|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jan 22, 2020 9:40:41 GMT -5
I suppose it depends upon how silent the mind is, and whether there is any degree of psychological reflexion. The ordinary sense of self, for most people, comes and goes throughout the day depending upon self-referential intellection. The sense of selfhood disappears in nirvikalpa samadhi, and it can also be absent during daily activities; it all depends upon whether the mind is quiescent or self-referentially "looks back." The disappearance of "me," to which many sages refer, is probably dependent upon their usual referent for the tangibility of that sense and whether there was a strong delineation between the sense of "inside" and "outside." Those who discover that their prior sense of "me" has totally vanished all describe that event occurring at a specific moment in time. Afterwards, they all describe a great sense of freedom that resulted from realizing the non-existence of the "me." The body continues, but the past sense of "me" does not return. I've never heard a sage say that there is a disappearance of me. Non attachment and non identification with me, yes certainly, but not disappearance because you would be unable to live in the body without it. Ramana for instance said that ego, which goes hand-in-hand with a sense of self, is not destroyed after realization, but that it is diminished and resembles the skeleton of a burnt rope. The great sense of freedom you speak about is felt by the ego because in fact it is the ego which becomes enlightened, not awareness which is already and always has been enlightened. You cannot remove the personal from awakening no matter what some nondualist teachers say. Direct quote.
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Jan 22, 2020 11:14:33 GMT -5
"satch, who says his ego is enlightened. Some day maybe you will be able to step outside yourself, but this is pure projection." he said the ego, you said his ego. do you see the difference? if you read his quote without thinking he's talking about himself it changes how its interpreted Yes, "ego" can be defined and understood in many different ways. By "ego," some people mean the sense of existence, some mean the sense of identity, some mean the part of the psyche which experiences the external world, some people mean arrogance, conceit, or self-centeredness, etc. When Zen people talk about "losing the self" or "losing the ego," they generally mean the loss of self-referential mind talk and thoughts, such as, "I'm enlightened but you're not enlightened." Most Zen people even shun the use of words that elevate a sense of self-importance or demean the importance of others.
|
|
|
Post by justlikeyou on Jan 22, 2020 11:34:53 GMT -5
"satch, who says his ego is enlightened. Some day maybe you will be able to step outside yourself, but this is pure projection." he said the ego, you said his ego. do you see the difference? if you read his quote without thinking he's talking about himself it changes how its interpreted Yes, "ego" can be defined and understood in many different ways. By "ego," some people mean the sense of existence, some mean the sense of identity, some mean the part of the psyche which experiences the external world, some people mean arrogance, conceit, or self-centeredness, etc. When Zen people talk about "losing the self" or "losing the ego," they generally mean the loss of self-referential mind talk and thoughts, such as, "I'm enlightened but you're not enlightened." Most Zen people even shun the use of words that elevate a sense of self-importance or demean the importance of others. Yes, it's amazing what happens to one's former sense of identity when one's attention shifts from a hypnotic fascination with thoughts to the silent background in which all mind talk and thoughts appear.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 22, 2020 12:07:16 GMT -5
The only way for Grace to express itself is for the egoic mind to step aside.
Still Satch's banning concerns me. I too had my scraps with him. Put him on ignore for awhile. I think he scrapped with everyone. Though I disagreed with the manner of arguments, some of them were quite interesting. I'll miss him. Perhaps his request for a permanent ban was in the heat of the moment. It might be worth considering a less severe punishment.
My bad, I meant to post this on prettyfroggery, but was thwarted by the smallness of my new phone's screen. My apologies.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jan 22, 2020 12:16:11 GMT -5
"satch, who says his ego is enlightened. Some day maybe you will be able to step outside yourself, but this is pure projection." he said the ego, you said his ego. do you see the difference? if you read his quote without thinking he's talking about himself it changes how its interpreted Well, he wasn't talking about your ego, and "You cannot remove the personal from awakening no matter what some nondualist teachers say." is rather disambiguating to my eye. He expressed this idea several times over the past two years.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jan 22, 2020 13:33:52 GMT -5
The only way for Grace to express itself is for the egoic mind to step aside. Still Satch's banning concerns me. I too had my scraps with him. Put him on ignore for awhile. I think he scrapped with everyone. Though I disagreed with the manner of arguments, some of them were quite interesting. I'll miss him. Perhaps his request for a permanent ban was in the heat of the moment. It might be worth considering a less severe punishment. My bad, I meant to post this on prettyfroggery, but was thwarted by the smallness of my new phone's screen. My apologies. That's the very definition of ego. I'm sure his transgressions did not yet deserve a permanent ban, but he literally asked for it.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jan 22, 2020 13:39:33 GMT -5
"satch, who says his ego is enlightened. Some day maybe you will be able to step outside yourself, but this is pure projection." he said the ego, you said his ego. do you see the difference? if you read his quote without thinking he's talking about himself it changes how its interpreted No, I don't see the difference. (I'm pretty good at deduction...remembering his past comments).
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jan 22, 2020 14:01:18 GMT -5
Well, he wasn't talking about your ego, and "You cannot remove the personal from awakening no matter what some nondualist teachers say." is rather disambiguating to my eye. He expressed this idea several times over the past two years. my ego? how did my ego get brought into this? my ego is here on a different matter You seriously expect me to play straight man to that?
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jan 22, 2020 14:02:15 GMT -5
"satch, who says his ego is enlightened. Some day maybe you will be able to step outside yourself, but this is pure projection." he said the ego, you said his ego. do you see the difference? if you read his quote without thinking he's talking about himself it changes how its interpreted No, I don't see the difference. (I'm pretty good at deduction...remembering his past comments). Yeah, it was pretty clear what he meant.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 22, 2020 14:43:14 GMT -5
No, I don't see the difference. (I'm pretty good at deduction...remembering his past comments). Yeah, it was pretty clear what he meant. My mind (ego) is definitely wee-er than yours. Probably the wee-est here. Cept for whatnot. Who knows not Monty Python. Therefore,whatnot and I are most enlightented.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jan 22, 2020 14:55:10 GMT -5
Yeah, it was pretty clear what he meant. then you're both unclear on the matter If I were more attached to my counter-opinion, or, if I was interested in punking you for a few pages, I'd litigate your claim.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jan 22, 2020 14:56:22 GMT -5
Yeah, it was pretty clear what he meant. My mind (ego) is definitely wee-er than yours. Probably the wee-est here. Cept for whatnot. Who knows not Monty Python. Therefore,whatnot and I are most enlightented. My ego is so small you need tweezer's and a microscope to play with it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 22, 2020 15:19:10 GMT -5
My mind (ego) is definitely wee-er than yours. Probably the wee-est here. Cept for whatnot. Who knows not Monty Python. Therefore,whatnot and I are most enlightented. My ego is so small you need tweezer's and a microscope to play with it.
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Jan 22, 2020 17:20:43 GMT -5
Yes, "ego" can be defined and understood in many different ways. By "ego," some people mean the sense of existence, some mean the sense of identity, some mean the part of the psyche which experiences the external world, some people mean arrogance, conceit, or self-centeredness, etc. When Zen people talk about "losing the self" or "losing the ego," they generally mean the loss of self-referential mind talk and thoughts, such as, "I'm enlightened but you're not enlightened." Most Zen people even shun the use of words that elevate a sense of self-importance or demean the importance of others. Yes, it's amazing what happens to one's former sense of identity when one's attention shifts from a hypnotic fascination with thoughts to the silent background in which all mind talk and thoughts appear. A few days ago Satch re-posted a good quote from Ramana that sort of sums up the ego/sense-of-selfhood thing. Ramana referred to what's left after SR by saying that it was like a "husk" of the former sense of selfhood. That's a pretty good way to describe it. No one thinks that identity as a human being totally disappears after SR or that there is no degree of self reference, but it's no longer a psychologically-dominant factor in the same way as before. One no longer imagines that one is an entity "in here" separate from a cosmos "out there." In the deepest sense one becomes psychologically one-with whatever is happening, and imaginative mind-talk ceases to be a dominant force of motivation. Many past self-referential patterns of thought often simply disappear altogether. Non-abidance in mind is clearly an aspect of flow, so there are no longer strong attachments to various ideas. This is because one becomes more direct-action oriented rather than reflection-oriented. Ramana apparently engaged in very little, if any, mind talk, and that, too, reflects a shift in focus away from imagination to whatever is actually happening. Humorously, Osho used to purposely insult people who were reported to be sages just to see how they would react. If they could easily be insulted or angered, he figured that there was still a strong self-image in play. It was his way of testing whether the ego was still something hard-core that needed to be defended or had been seen through and was only a shadow-like "husk" of its former identity.
|
|
|
Post by krsnaraja on Jan 22, 2020 18:05:38 GMT -5
My mind (ego) is definitely wee-er than yours. Probably the wee-est here. Cept for whatnot. Who knows not Monty Python. Therefore,whatnot and I are most enlightented. My ego is so small you need tweezer's and a microscope to play with it. How Ego And Pride Are Different Speaking tree (Publish Date: Feb 18 2019) What is the difference between ego and taking pride in oneself? Taking pride in oneself is not ego. Not only is there a difference between them, they are opposites. Ego is the feeling of being superior to others. Ego is a disease. How many people can you believe yourself to be superior to? Someone is more beautiful, someone is healthier, someone is more talented, someone is a genius. An egoist will only suffer his whole life; his life will be full of wounds and yet more wounds. Ego is comparing yourself to others. Ego is ideas such as ‘I am superior to others’. Taking pride in oneself is altogether a different thing. To take pride in oneself is to be very humble. There is not even a question of being superior to others — everyone is unique in his own right. This is the understanding that goes with taking pride in oneself: that nobody is higher than anyone else, nor is anyone lower than anyone else. In this existence, a small grass flower and the greatest star in the sky, both have the same value. If even this small grass flower were missing, something would be missing in the whole existence that even the greatest star could not make up for. Taking pride in yourself is accepting the reality that everyone is unique and there is no race, no competition, no ambition. Yes, if someone is aggressive towards you, because taking pride in yourself has no aggression in it, it will give you the capacity to fight back but not to belittle the other, only to prove that the aggression of the other was wrong, that all aggression is wrong. Taking pride in yourself has no conceit: it is simple and plain. But even the greatest power in the world cannot defeat a person who takes pride in himself. This is a very unique mystery. Such a person is humble, so humble that by his own choice, he will stand last in the queue. And so where else can he be pushed? The disease of ego is commonplace. The health of taking pride in oneself is rare, and when it is born in someone, it is difficult to recognise it, because it makes no claim. But the miracle is that this very ‘no claim’ of pride in oneself becomes its very claim. A man who takes pride in himself never wants to hold himself above anyone, and he will never allow anyone else to impose any slavery upon him. Hence, it can seem a little complex, and misinterpretations can happen. Because of this misunderstanding, there have been tremendously adverse effects upon India. For 2,000 years, we have remained slaves. India is the only country in the history of the whole world that has never attacked anybody, because for centuries the enlightened ones of this country taught people only one thing: non-aggression, nonviolence, compassion, and love. But this teaching remained somewhat incomplete. India completely forgot that violence towards itself should also not be allowed. And so is the case with taking pride in oneself: neither does a person leave the impression of his ego on someone else nor does he give that person the right to leave the impression of their ego on him.
|
|