|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jul 10, 2017 12:15:15 GMT -5
What Seth calls the inner ego (or inner self) is what we here call Self. What Seth calls the outer ego (or outer self) is what we here call self (or ego or the person). Hmm it seems like they are different to me. "The inner ego is the part of the personality that actually runs the show in the background and is focused on multiple planes of existence simultaneously." I can't really grok that as Self. Self is the whole show, to my understanding. It is the Ocean. All. The inner ego sounds more like the forces that create a wave. (okay metaphor breaks down with wind -- wind would be part of wave). Not getting that part. I concur. |
|
|
|
Post by maxdprophet on Jul 10, 2017 12:18:50 GMT -5
But I can go with inner ego being Self. Wouldn't everyone's inner ego be the same? It'd be Self. So if that's the case why call it anything specific like inner, for one, or ego, for another?
|
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jul 10, 2017 13:54:02 GMT -5
But I can go with inner ego being Self. Wouldn't everyone's inner ego be the same? It'd be Self. So if that's the case why call it anything specific like inner, for one, or ego, for another? Exactly. That's why it's difficult for the consciousness doesn't evolve people (there is only Consciousness, there is only Spirit, Self, and nothing else) and the consciousness does evolve people, to talk to one another. |
|
|
|
Post by maxdprophet on Jul 10, 2017 15:00:20 GMT -5
But I can go with inner ego being Self. Wouldn't everyone's inner ego be the same? It'd be Self. So if that's the case why call it anything specific like inner, for one, or ego, for another? Exactly. That's why it's difficult for the consciousness doesn't evolve people (there is only Consciousness, there is only Spirit, Self, and nothing else) and the consciousness does evolve people, to talk to one another. Occam's Razor would suggest that the likeliest explanation would be that I don't really understand Self. I can go with that. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 10, 2017 19:02:41 GMT -5
But I can go with inner ego being Self. Wouldn't everyone's inner ego be the same? It'd be Self. So if that's the case why call it anything specific like inner, for one, or ego, for another? Exactly. That's why it's difficult for the consciousness doesn't evolve people (there is only Consciousness, there is only Spirit, Self, and nothing else) and the consciousness does evolve people, to talk to one another. Wouldn't that mean considering the falsity of the quote by Pogo, in your signatures..? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 10, 2017 19:40:39 GMT -5
What Seth calls the inner ego (or inner self) is what we here call Self. What Seth calls the outer ego (or outer self) is what we here call self (or ego or the person). Hmm it seems like they are different to me. "The inner ego is the part of the personality that actually runs the show in the background and is focused on multiple planes of existence simultaneously." I can't really grok that as Self. Self is the whole show, to my understanding. It is the Ocean. All. The inner ego sounds more like the forces that create a wave. (okay metaphor breaks down with wind -- wind would be part of wave). Not getting that part. The wind is the subconscious. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 10, 2017 19:42:51 GMT -5
Reminds me of the prayer 'let me be an instrument of Thy peace.' John Coltrane was such a master of the saxophone. He could flawlessly express whatever inspiration flowed through him in the moment. Much of his tunes are a recording of his explorations. If the inner being is Thy peace, then the objective would be to unrestrict its expression, deobfuscate, polish the mirror, yada yada. Right. What we call inspiration is actually the inner ego successfully feeding ideas to the outer ego. The outer ego can receive it, but doesn't know where it comes from. I'm interested in this idea that the inner being is too overwhelming. A cc would be when those restraints are uncapped and the overwhelm happens? First of all, those distinctions are only for convenience's sake so that we can talk about it. There are no clear lines and everything is in motion and changing constantly. Secondly, Seth usually talks about 3 parts of a personality - the outer ego, the subconscious and the inner ego. The outer ego is the part of the personality that has the most intense and most narrow focus, it's basically solely focused in the physical realm. To the outer ego belong the physical senses, the brain and the intellect. The inner ego is the part of the personality that actually runs the show in the background and is focused on multiple planes of existence simultaneously. To the inner ego belong the inner senses and the mind. The subconscious is the buffer between the outer ego and the inner ego. Seth says, the role the physical plane of existence plays from the POV of the inner ego is akin to the the role the dreamworld plays in our waking state from the POV of our ego, i.e. the inner ego isn't that much involved in the physical. What is overwhelming to the outer ego is the richness of the inner sense data. The inner ego exists in the spacious present as Seth calls it, meaning prior to our ideas of time and space, so everything is happening simultaneously. The outer ego, however, is bound by ideas of time and space. And so the inner data, in order to be of any use to the outer ego, has to be translated into a time and space format. Which means it will be cut into pieces, large parts thrown out and then those remaining pieces will be arranged in a past, present, future sequence. That way, what remains of the original incredibly rich inner data is only the tip of the tip of the iceberg. A CC would be seeing the physical realm with the inner senses, A-H call it 'seeing with the eyes of source'. Which gives it this incredible vividness and depth that is so characteristic of CC experiences plus this sense of having transcended those limiting ideas of time and space. Or 'seeing with the architect's eyes'. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jul 10, 2017 19:50:14 GMT -5
Exactly. That's why it's difficult for the consciousness doesn't evolve people (there is only Consciousness, there is only Spirit, Self, and nothing else) and the consciousness does evolve people, to talk to one another. Wouldn't that mean considering the falsity of the quote by Pogo, in your signatures..? I don't even know what that means. The Pogo quote means the false sense of self is the enemy. Does that help? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 10, 2017 19:55:21 GMT -5
Wouldn't that mean considering the falsity of the quote by Pogo, in your signatures..? I don't even know what that means. The Pogo quote means the false sense of self is the enemy. Does that help? But it says that us, is the enemy. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 10, 2017 19:56:29 GMT -5
What Seth calls the inner ego (or inner self) is what we here call Self. What Seth calls the outer ego (or outer self) is what we here call self (or ego or the person). I would say this is [just] incorrect. (You qualification doesn't help much). tbc in your response to me. Can Essence only appear to be individuated by how the outer ego perceives it? |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Jul 11, 2017 0:44:25 GMT -5
Right, according to Seth, CC/SR is just the first step, a fundamental one, but it's only the beginning. Yes, that's why I say that SR is just a little bump in the road. From the perspective of the inner ego which is aware of a gazillion other probable egos, yes. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Jul 11, 2017 0:52:24 GMT -5
What Seth calls the inner ego (or inner self) is what we here call Self. What Seth calls the outer ego (or outer self) is what we here call self (or ego or the person). Hmm it seems like they are different to me. "The inner ego is the part of the personality that actually runs the show in the background and is focused on multiple planes of existence simultaneously." I can't really grok that as Self. Self is the whole show, to my understanding. It is the Ocean. All. The inner ego sounds more like the forces that create a wave. (okay metaphor breaks down with wind -- wind would be part of wave). Not getting that part. The self takes separation for real. The Self knows no separation. The outer ego takes separation for real. The inner ego knows no separation. Self is All-That-Is. And so the outer ego is also all that is as is the inner ego. All these distinctions are arbitrary and are just being made so that the intellect can analyze it. So in theory, the inner ego is unlimited, as is the outer ego! In practical terms, however, not so much. It all depends on how you look at it and with what purpose in mind. You see, non-duality just makes a distinction between self and Self. Which is okay and serves its purpose. But, as Andrew used to say, it also has its limits. If you just distinguish between self and Self then you can't really explain much in terms of manifestations and how creation works. So what Seth does is divvying up Self (the part that doesn't know separation) a little more so that we can talk about the creation process. And so now Self consists of inner egos, entities and numerous other energy gestalts. At the end of the day, it's all one, however. And distinctions are just for convenience's sake again so that we can talk about some specifics more easily. It does serve the purpose of getting to know what's behind the physical in more detail, how it is affecting the physical and how to deal with (or manipulate) the physical. All very practical stuff. Non-duality can't really help you there. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Jul 11, 2017 8:36:08 GMT -5
Occam's Razor would suggest that the likeliest explanation would be that I don't really understand Self. I can go with that. No one ever really does.  |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Jul 11, 2017 9:02:46 GMT -5
The first part, where you said I misunderstood, I'm just going by what you said (see post above). You said the inner ego is Self (as used here on ST's). As used here on ST's Self isn't personal, the people who use this word say there isn't even a separate self. I'm just saying it's very difficult to try to sit on the fence, between the evolution of consciousness-people and the no-evolution of consciousness-people. But I think you have defined Self correctly here, Source/God/All-That-Is. But then "modern" strict NDist, it seems to me, say there is no evolution of consciousness, there is just Consciousness appearing. (I've had this discussion numerous times with ZD, and E, and they just basically shake their head. But of course you know I agree with you, consciousness evolves. But I am bleeding into the next section, your argument is not with me, it's with the strict ND-people. I agree with you, but I don't think they will, satch thinks this whole Seth business is superfluous. Okay, I see. You are just comparing philosophies. Then I misunderstood. I think the problem here is with the term 'personal'. Personal in the Seth sense means individual, having distinct and unique characteristics. Personal in the ND sense means that too but mostly in the sense of separation. Seth talks about two kinds of reality, basic reality and reality. Basic reality is consciousness or energy that is conscious. Reality is everything that is experienced. In the case of the outer ego, reality means everything that happens in the physical format. That means dreams are not real. Imagination is not real. In case of the inner ego, physical is as real as dreams is as real as imagination. This basic reality isn't going to change. The expression of basic reality (which Seth calls 'action') however, is constantly changing/evolving. Well, Satch thinks CC is also a load of nonsense. Do you think you use the words SR, that is, what you mean by the words, in the same manner as say E or ZD or satch? (I would guess that they would say with all this alignment business, you are putting legs on a snake). I'm not asking who's right (you or them), I'm just looking for clarity in the use of language. Yes, the way I use it is identical with E and ZD. Satch never really gave a definition for what he calls SR. But he's once said that samadhi is a prerequisite. And so it always seemed to me that he is confusing NS with SR. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Jul 11, 2017 9:16:40 GMT -5
The Spacious Present
Seth: The spacious present is an excellent term. In actuality there is only a spacious present, so spacious that it cannot be explored all at once in your terms, hence your arbitrary division of it into larger rooms of past, present and future. You are in the spacious present now. You were in the spacious present in your yesterday and you still will not have traveled through it in your tomorrow, or in eons of tomorrows. In your terms, the rate at which you discover the facets and realities of the spacious present becomes your camouflage time.
(Session 41)
|
|
