Guest guest Posted April 12, 2006 Report Share Posted April 12, 2006 God...for some individual (ego) entitities, is the greatest " individual " (ego) entity....to whom they bow, with deepest heart and because the home of God is living in deepest heart of everyone and everything.....there is an answer......there is nice feeling of " communication with God " ..... this is nothing else than a deep communication with oneSelf the result can be fantastic emotions....swinging....deeply.... but then again......a deep dual relationship start again.....until the next deepest " communication with God " from ego mind....to ego mind..........whole life long....and even longer seem so....for some " individual " ego's..... Marc Ps: " God " is here and now......a heart filled up with love need to there....here and now....to know It Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 12, 2006 Report Share Posted April 12, 2006 Nisargadatta , ADHHUB wrote: > > > In a message dated 4/12/2006 1:37:24 AM Pacific Daylight Time, > Nisargadatta writes: > > Wed, 12 Apr 2006 08:08:03 -0000 > " Bob N. " <Roberibus111 > Re: constructive contradiction > > Nisargadatta , " dennis_travis33 " > <dennis_travis33@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " dennis_travis33 " > > <dennis_travis33@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Bob N. " <Roberibus111@> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dennis_travis33 " > > > > <dennis_travis33@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Bob N. " <Roberibus111@> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " lissbon2002 " > > > <lissbon2002@> > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , ADHHUB@ wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In a message dated 4/10/2006 3:47:32 PM Pacific > Daylight > > > > Time, > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta writes: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Mon, 10 Apr 2006 16:21:34 -0000 > > > > > > > > " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002@> > > > > > > > > Re: constructive contradiction > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , ADHHUB@ wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ego would > > > > > > > > > very much > > > > > > > > > > like to bypass it's own self exploration which is > > > > boring, > > > > > > > tedious > > > > > > > > > and > > > > > > > > > > unnerving, in favor of jumping to a greater > Reality, > > > > but > > > > > > > it's the > > > > > > > > > poor health of ego > > > > > > > > > > which keeps one attached to it's illusion. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Actually, I was too quick, and jumped over this part, > > > which > > > > > now > > > > > > > seems > > > > > > > > interesting to question. > > > > > > > > What is a healthy ego? > > > > > > > > Does such a thing exist? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Len > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ego exists as a notion, a deeply held belief, and so is > > > > > > > problematic. > > > > > > > > Clearly, simply accepting the concept that ego is not > > real > > > > > > doesn't > > > > > > > cause the belief > > > > > > > > to change. In this, there's a certain hypocrisy in our > > > claims > > > > > > such > > > > > > > as I just > > > > > > > > stated, while the same notion is still clung to, but > this > > > is > > > > > how > > > > > > > mind works; > > > > > > > > What is accepted as a valid concept, and what is truly > > > > > believed, > > > > > > > are > > > > > > > > different. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > A healthy ego would refer to an integrous self identity > > > where > > > > > > > nothing is > > > > > > > > kept secret and self defenses can't operate unseen. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > When nothing, really nothing is kept secret, there is no > > self > > > > > > > defence. It is precisely this secretness, still having > some > > > > > > > illusions to lose, which makes for the ego. > > > > > > > Seeing it fully is the end of it. > > > > > > > But I see what you mean, I think. The attitude of > openness, > > > > > > > curiosity and willingness to learn about ones self > defence > > is > > > > > > > necessary to understand the process of self pepertuation > of > > > ego. > > > > > > > I wouldn´t call it health, but rather the acknowledgement > > of > > > > the > > > > > > > sickness of the whole " me " structure, and the need to > > > > understand > > > > > it. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Len > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This seems to be necessary > > > > > > > > before one can begin to deal with attachments and > desires > > > > that > > > > > > > keep the focus > > > > > > > > of consciousness locked into the illusion. A side > effect > > > > along > > > > > > > the way is a > > > > > > > > good deal more peace and joy. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > " Ego exists as a notion, a deeply held belief " ,(notion of > who > > > and > > > > > > believed by whom?)..... " accepting the concept doesn't cause > > > the > > > > > > belief to change " (for whom?)... " accepted as a valid > concept.. > > > and > > > > > > what is truly believed, are different " (say > > > again!??????).... " self > > > > > > identity where nothing is kept secret and self defenses > > can't > > > > > > operate unseen " (so the self identifies with itself and > > thereby > > > > > hides > > > > > > nothing from itself and thus defends itself openly in > itself > > as > > > > > > ego?)........ " precisely this secretness, still having some > > > > > illusions > > > > > > to lose, which makes for the ego. " (who is keeping this > secret > > > > which > > > > > > posseses illusions and creates an " ego " ?).... " Seeing it > fully > > > is > > > > > the > > > > > > end of it. " (who..the self?..sees this ego self?).... " I > > wouldn´t > > > > > call > > > > > > it health, but rather the acknowledgement of the sickness > of > > > the > > > > > > whole " me " structure, and the need to understand > it " (the " me " > > > > > > structure is sick and has need to understand that you > > > understand > > > > > that > > > > > > it cannot be healthy in any case.?) > > > > > > Len I'm having a difficult time coming to grips with any > > > meaning > > > > > here > > > > > > whatsoever...help me out. > > > > > > .........bob > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > an individual ego entity is called " ignorant " > > > > > > > > > > a healthy individual ego entity could be called a " healthy > > > ignorant " > > > > > > > > > > Marc > > > > > > > > > well I guess i'm feeling good but i'm ignorant of this > fact. > > > this > > > > must be the hale and hardy entity speaking...but so stupid too. > > > Mmmm. > > > > let's see then..big ego, big problem..no ego, no probs. at > least > > no > > > > individual problems to speak of.or not to speak of. or is > > somebody > > > a > > > > sick son of a bitch or what? > > > > lost in lingua land and searching for for Mickey in all the > > > wrong > > > > places. i guess therefore i am (confused) > > > > ..........bob > > > > :-)) > > > > .......bob > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > what is this talk exactly about....?..... > > > > > > maybe the word " ego " give you confusion..... > > > > > > yes.... " healthy ego " sounds already " sick " .........seem to be a > > > very complicated subject..... > > > > > > Marc > > > > Ps: the real nature is formless, changless, infinite..... > > the sum total of non-identification with This is ego-mind related > > illusion > > nobody can (be) force(d) to be what One already ....and realy Is > > > > it take (few) lifetime(s) to loose all this....what one never have > > realy been > > > > > > This is cool Mark. Cool and Smooth and True. The ego may be a > problem..healthy or sick...but what you're getting at here is way > before and well beyond the egos talking here. Even if this sounds > trite and silly, I find the above a Blessing. and this is not being > coy.......very nicely said as I say M. > ..........bob > > > > Watch whatever path ego takes, and then choose the one less traveled. > There's a reason ego paves it's path with gold, and it's not to welcome it's pall > bearers. > > This is genuinely good Phil. That image is rattling in intensity and a little terrifying too. So true and fine a metaphor you've created with the death march's avenue of gold pavement for the ego's funeral procession. Much better the little dirt lane of self and soul alone.Love how you leave off with pallbearers.They are ghostly in there absence as well, and are most certainly not invited nor welcomed,....they never arrive........who could they be? bob > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 12, 2006 Report Share Posted April 12, 2006 Nisargadatta , " Bob N. " <Roberibus111 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , ADHHUB@ wrote: > > > > > > In a message dated 4/12/2006 1:37:24 AM Pacific Daylight Time, > > Nisargadatta writes: > > > > Wed, 12 Apr 2006 08:08:03 -0000 > > " Bob N. " <Roberibus111@> > > Re: constructive contradiction > > > > Nisargadatta , " dennis_travis33 " > > <dennis_travis33@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dennis_travis33 " > > > <dennis_travis33@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Bob N. " <Roberibus111@> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dennis_travis33 " > > > > > <dennis_travis33@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Bob N. " > <Roberibus111@> > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " lissbon2002 " > > > > <lissbon2002@> > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , ADHHUB@ wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In a message dated 4/10/2006 3:47:32 PM Pacific > > Daylight > > > > > Time, > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta writes: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Mon, 10 Apr 2006 16:21:34 -0000 > > > > > > > > > " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002@> > > > > > > > > > Re: constructive contradiction > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , ADHHUB@ > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ego would > > > > > > > > > > very much > > > > > > > > > > > like to bypass it's own self exploration which > is > > > > > boring, > > > > > > > > tedious > > > > > > > > > > and > > > > > > > > > > > unnerving, in favor of jumping to a greater > > Reality, > > > > > but > > > > > > > > it's the > > > > > > > > > > poor health of ego > > > > > > > > > > > which keeps one attached to it's illusion. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Actually, I was too quick, and jumped over this > part, > > > > which > > > > > > now > > > > > > > > seems > > > > > > > > > interesting to question. > > > > > > > > > What is a healthy ego? > > > > > > > > > Does such a thing exist? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Len > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ego exists as a notion, a deeply held belief, and so > is > > > > > > > > problematic. > > > > > > > > > Clearly, simply accepting the concept that ego is > not > > > real > > > > > > > doesn't > > > > > > > > cause the belief > > > > > > > > > to change. In this, there's a certain hypocrisy in > our > > > > claims > > > > > > > such > > > > > > > > as I just > > > > > > > > > stated, while the same notion is still clung to, > but > > this > > > > is > > > > > > how > > > > > > > > mind works; > > > > > > > > > What is accepted as a valid concept, and what is > truly > > > > > > believed, > > > > > > > > are > > > > > > > > > different. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > A healthy ego would refer to an integrous self > identity > > > > where > > > > > > > > nothing is > > > > > > > > > kept secret and self defenses can't operate unseen. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > When nothing, really nothing is kept secret, there is > no > > > self > > > > > > > > defence. It is precisely this secretness, still having > > some > > > > > > > > illusions to lose, which makes for the ego. > > > > > > > > Seeing it fully is the end of it. > > > > > > > > But I see what you mean, I think. The attitude of > > openness, > > > > > > > > curiosity and willingness to learn about ones self > > defence > > > is > > > > > > > > necessary to understand the process of self > pepertuation > > of > > > > ego. > > > > > > > > I wouldn´t call it health, but rather the > acknowledgement > > > of > > > > > the > > > > > > > > sickness of the whole " me " structure, and the need to > > > > > understand > > > > > > it. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Len > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This seems to be necessary > > > > > > > > > before one can begin to deal with attachments and > > desires > > > > > that > > > > > > > > keep the focus > > > > > > > > > of consciousness locked into the illusion. A side > > effect > > > > > along > > > > > > > > the way is a > > > > > > > > > good deal more peace and joy. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been > removed] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > " Ego exists as a notion, a deeply held belief " ,(notion > of > > who > > > > and > > > > > > > believed by whom?)..... " accepting the concept doesn't > cause > > > > the > > > > > > > belief to change " (for whom?)... " accepted as a valid > > concept.. > > > > and > > > > > > > what is truly believed, are different " (say > > > > again!??????).... " self > > > > > > > identity where nothing is kept secret and self defenses > > > can't > > > > > > > operate unseen " (so the self identifies with itself and > > > thereby > > > > > > hides > > > > > > > nothing from itself and thus defends itself openly in > > itself > > > as > > > > > > > ego?)........ " precisely this secretness, still having > some > > > > > > illusions > > > > > > > to lose, which makes for the ego. " (who is keeping this > > secret > > > > > which > > > > > > > posseses illusions and creates an " ego " ?).... " Seeing it > > fully > > > > is > > > > > > the > > > > > > > end of it. " (who..the self?..sees this ego self?).... " I > > > wouldn´t > > > > > > call > > > > > > > it health, but rather the acknowledgement of the > sickness > > of > > > > the > > > > > > > whole " me " structure, and the need to understand > > it " (the " me " > > > > > > > structure is sick and has need to understand that you > > > > understand > > > > > > that > > > > > > > it cannot be healthy in any case.?) > > > > > > > Len I'm having a difficult time coming to grips with any > > > > meaning > > > > > > here > > > > > > > whatsoever...help me out. > > > > > > > .........bob > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > an individual ego entity is called " ignorant " > > > > > > > > > > > > a healthy individual ego entity could be called a " healthy > > > > ignorant " > > > > > > > > > > > > Marc > > > > > > > > > > > well I guess i'm feeling good but i'm ignorant of this > > fact. > > > > this > > > > > must be the hale and hardy entity speaking...but so stupid > too. > > > > Mmmm. > > > > > let's see then..big ego, big problem..no ego, no probs. at > > least > > > no > > > > > individual problems to speak of.or not to speak of. or is > > > somebody > > > > a > > > > > sick son of a bitch or what? > > > > > lost in lingua land and searching for for Mickey in all > the > > > > wrong > > > > > places. i guess therefore i am (confused) > > > > > ..........bob > > > > > :-)) > > > > > .......bob > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > what is this talk exactly about....?..... > > > > > > > > maybe the word " ego " give you confusion..... > > > > > > > > yes.... " healthy ego " sounds already " sick " .........seem to > be a > > > > very complicated subject..... > > > > > > > > Marc > > > > > > Ps: the real nature is formless, changless, infinite..... > > > the sum total of non-identification with This is ego-mind > related > > > illusion > > > nobody can (be) force(d) to be what One already ....and realy Is > > > > > > it take (few) lifetime(s) to loose all this....what one never > have > > > realy been > > > > > > > > > This is cool Mark. Cool and Smooth and True. The ego may be a > > problem..healthy or sick...but what you're getting at here is way > > before and well beyond the egos talking here. Even if this sounds > > trite and silly, I find the above a Blessing. and this is not > being > > coy.......very nicely said as I say M. > > ..........bob > > > > > > > > Watch whatever path ego takes, and then choose the one less > traveled. > > There's a reason ego paves it's path with gold, and it's not to > welcome it's pall > > bearers. > > > > This is genuinely good Phil. That image is rattling in intensity > and a little terrifying too. So true and fine a metaphor you've > created with the death march's avenue of gold pavement for the ego's > funeral procession. Much better the little dirt lane of self and soul > alone.Love how you leave off with pallbearers.They are ghostly in > there absence as well, and are most certainly not invited nor > welcomed,....they never arrive........who could they be? > bob > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 12, 2006 Report Share Posted April 12, 2006 Watch whatever path ego takes, and then choose the one less > traveled. > > There's a reason ego paves it's path with gold, and it's not to > welcome it's pall > > bearers. > > > > This is genuinely good Phil. That image is rattling in intensity > and a little terrifying too. So true and fine a metaphor you've > created with the death march's avenue of gold pavement for the ego's > funeral procession. Much better the little dirt lane of self and soul > alone.Love how you leave off with pallbearers.They are ghostly in > there absence as well, and are most certainly not invited nor > welcomed,....they never arrive........who could they be? > bob > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > well, deep-ending on which side of the river styx we're on, I'd say we're all ONE GREAT BIG EGO, now get over it, to the other side... I hear music in my head, do you? ;-) indeed! P ** If you do not wish to receive individual emails, to change your subscription, sign in with your ID and go to Edit My Groups: /mygroups?edit=1 Under the Message Delivery option, choose " No Email " for the Nisargadatta group and click on Save Changes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 12, 2006 Report Share Posted April 12, 2006 In a message dated 4/12/2006 5:58:15 PM Pacific Daylight Time, Nisargadatta writes: Wed, 12 Apr 2006 13:42:41 -0000 " dennis_travis33 " <dennis_travis33 Re: constructive contradiction > Ps: the real nature is formless, changless, infinite..... > the sum total of non-identification with This is ego-mind related > illusion > nobody can (be) force(d) to be what One already ....and realy Is > > it take (few) lifetime(s) to loose all this....what one never have > realy been > > > > > Yes, and it seems so mysterious that something that doesn't even exist could > obscure that which does exist. " How is that possible " , we ask, as we place > another brick in the wall. > All sorts of words are used to describe how meaningless and nonexistent this > wall is....and yet there it is. Beautiful words are used to describe what > might lie beyond the wall; what is sometimes glimpsed through the cracks in the > wall.....and still the wall remains. Perhaps it's just a matter of the grace > of God, or another kind of meditation.....as another brick is placed on the > wall. If it takes a few more lifetimes to see beyond the wall, then nothing > can be done about that......but at least I have this pretty wall. > > > there is no more wall.... it take as long time to " see " behind this your described wall....as you think to be " Phil " give up this your " Phil " ....thats all you need to do endless concepts can't help you out of there.... Marc Yes, all that needs to happen is to give up the wall, but nonvolitional beings can't choose to do that. Those who don't understand this will say, 'that's all you need to do' without realizing there is no doer. The one who has not given up his Marc pretends that there is no wall. Now that's funny! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 12, 2006 Report Share Posted April 12, 2006 In a message dated 4/12/2006 5:58:15 PM Pacific Daylight Time, Nisargadatta writes: Wed, 12 Apr 2006 13:46:18 -0000 " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002 Re: constructive contradiction Nisargadatta , ADHHUB wrote: > > > In a message dated 4/11/2006 3:28:00 PM Pacific Daylight Time, > Nisargadatta writes: > > Tue, 11 Apr 2006 11:17:36 -0000 > " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002 > Re: constructive contradiction > > Nisargadatta , ADHHUB@ wrote: > > > > > > In a message dated 4/10/2006 3:47:32 PM Pacific Daylight Time, > > Nisargadatta writes: > > > > Mon, 10 Apr 2006 16:21:34 -0000 > > " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002@> > > Re: constructive contradiction > > > > > Nisargadatta , ADHHUB@ wrote: > > > > > Ego would > > > very much > > > > like to bypass it's own self exploration which is boring, > tedious > > > and > > > > unnerving, in favor of jumping to a greater Reality, but > it's the > > > poor health of ego > > > > which keeps one attached to it's illusion. > > > > > > > > Actually, I was too quick, and jumped over this part, which now > seems > > interesting to question. > > What is a healthy ego? > > Does such a thing exist? > > > > Len > > > > > > > > Ego exists as a notion, a deeply held belief, and so is > problematic. > > Clearly, simply accepting the concept that ego is not real doesn't > cause the belief > > to change. In this, there's a certain hypocrisy in our claims such > as I just > > stated, while the same notion is still clung to, but this is how > mind works; > > What is accepted as a valid concept, and what is truly believed, > are > > different. > > > > A healthy ego would refer to an integrous self identity where > nothing is > > kept secret and self defenses can't operate unseen. > > > > When nothing, really nothing is kept secret, there is no self > defence. It is precisely this secretness, still having some > illusions to lose, which makes for the ego. > Seeing it fully is the end of it. > But I see what you mean, I think. The attitude of openness, > curiosity and willingness to learn about ones self defence is > necessary to understand the process of self pepertuation of ego. > I wouldn´t call it health, but rather the acknowledgement of the > sickness of the whole " me " structure, and the need to understand it. > > Len > > > > > Yeah, that's how I see it. I started jabbering about " healthy ego " because > lots of folks believe ego is to be bludgeoned to death, and this just creates > more internal conflict and separation since the apparent bludgeoner and > bludgeonee are the same. That´s it. Also the concept of non volition is something which volitional ego (ego = volition) holds on to, so that it can pretend not to be responsible for its own volitional choices, which can be only pretended as long as the fact of ego being pure volition is denied. Len A good point. That's the hypocrisy I mentioned earlier and also applied to myself. Ego is on shaky ground any time it reminds us that ego doesn't exist, and yes, ego will take every spiritual concept and find a way to use it for 'our' own purposes. I often have discussions where, rather than the other coming to a new understanding, he'll do a 'vanishing act' with some version of the nonvolition concept, and the discussion ends. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 12, 2006 Report Share Posted April 12, 2006 In a message dated 4/12/2006 5:58:15 PM Pacific Daylight Time, Nisargadatta writes: Wed, 12 Apr 2006 13:54:57 -0000 " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002 Re: constructive contradiction Nisargadatta , ADHHUB wrote: > P: The ego embraces ideas that seem useful to it, such as the idea that it > doesn't exist, but it doesn't really believe that. It may seem strange that > ego wants to not exist, but it believes this will result in awakening, and it > imagines this as some kind of transfer of identity. Yes. The idea of non existing ego is meant to keep the ego intact (no need to pay attention to something which doesn´t exist) and at the same time reach the state which can be only there when the ego is not ;-) Len Exactly. This is why ego has to have integrity. If it does, such silly ego games aren't possible. Someone suggested recently that I write a book about ego. Can you imagine the pitiful response to such a book? The only folks willing to get near it would be the ones who no longer have any use for it. It's the same reason ego is poorly dealt with, or not at all, in every belief system. Ego charts it's course through these belief systems and no ego is drawn to something that might threaten it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 12, 2006 Report Share Posted April 12, 2006 In a message dated 4/12/2006 5:58:15 PM Pacific Daylight Time, Nisargadatta writes: Wed, 12 Apr 2006 14:36:25 -0000 " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002 Re: constructive contradiction Nisargadatta , " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , ADHHUB@ wrote: > > > > P: The ego embraces ideas that seem useful to it, such as the > idea that it > > doesn't exist, but it doesn't really believe that. It may seem > strange that > > ego wants to not exist, but it believes this will result in > awakening, and it > > imagines this as some kind of transfer of identity. > > > > > Yes. The idea of non existing ego is meant to keep the ego intact > (no need to pay attention to something which doesn´t exist) and at > the same time reach the state which can be only there when the ego > is not ;-) > > Len And because this state cannot be reached by ego and because realizing this fact is extremely frustrating for the ambitous ego, it creates the image of this desirable state and sticks firmly to the conviction that it is not the image but reality. Every questioning of the reality of this imagined state triggers strong defensive reactions. The only power of ego is the power of images. Therefore nothing is more threatening to ego than the capacity to discern images from facts. Which explains why the perception of something so obvious as the difference between imagination and reality, can be effectively thwarted during whole life, until death. Len You're on a roll now, Len. Hehe. Something I see repeatedly, including here, is folks who have powerful experiences, repeatable or not, which are experiential glimpses of Reality through ego. This is not enlightenment or awakening to the GodSelf, but ego will take possession of these experiences and place itself above other egos. The real problem is that instead of acting as a motivation to seek the recognition of the Wholeness of the undivided Self, it can result in complacency and stagnation. Ego is actually very pleased with this compromise and I suspect, as you suggest, this can continue for the remainder of the life. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 12, 2006 Report Share Posted April 12, 2006 In a message dated 4/12/2006 5:58:15 PM Pacific Daylight Time, Nisargadatta writes: Wed, 12 Apr 2006 20:45:07 -0000 " anabebe57 " <anabebe57 Re: constructive contradiction > > This is cool Mark. Cool and Smooth and True. The ego may be a > > problem..healthy or sick...but what you're getting at here is way > > before and well beyond the egos talking here. Even if this sounds > > trite and silly, I find the above a Blessing. and this is not > being > > coy.......very nicely said as I say M. > > ..........bob > > > > > > > > Watch whatever path ego takes, and then choose the one less > traveled. > > There's a reason ego paves it's path with gold, and it's not to > welcome it's pall > > bearers. > > > > This is genuinely good Phil. That image is rattling in intensity > and a little terrifying too. So true and fine a metaphor you've > created with the death march's avenue of gold pavement for the ego's > funeral procession. Much better the little dirt lane of self and soul > alone.Love how you leave off with pallbearers.They are ghostly in > there absence as well, and are most certainly not invited nor > welcomed,....they never arrive........who could they be? > bob > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 13, 2006 Report Share Posted April 13, 2006 Nisargadatta , ADHHUB wrote: > > > In a message dated 4/12/2006 5:58:15 PM Pacific Daylight Time, > Nisargadatta writes: > > Wed, 12 Apr 2006 13:42:41 -0000 > " dennis_travis33 " <dennis_travis33 > Re: constructive contradiction > > > > Ps: the real nature is formless, changless, infinite..... > > the sum total of non-identification with This is ego-mind related > > illusion > > nobody can (be) force(d) to be what One already ....and realy Is > > > > it take (few) lifetime(s) to loose all this....what one never have > > realy been > > > > > > > > > > Yes, and it seems so mysterious that something that doesn't even > exist could > > obscure that which does exist. " How is that possible " , we ask, as > we place > > another brick in the wall. > > All sorts of words are used to describe how meaningless and > nonexistent this > > wall is....and yet there it is. Beautiful words are used to > describe what > > might lie beyond the wall; what is sometimes glimpsed through the > cracks in the > > wall.....and still the wall remains. Perhaps it's just a matter of > the grace > > of God, or another kind of meditation.....as another brick is > placed on the > > wall. If it takes a few more lifetimes to see beyond the wall, > then nothing > > can be done about that......but at least I have this pretty wall. > > > > > > > there is no more wall.... > > it take as long time to " see " behind this your described wall....as > you think to be " Phil " > > give up this your " Phil " ....thats all you need to do > > endless concepts can't help you out of there.... > > Marc > > > Yes, all that needs to happen is to give up the wall, but nonvolitional > beings can't choose to do that. Those who don't understand this will say, 'that's > all you need to do' without realizing there is no doer. > > The one who has not given up his Marc pretends that there is no wall. Now > that's funny! > > > > Hi Phil, you like the ping pong game much?.... this ping pong game need, indeed " another " entity to play with.... and i repeat Phil......egos need and search all the time to " share " this their ignorance..... ignorance is the nature of an ego.... i read little above in the messages...... " we are but One ego " ....kind of........ in a certain sense....thats true..... so this " Phil " and " Marc " are nothing but One..... and so....this my words are to nobody else than to this One being.........that i feel to be ciao Phil......the spiritual hero of endless words.... Marc Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 13, 2006 Report Share Posted April 13, 2006 Nisargadatta , " dennis_travis33 " <dennis_travis33 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , ADHHUB@ wrote: > > > > > > In a message dated 4/12/2006 5:58:15 PM Pacific Daylight Time, > > Nisargadatta writes: > > > > Wed, 12 Apr 2006 13:42:41 -0000 > > " dennis_travis33 " <dennis_travis33@> > > Re: constructive contradiction > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ps: the real nature is formless, changless, infinite..... > > > the sum total of non-identification with This is ego-mind > related > > > illusion > > > nobody can (be) force(d) to be what One already ....and realy Is > > > > > > it take (few) lifetime(s) to loose all this....what one never > have > > > realy been > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes, and it seems so mysterious that something that doesn't even > > exist could > > > obscure that which does exist. " How is that possible " , we ask, > as > > we place > > > another brick in the wall. > > > All sorts of words are used to describe how meaningless and > > nonexistent this > > > wall is....and yet there it is. Beautiful words are used to > > describe what > > > might lie beyond the wall; what is sometimes glimpsed through > the > > cracks in the > > > wall.....and still the wall remains. Perhaps it's just a matter > of > > the grace > > > of God, or another kind of meditation.....as another brick is > > placed on the > > > wall. If it takes a few more lifetimes to see beyond the wall, > > then nothing > > > can be done about that......but at least I have this pretty > wall. > > > > > > > > > > > there is no more wall.... > > > > it take as long time to " see " behind this your described > wall....as > > you think to be " Phil " > > > > give up this your " Phil " ....thats all you need to do > > > > endless concepts can't help you out of there.... > > > > Marc > > > > > > Yes, all that needs to happen is to give up the wall, but > nonvolitional > > beings can't choose to do that. Those who don't understand this > will say, 'that's > > all you need to do' without realizing there is no doer. > > > > The one who has not given up his Marc pretends that there is no > wall. Now > > that's funny! > > > > > > > > > Hi Phil, > > you like the ping pong game much?.... > > this ping pong game need, indeed " another " entity to play with.... > > and i repeat Phil......egos need and search all the time to " share " > this their ignorance..... > > ignorance is the nature of an ego.... > > i read little above in the messages...... " we are but One ego " ....kind > of........ > > in a certain sense....thats true..... > > so this " Phil " and " Marc " are nothing but One..... > > and so....this my words are to nobody else than to this One > being.........that i feel to be > > ciao Phil......the spiritual hero of endless words.... > > Marc Ps: the statement " there is no doer " ....another great confusing one there is " no doer " because there is no individual entity existing.... so whatever action which appear to be done....appear only to be done by " whoever " ...... in reality nothing ever is realy done......except the dream of this world....of individualites.....of great plans and projects....of fights with " others " ......and other ignorant activities wake up.... then there is nobody who ever could do something for real Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 13, 2006 Report Share Posted April 13, 2006 In a message dated 4/13/2006 1:13:24 AM Pacific Daylight Time, Nisargadatta writes: Thu, 13 Apr 2006 06:52:52 -0000 " dennis_travis33 " <dennis_travis33 Re: constructive contradiction Nisargadatta , " dennis_travis33 " <dennis_travis33 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , ADHHUB@ wrote: > > > > > > In a message dated 4/12/2006 5:58:15 PM Pacific Daylight Time, > > Nisargadatta writes: > > > > Wed, 12 Apr 2006 13:42:41 -0000 > > " dennis_travis33 " <dennis_travis33@> > > Re: constructive contradiction > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ps: the real nature is formless, changless, infinite..... > > > the sum total of non-identification with This is ego-mind > related > > > illusion > > > nobody can (be) force(d) to be what One already ....and realy Is > > > > > > it take (few) lifetime(s) to loose all this....what one never > have > > > realy been > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes, and it seems so mysterious that something that doesn't even > > exist could > > > obscure that which does exist. " How is that possible " , we ask, > as > > we place > > > another brick in the wall. > > > All sorts of words are used to describe how meaningless and > > nonexistent this > > > wall is....and yet there it is. Beautiful words are used to > > describe what > > > might lie beyond the wall; what is sometimes glimpsed through > the > > cracks in the > > > wall.....and still the wall remains. Perhaps it's just a matter > of > > the grace > > > of God, or another kind of meditation.....as another brick is > > placed on the > > > wall. If it takes a few more lifetimes to see beyond the wall, > > then nothing > > > can be done about that......but at least I have this pretty > wall. > > > > > > > > > > > there is no more wall.... > > > > it take as long time to " see " behind this your described > wall....as > > you think to be " Phil " > > > > give up this your " Phil " ....thats all you need to do > > > > endless concepts can't help you out of there.... > > > > Marc > > > > > > Yes, all that needs to happen is to give up the wall, but > nonvolitional > > beings can't choose to do that. Those who don't understand this > will say, 'that's > > all you need to do' without realizing there is no doer. > > > > The one who has not given up his Marc pretends that there is no > wall. Now > > that's funny! > > > > > > > > > Hi Phil, > > you like the ping pong game much?.... > > this ping pong game need, indeed " another " entity to play with.... > > and i repeat Phil......egos need and search all the time to " share " > this their ignorance..... > > ignorance is the nature of an ego.... > > i read little above in the messages...... " we are but One ego " ....kind > of........ > > in a certain sense....thats true..... > > so this " Phil " and " Marc " are nothing but One..... > > and so....this my words are to nobody else than to this One > being.........that i feel to be > > ciao Phil......the spiritual hero of endless words.... > > Marc Ps: the statement " there is no doer " ....another great confusing one there is " no doer " because there is no individual entity existing.... so whatever action which appear to be done....appear only to be done by " whoever " ...... in reality nothing ever is realy done......except the dream of this world....of individualites.....of great plans and projects....of fights with " others " ......and other ignorant activities wake up.... then there is nobody who ever could do something for real Then why are you having difficulty putting down the ping pong paddle? ~ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 13, 2006 Report Share Posted April 13, 2006 In a message dated 4/13/2006 4:13:07 AM Pacific Daylight Time, lissbon2002 writes: > As you say, ego " takes possession " of those experiences, through > memory. So we need the capacity to see the difference between this > memory and the actual experience. The actual experience cannot be > cultivated. This realization is the end of complacency. L.E: Ego, as an expression of mind, thought energy, and cannot " take possession " of anything. It is not evil or a devil or insane. It is simply a sign with a name on it. It is the human organism as an intelligent whole that does and acts and moves, an integrated organism, nor a phantom of mind as you see it. Larry Epston Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 13, 2006 Report Share Posted April 13, 2006 Nisargadatta , ADHHUB wrote: > > > In a message dated 4/13/2006 1:13:24 AM Pacific Daylight Time, > Nisargadatta writes: > > Thu, 13 Apr 2006 06:52:52 -0000 > " dennis_travis33 " <dennis_travis33 > Re: constructive contradiction > > Nisargadatta , " dennis_travis33 " > <dennis_travis33@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , ADHHUB@ wrote: > > > > > > > > > In a message dated 4/12/2006 5:58:15 PM Pacific Daylight Time, > > > Nisargadatta writes: > > > > > > Wed, 12 Apr 2006 13:42:41 -0000 > > > " dennis_travis33 " <dennis_travis33@> > > > Re: constructive contradiction > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ps: the real nature is formless, changless, infinite..... > > > > the sum total of non-identification with This is ego-mind > > related > > > > illusion > > > > nobody can (be) force(d) to be what One already ....and realy > Is > > > > > > > > it take (few) lifetime(s) to loose all this....what one never > > have > > > > realy been > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes, and it seems so mysterious that something that doesn't > even > > > exist could > > > > obscure that which does exist. " How is that possible " , we ask, > > as > > > we place > > > > another brick in the wall. > > > > All sorts of words are used to describe how meaningless and > > > nonexistent this > > > > wall is....and yet there it is. Beautiful words are used to > > > describe what > > > > might lie beyond the wall; what is sometimes glimpsed through > > the > > > cracks in the > > > > wall.....and still the wall remains. Perhaps it's just a > matter > > of > > > the grace > > > > of God, or another kind of meditation.....as another brick is > > > placed on the > > > > wall. If it takes a few more lifetimes to see beyond the > wall, > > > then nothing > > > > can be done about that......but at least I have this pretty > > wall. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > there is no more wall.... > > > > > > it take as long time to " see " behind this your described > > wall....as > > > you think to be " Phil " > > > > > > give up this your " Phil " ....thats all you need to do > > > > > > endless concepts can't help you out of there.... > > > > > > Marc > > > > > > > > > Yes, all that needs to happen is to give up the wall, but > > nonvolitional > > > beings can't choose to do that. Those who don't understand this > > will say, 'that's > > > all you need to do' without realizing there is no doer. > > > > > > The one who has not given up his Marc pretends that there is no > > wall. Now > > > that's funny! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Phil, > > > > you like the ping pong game much?.... > > > > this ping pong game need, indeed " another " entity to play with.... > > > > and i repeat Phil......egos need and search all the time to " share " > > this their ignorance..... > > > > ignorance is the nature of an ego.... > > > > i read little above in the messages...... " we are but One > ego " ....kind > > of........ > > > > in a certain sense....thats true..... > > > > so this " Phil " and " Marc " are nothing but One..... > > > > and so....this my words are to nobody else than to this One > > being.........that i feel to be > > > > ciao Phil......the spiritual hero of endless words.... > > > > Marc > > > Ps: the statement " there is no doer " ....another great confusing one > > there is " no doer " because there is no individual entity existing.... > > so whatever action which appear to be done....appear only to be done > by " whoever " ...... > > in reality nothing ever is realy done......except the dream of this > world....of individualites.....of great plans and projects....of > fights with " others " ......and other ignorant activities > > wake up.... > > then there is nobody who ever could do something for real > > > > > > Then why are you having difficulty putting down the ping pong paddle? ~ > > .....i'm sorry..... i'm not the one " who " write books......(playing ping pong).... to a non-existing world.... a fiction of a world.......which only a great ego could take for real..... and therefore.....forget...that this is a game only..... that everthing concerning the " world " ....is a game only.... in front of infinite being........ now, Bill......i'm sorry for your remaining ego......but i leave this discussion and game Marc Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 13, 2006 Report Share Posted April 13, 2006 Nisargadatta , " dennis_travis33 " <dennis_travis33 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , ADHHUB@ wrote: > > > > > > In a message dated 4/13/2006 1:13:24 AM Pacific Daylight Time, > > Nisargadatta writes: > > > > Thu, 13 Apr 2006 06:52:52 -0000 > > " dennis_travis33 " <dennis_travis33@> > > Re: constructive contradiction > > > > Nisargadatta , " dennis_travis33 " > > <dennis_travis33@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , ADHHUB@ wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > In a message dated 4/12/2006 5:58:15 PM Pacific Daylight > Time, > > > > Nisargadatta writes: > > > > > > > > Wed, 12 Apr 2006 13:42:41 -0000 > > > > " dennis_travis33 " <dennis_travis33@> > > > > Re: constructive contradiction > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ps: the real nature is formless, changless, infinite..... > > > > > the sum total of non-identification with This is ego- mind > > > related > > > > > illusion > > > > > nobody can (be) force(d) to be what One already ....and > realy > > Is > > > > > > > > > > it take (few) lifetime(s) to loose all this....what one > never > > > have > > > > > realy been > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes, and it seems so mysterious that something that doesn't > > even > > > > exist could > > > > > obscure that which does exist. " How is that possible " , we > ask, > > > as > > > > we place > > > > > another brick in the wall. > > > > > All sorts of words are used to describe how meaningless and > > > > nonexistent this > > > > > wall is....and yet there it is. Beautiful words are used to > > > > describe what > > > > > might lie beyond the wall; what is sometimes glimpsed > through > > > the > > > > cracks in the > > > > > wall.....and still the wall remains. Perhaps it's just a > > matter > > > of > > > > the grace > > > > > of God, or another kind of meditation.....as another brick > is > > > > placed on the > > > > > wall. If it takes a few more lifetimes to see beyond the > > wall, > > > > then nothing > > > > > can be done about that......but at least I have this > pretty > > > wall. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > there is no more wall.... > > > > > > > > it take as long time to " see " behind this your described > > > wall....as > > > > you think to be " Phil " > > > > > > > > give up this your " Phil " ....thats all you need to do > > > > > > > > endless concepts can't help you out of there.... > > > > > > > > Marc > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes, all that needs to happen is to give up the wall, but > > > nonvolitional > > > > beings can't choose to do that. Those who don't understand > this > > > will say, 'that's > > > > all you need to do' without realizing there is no doer. > > > > > > > > The one who has not given up his Marc pretends that there is > no > > > wall. Now > > > > that's funny! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Phil, > > > > > > you like the ping pong game much?.... > > > > > > this ping pong game need, indeed " another " entity to play > with.... > > > > > > and i repeat Phil......egos need and search all the time > to " share " > > > this their ignorance..... > > > > > > ignorance is the nature of an ego.... > > > > > > i read little above in the messages...... " we are but One > > ego " ....kind > > > of........ > > > > > > in a certain sense....thats true..... > > > > > > so this " Phil " and " Marc " are nothing but One..... > > > > > > and so....this my words are to nobody else than to this One > > > being.........that i feel to be > > > > > > ciao Phil......the spiritual hero of endless words.... > > > > > > Marc > > > > > > Ps: the statement " there is no doer " ....another great confusing one > > > > there is " no doer " because there is no individual entity > existing.... > > > > so whatever action which appear to be done....appear only to be > done > > by " whoever " ...... > > > > in reality nothing ever is realy done......except the dream of > this > > world....of individualites.....of great plans and projects....of > > fights with " others " ......and other ignorant activities > > > > wake up.... > > > > then there is nobody who ever could do something for real > > > > > > > > > > > > Then why are you having difficulty putting down the ping pong > paddle? ~ > > > > > ....i'm sorry..... > > i'm not the one " who " write books......(playing ping pong).... > > to a non-existing world.... > > a fiction of a world.......which only a great ego could take for > real..... > > and therefore.....forget...that this is a game only..... > > that everthing concerning the " world " ....is a game only.... > > in front of infinite being........ > > now, Bill......i'm sorry for your remaining ego......but i leave this > discussion and game > > Marc Ps: i could understand your attitude....if you were the publisher of Phil's book(s) and words..... > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 13, 2006 Report Share Posted April 13, 2006 Nisargadatta , ADHHUB wrote: > Yes, all that needs to happen is to give up the wall, but nonvolitional > beings can't choose to do that. Everybody is so strongly conditioned to want and not to want, that they cannot imagine the absence of this conditioned urge of volition. To want to give it up is simply more volition, that´s why it doesn´t work. Real, based on own observation, (not an accepted statement of somebody else) understanding that the volition causes suffering, ends the volition. Not all volition, because this would make one into an idiot, but those parts of volition which cause unnecessary suffering. Len > Those who don't understand this will say, 'that's > all you need to do' without realizing there is no doer. > > The one who has not given up his Marc pretends that there is no wall. Now > that's funny! > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 13, 2006 Report Share Posted April 13, 2006 Nisargadatta , ADHHUB wrote: > > > In a message dated 4/12/2006 5:58:15 PM Pacific Daylight Time, > Nisargadatta writes: > > Wed, 12 Apr 2006 13:46:18 -0000 > " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002 > Re: constructive contradiction > > Nisargadatta , ADHHUB@ wrote: > > > > > > In a message dated 4/11/2006 3:28:00 PM Pacific Daylight Time, > > Nisargadatta writes: > > > > Tue, 11 Apr 2006 11:17:36 -0000 > > " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002@> > > Re: constructive contradiction > > > > Nisargadatta , ADHHUB@ wrote: > > > > > > > > > In a message dated 4/10/2006 3:47:32 PM Pacific Daylight Time, > > > Nisargadatta writes: > > > > > > Mon, 10 Apr 2006 16:21:34 -0000 > > > " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002@> > > > Re: constructive contradiction > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , ADHHUB@ wrote: > > > > > > > Ego would > > > > very much > > > > > like to bypass it's own self exploration which is boring, > > tedious > > > > and > > > > > unnerving, in favor of jumping to a greater Reality, but > > it's the > > > > poor health of ego > > > > > which keeps one attached to it's illusion. > > > > > > > > > > > > Actually, I was too quick, and jumped over this part, which > now > > seems > > > interesting to question. > > > What is a healthy ego? > > > Does such a thing exist? > > > > > > Len > > > > > > > > > > > > Ego exists as a notion, a deeply held belief, and so is > > problematic. > > > Clearly, simply accepting the concept that ego is not real > doesn't > > cause the belief > > > to change. In this, there's a certain hypocrisy in our claims > such > > as I just > > > stated, while the same notion is still clung to, but this is > how > > mind works; > > > What is accepted as a valid concept, and what is truly > believed, > > are > > > different. > > > > > > A healthy ego would refer to an integrous self identity where > > nothing is > > > kept secret and self defenses can't operate unseen. > > > > > > > > When nothing, really nothing is kept secret, there is no self > > defence. It is precisely this secretness, still having some > > illusions to lose, which makes for the ego. > > Seeing it fully is the end of it. > > But I see what you mean, I think. The attitude of openness, > > curiosity and willingness to learn about ones self defence is > > necessary to understand the process of self pepertuation of ego. > > I wouldn´t call it health, but rather the acknowledgement of the > > sickness of the whole " me " structure, and the need to understand > it. > > > > Len > > > > > > > > > > Yeah, that's how I see it. I started jabbering about " healthy ego " > because > > lots of folks believe ego is to be bludgeoned to death, and this > just creates > > more internal conflict and separation since the apparent > bludgeoner and > > bludgeonee are the same. > > > > That´s it. > Also the concept of non volition is something which volitional ego > (ego = volition) holds on to, so that it can pretend not to be > responsible for its own volitional choices, which can be only > pretended as long as the fact of ego being pure volition is denied. > > Len > > > > A good point. That's the hypocrisy I mentioned earlier and also applied to > myself. Ego is on shaky ground any time it reminds us that ego doesn't exist, > and yes, ego will take every spiritual concept and find a way to use it for > 'our' own purposes. I often have discussions where, rather than the other > coming to a new understanding, he'll do a 'vanishing act' with some version of > the nonvolition concept, and the discussion ends. Yes, you cannot have a meaningful discussion with people clinging to beliefs. When the belief is challenged, the discussion ends. len Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 13, 2006 Report Share Posted April 13, 2006 Nisargadatta , ADHHUB wrote: > > > In a message dated 4/12/2006 5:58:15 PM Pacific Daylight Time, > Nisargadatta writes: > > Wed, 12 Apr 2006 14:36:25 -0000 > " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002 > Re: constructive contradiction > > Nisargadatta , " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002@> > wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , ADHHUB@ wrote: > > > > > > > P: The ego embraces ideas that seem useful to it, such as the > > idea that it > > > doesn't exist, but it doesn't really believe that. It may seem > > strange that > > > ego wants to not exist, but it believes this will result in > > awakening, and it > > > imagines this as some kind of transfer of identity. > > > > > > > > > > Yes. The idea of non existing ego is meant to keep the ego intact > > (no need to pay attention to something which doesn´t exist) and at > > the same time reach the state which can be only there when the ego > > is not ;-) > > > > Len > > > And because this state cannot be reached by ego and because > realizing this fact is extremely frustrating for the ambitous ego, > it creates the image of this desirable state and sticks firmly to > the conviction that it is not the image but reality. Every > questioning of the reality of this imagined state triggers strong > defensive reactions. > The only power of ego is the power of images. Therefore nothing is > more threatening to ego than the capacity to discern images from > facts. Which explains why the perception of something so obvious as > the difference between imagination and reality, can be effectively > thwarted during whole life, until death. > > Len > > > > You're on a roll now, Len. Hehe. > > Something I see repeatedly, including here, is folks who have powerful > experiences, repeatable or not, which are experiential glimpses of Reality through > ego. Through a temporary hole, a break in the ego. The ego itself cannot have this experience. But it can indeed remember and cultivate it as a memory. > This is not enlightenment or awakening to the GodSelf, but ego will > take possession of these experiences and place itself above other egos. The real > problem is that instead of acting as a motivation to seek the recognition of > the Wholeness of the undivided Self, it can result in complacency and > stagnation. Ego is actually very pleased with this compromise and I suspect, as you > suggest, this can continue for the remainder of the life. As you say, ego " takes possession " of those experiences, through memory. So we need the capacity to see the difference between this memory and the actual experience. The actual experience cannot be cultivated. This realization is the end of complacency. One could think that anybody who has seen a break through, cannot confuse this experience with some images anymore, so that he discovers, for ever, the difference between a fact and an image, which makes it impossible to fool oneself at this point. But I think that you´re right, some people may indeed have seen something real, maybe strongly blurred by the ego, and then start cultivating it as an image. Len Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 14, 2006 Report Share Posted April 14, 2006 In a message dated 4/13/2006 6:11:18 AM Pacific Daylight Time, Nisargadatta writes: Thu, 13 Apr 2006 11:12:04 -0000 " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002 Re: constructive contradiction Nisargadatta , ADHHUB wrote: > > > In a message dated 4/12/2006 5:58:15 PM Pacific Daylight Time, > Nisargadatta writes: > > Wed, 12 Apr 2006 14:36:25 -0000 > " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002 > Re: constructive contradiction > > Nisargadatta , " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002@> > wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , ADHHUB@ wrote: > > > > > > > P: The ego embraces ideas that seem useful to it, such as the > > idea that it > > > doesn't exist, but it doesn't really believe that. It may seem > > strange that > > > ego wants to not exist, but it believes this will result in > > awakening, and it > > > imagines this as some kind of transfer of identity. > > > > > > > > > > Yes. The idea of non existing ego is meant to keep the ego intact > > (no need to pay attention to something which doesn´t exist) and at > > the same time reach the state which can be only there when the ego > > is not ;-) > > > > Len > > > And because this state cannot be reached by ego and because > realizing this fact is extremely frustrating for the ambitous ego, > it creates the image of this desirable state and sticks firmly to > the conviction that it is not the image but reality. Every > questioning of the reality of this imagined state triggers strong > defensive reactions. > The only power of ego is the power of images. Therefore nothing is > more threatening to ego than the capacity to discern images from > facts. Which explains why the perception of something so obvious as > the difference between imagination and reality, can be effectively > thwarted during whole life, until death. > > Len > > > > You're on a roll now, Len. Hehe. > > Something I see repeatedly, including here, is folks who have powerful > experiences, repeatable or not, which are experiential glimpses of Reality through > ego. Through a temporary hole, a break in the ego. The ego itself cannot have this experience. But it can indeed remember and cultivate it as a memory. > This is not enlightenment or awakening to the GodSelf, but ego will > take possession of these experiences and place itself above other egos. The real > problem is that instead of acting as a motivation to seek the recognition of > the Wholeness of the undivided Self, it can result in complacency and > stagnation. Ego is actually very pleased with this compromise and I suspect, as you > suggest, this can continue for the remainder of the life. As you say, ego " takes possession " of those experiences, through memory. So we need the capacity to see the difference between this memory and the actual experience. The actual experience cannot be cultivated. This realization is the end of complacency. One could think that anybody who has seen a break through, cannot confuse this experience with some images anymore, so that he discovers, for ever, the difference between a fact and an image, which makes it impossible to fool oneself at this point. But I think that you´re right, some people may indeed have seen something real, maybe strongly blurred by the ego, and then start cultivating it as an image. Len Yes, in my terminology, the 'end of complacency' is integrity; the willingness to see the truth that ego would position itself as God, or at least the seer of God, in spite of the fact that our concepts tell us this isn't possible. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 14, 2006 Report Share Posted April 14, 2006 In a message dated 4/13/2006 6:11:18 AM Pacific Daylight Time, Nisargadatta writes: Thu, 13 Apr 2006 07:52:09 EDT epston Re: Re: constructive contradiction In a message dated 4/13/2006 4:13:07 AM Pacific Daylight Time, lissbon2002 writes: > As you say, ego " takes possession " of those experiences, through > memory. So we need the capacity to see the difference between this > memory and the actual experience. The actual experience cannot be > cultivated. This realization is the end of complacency. L.E: Ego, as an expression of mind, thought energy, and cannot " take possession " of anything. It is not evil or a devil or insane. It is simply a sign with a name on it. It is the human organism as an intelligent whole that does and acts and moves, an integrated organism, nor a phantom of mind as you see it. Larry Epston There's nothing at all 'integrated' about the average mind. It splits continually and looks for ways to hide half the truth from itself. It wants to be free but it wants to be safe. It wants to be unattached as long as it doesn't have to let go of anything. It wants to be enlightened in spite of the fact that everyone tells it this isn't possible. The mind is a disastrous collection of self created struggles, self deceptions and childish selfishness and ultimately nothing can be done with it but to set it off to the side. The problem is that a mind that believes it is " integrated " will never, never do that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 14, 2006 Report Share Posted April 14, 2006 In a message dated 4/14/2006 2:41:06 AM Pacific Daylight Time, lissbon2002 writes: > It´s because these are our concepts telling us that. > Concepts can be adjusted if this suits our need to be almighty. > Direct perception of fact cannot be adjusted, so it is not so > attractive for the ego. > > L.E: How strange to personify the ego this way. Here we have the ego or self choosing what is attractive and what is not attractive. Ego: Wow! I like that so i'll let it in, and No! That idea and experience is unattractive so I'll just ignore it and keep it out and away from the real Len who is in there waiting for me, ego, to bring him information. Absurd! Larry Epston Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 14, 2006 Report Share Posted April 14, 2006 Nisargadatta , ADHHUB wrote: > > And because this state cannot be reached by ego and because > > realizing this fact is extremely frustrating for the ambitous > ego, > > it creates the image of this desirable state and sticks firmly to > > the conviction that it is not the image but reality. Every > > questioning of the reality of this imagined state triggers strong > > defensive reactions. > > The only power of ego is the power of images. Therefore nothing > is > > more threatening to ego than the capacity to discern images from > > facts. Which explains why the perception of something so obvious > as > > the difference between imagination and reality, can be > effectively > > thwarted during whole life, until death. > > > > Len > > > > > > > > You're on a roll now, Len. Hehe. > > > > Something I see repeatedly, including here, is folks who have > powerful > > experiences, repeatable or not, which are experiential glimpses of > Reality through > > ego. > > > > Through a temporary hole, a break in the ego. > The ego itself cannot have this experience. > But it can indeed remember and cultivate it as a memory. > > > > > > > This is not enlightenment or awakening to the GodSelf, but ego > will > > take possession of these experiences and place itself above other > egos. The real > > problem is that instead of acting as a motivation to seek the > recognition of > > the Wholeness of the undivided Self, it can result in complacency > and > > stagnation. Ego is actually very pleased with this compromise and > I suspect, as you > > suggest, this can continue for the remainder of the life. > > > > > As you say, ego " takes possession " of those experiences, through > memory. So we need the capacity to see the difference between this > memory and the actual experience. The actual experience cannot be > cultivated. This realization is the end of complacency. > One could think that anybody who has seen a break through, cannot > confuse this experience with some images anymore, so that he > discovers, for ever, the difference between a fact and an image, > which makes it impossible to fool oneself at this point. > But I think that you´re right, some people may indeed have seen > something real, maybe strongly blurred by the ego, and then start > cultivating it as an image. > > Len > > > > Yes, in my terminology, the 'end of complacency' is integrity; the > willingness to see the truth that ego would position itself as God, or at least the > seer of God, in spite of the fact that our concepts tell us this isn't possible. It´s because these are our concepts telling us that. Concepts can be adjusted if this suits our need to be almighty. Direct perception of fact cannot be adjusted, so it is not so attractive for the ego. Len Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 14, 2006 Report Share Posted April 14, 2006 Nisargadatta , ADHHUB wrote: > > > In a message dated 4/13/2006 6:11:18 AM Pacific Daylight Time, > Nisargadatta writes: > > Thu, 13 Apr 2006 07:52:09 EDT > epston > Re: Re: constructive contradiction > > In a message dated 4/13/2006 4:13:07 AM Pacific Daylight Time, > lissbon2002 writes: > > > As you say, ego " takes possession " of those experiences, through > > memory. So we need the capacity to see the difference between this > > memory and the actual experience. The actual experience cannot be > > cultivated. This realization is the end of complacency. > > L.E: Ego, as an expression of mind, thought energy, and cannot " take > possession " of anything. It is not evil or a devil or insane. It is simply > a sign > with a name on it. It is the human organism as an intelligent whole that > does > and acts and moves, an integrated organism, nor a phantom of mind as you > see > it. > > Larry Epston > > > > There's nothing at all 'integrated' about the average mind. It splits > continually and looks for ways to hide half the truth from itself. It wants to be > free but it wants to be safe. It wants to be unattached as long as it doesn't > have to let go of anything. It wants to be enlightened in spite of the fact > that everyone tells it this isn't possible. The mind is a disastrous collection > of self created struggles, self deceptions and childish selfishness and > ultimately nothing can be done with it but to set it off to the side. The > problem is that a mind that believes it is " integrated " will never, never do that. Precisely. Len Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 14, 2006 Report Share Posted April 14, 2006 Nisargadatta , epston wrote: > > In a message dated 4/14/2006 2:41:06 AM Pacific Daylight Time, > lissbon2002 writes: > > > It´s because these are our concepts telling us that. > > Concepts can be adjusted if this suits our need to be almighty. > > Direct perception of fact cannot be adjusted, so it is not so > > attractive for the ego. > > > > > > L.E: How strange to personify the ego this way. Here we have the ego or self > choosing what is attractive and what is not attractive. Ego: Wow! I like that > so i'll let it in, and No! That idea and experience is unattractive so I'll > just ignore it and keep it out and away from the real Len who is in there > waiting for me, ego, to bring him information. Absurd! > > Larry Epston Yes, too absurd to be true, isn´t it ;-) Len Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 14, 2006 Report Share Posted April 14, 2006 Nisargadatta , epston wrote: > > In a message dated 4/14/2006 2:41:06 AM Pacific Daylight Time, > lissbon2002 writes: > > > It´s because these are our concepts telling us that. > > Concepts can be adjusted if this suits our need to be almighty. > > Direct perception of fact cannot be adjusted, so it is not so > > attractive for the ego. > > > > > > L.E: How strange to personify the ego this way. Here we have the ego or self > choosing what is attractive and what is not attractive. Ego: Wow! I like that > so i'll let it in, and No! That idea and experience is unattractive so I'll > just ignore it and keep it out and away from the real Len who is in there > waiting for me, ego, to bring him information. Absurd! > > Larry Epston > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.