Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 24, 2017 11:39:29 GMT -5
Yes I know you were. I just wanted re-state this in simple terms. Well, we were discussing attention, and in your post you switched to awareness. Awareness and attention are not the same. No they're not. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 24, 2017 11:52:10 GMT -5
Your idea of focusing on ego to dissolve ego is a complete reversal of your repeated advice to ignore mind and it's contents and abide in that which is prior to mind. It's a point of departure between you and Pilgrim. Yes. And he just emphasized it again, so he basically contradicted himself (I think he thought I was supporting you...I guess...maybe, don't teally know what's on...at this point... When I arises it is egoity. So I is ego. I can then add third party attachment such as I am hungry, I am going to the grocery store. I feel sad etc. When we just attend to the I sense itself, it will eventually dissolve into the universal I or real I which is nothing other than awareness. If your definition of ego is when thoughts and ideas appear then that's fine. It's mine too, but I without those attachments is also ego in my definition. If you don't like it, well tough I guess. My definition is consistent with what Advaita Vedanta says for the good reasons I have already given you. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jun 24, 2017 12:03:18 GMT -5
Your idea of focusing on ego to dissolve ego is a complete reversal of your repeated advice to ignore mind and it's contents and abide in that which is prior to mind. It's a point of departure between you and Pilgrim. Yes. And he just emphasized it again, so he basically contradicted himself (I think he thought I was supporting you...I guess...maybe, don't teally know what's on...at this point... I think he noticed he couldn't really support what you were supporting.  In any case, I can, which just adds to the irony. |
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Jun 24, 2017 13:18:27 GMT -5
I agree the sense of existence question is a problem. The question of attention to ego is something else, and he is correct on this. Yes, ego lives and is fed and sustained by attention. But this Is by a passive attention, where attention is stolen. There is a difference between attention going-into and being-taken, as analogy, when you are totally absorbed in a movie, and actually disappearing into the movie, and and active attention TO ego. The former feeds ego, the latter removes energy from ego-structure. But you have to know the difference between the two. The former, the process is mostly unconscious. The latter, it can't be. You're basically talking about becoming conscious, and consciousness of the ego structure is part of that. The irony is that Satch has always argued strongly against all of that, and now he's suddenly on board with it? The irony is further deepened in that he didn't even mean to say abide in ego. It was just a consequence of his idea that 'I am' and ego are the same. Further, it turns out that he has a completely different definition of ego from ours, and therefore his agreement is empty. His confusion continues. haha, the funny thing is that I talked about this for a good few weeks till peeps were sick of it . What's even funnier is that peeps are still not clear about I am . Before anyone throws up again with me mentioning it, the sense of I am existing in itself is different from I am that is in reflection of something . I think most would adopt the ego meaning to the I am something rather than I am aware of I am . I understand that there is a clear difference in the sense of I am or in the awareness of I am that or I am something in reflection of this or that . |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jun 24, 2017 13:55:22 GMT -5
Yes. And he just emphasized it again, so he basically contradicted himself (I think he thought I was supporting you...I guess...maybe, don't teally know what's on...at this point... When I arises it is egoity. So I is ego. I can then add third party attachment such as I am hungry, I am going to the grocery store. I feel sad etc. When we just attend to the I sense itself, it will eventually dissolve into the universal I or real I which is nothing other than awareness. If your definition of ego is when thoughts and ideas appear then that's fine. It's mine too, but I without those attachments is also ego in my definition. If you don't like it, well tough I guess. My definition is consistent with what Advaita Vedanta says for the good reasons I have already given you. Over eight years here I have written extensively what ego is, IMvhO. I have called it variously persona, personality, mask, cultural self, small s self and more. It isn't illusory, it isn't some ephemeral wispy nothing. Ego is wired into the brain, consists of neural connections in the brain. It acts in almost a knee-jerk reaction, if someone punches the right buttons, ego jumps right up to defend itself. Ego consists of our psychological programming, self-referential thoughts and self-referential emotions (which would be most emotions, as were are now). Certain words or actions are triggers to ego's worst aspects. So, ego is always there, in the background, waiting for its time. But correct spiritual practice, interior practice which uses attention or awareness, takes the energy out-of ego. You could say it disengages the gears of the mechanism. So we basically agree, if one lives through awareness, the ~magic~ happens. (As analogy, take two Russian dolls, one is ego, one is awareness. Ordinarily, awareness functions through ego, so ego is the bigger doll, awareness is the smaller doll, inside the bigger doll. When I say, one lives through awareness, this is what Dzogchen calls primordial awareness, meaning, now is the bigger doll, IOW, ego is out of the picture, in the background, the smaller doll). You could call this, aware of awareness, or aware of being aware. This is in no way self-referential thinking. (I'm trying to go into this somewhat on the Let's make this simple thread). |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jun 24, 2017 14:06:09 GMT -5
You're basically talking about becoming conscious, and consciousness of the ego structure is part of that. The irony is that Satch has always argued strongly against all of that, and now he's suddenly on board with it? The irony is further deepened in that he didn't even mean to say abide in ego. It was just a consequence of his idea that 'I am' and ego are the same. Further, it turns out that he has a completely different definition of ego from ours, and therefore his agreement is empty. His confusion continues. haha, the funny thing is that I talked about this for a good few weeks till peeps were sick of it . What's even funnier is that peeps are still not clear about I am . Before anyone throws up again with me mentioning it, the sense of I am existing in itself is different from I am that is in reflection of something . I think most would adopt the ego meaning to the I am something rather than I am aware of I am . I understand that there is a clear difference in the sense of I am or in the awareness of I am that or I am something in reflection of this or that . I've stated before, when I was reading I Am That and came across Niz using I am as he teacher told him to practice, I read into that what I thought he meant (that he didn't mean literally the words I am or the thought I am). So many things he said made a lot of sense, and when that happens I generally keep reading. And then I later came to where he defined I am, the sense of being, so I had been right in my assessment. But the point is we can't just throw it (the words I am) around and expect everyone to agree or understand. So I think from now on I will say, I am in the sense Niz used it, the sense of being (and give the page reference). |
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Jun 24, 2017 14:13:32 GMT -5
haha, the funny thing is that I talked about this for a good few weeks till peeps were sick of it . What's even funnier is that peeps are still not clear about I am . Before anyone throws up again with me mentioning it, the sense of I am existing in itself is different from I am that is in reflection of something . I think most would adopt the ego meaning to the I am something rather than I am aware of I am . I understand that there is a clear difference in the sense of I am or in the awareness of I am that or I am something in reflection of this or that . I've stated before, when I was reading I Am That and came across Niz using I am as he teacher told him to practice, I read into that what I thought he meant (that he didn't mean literally the words I am or the thought I am). So many things he said made a lot of sense, and when that happens I generally keep reading. And then I later came to where he defined I am, the sense of being, so I had been right in I disagreeessment. But the point is we can't just throw it (the words I am) around and expect everyone to agree or understand. So I think from now on I will say, I am in the sense Niz used it, the sense of being (and give the page reference). Only the ego can define I am as that . I am that is only aware of I am cannot define . See the obvious difference in I am ego and I am . |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jun 24, 2017 14:22:46 GMT -5
I've stated before, when I was reading I Am That and came across Niz using I am as he teacher told him to practice, I read into that what I thought he meant (that he didn't mean literally the words I am or the thought I am). So many things he said made a lot of sense, and when that happens I generally keep reading. And then I later came to where he defined I am, the sense of being, so I had been right in I disagreeessment. But the point is we can't just throw it (the words I am) around and expect everyone to agree or understand. So I think from now on I will say, I am in the sense Niz used it, the sense of being (and give the page reference). Only the ego can define I am as that . I am that is only aware of I am cannot define . See the obvious difference in I am ego and I am . Yes, of course, everybody here calls this pointing. I could say, Niz, by the words I am, was pointing to his meaning of the meaning of the words sense of being. Of course what that is can never be put into words. But there is a Zen teacher, Katagiri, who has a book, You Have To Say Something (it's a transcript of talks and questions etc.). You can say something, or we can just close the forum and all go home. |
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Jun 24, 2017 14:32:15 GMT -5
Only the ego can define I am as that . I am that is only aware of I am cannot define . See the obvious difference in I am ego and I am . Yes, of course, everybody here calls this pointing. I could say, Niz, by the words I am, was pointing to his meaning of the meaning of the words sense of being. Of course what that is can never be put into words. But there is a Zen teacher, Katagiri, who has a book, You Have To Say Something (it's a transcript of talks and questions etc.). You can say something, or we can just close the forum and all go home. Well yes, pointing is ego pointing butt one doesn't have to put anything into words unless they are drawn too, or are capable of doing so . The I am that is just aware of that, hasn't the means to mindfully define . This is what I have been speaking of for ages .. The difference is vast between what I think I am and what I am .. The means to say what I am is not of the same intellectual environment as I am that requires no reflection to be . |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jun 24, 2017 15:23:38 GMT -5
Yes, of course, everybody here calls this pointing. I could say, Niz, by the words I am, was pointing to his meaning of the meaning of the words sense of being. Of course what that is can never be put into words. But there is a Zen teacher, Katagiri, who has a book, You Have To Say Something (it's a transcript of talks and questions etc.). You can say something, or we can just close the forum and all go home. Well yes, pointing is ego pointing butt one doesn't have to put anything into words unless they are drawn too, or are capable of doing so . The I am that is just aware of that, hasn't the means to mindfully define . This is what I have been speaking of for ages .. The difference is vast between what I think I am and what I am .. The means to say what I am is not of the same intellectual environment as I am that requires no reflection to be . Yes. |
|
|
|
Post by esponja on Jun 24, 2017 17:30:18 GMT -5
Wow. Enjoyed reading all this you guys. I'm interested to know what you think about Energy workers, and having your energy cleared etc? One seems to have come into my life, hence my question. That's a pretty broad umbrella. What type of energy worker? Generally speaking, I would say level of consciousness is paramount regarding who you work with in life. I would also say clearing energy will ultimately not cure or heal the experience if the causal emotions are not addressed. So for example, while I may have cleared the poltergeist from the woman during a healing meditation, as the causal emotions were not addressed, her experience would then create a new poltergeist that would in turn bring disease to her form in some way. In this way, energy workers (this would include physical therapists) can actually create or develop a facade that relies on others' dependence on their work. Nobody gets healed, but everybody gets what they want for a little while, facade re-enforcement and feeling superior for the worker, and temporary relief for the one working. With all that said, I met a woman at an enlightenment meeting a long time ago. I could pontificate on consciousness with anybody, but I was still in the presence of a fairly dense albeit mostly dormant pain body. We walked off after a meeting and got to chatting, and she said something was off with my energy. I was tilted (possessed). I opened my energy to her for a distance healing and credit her with opening a gateway into the most fruitful relationship of my life. I have no idea how she did it. I'm certainly not crediting her with my healing, but she did something that helped, and I appreciate that. So anyway, if it smells like bull, it probably is. Beware of the potential to be cloaked. Be aware that the person working on you may not even be conscious of how they are cloaking people. They might just think they're helping. Bring up the word 'causal emotion'. If they don't know what that is, I'd steer clear. Thanks for that P. I'll need to read through your posts tonunderstand the word 'cloak' but think I have an idea, and in that case I'll steer clear. I don't have anything I want work on, was just intrigued. |
|
|
|
Post by esponja on Jun 24, 2017 17:37:49 GMT -5
Well, we were discussing attention, and in your post you switched to awareness. Awareness and attention are not the same. No they're not. They're not? Maybe I need an enlightenment for dummies thread🙈 |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jun 24, 2017 19:11:12 GMT -5
They're not? Maybe I need an enlightenment for dummies thread🙈 They're definitely related. A common distinction that folks make is that attention is focused awareness. This gets tricky because awareness is also used as a pointer to what is always here and now, changeless and eternal, and what you really are. In terms of meditation, what I find is that I can start with attention on attention, and sometimes that might take some concentration to maintain at first -- well, that's the way it used to be anyway.  Once the body/mind quiets there can be what feels like an opening, a relaxing and and expansion. Attention on attention flows into awareness of awareness. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jun 24, 2017 19:34:06 GMT -5
They're not? Maybe I need an enlightenment for dummies thread🙈 Turn on a cable TV news program, the kind that has a scroll at the bottom. Your point of focus of attention is about 8-10 inches. Look at the center of your TV. You can't read the scroll. To read it you have to put your attention there. Look at the center of the TV again. With your awareness, you can tell that there is a scroll. Your attention is like a spotlight, takes in a particular thing. Awareness is like a flood light, takes in the whole. Just experiment, play with it. (All this stuff, you have to find it in yourself). |
|
|
|
Post by esponja on Jun 24, 2017 19:45:12 GMT -5
They're not? Maybe I need an enlightenment for dummies thread🙈 Turn on a cable TV news program, the kind that has a scroll at the bottom. Your point of focus of attention is about 8-10 inches. Look at the center of your TV. You can't read the scroll. To read it you have to put your attention there. Look at the center of the TV again. With your awareness, you can tell that there is a scroll. Your attention is like a spotlight, takes in a particular thing. Awareness is like a flood light, takes in the whole. Just experiment, play with it. (All this stuff, you have to find it in yourself). Ah ok. Thanks |
|
