|
Post by enigma on Aug 25, 2013 2:23:09 GMT -5
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. You said 'I am' is ego, and that Ramana asks us to ask what that is. Yeah, I've had enough.
|
|
|
Post by lolly on Aug 25, 2013 6:44:02 GMT -5
I don't really understand anything about ego, except it seems to entail aspects of the self that people hate about themselves. people dont really know much. If you want to know about ego, just watch. Watching reveals stuff happening before the s h i t hits the fan an splatters over the onlookers; those ppl that have developed a dislike of their ego. I think habits are interesting quirks. Watching habitual behaviour can be liberating as the watcher seems to absorb the energy somehow, (without taking) deflating the habit from following-through with action. Like, after the first sip of alcohol(or glass) who takes the second an when does automation sneak-in? I think the sensational experience makes people react inadvertently and breaking those habits takes some practice. Withdrawl isn't easy. :)
|
|
|
Post by lolly on Aug 25, 2013 6:46:19 GMT -5
I don't really understand anything about ego, except it seems to entail aspects of the self that people hate about themselves. There's nothing to understand. It's the thought complex consisting of self referencing labels, both the ones you like and the ones you don't like. You put it together, so how could it be a mystery? I think it's true enough to say that thoughts or beliefs about the self affect self esteem, but everyone has a self image in one way or another.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Aug 25, 2013 7:59:52 GMT -5
Tolle has some very good advice for beginners: Try to watch for thoughts as they emerge, like watching for a little black mouse emerging from a whole in a dimly lit room. Also, remain very alert, very aware, and relaxed as much and as often as possible. Each body/mind must find its own path, and there seems to be an endless array of possibilities. The Zen "one size fits all" approach can be summarized as, "Sit down, shut up, still the body (which helps still the mind), and focus attention upon the breathing process until the mind becomes sufficiently silent. Then sit in silent unfocused absorption until everything becomes clear." Some Zen traditions use koans and suggest that contemplating existential questions is a more effective path to realization. Vipassana folks encourage mindfulness--watching everything, including thoughts. Niz's teacher and Niz, himself, recommended remaining aware of the sense of "I AM." Ramana recommended self inquiry. Tess Hughes' path was inquiring into the Will of God. Many eastern traditions encourage a path of devotion. Some Tibetan Buddhist traditions encourage the intensive use of mantras as a starting point and then add loving kindness meditation practices and various visualization exercises. ATA has been pursued by some people. Tai Chi, kendo, archery, flower arranging, and the tea ceremony have also been used successfully as pathways to realization. Looking at all of these different paths, what is common to them all? First, they involve shifting attention away from thoughts to "what is," second, they involve a high state of active alertness, third, they involve staying present, psychologically, fourth, they eventually cause reflective thoughts about selfhood to be left behind, and fifth, they involve a shift from en-head-i-ment to embodiment (exchanging a head-centered perspective for a body-centered perspective in which the mind is no longer dominant). They could probably all be summarized as "Be here now, psychologically, without reflection, until the body/mind is realized to be the Self, or THIS, and then watch THIS continue to unfold as THIS." (FWIW, on most models of the pathless path Self-Realization is considered to be somewhere around stage 6 on a scale of 1 to 10) In the Zen tradition many people slavishly follow the admonition to meditate in a lotus position and become attached to the practice as well as the idea that they are making progress. For those people the practice seems to increase the sense of selfhood rather than diminish it. They would probably be better off searching for some other pathway that wouldn't trigger so much self reflection. This same thing can be seen in many other traditions as well. Probably the best advice is for people to experiment with many different pathways until they can find a specific path with which they resonate or parts of different paths that are all aiming at the same thing. One size does not fit all, and trusting oneself and using common sense seems to be key. Seems to me one of those wily, wild and and beautiful contradictions of the mind to vocalize the realization that there are no paths, and that everything that looks like a path actually leads one to exactly where they are. That this might sound on the face of it as the opposite of a statement of reverence for the truth at the root of the traditions associated with the paths further seems a sort of tragicomic irony.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Aug 25, 2013 8:49:13 GMT -5
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. You said 'I am' is ego, and that Ramana asks us to ask what that is. Yeah, I've had enough. This gets back to a key point that was buried in the debate with Andy. Niz sort of centers his discussions on "I am" and looks in two directions from this center. In one direction, it's the sense of being that emerges as the attachments to it are recognized. In the other direction it's the anchor that attachments get hooked onto. I find it helpful to think of these as the orientations of inner and outer. Further, this can be thought of as two movements -- in the outward movement of life things are attached to the "I am". Our bodies and our cultures teach us of, for example, our gender identities, and the natural drives and experiences that we encounter thereafter shape the roles of brother, sister, enemy or friend, master or servant etc.. etc.. that emerge and by the agency of mis-identification we mistake ourselves to be. In the return movement, in looking inward, we see the roles and the attachments of the roles to our sense of being, our "I am", for what they are. Both B's and Andy's points were related to what Niz had to say from the outward-looking orientation, in which he referred to "I am" as the core delusion ... essentially, the initial point of separation of the individual from what that individual isn't. By contrast, your point that the "I am" is not the ego corresponds with what Niz had to say from the perspective of the inward-looking orientation, in which "I am", free from all attachments, is referred to as the ground sense of being, or, as you like to put it, existence. His repeated prescription is to follow the sense of "I am" as a sort of homing beacon away from that which is not us, that which is false. The dialogs in "I AM THAT" also spend alot more time speaking from the inward-looking perspective, in which "I am" is referred to as anything but a delusion. I favor your interpretation of ego as being the agency of misidentification rather than the simple sense of our existence, but in starting from the first principle of initial separation, Niz did on occasion speak of this sense of being with the same negative connotations of this agency. As long as there is a sense that "I am ___" rather than just a pure sense of "I am", we're playing what Reefs refers to as identity poker, and Niz doesn't stop with the end of the game but goes on to talk about the end of the perception of any separation at all in terms of transcending the sense of "I am". Since those discussions are in the context of the illusory nature of the subject-object split (the fallacy of separation), and since discussions are embodiments of information and since any expression of information has the subject/object split at it's root, these discussions tend toward the riddle-speak of the parambiguidoxical, and the potential for confusion comes into play. It is however, only in those discussions that seemingly flout the point of ineffability and risk confusion that the fallacy of inner and outer is ultimately brought to light.
|
|
|
Post by Beingist on Aug 25, 2013 9:53:53 GMT -5
You said 'I am' is ego, and that Ramana asks us to ask what that is. Yeah, I've had enough. This gets back to a key point that was buried in the debate with Andy. Niz sort of centers his discussions on "I am" and looks in two directions from this center. In one direction, it's the sense of being that emerges as the attachments to it are recognized. In the other direction it's the anchor that attachments get hooked onto. Never really considered Niz looking in any particular direction, himself, but have the impression that his instruction was always to look inward at the 'sense I am'. That one exists, after all 'is the only thing one can know'. Yes, this is what happens when one focuses on the outer. But Niz never said the 'sense I am' is the 'ground sense of being'. As you point out above, it's more for the purposes of knowing what one is not (as you discuss below). For me, it's a sort of starting point, eventually to be transcended, as it remains the 'core delusion'. Because it's the 'only thing one can know', i.e., it's the point from which one can understand what one doesn't know. I don't remember reading this. Could you provide a quote? Agreed. Which is why I'm okay with E (or anyone else) defining ego as he does, though I still the attempt to define ego at all as TMT, and usually avoid discussions on it for that reason.
|
|
|
Post by serpentqueen on Aug 25, 2013 20:11:34 GMT -5
Each body/mind must find its own path, and there seems to be an endless array of possibilities. The Zen "one size fits all" approach can be summarized as, "Sit down, shut up, still the body (which helps still the mind), and focus attention upon the breathing process until the mind becomes sufficiently silent. Then sit in silent unfocused absorption until everything becomes clear." Some Zen traditions use koans and suggest that contemplating existential questions is a more effective path to realization. Vipassana folks encourage mindfulness--watching everything, including thoughts. Niz's teacher and Niz, himself, recommended remaining aware of the sense of "I AM." Ramana recommended self inquiry. Tess Hughes' path was inquiring into the Will of God. Many eastern traditions encourage a path of devotion. Some Tibetan Buddhist traditions encourage the intensive use of mantras as a starting point and then add loving kindness meditation practices and various visualization exercises. ATA has been pursued by some people. Tai Chi, kendo, archery, flower arranging, and the tea ceremony have also been used successfully as pathways to realization. Looking at all of these different paths, what is common to them all? First, they involve shifting attention away from thoughts to "what is," second, they involve a high state of active alertness, third, they involve staying present, psychologically, fourth, they eventually cause reflective thoughts about selfhood to be left behind, and fifth, they involve a shift from en-head-i-ment to embodiment (exchanging a head-centered perspective for a body-centered perspective in which the mind is no longer dominant). They could probably all be summarized as "Be here now, psychologically, without reflection, until the body/mind is realized to be the Self, or THIS, and then watch THIS continue to unfold as THIS." (FWIW, on most models of the pathless path Self-Realization is considered to be somewhere around stage 6 on a scale of 1 to 10) In the Zen tradition many people slavishly follow the admonition to meditate in a lotus position and become attached to the practice as well as the idea that they are making progress. For those people the practice seems to increase the sense of selfhood rather than diminish it. They would probably be better off searching for some other pathway that wouldn't trigger so much self reflection. This same thing can be seen in many other traditions as well. Probably the best advice is for people to experiment with many different pathways until they can find a specific path with which they resonate or parts of different paths that are all aiming at the same thing. One size does not fit all, and trusting oneself and using common sense seems to be key. Seems to me one of those wily, wild and and beautiful contradictions of the mind to vocalize the realization that there are no paths, and that everything that looks like a path actually leads one to exactly where they are. That this might sound on the face of it as the opposite of a statement of reverence for the truth at the root of the traditions associated with the paths further seems a sort of tragicomic irony. There is a sense when you arrive at the end of the path that "it could have been no other way" - and maybe time flows backwards not forwards. It all was meant to be, exactly that, and this way. Then the mind kicks in and questions -- or this mind just may be prone to seeing life that way. It is more of a pleasant, positive way to live. I dunno. Maybe for some of us, our brains are wired that way. Some of the neuroscientists researching Happiness seem to suggest that may be the case. In other words, the happiest people accept whatever comes their way, we do a bit of editing to say it had to happen this way, this is why we are where we are, we chose it, it was meant to be, etc, etc... Just playing devil's advocate here...
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Aug 25, 2013 20:33:21 GMT -5
Seems to me one of those wily, wild and and beautiful contradictions of the mind to vocalize the realization that there are no paths, and that everything that looks like a path actually leads one to exactly where they are. That this might sound on the face of it as the opposite of a statement of reverence for the truth at the root of the traditions associated with the paths further seems a sort of tragicomic irony. There is a sense when you arrive at the end of the path that "it could have been no other way" - and maybe time flows backwards not forwards. It all was meant to be, exactly that, and this way. Then the mind kicks in and questions -- or this mind just may be prone to seeing life that way. It is more of a pleasant, positive way to live. I dunno. Maybe for some of us, our brains are wired that way. Some of the neuroscientists researching Happiness seem to suggest that may be the case. In other words, the happiest people accept whatever comes their way, we do a bit of editing to say it had to happen this way, this is why we are where we are, we chose it, it was meant to be, etc, etc... Just playing devil's advocate here... How does a scientist objectively determine the happiness level in another?
|
|
|
Post by serpentqueen on Aug 25, 2013 20:45:37 GMT -5
There is a sense when you arrive at the end of the path that "it could have been no other way" - and maybe time flows backwards not forwards. It all was meant to be, exactly that, and this way. Then the mind kicks in and questions -- or this mind just may be prone to seeing life that way. It is more of a pleasant, positive way to live. I dunno. Maybe for some of us, our brains are wired that way. Some of the neuroscientists researching Happiness seem to suggest that may be the case. In other words, the happiest people accept whatever comes their way, we do a bit of editing to say it had to happen this way, this is why we are where we are, we chose it, it was meant to be, etc, etc... Just playing devil's advocate here... How does a scientist objectively determine the happiness level in another? A most excellent question, E, and one I also asked. Seems they ask their subjects to self report (scale 1-10). But most of the research seems to suggest that people can't predict how happy they will be in the future. I.e., a subject may report being at a 1 (miserably unhappy) and will self-predict they will never ever be happy again.. but when the researcher checks back in a year or so later, they are happier. Hence "happiness setpoints." What if the research is based on outside observation instead? That's where it gets interesting to me. In past few years, my family/friends/therapist would have rated me as "depressed" -- and yet I was not. I was --am!-- happy. I may have my cranky irritable moments but all and all, I have never been happier. It's just quieter, not so obvious, by external "signs" people tend to expect. Does that make sense?
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Aug 25, 2013 21:05:33 GMT -5
How does a scientist objectively determine the happiness level in another? A most excellent question, E, and one I also asked. Seems they ask their subjects to self report (scale 1-10). But most of the research seems to suggest that people can't predict how happy they will be in the future. I.e., a subject may report being at a 1 (miserably unhappy) and will self-predict they will never ever be happy again.. but when the researcher checks back in a year or so later, they are happier. Hence "happiness setpoints." What if the research is based on outside observation instead? That's where it gets interesting to me. In past few years, my family/friends/therapist would have rated me as "depressed" -- and yet I was not. I was --am!-- happy. I may have my cranky irritable moments but all and all, I have never been happier. It's just quieter, not so obvious, by external "signs" people tend to expect. Does that make sense? Yeah, so there's no way to objectively measure based on observation. It has to be subjectively reported, but first of all, happiness is so important to peeps that they regularly lie to themselves, and therefore report erroneously even about their own subjective feeling. Secondly, memories change based on how we want history to look, so we can make ourselves look happier now simply by remembering ourselves as very unhappy in the past. Changing our own perception of our own history directly distorts our assessment of our current happiness. Thirdly, our present moment assessment of our overall happiness may be radically affected by how we happen to feel this moment. Fourthly, the only basis for that 1-10 scale is their own subjective past experience, and the middle of that happy/unhappy range of their own personal experience is 5 by default, which may be radically different from somebody else's 5. So the question that is asked is really, 'How happy do you want to think you are you now in this exact moment based on how happy you imagine that you have been in the past? As a scientific data point it's virtually useless. Throw in cultural and other differences, and any conclusions about what makes one happier may have no bearing at all on another.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 25, 2013 21:30:39 GMT -5
people dont really know much. If you want to know about ego, just watch. Watching reveals stuff happening before the s h i t hits the fan an splatters over the onlookers; those ppl that have developed a dislike of their ego. I think habits are interesting quirks. Watching habitual behaviour can be liberating as the watcher seems to absorb the energy somehow, (without taking) deflating the habit from following-through with action. Like, after the first sip of alcohol(or glass) who takes the second an when does automation sneak-in? I think the sensational experience makes people react inadvertently and breaking those habits takes some practice. Withdrawl isn't easy. acknowledging what that sticky substance is, is the first step. Because I Am split, "I" seek an appropriate healing 'substance' which has proven to unify my split nature, temprorarily bringing me a moments relief. Thus addiction is set-up 'if' i believe there is only One Way when many are available. By loving our illness to death we extract substance back into our awareness reuniting the illusion of two back into its former state. Looking at why we split is useful.
|
|
|
Post by serpentqueen on Aug 25, 2013 21:47:08 GMT -5
A most excellent question, E, and one I also asked. Seems they ask their subjects to self report (scale 1-10). But most of the research seems to suggest that people can't predict how happy they will be in the future. I.e., a subject may report being at a 1 (miserably unhappy) and will self-predict they will never ever be happy again.. but when the researcher checks back in a year or so later, they are happier. Hence "happiness setpoints." What if the research is based on outside observation instead? That's where it gets interesting to me. In past few years, my family/friends/therapist would have rated me as "depressed" -- and yet I was not. I was --am!-- happy. I may have my cranky irritable moments but all and all, I have never been happier. It's just quieter, not so obvious, by external "signs" people tend to expect. Does that make sense? Yeah, so there's no way to objectively measure based on observation. It has to be subjectively reported, but first of all, happiness is so important to peeps that they regularly lie to themselves, and therefore report erroneously even about their own subjective feeling. Secondly, memories change based on how we want history to look, so we can make ourselves look happier now simply by remembering ourselves as very unhappy in the past. Changing our own perception of our own history directly distorts our assessment of our current happiness. Thirdly, our present moment assessment of our overall happiness may be radically affected by how we happen to feel this moment. Fourthly, the only basis for that 1-10 scale is their own subjective past experience, and the middle of that happy/unhappy range of their own personal experience is 5 by default, which may be radically different from somebody else's 5. So the question that is asked is really, 'How happy do you want to think you are you now in this exact moment based on how happy you imagine that you have been in the past? As a scientific data point it's virtually useless. Throw in cultural and other differences, and any conclusions about what makes one happier may have no bearing at all on another. Yes... you describe it better but I have reached pretty much the same conclusions. My only sticking point is that I have loved ones dear and near to me that claim not to be happy, ever. I have seen them appear to be happy - so that is weird, to hear them self report they have never been happy. Then again maybe it's me that is happy hence creating my own reality I see them as happy, even when they are not. I dunno. I have been depressed so I do know how that goes- when depressed, you do not ever remember yourself being happy. It's strange how that works. But just knowing that helped me see past it. It's just weird also for me right now when anyone suggests I'm depressed.. because I'm not. Lost and unmoored, have no clue what's next, yes, but not depressed, not hopeless.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Aug 25, 2013 22:35:45 GMT -5
Yeah, so there's no way to objectively measure based on observation. It has to be subjectively reported, but first of all, happiness is so important to peeps that they regularly lie to themselves, and therefore report erroneously even about their own subjective feeling. Secondly, memories change based on how we want history to look, so we can make ourselves look happier now simply by remembering ourselves as very unhappy in the past. Changing our own perception of our own history directly distorts our assessment of our current happiness. Thirdly, our present moment assessment of our overall happiness may be radically affected by how we happen to feel this moment. Fourthly, the only basis for that 1-10 scale is their own subjective past experience, and the middle of that happy/unhappy range of their own personal experience is 5 by default, which may be radically different from somebody else's 5. So the question that is asked is really, 'How happy do you want to think you are you now in this exact moment based on how happy you imagine that you have been in the past? As a scientific data point it's virtually useless. Throw in cultural and other differences, and any conclusions about what makes one happier may have no bearing at all on another. Yes... you describe it better but I have reached pretty much the same conclusions. My only sticking point is that I have loved ones dear and near to me that claim not to be happy, ever. I have seen them appear to be happy - so that is weird, to hear them self report they have never been happy. Then again maybe it's me that is happy hence creating my own reality I see them as happy, even when they are not. I dunno. I have been depressed so I do know how that goes- when depressed, you do not ever remember yourself being happy. It's strange how that works. But just knowing that helped me see past it. It's just weird also for me right now when anyone suggests I'm depressed.. because I'm not. Lost and unmoored, have no clue what's next, yes, but not depressed, not hopeless. There are more complications involved in objectively determining ones happiness level. Being angry or grumpy or negative can be one of the ways peeps find enjoyment, so stating one is depressed or unhappy can actually be an expression of happiness. Folks like drama. Getting angry during the evening news is likely a source of happiness, but it's necessary that one be in denial about that. At the core of all this subjectivity is something much more important. If happiness is entirely subjective, and is based only on one's past experience, then happiness itself is relative only to one's own subjective scale of happy and unhappy. What this means is that everyone lives at the precise center of their own happy/unhappy continuum. To feel 'normal' is merely to experience oneself at the center of one's own arbitrary happy/unhappy continuum, and that neutral feeling center moves continually as we experience. What feels neutral now will not be the same neutral following a very happy or very unhappy experience. That neutral point will have moved back to the center of this new continuum again. In this way, one's happy and unhappy experience will maintain it's own dynamic balance. In the long run, this balance cannot be tipped. (i.e., one cannot be more happy than unhappy) The implications for the happiness seeker are devastating. For the seeker of truth, this is an auspicious discovery.
|
|
|
Post by runstill on Aug 26, 2013 0:15:42 GMT -5
Yes... you describe it better but I have reached pretty much the same conclusions. My only sticking point is that I have loved ones dear and near to me that claim not to be happy, ever. I have seen them appear to be happy - so that is weird, to hear them self report they have never been happy. Then again maybe it's me that is happy hence creating my own reality I see them as happy, even when they are not. I dunno. I have been depressed so I do know how that goes- when depressed, you do not ever remember yourself being happy. It's strange how that works. But just knowing that helped me see past it. It's just weird also for me right now when anyone suggests I'm depressed.. because I'm not. Lost and unmoored, have no clue what's next, yes, but not depressed, not hopeless. There are more complications involved in objectively determining ones happiness level. Being angry or grumpy or negative can be one of the ways peeps find enjoyment, so stating one is depressed or unhappy can actually be an expression of happiness. Folks like drama. Getting angry during the evening news is likely a source of happiness, but it's necessary that one be in denial about that. At the core of all this subjectivity is something much more important. If happiness is entirely subjective, and is based only on one's past experience, then happiness itself is relative only to one's own subjective scale of happy and unhappy. What this means is that everyone lives at the precise center of their own happy/unhappy continuum. To feel 'normal' is merely to experience oneself at the center of one's own arbitrary happy/unhappy continuum, and that neutral feeling center moves continually as we experience. What feels neutral now will not be the same neutral following a very happy or very unhappy experience. That neutral point will have moved back to the center of this new continuum again. In this way, one's happy and unhappy experience will maintain it's own dynamic balance. In the long run, this balance cannot be tipped. (i.e., one cannot be more happy than unhappy) The implications for the happiness seeker are devastating. For the seeker of truth, this is an auspicious discovery. This makes since to me, what I've noticed recently is that it takes effort to feel depressed , grumpy or maintain a dark outlook for a long period. Absent those feeling's I guess you call that happiness. When those feeling's are absent the mind/body is open to feeling effortless joy more often . Now all I need to do is figure out how to keep those feeling's from arising in the first place....
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Aug 26, 2013 1:45:11 GMT -5
There are more complications involved in objectively determining ones happiness level. Being angry or grumpy or negative can be one of the ways peeps find enjoyment, so stating one is depressed or unhappy can actually be an expression of happiness. Folks like drama. Getting angry during the evening news is likely a source of happiness, but it's necessary that one be in denial about that. At the core of all this subjectivity is something much more important. If happiness is entirely subjective, and is based only on one's past experience, then happiness itself is relative only to one's own subjective scale of happy and unhappy. What this means is that everyone lives at the precise center of their own happy/unhappy continuum. To feel 'normal' is merely to experience oneself at the center of one's own arbitrary happy/unhappy continuum, and that neutral feeling center moves continually as we experience. What feels neutral now will not be the same neutral following a very happy or very unhappy experience. That neutral point will have moved back to the center of this new continuum again. In this way, one's happy and unhappy experience will maintain it's own dynamic balance. In the long run, this balance cannot be tipped. (i.e., one cannot be more happy than unhappy) The implications for the happiness seeker are devastating. For the seeker of truth, this is an auspicious discovery. This makes since to me, what I've noticed recently is that it takes effort to feel depressed , grumpy or maintain a dark outlook for a long period. Absent those feeling's I guess you call that happiness. When those feeling's are absent the mind/body is open to feeling effortless joy more often . Now all I need to do is figure out how to keep those feeling's from arising in the first place.... Just trace back your steps.
|
|