|
Post by enigma on Aug 24, 2013 23:59:17 GMT -5
No, the content of self identification is neither a self deception nor a mystery. Lolly says he doesn't understand anything about that content, and yet it is he who has gathered it for a lifetime. It's true that there is self deception involved in the identification itself, as there is no real evidence for such a self, but ego is no more than the defining of that self, which is done to make it seem real. How can one not know what those labels consist of? ( I am a man, a good person, a father, etc) This is all ego is. There is nothing unknown about it. Are not all that is bolded above no less self-deceptions as any other? The person they refer to is not deceiving himself about that content, only about the truth of it. He knows what the labels are, and this collection of labels is the ego in question. There is no mystery about what ego is. It is those labels. Apparently, the mystery is that ego is believed to be something else; perhaps a false notion that should be rejected.
|
|
|
Post by Beingist on Aug 25, 2013 0:01:56 GMT -5
Are not all that is bolded above no less self-deceptions as any other? The person they refer to is not deceiving himself about that content, only about the truth of it. He knows what the labels are, and this collection of labels is the ego in question. There is no mystery about what ego is. It is those labels. Apparently, the mystery is that ego is believed to be something else; perhaps a false notion that should be rejected. As far as I'm concerned, it's the 'I' thought (>L., ego = 'I')
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Aug 25, 2013 0:02:49 GMT -5
True, obviously self deception CAN be recognized, at which point it is no longer self deception. I may have said something like, by definition, that which one is deceiving oneself about is not recognized as a self deception. IOW, I can't ask you to give me a list of stuff you are deceiving yourself about, because you are deceiving yourself about it. ... any more than one can see their own ego, because they're identifying with something. Are you defining ego as a behavioral/reaction pattern?
|
|
|
Post by Beingist on Aug 25, 2013 0:07:07 GMT -5
... any more than one can see their own ego, because they're identifying with something. Are you defining ego as a behavioral/reaction pattern? I think I just posted my definition: the 'I' thought. No more.
|
|
|
Post by silver on Aug 25, 2013 0:08:34 GMT -5
With all that you've said (most of you), is a father not a father? Is a man not a man? I can understand the good person not being a good person - but just a person. This is where you seem to take a turn into the deep dark forest. Ag: I am. Everything else is self-deception. I'll never understand you guys. You are - everybody is a lot of different things - naming what we 'are' isn't a mistake...you guys keep making 'ego' some taboo thing, and I think that's a misconceived notion.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Aug 25, 2013 0:08:42 GMT -5
The person they refer to is not deceiving himself about that content, only about the truth of it. He knows what the labels are, and this collection of labels is the ego in question. There is no mystery about what ego is. It is those labels. Apparently, the mystery is that ego is believed to be something else; perhaps a false notion that should be rejected. As far as I'm concerned, it's the 'I' thought (>L., ego = 'I') You just confirmed that the 'I am' thought is true. 'I' is also true. Ego is the 'I am a person', 'I am a father', 'I am better that you' thoughts. These are the thoughts I've been referring to as ego.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Aug 25, 2013 0:09:39 GMT -5
Are you defining ego as a behavioral/reaction pattern? I think I just posted my definition: the 'I' thought. No more. Then 'I am' is also ego?
|
|
|
Post by Beingist on Aug 25, 2013 0:11:10 GMT -5
Ag: I am. Everything else is self-deception. I'll never understand you guys. You are - everybody is a lot of different things - naming what we 'are' isn't a mistake...you guys keep making 'ego' some taboo thing, and I think that's a misconceived notion. How am I making it 'some taboo thing'? I can't even say 'I' without an ego! Silly. You've obviously not been reading Niz.
|
|
|
Post by Beingist on Aug 25, 2013 0:11:46 GMT -5
I think I just posted my definition: the 'I' thought. No more. Then 'I am' is also ego? Well, yeah. Can't say it without 'I', now can ya?
|
|
|
Post by silver on Aug 25, 2013 0:13:03 GMT -5
I'll never understand you guys. You are - everybody is a lot of different things - naming what we 'are' isn't a mistake...you guys keep making 'ego' some taboo thing, and I think that's a misconceived notion. How am I making it 'some taboo thing'? I can't even say 'I' without an ego! Silly. You've obviously not been reading Niz. You can't? I thought that was the whole point of you saying "I am"? You're the silly. You have to post more in the Niz thread, then.
|
|
|
Post by Beingist on Aug 25, 2013 0:19:10 GMT -5
How am I making it 'some taboo thing'? I can't even say 'I' without an ego! Silly. You've obviously not been reading Niz. You can't? I thought that was the whole point of you saying "I am"? You're the silly. You have to post more in the Niz thread, then. It's not about saying 'I am', it's about the sense 'I am', at least according to Niz. Ramana goes a bit farther, and suggests we ask ourselves what that even is (Adya follows suit). As far as posting in the Niz thread, plenty's been posted there, already, and I post his quotes often, even outside that thread. Otherwise, I'd have to tell you to not take my word for it, but read Niz, yourself. If Niz is too course for you, Adyashanti's good, too.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Aug 25, 2013 1:22:09 GMT -5
Well, yeah. Can't say it without 'I', now can ya? I don't think ego is required for that verbalization. You have a definition for ego that I find sufficiently bizarre that I don't believe we can continue the discussion. Not that there's anything wrong with that.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Aug 25, 2013 1:23:51 GMT -5
How am I making it 'some taboo thing'? I can't even say 'I' without an ego! Silly. You've obviously not been reading Niz. You can't? I thought that was the whole point of you saying "I am"?You're the silly. You have to post more in the Niz thread, then. I thought so too.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Aug 25, 2013 1:26:10 GMT -5
You can't? I thought that was the whole point of you saying "I am"? You're the silly. You have to post more in the Niz thread, then. It's not about saying 'I am', it's about the sense 'I am', at least according to Niz. Ramana goes a bit farther, and suggests we ask ourselves what that even is (Adya follows suit). As far as posting in the Niz thread, plenty's been posted there, already, and I post his quotes often, even outside that thread. Otherwise, I'd have to tell you to not take my word for it, but read Niz, yourself. If Niz is too course for you, Adyashanti's good, too. You're asked to investigate the sense 'I am' because that's your unmediated sense of existence, not because it's ego.
|
|
|
Post by Beingist on Aug 25, 2013 1:29:32 GMT -5
It's not about saying 'I am', it's about the sense 'I am', at least according to Niz. Ramana goes a bit farther, and suggests we ask ourselves what that even is (Adya follows suit). As far as posting in the Niz thread, plenty's been posted there, already, and I post his quotes often, even outside that thread. Otherwise, I'd have to tell you to not take my word for it, but read Niz, yourself. If Niz is too course for you, Adyashanti's good, too. You're asked to investigate the sense 'I am' because that's your unmediated sense of existence, not because it's ego. Who is saying that one is being asked to investigate what one is because it's ego? I'm likely to say you have a good point regarding not being able to continue discussion.
|
|