|
|
Post by tenka on Jun 26, 2017 7:42:28 GMT -5
If peeps understood the difference then they would understand that there is no ego for the I'ness until I'ness believes it is something . Most peeps here would agree with you then. SDP and Enigma have stated in the last couple of days that there is no ego until there are beliefs, feelings, ideas, concepts thoughts, etc. I disagree however and say that when the I alone arises there is egoity. The I is the root of ego. Without I there are no beliefs, in the same way there are no leaves and branches without roots. But all of it is tree. If tree is ego then the root as well as the leaves and branches are all tree. My view is consistent with Vedanta which says that I is aham is ego. Same response as laffy's |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jun 26, 2017 8:14:41 GMT -5
Yes, but the I that arises, for the child, the two year old, 3, 4, 5, 6, is a false sense of self, it's ex-centric. It says I to things and other people and ideas, mis-identifies. The real sense of being gets lost, covered up, covered over. This is what has to be recovered, authenticity. Not only for a two-year old. That same I rises in adulthood and that too is false. Yes, the point is it has a beginning. The baby/small child doesn't have a sense of I. Even when the child learns to talk, it's some time before it says I. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 26, 2017 8:28:37 GMT -5
Most peeps here would agree with you then. SDP and Enigma have stated in the last couple of days that there is no ego until there are beliefs, feelings, ideas, concepts thoughts, etc. I disagree however and say that when the I alone arises there is egoity. The I is the root of ego. Without I there are no beliefs, in the same way there are no leaves and branches without roots. But all of it is tree. If tree is ego then the root as well as the leaves and branches are all tree. My view is consistent with Vedanta which says that I is aham is ego. Same response as laffy's It's completely unintelligible! |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 26, 2017 8:32:52 GMT -5
Not only for a two-year old. That same I rises in adulthood and that too is false. Yes, the point is it has a beginning. The baby/small child doesn't have a sense of I. Even when the child learns to talk, it's some time before it says I. Disagree totally. The child doesn't have to actually say I. When it grasps for something or recognises it's mother, that is I behind it. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jun 26, 2017 9:27:30 GMT -5
If peeps understood the difference then they would understand that there is no ego for the I'ness until I'ness believes it is something . Most peeps here would agree with you then. SDP and Enigma have stated in the last couple of days that there is no ego until there are beliefs, feelings, ideas, concepts thoughts, etc. I disagree however and say that when the I alone arises there is egoity. The I is the root of ego. Without I there are no beliefs, in the same way there are no leaves and branches without roots. But all of it is tree. If tree is ego then the root as well as the leaves and branches are all tree. My view is consistent with Vedanta which says that I is aham is ego. If ego doesn't require thoughts and all that, what is ego, and what does it mean for it to arise? |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jun 26, 2017 9:32:40 GMT -5
Yes, the point is it has a beginning. The baby/small child doesn't have a sense of I. Even when the child learns to talk, it's some time before it says I. Disagree totally. The child doesn't have to actually say I. When it grasps for something or recognises it's mother, that is I behind it. Yes, that's the real actual sense of being. But there is a unity, for the baby there isn't a sense of self and other, it's all one. But when a child gets a sense of its self, then, there is I and there is other. So I know what you mean, but the language gets confusing (and a lot of it just comes down to definitions, here, how we are using I, differently). When the "separate" self is formed (approximately ages 18 months/2-6), the child loses the unity with being. That's what the fall is, That's what "original sin" is. But it's a necessary step, otherwise the child cannot learn to function in the world. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jun 26, 2017 9:33:07 GMT -5
Most peeps here would agree with you then. SDP and Enigma have stated in the last couple of days that there is no ego until there are beliefs, feelings, ideas, concepts thoughts, etc. I disagree however and say that when the I alone arises there is egoity. The I is the root of ego. Without I there are no beliefs, in the same way there are no leaves and branches without roots. But all of it is tree. If tree is ego then the root as well as the leaves and branches are all tree. My view is consistent with Vedanta which says that I is aham is ego. If ego doesn't require thoughts and all that, what is ego, and what does it mean for it to arise? Bingo. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jun 26, 2017 10:11:52 GMT -5
If ego doesn't require thoughts and all that, what is ego, and what does it mean for it to arise? Bingo. I recall that Satch equates the sense of existence (I am) with ego, and so here we are again, only this time the sense of existence is called 'I'. (cuz it wasn't confusing enough already) |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jun 26, 2017 11:39:13 GMT -5
I recall that Satch equates the sense of existence (I am) with ego, and so here we are again, only this time the sense of existence is called 'I'. (cuz it wasn't confusing enough already) Yea, something is amiss. It looks like one Niz quote would put this to rest: Observe what you are not, until you find out what you are. (What you are-not, would be ego. But I know satch you have (tried to) explain this, don't have to try again). Oops, almost forgot, but you (E) disagree with that (quote), too. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 26, 2017 11:54:24 GMT -5
I recall that Satch equates the sense of existence (I am) with ego, and so here we are again, only this time the sense of existence is called 'I'. (cuz it wasn't confusing enough already) You don't actually read, digest and understand the content of posts do you? |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jun 26, 2017 14:10:56 GMT -5
I recall that Satch equates the sense of existence (I am) with ego, and so here we are again, only this time the sense of existence is called 'I'. (cuz it wasn't confusing enough already) Yea, something is amiss. It looks like one Niz quote would put this to rest: Observe what you are not, until you find out what you are. (What you are-not, would be ego. But I know satch you have (tried to) explain this, don't have to try again). Oops, almost forgot, but you (E) disagree with that (quote), too. If you try to summarize what Niz said with one simple quote you'll always leave something out, and there are several reasons for that. Yes, observe what you are not, but can ego ever see itself? In terms of this prescription, what is it that's observing? Peeps aren't interested in this stuff unless they've had a glimpse of the false as false, but that glimpse isn't enough to preclude any confusion about this. In self observation there can be distinction of the false as false, and there can also be an opening and a sense of integration and acceptance of what is. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jun 26, 2017 14:11:45 GMT -5
I recall that Satch equates the sense of existence (I am) with ego, and so here we are again, only this time the sense of existence is called 'I'. (cuz it wasn't confusing enough already) From what I read of diaper guy his most common use of "I" was personal. As in: "find out who this 'I' is that has the question". Niz used "I am" in various ways, but by far his most common use was from the middle of the bridge where witnessing happens. The confusion here seems to me a common thing: because both used the word "I", but with sometimes different meanings. I must admit that I find this confusion surprising. Long before I read Tolle I was acquainted with the distinction between a thing as we describe it and the thing in itself. How that applied to myself as a person was obvious even when I still felt that was what I was. |
|
|
|
Post by maxdprophet on Jun 26, 2017 15:34:33 GMT -5
Haha! I can be absolutely certain that there is a very fine nuance I am missing. (**doubts the honesty of that**) |
|
|
|
Post by maxdprophet on Jun 26, 2017 15:37:49 GMT -5
Niz talked about it. It's a concept. Niz axed the 'I' too? I thought his bloodlust ended with the 'I am'.  Anything in quotes, for starters. |
|
|
|
Post by bluey on Jun 26, 2017 16:21:33 GMT -5
Thanks for the vid. I've watched it about 20 times before...I guess I need to keep at it. Visiting that place and not letting mind constantly win. My mind just says 'is that it?' 'Doesn't seem right?' 'Could I have it wrong?' And on and on... You have be true to yourself. Are you a thinker or a feeler. Are you more mind or heart centred. Rupert Spira may have needed twenty years plus of meditation as he was very sick a pure thinker, a monkey mind bordering on crazy, needed years of practice to have taste of a still mind, a silent heart. Is that true for you? If so follow his waffle. Let your hair become grey following these old fashioned traditions. Or get your life right and come closer to the present moment the now in everything you do. He mentioned Llwellyn Vaughan lee and ireena Tweedie. At 7.50 and how he asked ireena on what he can expect to be around her and she said I will infect you with my happiness. I wonder if Rupert Spira understood this in his days of practicing TM. Or he came to this understanding much later. |
|
