's all half-ássed and half-cooked. That's why I asked why not be honest and acknowledge one's own psychological truth and just say to hell with all that and be 100% a stupid and ignorant ego/self/whatever. One can't reason with or cheat the psychological truth. Spiritual teachers sometimes say that one has to find one's own question (koan). Some people claim that they don't have one, I would say they do have one but it's really ugly and stupid, namely the psychological truth. What is a psychological truth? that's a new one. Do you have a practice I can do to become more arrogant?
|
|
|
Post by ???????? ???????????? on Oct 18, 2013 11:56:03 GMT -5
What is a psychological truth? that's a new one. Do you have a practice I can do to become more arrogant? I would say it's (psychological truth) what you are like when you know that the big Other isn't looking, i.e. you don't have to make a good impression, don't have to fake effort, don't have to pretend that you're interested, don't have to be polite, etc.
|
|
|
Post by silver on Oct 18, 2013 11:58:25 GMT -5
Vanity is an interesting rabbit trail because on one hand it's such low hanging fruit -- surely, after "awakening", maintenance of an image should be seen through, right? ... but what if someone simply just doesn't care about the image they project? What if someone projects an image that is deliberately not vain? If the conception of ego is limited to the hijack of imagination by the self preservation instinct then the suspension of imagination is the suspension of ego but while the body draws a breath any potential for imagination would include the potential for ego. Fear is the only leaf you need to brew the TM Tea of ego and of course the definition of fear itself is, in turn, surprisingly controversial. I know a guy who used to be a mallrat, obsessed with fashion during his teens and early 20's. Somewhere along the line he got politicized and rejected consumerism and the fashion industry, etc. So he began a new strategy with his clothing -- he'd only shop for things that fit reasonably well at thrift stores. Then he would order them by shirt and pants and try to pick as randomly as possible each day. Plaids with plaids stripes with stripes, all the fundamental no-no's. Of course it was the fashion of no-fashion, of anti-fashion. And he looks great and has his own style haha no escape. I can't wait 'til I'm enlightened and I can start wearring organic cotton tunics and loose yoga pants. Maybe a cap of some sort too. On the fear thing, it hasn't been a big part of my life, except for social anxiety. Ego seems to generate stories of why I'm feeling extremely uncomfortable in those particular social situations. It's useful to be aware of it, though I'd rather take a walk in the woods. Once you're OK with yourself preferring a walk in the woods, the social 'situations' will probably improve. I'll admit to a similar social shyness thingy.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 18, 2013 12:26:28 GMT -5
What is a psychological truth? that's a new one. Do you have a practice I can do to become more arrogant? I would say it's (psychological truth) what you are like when you know that the big Other isn't looking, i.e. you don't have to make a good impression, don't have to fake effort, don't have to pretend that you're interested, don't have to be polite, etc. I thought The Big Other always was gazing, primarily a fabrication of the mind. So imagining a situation without it is just fantasy. IOW, walking in the woods, alone, The Big Other is still there. Seems to me that liberation is being able to see that happening and not letting it affect you. But imagining the liberated state seems like a fools game.
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on Oct 18, 2013 12:33:08 GMT -5
Greetings.. I would say it's (psychological truth) what you are like when you know that the big Other isn't looking, i.e. you don't have to make a good impression, don't have to fake effort, don't have to pretend that you're interested, don't have to be polite, etc. I thought The Big Other always was gazing, primarily a fabrication of the mind. So imagining a situation without it is just fantasy. IOW, walking in the woods, alone, The Big Other is still there. Seems to me that liberation is being able to see that happening and not letting it affect you. But imagining the liberated state seems like a fools game. Walking through the woods and paying attention to the walking and the woods and what's happening is not a fool's game.. conjuring imagined beliefs about matters other than what's happening, that's another matter.. Be well..
|
|