|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jun 23, 2017 8:30:25 GMT -5
I don't have a problem equating I with ego. 'I am', however, as used by Niz, refers to the sense of existence. I didn't coin the phrase, I'm just using it as Niz did. It neither works for me or doesn't work for me. Does that mean you have no sense of existence with I, but you do with I am? I and I am are different ways of saying the same thing. Ramana tends to stick with I, whereas Niz says I am. They are both the primary sense of existence, of sentience in individuated consciousness. What you call the ego would be I walk or I am walking. The addition of some action or thing to either of those is what constitutes identification of this I or I am with some thing. It's a silly argument because if you locate this sense, you don't have to call it anything. It's the experience that matters. So if that's true then why am I engaged in this discussion. The answer is that this discussion is getting in the way of experiencing so stop it now! The question is what is the nature of the small s self? Do you derive your sense of being from self, or Self? Is that a silly question? |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jun 23, 2017 9:02:17 GMT -5
You said "I am and ego are the same." 'I am' is the sense of existence, not the sense of I. That doesn't make any sense. What is the sense of I? Lol. You tell me: "I equated the sense of I to ego" |
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Jun 23, 2017 9:32:08 GMT -5
Does that mean you have no sense of existence with I, but you do with I am? I and I am are different ways of saying the same thing. Ramana tends to stick with I, whereas Niz says I am. They are both the primary sense of existence, of sentience in individuated consciousness. What you call the ego would be I walk or I am walking. The addition of some action or thing to either of those is what constitutes identification of this I or I am with some thing. It's a silly argument because if you locate this sense, you don't have to call it anything. It's the experience that matters. So if that's true then why am I engaged in this discussion. The answer is that this discussion is getting in the way of experiencing so stop it now! The question is what is the nature of the small s self? Do you derive your sense of being from self, or Self? Is that a silly question? No, that's not a silly question. We derive our sense of being from Self because Self is all there is. The small self is simply a structure of thought, a fictitious story. When the thought structure/story of "me" collapses, the truth becomes evident. Imagining a separate self is like imagining a cartoon character. It doesn't exist except in our imagination. According to brain studies that Weber cites, self-referentiality is one of three primary modes of mental functioning. Most brain researchers now think that the brain has plasticity and is physically altered by many things, including meditation. I suspect that by focusing upon sensory input rather than thoughts (ATA-T) the sense of "me," as a thought structure, eventually collapses. IOW, imagination, as a primary focus of mental activity, loses its dominance in relationship to direct perception. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jun 23, 2017 9:40:46 GMT -5
You think it was a misquote/mistranslation? You cannot misquote or mistranslate something that isn't there. Niz never spoke?? |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jun 23, 2017 9:45:48 GMT -5
The sense of existing is not a concept, and it's not false. You actually do exist. The sense of existing is the basis of ego because you can't say 'I am a mind/body' until you know you exist, but that doesn't make the sense of existence wrong or illusory or in need of axing. The individuated I which arises in consciousness is false. It is an object mixed in with the unbounded I, the real I which is prior to Consciousness. When the false I is axed the unbounded remains. We can also call this discrimination between the limited I and the unlimited I. Sure, but nobody has talked about axing the false I. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jun 23, 2017 9:59:46 GMT -5
Hardly any of that is true. In terms of the Earth there's a great difference between the seed and the tree. The distinction between I am and ego is not just name and form. I am is true, ego is an illusion formed in mind. Awareness makes no distinction at all, ever. As Tenka would say, awareness is awareness. They are not (even in effect) the same. You're trying to appeal to a larger context in which form is emptiness. That's called context hopping. When I subsides, so does ego, but not because they are the same. When your job 'subsides', so does your income, but it doesn't mean your job and your income are the same. If ego, as you say, is an illusion, then why are you so concerned with it? The I which arises in the mind is also illusion because it identifies with objects. But behind that false I which you assert as being true is actually the real I which has no connection to objects. There is no dependency. Awareness, Self, undifferentiated universal I gives rise to limited I which identifies with objects. But we mistake this limited I for what we are. Result, suffering because of separation. We have separated the limited I from universal I. Sugar and sand mixed together still tastes sweet. The sweetness of Being is always there but it is contaminated with limitation. But the good news is that the limited I cannot survive by itself if it is isolated from objects by attending to it. It falls away leaving that which is without boundaries, undifferentiated I. The sense of existing is not a false I. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jun 23, 2017 10:03:21 GMT -5
Does attending to ego produce the same result? (Since they are the same) Haven't you just answered your own question? Attending ego to remove ego. Perhaps you've stumbled onto a new practice? |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jun 23, 2017 10:08:39 GMT -5
I don't have a problem equating I with ego. 'I am', however, as used by Niz, refers to the sense of existence. I didn't coin the phrase, I'm just using it as Niz did. It neither works for me or doesn't work for me. Does that mean you have no sense of existence with I, but you do with I am? I and I am are different ways of saying the same thing. Ramana tends to stick with I, whereas Niz says I am. They are both the primary sense of existence, of sentience in individuated consciousness. What you call the ego would be I walk or I am walking. The addition of some action or thing to either of those is what constitutes identification of this I or I am with some thing. It's a silly argument because if you locate this sense, you don't have to call it anything. It's the experience that matters. So if that's true then why am I engaged in this discussion. The answer is that this discussion is getting in the way of experiencing so stop it now! Yes, that's what I've been trying to explain to you. Are we clear now? |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Jun 23, 2017 10:09:22 GMT -5
You mean like tics and stuff? Well, yeah, and silly pantomimes and pixy giggles and such. That would prove my point again. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jun 23, 2017 10:10:06 GMT -5
I'll have to check our acronym thread to see what FAPP means.  I'm curious where you found something to agree with. For all practical purposes. TFCT.  |
|
|
|
Post by maxdprophet on Jun 23, 2017 10:15:24 GMT -5
The individuated I which arises in consciousness is false. It is an object mixed in with the unbounded I, the real I which is prior to Consciousness. When the false I is axed the unbounded remains. We can also call this discrimination between the limited I and the unlimited I. Sure, but nobody has talked about axing the false I. If a false I is just a conceptual "I," then, yes, Niz suggests putting it on the chopping block. Is the sense of existing the false I? no. Is the false I rooted in the sense of existence? Yes. How can it not be? |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Jun 23, 2017 10:16:07 GMT -5
What exactly is the ego in Seth terms? Just the thinking mind or person? Does Seth differentiate between ego and mind identification, or between ego and mind? He makes a distinction between inner and outer ego. The outer ego belongs to the physical realm and can only perceive what belongs to the physical realm because that's it's function, and the inner ego belongs to the non-physical realm. Together, inner and outer ego, make a personality. Personalities are part of a larger entity. I worked with this guy for a couple years, and he was a true genius in charting energy. He took an entirely mathematical approach to this stuff, and maybe that would be more suitable for some. At the same time, some people love talking about spirits, so much so that they develop spirit obsessions. I see myself as a medium to the spirit world, but more pointedly as someone who can lay the bricks to anyone who wants to walk away from the umbrella of a cloak. Seth is also mentioning that there's a certain order and mathematics behind the creation process. Kinda reminds me of astrology. Occult means hidden or unknown. So de-occulting is making the unknown, known, particularly in the realm of hierarchical compartmentalization programming present everywhere at all times. Mark Passio is the first person I heard use that term, and it just sound better than a 'light occult worker' or a 'light worker'. Peeps that on those kinds of terms tend to be completely cloaked themselves, so I'll stick with de-occultist spiritual medium on my business card. www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y4e8BlvpUIoOkay. He says in the video that the persons have to have supportive emotional conditions or else such influences couldn't occur. And I think that's key to this cloaking issue and pain body or the Id. Even though cloaking and possessions sound like something asserting itself into your reality, there is no actual assertion. It's just LOA at work again. ETA: I finally watched a video of Jane channeling Seth on youtube. Wow! Talk about theatrics!  However, A-H say that this is a sign of resistance in the channel. In the early days, Esther used to have a strange accent as well when she was channeling Abraham. Seth talks a lot about Jane's mental hiccups and she's been physically sick a lot, too. So this actually makes sense. I came across some interesting information about how Seth contacted Jane. He didn't contact her directly. He did it thru someone who was closer to her, Frank Watts. You can see that in the first few sessions where Jane and Robert were using the ouija board, they were talking to Frank Watts, not Seth directly. Seth told Frank to contact them, sorta. |
|
|
|
Post by maxdprophet on Jun 23, 2017 10:34:37 GMT -5
Does that mean you have no sense of existence with I, but you do with I am? I and I am are different ways of saying the same thing. Ramana tends to stick with I, whereas Niz says I am. They are both the primary sense of existence, of sentience in individuated consciousness. What you call the ego would be I walk or I am walking. The addition of some action or thing to either of those is what constitutes identification of this I or I am with some thing. It's a silly argument because if you locate this sense, you don't have to call it anything. It's the experience that matters. So if that's true then why am I engaged in this discussion. The answer is that this discussion is getting in the way of experiencing so stop it now! Yes, that's what I've been trying to explain to you. Are we clear now? As long as one or the other of you agrees that the other one has been explaining it correctly all along, it will be all clear. Otherwise, just unending speaking past each other. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 23, 2017 10:41:07 GMT -5
You cannot misquote or mistranslate something that isn't there. Niz never spoke?? He never spoke about something he never spoke about. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 23, 2017 10:42:09 GMT -5
The individuated I which arises in consciousness is false. It is an object mixed in with the unbounded I, the real I which is prior to Consciousness. When the false I is axed the unbounded remains. We can also call this discrimination between the limited I and the unlimited I. Sure, but nobody has talked about axing the false I. I just did. |
|
