|
Post by laughter on Sept 21, 2014 19:38:28 GMT -5
Are you referring to a conceptual truth? Some statement of the way things are, or the way that they should be? Truth as just what is...........what is, is. sdp Are you saying that this moment, right here and now, is "the best of all possible worlds"?
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Sept 21, 2014 21:05:02 GMT -5
ZD, I'll have to set this up by defining some terms, how I use them. What we are born as/with is our essence, essentially our awareness and attention. I would consider it roughly what is mean by Buddha-mind, Buddha-nature, the unborn, who you were before you were born, before your parents were born. I would also call this essential nature, true self. Ego/personality consists of the contents of the brain/mind-body, what is stored in the neural structure. When ego is virtually fully formed, about the age of six+, we mostly live through ego instead of essence, IOW, ego captures and directs our attention and awareness, IOW our A-A (true self) is confined and imprisoned by the wants and desires of this artificial identity, ego. I've stated all this at various times the last 5 years + here on ST's. Now I'll try to describe your post from this POV, explaining my earlier post (the straightjacket-chained to bars post). SDP: What if you saw, clearly, that you were an actor in a script from which no deviation was possible, and that your role, despite all appearances, could not be escaped or altered in any sense whatsoever? This is the state of living from ego. What if you saw, clearly, that no matter what was happening, and no matter what anyone might think (including "you"), every single action "your body" took was because it was part of the underlying script? What if you saw that the script included the sense of being an actor separate from the script, but also included the possibility of realizing the underlying truth and becoming free from the sense of being a separate actor? This is how things are living from ego. If you saw this, clearly, then you would realize that every single thought arising in "your" mind was not really "yours," and "you" would realize that everything "you" saw happening also had nothing to do with "you." This is quite accurate, living from ego. To be able to see clearly, one must see from essence. What is truly yours, is from essence. So every single thought is not "yours". Every single thought comes from ego, false self, artificial identity. Everything "you" see happening actually does have nothing to do with "you" (you as true self-essence). IOW, no matter what "you" did, or what "you" thought, it would all be part of a script written, directed, staged, and acted out by something vast and unknowable. Everything "you" did, or what "you" thought is directed, staged and acted out by this false sense of self, ego/personality/false self, artificial identity.If "you" saw this, clearly, could "you" not then relax and participate in whatever was happening without having to think about it? Would "you" not see that everything would be out of "your" hands? Would "you" not realize that even the thought, "Not having free will is unfair," or "I hate people saying that free will or volition is an illusion," would be thoughts that were also written into the script? Would you not realize that it would be impossible to even think a thought that was not part of the script? Can you get a glimpse of where I'm coming from? Your scenario fits perfectly looking at it as ego/artificial identity. Ego can't do anything. Every thought, every feeling and every action is a result of being acted upon by the outside influences, other people and events, as if being written as a script. Everything just happens. So I agree with your assessment, but not your viewpoint and not your cure.If you saw all of this, clearly, would it not lead to a great sense of relaxation, freedom, and peace? There would be no "you" to worry about anything, expect anything, hope for anything, or resist anything. There would be no "you" who would need to think about anything concerning "you" because "you" would not exist separate from the action required by the script. You would simply be an actor in a play, playing a role, and watching the play unfold before your eyes. Whatever you thought, or said, or did in each moment could never be "wrong" because whatever you thought, or said, or did in each moment would be "your" role, and you would never know in advance what that role would entail. You would simply do what you felt needed to be done in each moment knowing that whatever you did would be perfectly so. To agree with your POV would be to accept the position of ego/artificial identity, what I see as an inaccurate POV. It would be like decorating your cell with your favorite rug, favorite color of wall paint, TV, DVD's, conjugal visits, etc. I can't un-see my POV and see your POV. If you saw this, clearly, you would see that the body grew from childhood to adulthood without "you" having had anything to do with it. "You" as essence/true self gets covered over by ego/artificial identity. Some people have essence less covered over by ego, but to live wholly through essence after the age of about six is very rare. The stage of ego/artificial identity is necessary because essence is weak and fragile. The function of ego/false self is to protect the fragile essence until it can begin to grow again, like the outer shell of a seed protects the soft kernel within. But for most people, ego/false self functions and is in control without essence "having anything to do with it". You would see that the body breathes, pumps blood, and transmits nerve impulses without "you." You would see that it sees, feels, hears, tastes, smells, walks, and talks without "you." You would see that thoughts appear in a field of consciousness that "you" do not generate because "you" wouldn't know how to generate thoughts even if "you" wanted to. Accurate, all this just happens.You would see that the entire cosmos is functioning perfectly in accordance with an incomprehensibly complex script (for lack of a better word), that "you" had nothing to do with, and which "you" cannot in any way alter. You would see that if "your" ear develops an itch, "your" hand automatically reaches up to scratch it without any effort or thought on "your" part. "You" would see that beneath all surface appearances, or thoughts, an infinite number of unimaginable happenings are occurring behind even the simplest action that the body might perform. Accurate, from a certain perspective, the level of the operation of ego, not from a cosmic perspective. One can't see above their level of being. You can see below, but not above. The evolution of consciousness is the evolution to a higher level of being, a level that can encompass (perceive) everything on its level and everything below. So to see ego you have to be able to separate from ego. This is invariably a process. In the beginning you see that you continually are trapped in ego, you are captured by your thoughts, feelings and actions. This is painful to see. If you saw all of this, clearly, could you not then relax, let go, and simply enjoy being what you are, knowing that everything is in the hands of something much much vaster than "you?" I can't un-ring the bell, I can't see from your perspective.This is just a story/mind experiment, of course, that was perhaps generated as part of a script (ha ha), but can the reading of it, and the contemplation of it, suggest to you why someone who saw this sort of thing clearly, might feel deeply relaxed and at peace with the world just as it is? Can you get a sense of how someone who saw such a thing might be willing to accept whatever happens with great equanimity, and also feel a deep reverence for the SOI that is, or might be, at the heart of both the script and the entire cosmos? Yes, I absolutely understand, [as if] seeing from your POV. But I think it's inaccurate, I can't see from your POV.Can you see how someone who saw such a thing might realize that she, the script, and the SOI were one, and that any idea of separation would be an idea, only? Can you see how that kind of seeing might free one from attaching any importance to ideas of any kind? Yes, I can see from your POV, I can see how you think it's accurate, but I don't see it as the whole picture therefore IMO it's inaccurate.
Again, from my POV, what you describe is imprisonment, attention and awareness captured and held by ego/artificial self. Anyone who sees from your POV, your POV as being wholly accurate, can just give in and relax as nothing can be done anyway. Anyone who catches a glimpse of my POV doesn't give up the search for a way to become free, because seeing the truth, from the POV of essence, as described, is unbearable.
Now, it is possible by learning to live through attention and awareness, to some day reach a state where ego can still be present, but one is no longer identified with ego, and therefore is FAPP one is free. This is reaching a higher state of consciousness, a higher level that can see the lower level. However, all this is a process, a growth of essence, and from posts over the years, I don't get a sense that anyone here has come to understand this, state. This level exists, here, now, invisibly. It could be a problem of language and the meaning of words, but I almost think this not possible. Why? Because for the higher state to see the lower there must necessarily exist separation. And the only language I get, is non-dual, non-dual this non-dual that.......
Also, in the beginning there is this shift from living from the perspective of ego/artificial self to essence (A-A). And then you begin to value living through A-A more than being trapped in ego. Although ZD seems to describe this living through A-A, I don't get a sense of his ever having experienced this shift from living through ego to living through A-A. I have described this as a teeter-totter, ego/false self goes down as essence/A-A goes up and vice versa.
I realize this is not going to make sense unless you experience what the words are pointing to. ...........Anyway..........
sdp
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Sept 21, 2014 21:10:42 GMT -5
Truth as just what is...........what is, is. sdp Are you saying that this moment, right here and now, is "the best of all possible worlds"? No. I'm saying the universe as a whole, from beginning onward, essentially as Tzu described, is set up to grow and evolve, for individuated consciousness to be able to grow and evolve, is the best of all possible worlds. IOW, the universe will be "better", later. sdp
|
|
|
Post by someNOTHING! on Sept 21, 2014 21:58:15 GMT -5
Nothing has to be done. The perfection being pointed at here is not fathomable to the thinking process with which you are trying to understand it. As an idea, it rubs up against the idea that you believe your self to be in a way that you find yourself in opposition to it. You see the things you care for or the values you uphold deeply questioned. What if everything I thought and deeply felt to be true, simply weren't? As a realization of the way things are, alignment and clarity naturally arise. Again, "bad" things still happen, but they're seen from a broader, more honest context, without all the attachments focusing the attention.As far as telling the story all hopped up on adrenaline, I think I did do that here on the forum the night of the attack. The betterest realization of that event actually arose when the mind/body was experiencing and working through the post-trauma. It was like wearing the universe. Again, it's just a story,,,,not in the here and now. Mind stuff. Are you aware that the mind is trying to make a story about "me" now, and for the "reason" you're having this discussion? Not sure what the 'nothing has to be done' is in response to. I can imagine what it would be like to see that this one world...this one ball o' being isn't something we can commandeer but I can't help but believe that the smallest part can have an effect - perhaps this is what is meant by the butterfly effect? Does that play into your vision / view of 'it all', SN? I agree totally with the underlined, italicized sentence, and I even get what you mean about 'mind stuff', but for me, there's a line to be carefully drawn in this neck of the woods. It was in reppsonse to your statement of " having to...perfect". Just be aware that right now, your mind is deciding where to draw the line based on what it wants and hopes to be true. Butterflies are of this world and, yes, are part of the interconnected universe, including your thoughts/memories/worries, that appears to you (I.e., is not you). Perfectly so.
|
|
|
Post by someNOTHING! on Sept 21, 2014 22:10:05 GMT -5
If there is no volition, nothing can be done, it simply happens.. changing horses mid-stream has its risks.. Are you aware that whatever your mind/body is made of is coming into being with the rest of the universe?
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 21, 2014 22:13:16 GMT -5
Are you saying that this moment, right here and now, is "the best of all possible worlds"? No. I'm saying the universe as a whole, from beginning onward, essentially as Tzu described, is set up to grow and evolve, for individuated consciousness to be able to grow and evolve, is the best of all possible worlds. IOW, the universe will be "better", later. sdp Well, the truth, the way you described it then, as "what is", isn't that: it's not this "best of all possible worlds" that this one might or will evolve into, and my original point to you was that the question of what "best" means is subjective, and not one, in my opinion, that's likely subject to much of a consensus.
|
|
|
Post by someNOTHING! on Sept 21, 2014 22:26:34 GMT -5
As much as I now see that there's plenty of good and reasonable stuff about all this non-dual, Buddhist type stuff, there are things that either haven't clicked or never will, because - perchance - there's something a tad off about it. Why not go the whole 9 yards and stay in la la land, or admit that there are imperfections...I mean, if YOU had to personally live in one of the roughest spots, I do believe you'd change your tune. I already believe some of this stuff makes 'perfect' sense, but perfect does not. *shrug* Silver: As a crude way to get a sense of what is meant by the claim that the universe is perfect just as it is (which doesn't mean that one can't work for peace or try to educate people or, if necessary, kill killers), here's a fun little thought experiment that might give a glimpse of what is being pointed to: For just a moment, put yourself in God's place (SOI if the word "God" is too offensive). Imagine that you had the power to create a universe in which to live, and then imagine that you had to live in that universe for infinity (because you would be every creature that inhabited that universe). What kind of universe would you create? If you consider in depth all of the implications of this creative choice, then this very world (with all of its beauty, horror, love, joy, pain, and pleasure) is the world that I suspect you would voluntarily choose to create. Please don't jump to any immediate conclusions about this idea; just silently contemplate why you might choose to do this. Most people imagine that heaven is a wonderful place where nothing bad ever happens (no suffering, no death, no disease, etc). This idea proves that they lack both imagination as well as insight into the matter. One moment of deep insight would show them that heaven is already present. It's just not the heaven that they usually imagine. If they could get the heaven that they imagine they want, they would soon recognize it as hell. Even 72 virgins or streets paved with gold would soon pale in comparison to THIS. Someone once asked ZMSS if he wanted to go to heaven. He replied, "No. I want to go to hell because that's where all of the interesting people will be." Everyone laughed, but I don't think that he was joking. Yeah, I think Jesus kinda thought the same thing as zmss. I mean, on his last night before being crucified, did he go hang out with his ma and pa? No, he called up his best mates and a prostitute, got a bunch of wine and bread, and went on and on until the wee hours of the morning. Talk about rascals!
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 22, 2014 0:56:20 GMT -5
Yes, that's the same monkey wrench I was trying to throw into Silver's argument for a better world. If we all had a common vision for how we wanted it to be, I guess it would pretty much be that way. God really doesn't have much to do with it. ZD's inquiry sort of naturally leads to that idea: "best of all possible worlds", and in that, for me, the absurdity of the notion of the individual as God becomes apparent, really quickly. Lets see, God would either be a democracy or a dictatorship, depending on whether God is personal or impersonal. Either way is gonna result in revolt.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 22, 2014 0:58:35 GMT -5
Do you really think you could get every individual, or even a majority of them to agree on what you mean by "best of all possible worlds"? The truth is the truth no matter if only one sees it or if everybody sees it. I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything, I just sharing my POV. sdp So there is an objective 'best'?
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 22, 2014 1:02:13 GMT -5
SDP: What if you saw, clearly, that you were an actor in a script from which no deviation was possible, and that your role, despite all appearances, could not be escaped or altered in any sense whatsoever? What if you saw, clearly, that no matter what was happening, and no matter what anyone might think (including "you"), every single action "your body" took was because it was part of the underlying script? What if you saw that the script included the sense of being an actor separate from the script, but also included the possibility of realizing the underlying truth and becoming free from the sense of being a separate actor? If you saw this, clearly, then you would realize that every single thought arising in "your" mind was not really "yours," and "you" would realize that everything "you" saw happening also had nothing to do with "you." IOW, no matter what "you" did, or what "you" thought, it would all be part of a script written, directed, staged, and acted out by something vast and unknowable. If "you" saw this, clearly, could "you" not then relax and participate in whatever was happening without having to think about it? Would "you" not see that everything would be out of "your" hands? Would "you" not realize that even the thought, "Not having free will is unfair," or "I hate people saying that free will or volition is an illusion," would be thoughts that were also written into the script? Would you not realize that it would be impossible to even think a thought that was not part of the script? If you saw all of this, clearly, would it not lead to a great sense of relaxation, freedom, and peace? There would be no "you" to worry about anything, expect anything, hope for anything, or resist anything. There would be no "you" who would need to think about anything concerning "you" because "you" would not exist separate from the action required by the script. You would simply be an actor in a play, playing a role, and watching the play unfold before your eyes. Whatever you thought, or said, or did in each moment could never be "wrong" because whatever you thought, or said, or did in each moment would be "your" role, and you would never know in advance what that role would entail. You would simply do what you felt needed to be done in each moment knowing that whatever you did would be perfectly so. If you saw this, clearly, you would see that the body grew from childhood to adulthood without "you" having had anything to do with it. You would see that the body breathes, pumps blood, and transmits nerve impulses without "you." You would see that it sees, feels, hears, tastes, smells, walks, and talks without "you." You would see that thoughts appear in a field of consciousness that "you" do not generate because "you" wouldn't know how to generate thoughts even if "you" wanted to. You would see that the entire cosmos is functioning perfectly in accordance with an incomprehensibly complex script (for lack of a better word), that "you" had nothing to do with, and which "you" cannot in any way alter. You would see that if "your" ear develops an itch, "your" hand automatically reaches up to scratch it without any effort or thought on "your" part. "You" would see that beneath all surface appearances, or thoughts, an infinite number of unimaginable happenings are occurring behind even the simplest action that the body might perform. If you saw all of this, clearly, could you not then relax, let go, and simply enjoy being what you are, knowing that everything is in the hands of something much much vaster than "you?" This is just a story/mind experiment, of course, that was perhaps generated as part of a script (ha ha), but can the reading of it, and the contemplation of it, suggest to you why someone who saw this sort of thing clearly, might feel deeply relaxed and at peace with the world just as it is? Can you get a sense of how someone who saw such a thing might be willing to accept whatever happens with great equanimity, and also feel a deep reverence for the SOI that is, or might be, at the heart of both the script and the entire cosmos? Can you see how someone who saw such a thing might realize that she, the script, and the SOI were one, and that any idea of separation would be an idea, only? Can you see how that kind of seeing might free one from attaching any importance to ideas of any kind? I can see the truth of everything you say, from a certain perspective. But from this perspective (which I will try to elaborate on a little later, probably tonight), seeing that, from that perspective (to be elaborated on), what you say would be like being in a straightjacket on death row, chained to the bars, knowing helplessness and knowing you couldn't do anything about it, not even being able to commit suicide. If you could just see this clearly.........(in all honesty)..........what you write is almost unbearable.............there are only two ways to bear it.......... sdp I would agree that to identify oneself as a person who was powerless to change anything is not fun at all.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 22, 2014 1:15:53 GMT -5
I don't get a sense that anyone here has come to understand this, state. This level exists, here, now, invisibly. It could be a problem of language and the meaning of words, but I almost think this not possible. Why? Because for the higher state to see the lower there must necessarily exist separation. And the only language I get, is non-dual, non-dual this non-dual that....... It only appears that way because you insist that two states must mean separation. There are not two Beings, just one Being in many states.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 22, 2014 2:38:47 GMT -5
Silver: As a crude way to get a sense of what is meant by the claim that the universe is perfect just as it is (which doesn't mean that one can't work for peace or try to educate people or, if necessary, kill killers), here's a fun little thought experiment that might give a glimpse of what is being pointed to: For just a moment, put yourself in God's place (SOI if the word "God" is too offensive). Imagine that you had the power to create a universe in which to live, and then imagine that you had to live in that universe for infinity (because you would be every creature that inhabited that universe). What kind of universe would you create? If you consider in depth all of the implications of this creative choice, then this very world (with all of its beauty, horror, love, joy, pain, and pleasure) is the world that I suspect you would voluntarily choose to create. Please don't jump to any immediate conclusions about this idea; just silently contemplate why you might choose to do this. Most people imagine that heaven is a wonderful place where nothing bad ever happens (no suffering, no death, no disease, etc). This idea proves that they lack both imagination as well as insight into the matter. One moment of deep insight would show them that heaven is already present. It's just not the heaven that they usually imagine. If they could get the heaven that they imagine they want, they would soon recognize it as hell. Even 72 virgins or streets paved with gold would soon pale in comparison to THIS. Someone once asked ZMSS if he wanted to go to heaven. He replied, "No. I want to go to hell because that's where all of the interesting people will be." Everyone laughed, but I don't think that he was joking. Yeah, I think Jesus kinda thought the same thing as zmss. I mean, on his last night before being crucified, did he go hang out with his ma and pa? No, he called up his best mates and a prostitute, got a bunch of wine and bread, and went on and on until the wee hours of the morning. Talk about rascals! I think you'll find out that she wasn't a prostitute, she was his wife.
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on Sept 22, 2014 5:04:51 GMT -5
If there is no volition, nothing can be done, it simply happens.. changing horses mid-stream has its risks.. Are you aware that whatever your mind/body is made of is coming into being with the rest of the universe? I'm not certain of a beginning, a 'coming into being', but i understand your point... and, that has nothing to do with what 'whatever we're made of' does with its existence..
|
|
|
Post by quinn on Sept 22, 2014 7:08:38 GMT -5
ZD, I'll have to set this up by defining some terms, how I use them. What we are born as/with is our essence, essentially our awareness and attention. I would consider it roughly what is mean by Buddha-mind, Buddha-nature, the unborn, who you were before you were born, before your parents were born. I would also call this essential nature, true self. Ego/personality consists of the contents of the brain/mind-body, what is stored in the neural structure. When ego is virtually fully formed, about the age of six+, we mostly live through ego instead of essence, IOW, ego captures and directs our attention and awareness, IOW our A-A (true self) is confined and imprisoned by the wants and desires of this artificial identity, ego. I've stated all this at various times the last 5 years + here on ST's. Now I'll try to describe your post from this POV, explaining my earlier post (the straightjacket-chained to bars post). "You" as essence/true self gets covered over by ego/artificial identity. Some people have essence less covered over by ego, but to live wholly through essence after the age of about six is very rare. The stage of ego/artificial identity is necessary because essence is weak and fragile. The function of ego/false self is to protect the fragile essence until it can begin to grow again, like the outer shell of a seed protects the soft kernel within. But for most people, ego/false self functions and is in control without essence "having anything to do with it". Again, from my POV, what you describe is imprisonment, attention and awareness captured and held by ego/artificial self. Anyone who sees from your POV, your POV as being wholly accurate, can just give in and relax as nothing can be done anyway. Anyone who catches a glimpse of my POV doesn't give up the search for a way to become free, because seeing the truth, from the POV of essence, as described, is unbearable. Now, it is possible by learning to live through attention and awareness, to some day reach a state where ego can still be present, but one is no longer identified with ego, and therefore is FAPP one is free. This is reaching a higher state of consciousness, a higher level that can see the lower level. However, all this is a process, a growth of essence, and from posts over the years, I don't get a sense that anyone here has come to understand this, state. This level exists, here, now, invisibly. It could be a problem of language and the meaning of words, but I almost think this not possible. Why? Because for the higher state to see the lower there must necessarily exist separation. And the only language I get, is non-dual, non-dual this non-dual that....... Also, in the beginning there is this shift from living from the perspective of ego/artificial self to essence (A-A). And then you begin to value living through A-A more than being trapped in ego. Although ZD seems to describe this living through A-A, I don't get a sense of his ever having experienced this shift from living through ego to living through A-A. I have described this as a teeter-totter, ego/false self goes down as essence/A-A goes up and vice versa. I realize this is not going to make sense unless you experience what the words are pointing to. ...........Anyway.......... sdp SDP, I can see what you're saying and the POV you're coming from. Except I question your statement above that I underlined. Are you sure that's why A-A became covered, why ego formed? What if ego formed for a purely mundane and innocent reason - like functioning in society or something? What if A-A is not the least bit fragile or weak? Is it possible that ego formed first and then hardened into this protective shell to protect itself?
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Sept 22, 2014 8:28:45 GMT -5
ZD, I'll have to set this up by defining some terms, how I use them. What we are born as/with is our essence, essentially our awareness and attention. I would consider it roughly what is mean by Buddha-mind, Buddha-nature, the unborn, who you were before you were born, before your parents were born. I would also call this essential nature, true self. Ego/personality consists of the contents of the brain/mind-body, what is stored in the neural structure. When ego is virtually fully formed, about the age of six+, we mostly live through ego instead of essence, IOW, ego captures and directs our attention and awareness, IOW our A-A (true self) is confined and imprisoned by the wants and desires of this artificial identity, ego. I've stated all this at various times the last 5 years + here on ST's. Now I'll try to describe your post from this POV, explaining my earlier post (the straightjacket-chained to bars post). "You" as essence/true self gets covered over by ego/artificial identity. Some people have essence less covered over by ego, but to live wholly through essence after the age of about six is very rare. The stage of ego/artificial identity is necessary because essence is weak and fragile. The function of ego/false self is to protect the fragile essence until it can begin to grow again, like the outer shell of a seed protects the soft kernel within. But for most people, ego/false self functions and is in control without essence "having anything to do with it". Again, from my POV, what you describe is imprisonment, attention and awareness captured and held by ego/artificial self. Anyone who sees from your POV, your POV as being wholly accurate, can just give in and relax as nothing can be done anyway. Anyone who catches a glimpse of my POV doesn't give up the search for a way to become free, because seeing the truth, from the POV of essence, as described, is unbearable. Now, it is possible by learning to live through attention and awareness, to some day reach a state where ego can still be present, but one is no longer identified with ego, and therefore is FAPP one is free. This is reaching a higher state of consciousness, a higher level that can see the lower level. However, all this is a process, a growth of essence, and from posts over the years, I don't get a sense that anyone here has come to understand this, state. This level exists, here, now, invisibly. It could be a problem of language and the meaning of words, but I almost think this not possible. Why? Because for the higher state to see the lower there must necessarily exist separation. And the only language I get, is non-dual, non-dual this non-dual that....... Also, in the beginning there is this shift from living from the perspective of ego/artificial self to essence (A-A). And then you begin to value living through A-A more than being trapped in ego. Although ZD seems to describe this living through A-A, I don't get a sense of his ever having experienced this shift from living through ego to living through A-A. I have described this as a teeter-totter, ego/false self goes down as essence/A-A goes up and vice versa. I realize this is not going to make sense unless you experience what the words are pointing to. ...........Anyway.......... sdp SDP, I can see what you're saying and the POV you're coming from. Except I question your statement above that I underlined. Are you sure that's why A-A became covered, why ego formed? What if ego formed for a purely mundane and innocent reason - like functioning in society or something? What if A-A is not the least bit fragile or weak? Is it possible that ego formed first and then hardened into this protective shell to protect itself? Bingo!
|
|