|
Post by tzujanli on Oct 19, 2013 14:06:49 GMT -5
Greetings.. Greetings.. 'Ego' is a belief, a set of values and ideas that creates an imaginary character that we can blame our unwanted traits on.. it's the you you wish you weren't, but you are.. Be well.. So we're an imaginary character? Only if you believe you're something called an 'ego'.. Be well..
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on Oct 19, 2013 14:10:27 GMT -5
Greetings.. Greetings.. You have a persistent inclination of presuming your beliefs apply to others, they don't.. A separate volitional person exists, and rather than your description of being "identified with", i understand the relationship as 'acknowledging'.. from my perspective, the separate, volitional individual is one of many aspects of the whole person, and of the collective whole of all persons.. you maintain a narrowly defined belief about people, and you remain resistant to any open honest discussion about your beliefs unless the discussion agrees to your preferred terminologies.. Nothing you or anyone posts is "more than an idea", the issue is whether or not the 'idea' represents what is actually happening, what is real.. i suggest that people look and see for themselves, you insist that you know the 'truth'.. i understand that there is no 'truth', only a work in progress, to which we are included participants in the work and the progress through our interactive experiences of Life happening.. you are attached to your conditional belief about 'truth', i am attached to paying unconditional attention to what is happening.. BE well.. I wasn't talking to you. WHAT?? do you not recognize oneness when you're talking to it.. or an intervention when it's appropriate.. Or, is it the usual slip and slide away from facing your own attachments.. Be well..
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 19, 2013 14:33:13 GMT -5
The 100% alone point is good. I've noticed feelings (my own) of discomort here at ST when there is quiet or when I haven't had a whole lot of replies. There's some internal questioning about moving on. But the pattern seems to be that rather than moving on I'll post some sort of question instead. There appears to be an avoidance of aloneness and solitude? Or maybe its just an interest in social interaction of some sort. Not sure. I've also felt some discomfort when wrangling with the question of motivation. Why am I engaging in this innquiry, talking about ATA or effortless mediation or whatever; clarifying theories and models and pointers? I can point to procrastination, but that doesn't explain this Saturday morning, there's nothing I'm putting off right now really of substance. At work, that case can be made. There's curiosity. That's real. But of course there are many areas in which I am curious. In a way, the entire spiritual search from beginning to end could be characterized as an avoidance of silence. Not the type of silence where you have to get into a sound proof room but the inner silence that once you begin to approach, you become uncomfortable as as you describe. If there was ever something to be curious about, it's why that brings discomfort. One thing is that I want to know what others are referring to in such lofty language. I find it hard to genuinely use purity or perfection or totality or unity or universe when describing my experience (much less God). The fact that some do use these words makes me wonder if I am missing out on something huge. Well, the fact of the matter is that you'll never actually know what anyone here is experiencing. It's a dead end road. Just as with the Segal lady, anyone can interpret their experience in any way they choose. Out comes Jesus was in my bedroom with me or I just had a unity experience with the universe. It doesn't matter as it's how the conditioning is unfolding. It will never unfold in such a way ever again. Mostly, the words you're picking out are a distraction. Yes, they can be used to talk about things in a very particular way but they are really not descriptors of people's nonstop experience. Nobody is sitting here being blown away around the clock. So I make time to sit alone or pay attention to whatever is happening. It's realaxing, calming, pleasant. But unity, oneness, Love, God?? Even stillness and silence seem like a stretch. Absent being able to authentically use those descriptors for my own experience, I try other things. Investigating beliefs, pondering koans. David Scoma mentions finding the 'motivation of motivation.' What lies beneath? I think there's also a misunderstanding at play. You're hearing people talk about pointers and seem to be interpreting this as people describing their experience. These words seem to become like shiny fish hooks that people get caught on. Tzu has been chasing Enigma around for what looks like years now over just a couple of them. Talk from where you're at without any shame and be true to yourself. That's it. You're on fire your last several posts Silence....You have a wonderful degree of insight, and I'm glad to see you whipping it out in a more engaged way here. very cool
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 19, 2013 17:13:54 GMT -5
Greetings.. So we're an imaginary character? Only if you believe you're something called an 'ego'.. Be well.. To believe that I am an 'ego' doesn't mean that I am an imaginary character. It means that I am perceiving myself as not whole. If you also see me this way, then you are seeing me as if I were absent from the Kingdom or separated from it, thus making the Kingdom itself obscure to both of us. If we obscure the Kingdom we are perceiving what is not God.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 19, 2013 18:27:58 GMT -5
Greetings.. Only if you believe you're something called an 'ego'.. Be well.. To believe that I am an 'ego' doesn't mean that I am an imaginary character. It means that I am perceiving myself as not whole. If you also see me this way, then you are seeing me as if I were absent from the Kingdom or separated from it, thus making the Kingdom itself obscure to both of us. If we obscure the Kingdom we are perceiving what is not God. Hello TRF....as a result of you mentioning it, I read the ACIM last night. Its a wonderful method, and if one is going to follow it, they should follow it fully. It has essentially everything there in it that a good tradition of practice should contain. And it surely contains Christ's message....Faith, Certainty/Concentration, Not Knowing, Surrender unto Oneness, and Forgiveness in its truest meaning of letting go. I cannot help but to give it a rousing endorsement. However, I cannot concur with the bits about God/Not God. I see God's Grace in everything. God's Grace touches all and everything....God is in everything, and everything is OF God and not separate from God.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 19, 2013 19:33:50 GMT -5
To believe that I am an 'ego' doesn't mean that I am an imaginary character. It means that I am perceiving myself as not whole. If you also see me this way, then you are seeing me as if I were absent from the Kingdom or separated from it, thus making the Kingdom itself obscure to both of us. If we obscure the Kingdom we are perceiving what is not God. Hello TRF....as a result of you mentioning it, I read the ACIM last night. Its a wonderful method, and if one is going to follow it, they should follow it fully. It has essentially everything there in it that a good tradition of practice should contain. And it surely contains Christ's message....Faith, Certainty/Concentration, Not Knowing, Surrender unto Oneness, and Forgiveness in its truest meaning of letting go. I cannot help but to give it a rousing endorsement. However, I cannot concur with the bits about God/Not God. I see God's Grace in everything. God's Grace touches all and everything....God is in everything, and everything is OF God and not separate from God. Well it's just one of many methods that all end up at the same place. In itself the Theology doesn't invoke awakening, only God can do that. What it advocates is the healing of the split mind and correct thinking within an un-conflicted mind.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Oct 19, 2013 20:01:31 GMT -5
Ego isn't alive. It doesn't want or not want or romp or play or make a mess. This isn't particularly directed to E alone. There have been a lot of comments which indicate that ego is some kind of ephemeral wispy thingy. It isn't. What constitutes ego? Ego is alive and well in the neural network in your brain. Ego hangs together by neurons firing together. Back at least as early as the '70's Krishnamurti talked about when we change there is an actual change in the physical brain. Neuroscientists at the time didn't even believe this and there wasn't a name for this in neuroscience. Then Eric Kandel began exploring this area and won the Nobel prize in physiology in 2000 for what is now known as neuroplasticity. We now know that the brain grows new neurons every day (we used to think that the neurons we have we have for life, no new neurons) and that we can actually change because of the brains ability to create new neurons and make new connections between neurons. Point, ego is very real and very alive, not just some wispy nothing. Enlightenment can occur localized in a certain spatial configuration, let's call it the physical body. Now, that "enlightenment" may not be directly connected to the neural structure, which is the reason enlightened people can still be crappy and do crappy things. However, post-enlightenment or coincidental with it, real work can be done in altering the neural structure of the brain, IOW, we can *use* neuroplasticity to lessen or even eliminate the influence of ego. As we are now, life and events and other people and even our own brain pulls the strings of ego and we dance to outward influences. But we can be different. But what is possible is not easy. Changing is "like a mosquito trying to bite an iron bull". sdp Neurology isn't relevant. Ego is the response to the belief in mind/body identification. It consists of a paradigm of self defining, self defending, self affirming thoughts. Some may define ego as a set of behaviors, which is fine with me. In that case, those behaviors are driven by self referential thoughts. Ego has no substance. When you are not thinking about yourself, there is no ego.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Oct 19, 2013 20:03:54 GMT -5
Greetings.. 'Ego' is a belief, a set of values and ideas that creates an imaginary character that we can blame our unwanted traits on.. it's the you you wish you weren't, but you are.. Be well.. It's the 'you' you think you are, but you aren't.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Oct 19, 2013 20:07:12 GMT -5
Count again Oh now I get it I thought that was a woman with four eyes pointing a gun at me , whew... she is just pointing a gun and wearing her makeup in a odd way feel much better! .... It's good to lose an illusion. Hehe. BTW, like the sig.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Oct 19, 2013 20:10:30 GMT -5
Greetings.. 'Ego' is a belief, a set of values and ideas that creates an imaginary character that we can blame our unwanted traits on.. it's the you you wish you weren't, but you are.. Be well.. Yeah, ego is a device, but it doesn't actually create an imaginary character... It doesn't have to because I'm the one who's giving it authority... It's what I choose and it's also why the ego can't answer the question "What Am I"? Yeah, it's odd to call it imaginary and then declare it's real. Like your sig too.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Oct 19, 2013 20:25:03 GMT -5
This isn't particularly directed to E alone. There have been a lot of comments which indicate that ego is some kind of ephemeral wispy thingy. It isn't. What constitutes ego? Ego is alive and well in the neural network in your brain. Ego hangs together by neurons firing together. Back at least as early as the '70's Krishnamurti talked about when we change there is an actual change in the physical brain. Neuroscientists at the time didn't even believe this and there wasn't a name for this in neuroscience. Then Eric Kandel began exploring this area and won the Nobel prize in physiology in 2000 for what is now known as neuroplasticity. We now know that the brain grows new neurons every day (we used to think that the neurons we have we have for life, no new neurons) and that we can actually change because of the brains ability to create new neurons and make new connections between neurons. Point, ego is very real and very alive, not just some wispy nothing. Enlightenment can occur localized in a certain spatial configuration, let's call it the physical body. Now, that "enlightenment" may not be directly connected to the neural structure, which is the reason enlightened people can still be crappy and do crappy things. However, post-enlightenment or coincidental with it, real work can be done in altering the neural structure of the brain, IOW, we can *use* neuroplasticity to lessen or even eliminate the influence of ego. As we are now, life and events and other people and even our own brain pulls the strings of ego and we dance to outward influences. But we can be different. But what is possible is not easy. Changing is "like a mosquito trying to bite an iron bull". sdp Neurology isn't relevant. Ego is the response to the belief in mind/body identification. It consists of a paradigm of self defining, self defending, self affirming thoughts. Some may define ego as a set of behaviors, which is fine with me. In that case, those behaviors are driven by self referential thoughts. Ego has no substance. When you are not thinking about yourself, there is no ego. What do you think thoughts are and how they originate? Thousands of neurons firing together. sdp
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Oct 19, 2013 20:25:18 GMT -5
To believe that I am an 'ego' doesn't mean that I am an imaginary character. It means that I am perceiving myself as not whole. If you also see me this way, then you are seeing me as if I were absent from the Kingdom or separated from it, thus making the Kingdom itself obscure to both of us. If we obscure the Kingdom we are perceiving what is not God. Hello TRF....as a result of you mentioning it, I read the ACIM last night. Its a wonderful method, and if one is going to follow it, they should follow it fully. It has essentially everything there in it that a good tradition of practice should contain. And it surely contains Christ's message....Faith, Certainty/Concentration, Not Knowing, Surrender unto Oneness, and Forgiveness in its truest meaning of letting go. I cannot help but to give it a rousing endorsement. However, I cannot concur with the bits about God/Not God. I see God's Grace in everything. God's Grace touches all and everything....God is in everything, and everything is OF God and not separate from God. You read all 1156 pages last night?
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Oct 19, 2013 20:30:05 GMT -5
Neurology isn't relevant. Ego is the response to the belief in mind/body identification. It consists of a paradigm of self defining, self defending, self affirming thoughts. Some may define ego as a set of behaviors, which is fine with me. In that case, those behaviors are driven by self referential thoughts. Ego has no substance. When you are not thinking about yourself, there is no ego. What do you think thoughts are and how they originate? Thousands of neurons firing together. sdp That doesn't make it alive. It makes it a thought. Your thought about purple people eaters is thousands of neurons firing together too. It's not relevant.
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on Oct 19, 2013 23:54:12 GMT -5
Greetings.. Greetings.. Only if you believe you're something called an 'ego'.. Be well.. To believe that I am an 'ego' doesn't mean that I am an imaginary character. It means that I am perceiving myself as not whole. If you also see me this way, then you are seeing me as if I were absent from the Kingdom or separated from it, thus making the Kingdom itself obscure to both of us. If we obscure the Kingdom we are perceiving what is not God. The characteristics and conditions 'you' label as 'ego' do not coalesce into a separate 'thing' apart from the mind that imagines they do.. I see you as indulging your imagination's conditioned religious beliefs, and trying to fit your beliefs about 'ego' into your beliefs about 'God'.. yes, 'you' are the one that chooses what you believe 'ego' means, and you give the imagined meaning whatever authority you believe it has, same as your beliefs about 'God'.. From my perspective, i try to keep my relationship with existence simple, i see/experience no actual evidence of a cosmic puppeteer, 'God', or a 'kingdom' created by that 'God'.. of course, it's not clear to me what you mean by 'God' and/or 'Kingdom', since there are many differences of beliefs about the meanings of those words.. It is my practice to pay attention to what is happening, without expectations or conditions.. i have read and studied several religious texts, and applied the teachings to my existence with the intention allowing that the teachings could manifest the results they claim.. what is obvious is that the belief-systems condition the believers by invoking some variation of 'faith' (belief) in that which cannot be verified, i.e.: 'God', 'heaven', 'hell', noble truths, truth, etc.. and, most belief-systems create illusions with word-games/word-play that creates a language-system that supports the belief-system.. What i have not seen/experienced is a belief system that empowers the experiencer to have their own authentic experience, without trying to influence the experiencer's understanding of that experience.. if the belief-system is valid it will be self-evident and trust the experiencer's clarity to see the actuality, so.. rather than market beliefs that influence the experiencer, the valid systems empower the experiencer's clarity.. Be well..
|
|
|
Post by silence on Oct 20, 2013 0:12:36 GMT -5
Greetings.. So we're an imaginary character? Only if you believe you're something called an 'ego'.. Be well.. You go on to say "it's the you you wish you weren't, but you are..". What's that part about?
|
|