|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jan 22, 2020 18:16:14 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by justlikeyou on Jan 22, 2020 21:32:14 GMT -5
One no longer imagines that one is an entity "in here" separate from a cosmos "out there." Yes, true, and here, now, the utterly silent, boundaryless spaciousness that we are is accessed within/through the body.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jan 23, 2020 4:05:12 GMT -5
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. I like the distinction between pride and how ego is defined here, which I'd say is pretty much the same as jealousy. Competition seems to me to be a fact of life, and is a two-sided coin, although in terms of what we point to with nonduality, "competitive being" is about as laughable an idea as they come. Now, aggression .. that's one of those topics like anger, where it can be recognized that it's usually the result of the existential illusion, but to conclude that it always is the case isn't true.
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Jan 23, 2020 8:14:35 GMT -5
ZM Seung Sahn used to talk about the value of having "a strong center," and his use of that term seems to point in the same direction as the idea of "pride in oneself." It has nothing to do with ego, as defined in the article that K posted, and everything to do with standing in the center of one's truth--a truth that rests on the solid ground of being. It is what led a famous ZM who was threatened with death by a samurai warrior to say without any fear or concern, "Do whatever you wish; aggression only harms the aggressor." A strong center is synonymous with the idea of a house being built on solid rock that cannot be moved by capricious external forces.
Although competition is usually an attribute of life, in humans it generally results from "a comparing mind," and is often thought of as a zero sum game. Humans who discover the truth underlying the conventional paradigm cease to compare themselves to others and they look for ways to make all engagements win-win rather than win-lose. This difference in outlook points to the same distinction between ego and pride in oneself. However, the word "pride" in this phrase should probably be replaced with something like "inner knowing of one's true nature" because the word "pride" has connotations that point toward ego, as defined by K's article.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 23, 2020 8:56:36 GMT -5
The world is a bit heavier without him.
|
|
|
Post by krsnaraja on Jan 23, 2020 10:18:36 GMT -5
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. I like the distinction between pride and how ego is defined here, which I'd say is pretty much the same as jealousy. Competition seems to me to be a fact of life, and is a two-sided coin, although in terms of what we point to with nonduality, "competitive being" is about as laughable an idea as they come. Now, aggression .. that's one of those topics like anger, where it can be recognized that it's usually the result of the existential illusion, but to conclude that it always is the case isn't true. Reefs shouldn't have granted Satch's wish to be banned. We are like family here. There are misunderstandings, of course. But that's human nature. To say how we feel. Satch was hurt when he was accused by Reefs of trolling /crusading. Maybe he was or maybe he was not. I know ST can always find a replacement in the caliber of Satch. The absence of Satch has left an empty space in my heart. We should all are because he's our friend not fiend.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jan 23, 2020 13:34:34 GMT -5
I like the distinction between pride and how ego is defined here, which I'd say is pretty much the same as jealousy. Competition seems to me to be a fact of life, and is a two-sided coin, although in terms of what we point to with nonduality, "competitive being" is about as laughable an idea as they come. Now, aggression .. that's one of those topics like anger, where it can be recognized that it's usually the result of the existential illusion, but to conclude that it always is the case isn't true. Reefs shouldn't have granted Satch's wish to be banned. We are like family here. There are misunderstandings, of course. But that's human nature. To say how we feel. Satch was hurt when he was accused by Reefs of trolling /crusading. Maybe he was or maybe he was not. I know ST can always find a replacement in the caliber of Satch. The absence of Satch has left an empty space in my heart. We should all are because he's our friend not fiend. Pretty sure he's on facebook, and he might still be active in a nonduality group there. He put up a youtube video of himself, PM me if you want the link (which has his real name).
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jan 23, 2020 14:28:24 GMT -5
I like the distinction between pride and how ego is defined here, which I'd say is pretty much the same as jealousy. Competition seems to me to be a fact of life, and is a two-sided coin, although in terms of what we point to with nonduality, "competitive being" is about as laughable an idea as they come. Now, aggression .. that's one of those topics like anger, where it can be recognized that it's usually the result of the existential illusion, but to conclude that it always is the case isn't true. Reefs shouldn't have granted Satch's wish to be banned. We are like family here. There are misunderstandings, of course. But that's human nature. To say how we feel. Satch was hurt when he was accused by Reefs of trolling /crusading. Maybe he was or maybe he was not. I know ST can always find a replacement in the caliber of Satch. The absence of Satch has left an empty space in my heart. We should all are because he's our friend not fiend. yeah it's often a downer when someone gets banned. This one is a bit of a downer. You get used to seeing people around, even if its an 'internet person'.
|
|
|
Post by justlikeyou on Jan 23, 2020 15:37:01 GMT -5
yeah it's often a downer when someone gets banned. This one is a bit of a downer. You get used to seeing people around, even if its an 'internet person'. Reality is as reality does, no? Seems to me that resistance is futile (and the cause of much grief)
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jan 23, 2020 16:19:31 GMT -5
yeah it's often a downer when someone gets banned. This one is a bit of a downer. You get used to seeing people around, even if its an 'internet person'. Reality is as reality does, no? Seems to me that resistance is futile (and the cause of much grief) yeah, true. Resistance is interesting. The bit of a downer sense can be seen to be 'resistance'. Then again, sometimes the path of least resistance is to just let that 'resistance' be what it is for a while. I have no inclination to fight the decision. I think I just appreciated what krsnaraja said.
|
|
|
Post by justlikeyou on Jan 23, 2020 18:20:11 GMT -5
Reality is as reality does, no? Seems to me that resistance is futile (and the cause of much grief) yeah, true. Resistance is interesting. The bit of a downer sense can be seen to be 'resistance'. Then again, sometimes the path of least resistance is to just let that 'resistance' be what it is for a while. What is resistance, to you?
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jan 23, 2020 19:10:07 GMT -5
yeah, true. Resistance is interesting. The bit of a downer sense can be seen to be 'resistance'. Then again, sometimes the path of least resistance is to just let that 'resistance' be what it is for a while. What is resistance, to you? There's several different senses of the word (even there I used it in 2 slightly differing ways), but the 'resistance' in parenthesis was akin to the Tolle version, and which he usually contrasts with 'non resistance'. ''Inner resistance to whatever arises in the present moment pulls you back into unconsciousness. Inner resistance is some form of negativity, complaining, fear, aggression, or anger. This is important because whenever you complain about what somebody else does you're already beginning to fall into that trap of unconsciousness.”
|
|
|
Post by krsnaraja on Jan 23, 2020 19:43:01 GMT -5
What is resistance, to you? There's several different senses of the word (even there I used it in 2 slightly differing ways), but the 'resistance' in parenthesis was akin to the Tolle version, and which he usually contrasts with 'non resistance'. ''Inner resistance to whatever arises in the present moment pulls you back into unconsciousness. Inner resistance is some form of negativity, complaining, fear, aggression, or anger. This is important because whenever you complain about what somebody else does you're already beginning to fall into that trap of unconsciousness.” Can a Catholic priest resisting the advances of a beautiful woman apply to that definition? "
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jan 23, 2020 19:56:38 GMT -5
There's several different senses of the word (even there I used it in 2 slightly differing ways), but the 'resistance' in parenthesis was akin to the Tolle version, and which he usually contrasts with 'non resistance'. ''Inner resistance to whatever arises in the present moment pulls you back into unconsciousness. Inner resistance is some form of negativity, complaining, fear, aggression, or anger. This is important because whenever you complain about what somebody else does you're already beginning to fall into that trap of unconsciousness.” Can a Catholic priest resisting the advances of a beautiful woman apply to that definition? " Don't you have a realistic question you could ask? In what Tolle calls 'non resistance', one can still say a firm 'No'. But the context starts to fray a bit when we consider that fear/aggression/anger do have their place, and can one actually say a firm 'No' without an instant sense of prior 'complaint'? As with most spiritual ideas, I see both value and problems to it. Perhaps the key is discerning what approach to use that fits the situation.
|
|
|
Post by krsnaraja on Jan 23, 2020 20:25:10 GMT -5
Can a Catholic priest resisting the advances of a beautiful woman apply to that definition? " Don't you have a realistic question you could ask? In what Tolle calls 'non resistance', one can still say a firm 'No'. But the context starts to fray a bit when we consider that fear/aggression/anger do have their place, and can one actually say a firm 'No' without an instant sense of prior 'complaint'? As with most spiritual ideas, I see both value and problems to it. Perhaps the key is discerning what approach to use that fits the situation. For example the slogan, " Say No To Drugs." Would that be rediculous as a physician if I post that sign in my clinic?
|
|