Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 23, 2017 10:43:15 GMT -5
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. Sugar and sand mixed together still tastes sweet. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 23, 2017 10:43:44 GMT -5
Haven't you just answered your own question? Attending ego to remove ego. Perhaps you've stumbled onto a new practice? It's as old as the hills. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 23, 2017 10:46:06 GMT -5
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? What refreshing clarity! |
|
|
|
Post by maxdprophet on Jun 23, 2017 10:49:30 GMT -5
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. It seems like the "me" is a natural function -- everyone does it. Part of survival. We create a virtual "me" to aid in decision-making, planning, etc. All of society encourages this, even (... particularly) the most loving parents to their own child. The issue is when the virtual "me" or self is taken as real. Then there is a fundamental alienation, which in itself creates suffering. For that alienation to take hold the thought structure of "me" must include an aspect that includes masking one's actual natural state. So perhaps the collapse of the thought structure of "me," with SR, is primarily when that particular aspect no longer holds sway. So the virtual "me" actually remains as a thought structure but no longer is considered real, no longer produces alienation, and no longer masks the natural state. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Jun 23, 2017 11:07:24 GMT -5
And who sets those standards? Devotees? Anyone that entertains them . I mean ramana wanted to keep / maintain / attain a level of perfection because the so called high standard dropped off somewhat . It was never going to be maintained forever, it was never mean't to be maintained forever . Bliss can seem to have addictive qualities when it starts to wane .For some, potentially it can become counterproductive in like one is chasing a dream . If peeps believe that they cannot control the outcome or the calling of grace, it would be futile to try and control the outcome after the initial outcome . Does this mean you don't believe in the perpetugasm? |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jun 23, 2017 12:09:42 GMT -5
I'm never going to budge from my position that the I principle or the I or I am sense is ego. But whatever works for you, go for it. In modern times Ego is only a psychological term popularized by Freud meaning the conscious (as opposed to the unconscious) mind, or the awareness of one's own identity and existence. But what is ego within the context of nonduality and the tradition of Vedanta? Ego is known in Sanskrit as the ‘ahankara,’ the aham ‘I,’ kara ‘maker.’ The ego, or ahankara, is considered to be a type of thought, which is the hallmark of self-ignorance. Swami Dayananda Saraswati, one of the foremost contemporary vedantic scholars say this. "The one who owns the mind is the ego (aham). This is the individual—the ‘I’ thought or the one who employs the mind. Therefore, the ego is the sense of “I-ness”. Any ownership, knowership, enjoyership, doership—all “ships” belong to (aham)." And from Ramana these quotes, "The thought ‘I’ is the first thought of the mind; and that is egoity. It is from that whence egoity originates that breath also originates." Q. What is the mark of the ego? M. The individual soul of the form of ‘I’ is the ego. The Self which is of the nature of intelligence (chit) has no sense of ‘I’. Nor does the insentient body possess a sense of ‘I’. The mysterious appearance of a delusive ego between the intelligent and the insentient, being the root cause of all these troubles, upon its destruction by whatever means, that which really exists will be seen as it is. This is called liberation (moksha). "all the thoughts that appear in the Heart have as their basis the egoity which is the first mental mode ‘I’, the cognition of the form ‘I am the body’; thus, it is the rise of egoity that is the cause and source of the rise of all other thoughts." So it is very clear in Vedanta Aham = I = Ego 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. Pronouns are such treacherous thingys. It's so very confusing for peeps looking for a nice, simple explanation of it all.  |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jun 23, 2017 12:18:07 GMT -5
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. Well no, the disagreement here is very clear and not trivial. What you wrote here isn't far off. What's "axed" is false, but self-reference is inevitable, it just doesn't happen in the same way as before. Webber was forced to make his distinction about what he meant by "all thought stopped" because he was obviously engaging with abstractions as he moved through the world free of the illusion that rests on self-reference. Notice the movement of mind that's interested in the wordplay between "I", "I am", "being" and "ego". Which party is the source of that in this dialog? The only thing I'd add to what you wrote is that there's no 3rd-party understanding what the absence of the illusion is like. It's one of those "you kinda' had to have not been there to see what I mean" dealios.  |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jun 23, 2017 12:37:13 GMT -5
Anyone that entertains them . I mean ramana wanted to keep / maintain / attain a level of perfection because the so called high standard dropped off somewhat . It was never going to be maintained forever, it was never mean't to be maintained forever . Bliss can seem to have addictive qualities when it starts to wane .For some, potentially it can become counterproductive in like one is chasing a dream . If peeps believe that they cannot control the outcome or the calling of grace, it would be futile to try and control the outcome after the initial outcome . Does this mean you don't believe in the perpetugasm? One reason the perpetugasm is useful for the one telling the story is that it's an easy way to put the person back into the picture "after enlightenment".  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 23, 2017 12:42:54 GMT -5
Does this mean you don't believe in the perpetugasm? One reason the perpetugasm is useful for the one telling the story is that it's an easy way to put the person back into the picture "after enlightenment". The person never goes away, not before, not after. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jun 23, 2017 12:54:05 GMT -5
One reason the perpetugasm is useful for the one telling the story is that it's an easy way to put the person back into the picture "after enlightenment". The person never goes away, not before, not after. Self-reference, the body, the mind remain. The person is a pattern of thought and emotion that form the core of the mistaken identity. "Enlightenment" is the realization of the absence of separation between what the person thinks they are and what they think they're not. The fantasy of being an enlightened superpeep is very satisfying to ego.  |
|
|
|
Post by maxdprophet on Jun 23, 2017 13:32:34 GMT -5
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. Well no, the disagreement here is very clear and not trivial. What you wrote here isn't far off. What's "axed" is false, but self-reference is inevitable, it just doesn't happen in the same way as before. Webber was forced to make his distinction about what he meant by "all thought stopped" because he was obviously engaging with abstractions as he moved through the world free of the illusion that rests on self-reference. Notice the movement of mind that's interested in the wordplay between "I", "I am", "being" and "ego". Which party is the source of that in this dialog? The only thing I'd add to what you wrote is that there's no 3rd-party understanding what the absence of the illusion is like. It's one of those "you kinda' had to have not been there to see what I mean" dealios. I have seen no inconsistency. It's a disagreement without a substantial difference. All sides have acknowledged the limitations of language and what is referred to as being primary. All sides have been clear about what is referred to. The primary thing I've noticed is the perpetudisagreement. A disagreement founded on disagreement itself. Hey, whatever floats thy boat. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jun 23, 2017 13:39:38 GMT -5
Well no, the disagreement here is very clear and not trivial. What you wrote here isn't far off. What's "axed" is false, but self-reference is inevitable, it just doesn't happen in the same way as before. Webber was forced to make his distinction about what he meant by "all thought stopped" because he was obviously engaging with abstractions as he moved through the world free of the illusion that rests on self-reference. Notice the movement of mind that's interested in the wordplay between "I", "I am", "being" and "ego". Which party is the source of that in this dialog? The only thing I'd add to what you wrote is that there's no 3rd-party understanding what the absence of the illusion is like. It's one of those "you kinda' had to have not been there to see what I mean" dealios. I have seen no inconsistency. It's a disagreement without a substantial difference. All sides have acknowledged the limitations of language and what is referred to as being primary. All sides have been clear about what is referred to. The primary thing I've noticed is the perpetudisagreement. A disagreement founded on disagreement itself. Hey, whatever floats thy boat. Being is necessary for ego, ego is not necessary for being. The substantial disagreement is what Niz meant by "I am". Satch' has said that "I am" is the root of ego, and has even equated the two. I say that Niz used "I am" contextually, and in one of those contexts, there's no equating the two, and that self-reference ("the 'I' thought") does not mean ego -- it depends on what the person saying "I" is saying "I" to/about. No, there's no agreement between myself and Satch' on this. The disagreement is very clearly defined, and substantive. The personality sideshow between the characters involved in the dialog is just that. A sideshow. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jun 23, 2017 13:46:50 GMT -5
It's a disagreement without a substantial difference. Max, the days when I replied to everything I disagree with are quite long gone. Like this for example. Would you like me to outline what I disagree with in this case? Attending ego to remove ego. Perhaps you've stumbled onto a new practice? It's as old as the hills. |
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Jun 23, 2017 14:55:45 GMT -5
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. It seems like the "me" is a natural function -- everyone does it. Part of survival. We create a virtual "me" to aid in decision-making, planning, etc. All of society encourages this, even (... particularly) the most loving parents to their own child. The issue is when the virtual "me" or self is taken as real. Then there is a fundamental alienation, which in itself creates suffering. For that alienation to take hold the thought structure of "me" must include an aspect that includes masking one's actual natural state. So perhaps the collapse of the thought structure of "me," with SR, is primarily when that particular aspect no longer holds sway. So the virtual "me" actually remains as a thought structure but no longer is considered real, no longer produces alienation, and no longer masks the natural state. Evolution obviously favors animals with greater predictive powers, but the advent of abstract thinking was both a blessing and a curse. It was a blessing because it allowed humans to develop agriculture, invent things, and leave behind a hunter-gatherer tribal social structure (not to mention developing novocaine and modern medicines), but it was also a curse because it created a sense of alienation and separation from the natural world. The ability to cognize gave rise to the distinction of self and other, and created the illusion that reality is composed of separate things interacting in causally determinate ways. IOW, the idea of selfhood was, as you suggest, a natural consequence of acquiring the ability to cognize abstractions. In this sense every human "falls from grace" as the intellect becomes the dominant way of interacting with the world, and "eating from the tree of knowledge of good and evil" is a metaphor for what happens as children leave direct sensory perception behind as a primary way of life in favor of intellectual reflection. Is it necessary to believe in the existence of a separate "me" in order to function intelligently and successfully in the world? Not at all, but at this point in human evolution most people do. As an optimist, I suspect that this will change in the future, and increasing numbers of people will discover their unity with the Infinite (a discovery that usually results in peace and equanimity). |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jun 23, 2017 15:06:28 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. Bingo. |
|
