Guest guest Posted April 15, 2006 Report Share Posted April 15, 2006 Len: 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 > Phil: 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. > >L.E: You guys could just as well replace the word ego with the word devil or evil and have the same conversation. Any peek into religious literature will show you endless variations of the same kind of story-telling. Just read the crap that Dattrr writes. The inventifvness of the human mind to contrive these stories is endless, and you are part of the same process of imagination and spiritual storytelling. but you are so trapped in it that you have made is seem real. Read the literature about how the Catholic wafter is turned into the body of Christ if you want to read storytelling by another group of experts. Or who the Holy Ghost is and how he/it operates and there is another invented imaginary story. Those people are stuck in their stories just as you are. Rather pathetic, really. Larry Epston Phil:Yes, the devil symbolizes mind/ego. The theme is repeated endlessly in all religious belief systems in symbol, parable, metaphor, analogy, simile, (Go figure) When we grow up spiritually, we're supposed to notice that what's being talked about is ego, but instead ego denies that ego exists or that anything at all can be done about it, and insists that it should be left alone for reasons that are never quite clear, and then calls all the symbolism that was intended to point to it, pathetic. What's fascinating to me is the irony of hiding from truth and then pretending to look for Truth. The gurus have no choice but to just say stop the nonsense; stop looking because you're clearly a fool and the more you look, the more ways you find to hide what you're looking for.There are only two kinds of seekers who have integrity; the one who gives > up and stops seeking > because he knows he's a fool, or the one who's willing to > stop at nothing to end his foolishness. > > L.E: I'm enjoying reading your last post, but sorry, you missed my point. > My point is, the your story about ego, and the religious-minded's talk > about > the Devil are both invented objects of imagination. There is no devil > that > operates in the world as believer think, and there is no ego that operates > as you are describing it.I assert that the ego is a natural outgrowth of > mind and is not a trickster or that the ego denies that the ego exists. After > all, we are talking about its existence, and I affirm its existence, but > not its behavior as you > describe it. Funny how you avoid my point of view. Perhaps you are > correct and are a victim of your own theory if it is correct. You are perhaps > doing exactly > what you are describing the ego does.I don't know what's inside you, but > what you are describing is not inside me unless I am mistaken. > > Larry Epstonj > > I didn't miss your point, Larry. I simply don't agree with it, which was > meant to be obvious. My point, which might have been missed, was that these > > stories are pointing to a very real thought process. Of course ego is > natural, > and I don't recall calling it a trickster. If I did, perhaps it was in a > different context. The words " self deception " have been used repeatedly to > indicate > it is the self that is deceiving the self. As far as what may be occurring > within you, if I am correct, you wouldn't know about the self deception > unless you were willing to look, would you? L.E: It wasn't obvious, but I accept that you don't agree with my view of things. I am aware of myself and my inner processes and how I experience my ordinary world. In myself, none of the " self deception " you talk about exists. Hard to imagine that it exists in anyone other than as imagination and a story. Yet I have met people that are mentally ill, and I have no idea how they are producing their illness within their life. I am not aware of my mind at all, yet it operates as necessary to choose, talk and express whatever is needed in the moment. I am not aware of a self or ego at all yet I do all the natural things an ego is supposed to do. It or I talk, think, write, etc and have no idea how this all occurs. My experience is a sensual openess, a four dimensional world of seeing, feeling, taste, smell, a full sensual life that exists in the moment. I am fully aware of my body in the ordinary sense and can feel the heart, the pumping of blood etc., but am not aware of the operation of my liver, kidneys nerves etc and only know of their existence from external reading and information, yet they all operate together. As I wrote, perhaps ego can only be described from the outside and from within it is invisible like the mind. Yet, images also arise and self-talking occurs, but the stuff you describe does not seem to exist in me, but may in you, or you may see it in others but not yourself. I live an ordinary life in an ordinary way, and hardly ever think or remember what I wrote or read on the Niz. I don't think, as you imply, that I am unconsciouss of inner processes or missing seeing anything. You say something exists that I am not aware of. Perhaps you are correct, but what can I and others do about it? It seems to me that you are making all these processes up and they are fantasies like many other imaginary ideas like salvation, the body and blood of christ, virgins in a heaven waiting for martyrs, the existence of Krishna, etc. All made up by those convinced these ideas are real. I don't think any of them are real incuding yours. My ordinary life is real enough and simple enough for me to feel comfortable about who and what I am. Larry Epston > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 15, 2006 Report Share Posted April 15, 2006 In a message dated 4/15/2006 7:33:47 AM Pacific Daylight Time, Nisargadatta writes: Sat, 15 Apr 2006 03:41:02 EDT epston Re: Ego as Devil-Belief Systems Len: 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 > Phil: 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. > >L.E: You guys could just as well replace the word ego with the word devil or evil and have the same conversation. Any peek into religious literature will show you endless variations of the same kind of story-telling. Just read the crap that Dattrr writes. The inventifvness of the human mind to contrive these stories is endless, and you are part of the same process of imagination and spiritual storytelling. but you are so trapped in it that you have made is seem real. Read the literature about how the Catholic wafter is turned into the body of Christ if you want to read storytelling by another group of experts. Or who the Holy Ghost is and how he/it operates and there is another invented imaginary story. Those people are stuck in their stories just as you are. Rather pathetic, really. Larry Epston Phil:Yes, the devil symbolizes mind/ego. The theme is repeated endlessly in all religious belief systems in symbol, parable, metaphor, analogy, simile, (Go figure) When we grow up spiritually, we're supposed to notice that what's being talked about is ego, but instead ego denies that ego exists or that anything at all can be done about it, and insists that it should be left alone for reasons that are never quite clear, and then calls all the symbolism that was intended to point to it, pathetic. What's fascinating to me is the irony of hiding from truth and then pretending to look for Truth. The gurus have no choice but to just say stop the nonsense; stop looking because you're clearly a fool and the more you look, the more ways you find to hide what you're looking for.There are only two kinds of seekers who have integrity; the one who gives > up and stops seeking > because he knows he's a fool, or the one who's willing to > stop at nothing to end his foolishness. > > L.E: I'm enjoying reading your last post, but sorry, you missed my point. > My point is, the your story about ego, and the religious-minded's talk > about > the Devil are both invented objects of imagination. There is no devil > that > operates in the world as believer think, and there is no ego that operates > as you are describing it.I assert that the ego is a natural outgrowth of > mind and is not a trickster or that the ego denies that the ego exists. After > all, we are talking about its existence, and I affirm its existence, but > not its behavior as you > describe it. Funny how you avoid my point of view. Perhaps you are > correct and are a victim of your own theory if it is correct. You are perhaps > doing exactly > what you are describing the ego does.I don't know what's inside you, but > what you are describing is not inside me unless I am mistaken. > > Larry Epstonj > > I didn't miss your point, Larry. I simply don't agree with it, which was > meant to be obvious. My point, which might have been missed, was that these > > stories are pointing to a very real thought process. Of course ego is > natural, > and I don't recall calling it a trickster. If I did, perhaps it was in a > different context. The words " self deception " have been used repeatedly to > indicate > it is the self that is deceiving the self. As far as what may be occurring > within you, if I am correct, you wouldn't know about the self deception > unless you were willing to look, would you? L.E: It wasn't obvious, but I accept that you don't agree with my view of things. I am aware of myself and my inner processes and how I experience my ordinary world. In myself, none of the " self deception " you talk about exists. Hard to imagine that it exists in anyone other than as imagination and a story. Yet I have met people that are mentally ill, and I have no idea how they are producing their illness within their life. I am not aware of my mind at all, yet it operates as necessary to choose, talk and express whatever is needed in the moment. I am not aware of a self or ego at all yet I do all the natural things an ego is supposed to do. It or I talk, think, write, etc and have no idea how this all occurs. My experience is a sensual openess, a four dimensional world of seeing, feeling, taste, smell, a full sensual life that exists in the moment. I am fully aware of my body in the ordinary sense and can feel the heart, the pumping of blood etc., but am not aware of the operation of my liver, kidneys nerves etc and only know of their existence from external reading and information, yet they all operate together. As I wrote, perhaps ego can only be described from the outside and from within it is invisible like the mind. Yet, images also arise and self-talking occurs, but the stuff you describe does not seem to exist in me, but may in you, or you may see it in others but not yourself. I live an ordinary life in an ordinary way, and hardly ever think or remember what I wrote or read on the Niz. I don't think, as you imply, that I am unconsciouss of inner processes or missing seeing anything. You say something exists that I am not aware of. Perhaps you are correct, but what can I and others do about it? It seems to me that you are making all these processes up and they are fantasies like many other imaginary ideas like salvation, the body and blood of christ, virgins in a heaven waiting for martyrs, the existence of Krishna, etc. All made up by those convinced these ideas are real. I don't think any of them are real incuding yours. My ordinary life is real enough and simple enough for me to feel comfortable about who and what I am. Larry Epston L: In myself, none of the " self deception " you talk about exists. Hard to imagine that it exists in anyone other than as imagination and a story. There's a whole science of psychology involving this process that you can't imagine exists in anyone. I'm not really interested in exploring basic human psychology here. There are lots of books on the subject that I'm sure you'll find challenging. As uninteresting as it is to most folks, basic mental health is a necessary foundation for spiritual work. Adding a spiritual dimension to the science leads to very powerful change that not only dramatically improves quality of life, but makes genuine humility, acceptance and nonattachment possible, rather than just the pretense based on a concept. This prepares us to explore our divine nature with clarity, passion and sincerity, since we're no longer struggling with our human nature. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 15, 2006 Report Share Posted April 15, 2006 In a message dated 4/15/2006 11:57:27 AM Pacific Daylight Time, ADHHUB writes: > L: In myself, none of the " self deception " you talk about exists. Hard > to imagine that it exists in anyone other than as imagination and a story. > > > There's a whole science of psychology involving this process that you can't > > imagine exists in anyone. I'm not really interested in exploring basic human > > psychology here. There are lots of books on the subject that I'm sure you'll > > find challenging. > > As uninteresting as it is to most folks, basic mental health is a necessary > > foundation for spiritual work. Adding a spiritual dimension to the science > leads to very powerful change that not only dramatically improves quality > of > life, but makes genuine humility, acceptance and nonattachment possible, > rather > than just the pretense based on a concept. This prepares us to explore our > divine nature with clarity, passion and sincerity, since we're no longer > struggling with our human nature. > > L.E: Obvously from your concern with the intricasies of ego you are still struggling with your human nature. Psychologist and priests have a lot in common as one group tries to understand man and animals the the other tries to understand the will and nature of their god. Both proceed from a position of ignorance and that's one thing they have in common. And I have read that going mad is a necessity for spiritual understanding. I think many involved in " spiritual work " are not mentally stable and do not embody mental health such a Bob Nixon for example and perhaps Len who probably has a personality disorder. Aside from that, your ideas and concepts are interesting and possibly correct although I doubt it, and I wonder where this is all coming from, you as ego, you as hidden ego, you as the manipulative ego, you as the ego trickster, but certainly not from the real person who lives in the here and now and has a real sense of who you are. Larry Epston Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 15, 2006 Report Share Posted April 15, 2006 In a message dated 4/15/2006 1:55:52 PM Pacific Daylight Time, Nisargadatta writes: Sat, 15 Apr 2006 16:08:54 EDT epston Re: Ego as Devil-Belief Systems In a message dated 4/15/2006 11:57:27 AM Pacific Daylight Time, ADHHUB writes: > L: In myself, none of the " self deception " you talk about exists. Hard > to imagine that it exists in anyone other than as imagination and a story. > > > There's a whole science of psychology involving this process that you can't > > imagine exists in anyone. I'm not really interested in exploring basic human > > psychology here. There are lots of books on the subject that I'm sure you'll > > find challenging. > > As uninteresting as it is to most folks, basic mental health is a necessary > > foundation for spiritual work. Adding a spiritual dimension to the science > leads to very powerful change that not only dramatically improves quality > of > life, but makes genuine humility, acceptance and nonattachment possible, > rather > than just the pretense based on a concept. This prepares us to explore our > divine nature with clarity, passion and sincerity, since we're no longer > struggling with our human nature. > > L.E: Obvously from your concern with the intricasies of ego you are still struggling with your human nature. Psychologist and priests have a lot in common as one group tries to understand man and animals the the other tries to understand the will and nature of their god. Both proceed from a position of ignorance and that's one thing they have in common. And I have read that going mad is a necessity for spiritual understanding. I think many involved in " spiritual work " are not mentally stable and do not embody mental health such a Bob Nixon for example and perhaps Len who probably has a personality disorder. Aside from that, your ideas and concepts are interesting and possibly correct although I doubt it, and I wonder where this is all coming from, you as ego, you as hidden ego, you as the manipulative ego, you as the ego trickster, but certainly not from the real person who lives in the here and now and has a real sense of who you are. Larry Epston Obvously from your concern with the intricasies of ego you are still struggling with your human nature. Little seems really obvious to you, but I wonder why this is. Why would that be obvious? I just got through telling you I have no interest in exploring basic psychology. Been there, done that 3 decades ago..... Lemme ask you ask you something. Larry, seriously, and it's not intended as an insult and I can't even say it's not the best thing for you to do but, do you think about what you write or do you just sorta let it happen on it's own? I do the latter myself sometimes, though not when I'm posting to a forum. I don't share your concerns about Bob and Len, which likely places me in the same box as them but that's fine. There are a couple of others here, though, that I consider sufficiently unstable that I wouldn't invite them into my house, so perhaps we've found another area of agreement in a general sense. 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.