Guest guest Posted September 23, 2008 Report Share Posted September 23, 2008 ego's, sometimes, come to the conclusion that they are That...big big appearing world liberated ones, sometimes, come to the conclusion and are feeling that it don't make sense to identify with an illusory ego and illusory world ..... there is no ego.... there is no world.... except within illusory ego-bubbles ..... Marc Ps: " you " are That.....formless, changeless and infinite Self..... nothing else for real see It! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 23, 2008 Report Share Posted September 23, 2008 dennis_travis33 wrote: > ego's, sometimes, come to the conclusion that they are That...big big > appearing world > > liberated ones, sometimes, come to the conclusion and are feeling > that it don't make sense to identify with an illusory ego and > illusory world > > .... > > > there is no ego.... > > there is no world.... > > except within illusory ego-bubbles > > .... > > > Marc > > > Ps: " you " are That.....formless, changeless and infinite Self..... > > nothing else for real > > see It! > --- > > Well, actually, there is no ego simply because the ego is a concept which was created by Sigmund Freud. There is no ego which is located within the body nor the human psyche, " ego " was a term used to represent a series of ideas that pointed at certain characteristics recognisable within the human personality.* There is no such thing as a discrete ego.* So taken in context, the ego IS literally illusory. tyga Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 23, 2008 Report Share Posted September 23, 2008 Nisargadatta , tyga <tyga wrote: > > dennis_travis33 wrote: > > ego's, sometimes, come to the conclusion that they are That...big big > > appearing world > > > > liberated ones, sometimes, come to the conclusion and are feeling > > that it don't make sense to identify with an illusory ego and > > illusory world > > > > .... > > > > > > there is no ego.... > > > > there is no world.... > > > > except within illusory ego-bubbles > > > > .... > > > > > > Marc > > > > > > Ps: " you " are That.....formless, changeless and infinite Self..... > > > > nothing else for real > > > > see It! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- > > > > > Well, actually, there is no ego simply because the ego is a concept > which was created by Sigmund Freud. There is no ego which is located > within the body nor the human psyche, " ego " was a term used to represent > a series of ideas that pointed at certain characteristics recognisable > within the human personality.* There is no such thing as a discrete ego.* > > So taken in context, the ego IS literally illusory. > > tyga you can give " ego " whatever other names.....or ignore it.... this don't let " you " loose whatever illusions Marc > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 23, 2008 Report Share Posted September 23, 2008 Nisargadatta , " dennis_travis33 " <dennis_travis33 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , tyga <tyga@> wrote: > > > > dennis_travis33 wrote: > > > ego's, sometimes, come to the conclusion that they are That...big > big > > > appearing world > > > > > > liberated ones, sometimes, come to the conclusion and are feeling > > > that it don't make sense to identify with an illusory ego and > > > illusory world > > > > > > .... > > > > > > > > > there is no ego.... > > > > > > there is no world.... > > > > > > except within illusory ego-bubbles > > > > > > .... > > > > > > > > > Marc > > > > > > > > > Ps: " you " are That.....formless, changeless and infinite Self..... > > > > > > nothing else for real > > > > > > see It! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- > > > > > > > > Well, actually, there is no ego simply because the ego is a concept > > which was created by Sigmund Freud. There is no ego which is > located > > within the body nor the human psyche, " ego " was a term used to > represent > > a series of ideas that pointed at certain characteristics > recognisable > > within the human personality.* There is no such thing as a discrete > ego.* > > > > So taken in context, the ego IS literally illusory. > > > > tyga > > > you can give " ego " whatever other names.....or ignore it.... > > this don't let " you " loose whatever illusions > > Marc > > > Ps: your theory & concept about " ego " is a nice one for whatever criminals and ignorant fools.....it give them the perfect right to behave as stupid as they wish too......in having " no ego " ....etc.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 23, 2008 Report Share Posted September 23, 2008 dennis_travis33 wrote: >> >> you can give " ego " whatever other names.....or ignore it.... >> >> this don't let " you " loose whatever illusions >> >> Marc >> > > > Ps: your theory & concept about " ego " is a nice one for whatever > criminals and ignorant fools.....it give them the perfect right to > behave as stupid as they wish too......in having " no ego " ....etc.... > > > --- > > Could you please clarify what you mean? If I understand you correctly, it would appear as though you have no idea what " ego " means nor its context. I suggest you do some research on " ego " before you start assuming you already are an expert. The " ego " is an aspect of the human personality, along with the super-ego and the id, which are all terms or symbolisms invented by the late Sigmund Freud to symbolise aspects of his theories concerning the human psyche. tyga Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 23, 2008 Report Share Posted September 23, 2008 Nisargadatta , tyga <tyga wrote: > > dennis_travis33 wrote: > >> > >> you can give " ego " whatever other names.....or ignore it.... > >> > >> this don't let " you " loose whatever illusions > >> > >> Marc > >> > > > > > > Ps: your theory & concept about " ego " is a nice one for whatever > > criminals and ignorant fools.....it give them the perfect right to > > behave as stupid as they wish too......in having " no ego " ....etc.... > > > > > > --- > > > > > Could you please clarify what you mean? If I understand you correctly, > it would appear as though you have no idea what " ego " means nor its context. > > I suggest you do some research on " ego " before you start assuming you > already are an expert. The " ego " is an aspect of the human personality, > along with the super-ego and the id, which are all terms or symbolisms > invented by the late Sigmund Freud to symbolise aspects of his theories > concerning the human psyche. > > > > tyga do you realy believe that the only one who talk about ego is (has been) Sigmund Freud?.... there are many concepts and theories about " ego " going around.... Please....nobody in here is an " expert " of whatever! I hope for " you " .....for your ego.....that you don't take yourself for an expert..... Marc Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 23, 2008 Report Share Posted September 23, 2008 Nisargadatta , " dennis_travis33 " <dennis_travis33 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , tyga <tyga@> wrote: > > > > dennis_travis33 wrote: > > >> > > >> you can give " ego " whatever other names.....or ignore it.... > > >> > > >> this don't let " you " loose whatever illusions > > >> > > >> Marc > > >> > > > > > > > > > Ps: your theory & concept about " ego " is a nice one for whatever > > > criminals and ignorant fools.....it give them the perfect right > to > > > behave as stupid as they wish too......in having " no > ego " ....etc.... > > > > > > > > > --- > > > > > > > > Could you please clarify what you mean? If I understand you > correctly, > > it would appear as though you have no idea what " ego " means nor its > context. > > > > I suggest you do some research on " ego " before you start assuming > you > > already are an expert. The " ego " is an aspect of the human > personality, > > along with the super-ego and the id, which are all terms or > symbolisms > > invented by the late Sigmund Freud to symbolise aspects of his > theories > > concerning the human psyche. > > > > > > > > tyga > > > do you realy believe that the only one who talk about ego is (has > been) Sigmund Freud?.... > > there are many concepts and theories about " ego " going around.... > > Please....nobody in here is an " expert " of whatever! > > I hope for " you " .....for your ego.....that you don't take yourself > for an expert..... > > > Marc Ps: i remind you that this is a spiritual group..... and i don't think that Freud give the same meaning to " ego " ...than spiritual people > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 23, 2008 Report Share Posted September 23, 2008 Nisargadatta , " dennis_travis33 " <dennis_travis33 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " dennis_travis33 " > <dennis_travis33@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , tyga <tyga@> wrote: > > > > > > dennis_travis33 wrote: > > > >> > > > >> you can give " ego " whatever other names.....or ignore it.... > > > >> > > > >> this don't let " you " loose whatever illusions > > > >> > > > >> Marc > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Ps: your theory & concept about " ego " is a nice one for whatever > > > > criminals and ignorant fools.....it give them the perfect right > > to > > > > behave as stupid as they wish too......in having " no > > ego " ....etc.... > > > > > > > > > > > > --- > > > > > > > > > > > Could you please clarify what you mean? If I understand you > > correctly, > > > it would appear as though you have no idea what " ego " means nor > its > > context. > > > > > > I suggest you do some research on " ego " before you start assuming > > you > > > already are an expert. The " ego " is an aspect of the human > > personality, > > > along with the super-ego and the id, which are all terms or > > symbolisms > > > invented by the late Sigmund Freud to symbolise aspects of his > > theories > > > concerning the human psyche. > > > > > > > > > > > > tyga > > > > > > do you realy believe that the only one who talk about ego is (has > > been) Sigmund Freud?.... > > > > there are many concepts and theories about " ego " going around.... > > > > Please....nobody in here is an " expert " of whatever! > > > > I hope for " you " .....for your ego.....that you don't take yourself > > for an expert..... > > > > > > Marc > > > Ps: i remind you that this is a spiritual group..... > > and i don't think that Freud give the same meaning to " ego " ...than > spiritual people > > > " Spiritual group " ? Is that the same as a parasitic group? A group of words coming together to form a plot? And yes I understand what you mean, Marc. But isn't the divisiveness of labeling one " egoic' and the *spiritual* the exact same thing, albeit, more refined? It's a closed loop system, imo. Love. ~A Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 23, 2008 Report Share Posted September 23, 2008 dennis_travis33 wrote: >> >> do you realy believe that the only one who talk about ego is (has >> been) Sigmund Freud?.... >> I doesn't matter what I believe, the simple fact is, Freud invented the term " ego " , so that is the context in which I use and understand it. >> there are many concepts and theories about " ego " going around.... >> Yes, that is true and the vast majority of those concepts are a misunderstanding. For a proper understanding of what Freud meant by the term ego, you need to go and research his work. >> Please....nobody in here is an " expert " of whatever! >> I don't know, surely there could be people in here that might be experts on one thing or another? >> I hope for " you " .....for your ego.....that you don't take yourself >> for an expert..... >> >> >> Marc >> > > What ego? Haven't we already determined that the ego is an illusion? No, I certainly do not consider myself an expert on the subject of psychotherapy (were the term ego comes from), however my partner is somewhat of an expert on psychotherapy, having a degree in psychology. > Ps: i remind you that this is a spiritual group..... > I wonder if Sri Nis would have described himself as " spiritual'? > and i don't think that Freud give the same meaning to " ego " ...than > spiritual people > No I doubt whether they are the same, considering that Freud coined the term and spiritualists have perverted it. For example, in psychotherapy there is no such term as " egoic " , the correct term is " egoistic " but most so called spiritualist who having no understanding of any of Freud's work, have no idea what they are talking about. tyga Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 24, 2008 Report Share Posted September 24, 2008 Nisargadatta , " anabebe57 " <kailashana wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " dennis_travis33 " > <dennis_travis33@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " dennis_travis33 " > > <dennis_travis33@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , tyga <tyga@> wrote: > > > > > > > > dennis_travis33 wrote: > > > > >> > > > > >> you can give " ego " whatever other names.....or ignore it.... > > > > >> > > > > >> this don't let " you " loose whatever illusions > > > > >> > > > > >> Marc > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ps: your theory & concept about " ego " is a nice one for whatever > > > > > criminals and ignorant fools.....it give them the perfect right > > > to > > > > > behave as stupid as they wish too......in having " no > > > ego " ....etc.... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Could you please clarify what you mean? If I understand you > > > correctly, > > > > it would appear as though you have no idea what " ego " means nor > > its > > > context. > > > > > > > > I suggest you do some research on " ego " before you start assuming > > > you > > > > already are an expert. The " ego " is an aspect of the human > > > personality, > > > > along with the super-ego and the id, which are all terms or > > > symbolisms > > > > invented by the late Sigmund Freud to symbolise aspects of his > > > theories > > > > concerning the human psyche. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > tyga > > > > > > > > > do you realy believe that the only one who talk about ego is (has > > > been) Sigmund Freud?.... > > > > > > there are many concepts and theories about " ego " going around.... > > > > > > Please....nobody in here is an " expert " of whatever! > > > > > > I hope for " you " .....for your ego.....that you don't take yourself > > > for an expert..... > > > > > > > > > Marc > > > > > > Ps: i remind you that this is a spiritual group..... > > > > and i don't think that Freud give the same meaning to " ego " ...than > > spiritual people > > > > > > > > " Spiritual group " ? Is that the same as a parasitic group? A group of > words coming together to form a plot? > > And yes I understand what you mean, Marc. But isn't the divisiveness > of labeling one " egoic' and the *spiritual* the exact same thing, > albeit, more refined? > > It's a closed loop system, imo. > > Love. > > ~A > you didn't know that this group is of " spiritual " categorie?.... never too late to think about, yes.....up to imaginary " you " .... There are different " definitions " about ego......the definition some very intelligent people once gave to " ego " is a different one than some spiritual people give to it. Some may earn some money in relation to whatever definitions from whatever FAMOUS brains, trying to heal confused minds.....but that's of their own imaginary ego business. Nobody cares about such " practise " in here....for real. Marc Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 24, 2008 Report Share Posted September 24, 2008 Nisargadatta , tyga <tyga wrote: > > dennis_travis33 wrote: > >> > >> do you realy believe that the only one who talk about ego is (has > >> been) Sigmund Freud?.... > >> > > I doesn't matter what I believe, the simple fact is, Freud invented the > term " ego " , so that is the context in which I use and understand it. > > > >> there are many concepts and theories about " ego " going around.... > >> > > Yes, that is true and the vast majority of those concepts are a > misunderstanding. For a proper understanding of what Freud meant by the > term ego, you need to go and research his work. > > > >> Please....nobody in here is an " expert " of whatever! > >> > > I don't know, surely there could be people in here that might be experts > on one thing or another? > > > >> I hope for " you " .....for your ego.....that you don't take yourself > >> for an expert..... > >> > >> > >> Marc > >> > > > > > > What ego? Haven't we already determined that the ego is an illusion? yes, ego is of illusion only! But one can't ignore such nature of illusion. One should be a fool to ignore such nature. It take more or less (long) times to slowly get detached from such illusion. Such illusion is causing the opposite of liberation....constantly...... And it doesn't disappear in just reading a book....or with some nice studies about....or even to work as a (pseudo) expert in it. > > No, I certainly do not consider myself an expert on the subject of > psychotherapy (were the term ego comes from), however my partner is > somewhat of an expert on psychotherapy, having a degree in psychology. good for " you " ... > > > Ps: i remind you that this is a spiritual group..... > > > > I wonder if Sri Nis would have described himself as " spiritual'? > > and i don't think that Freud give the same meaning to " ego " ...than > > spiritual people ahh....so do you believe that Freud gave a kind of better meaning to ego than your mentionned " spiritual people " ....? > > > > No I doubt whether they are the same, considering that Freud coined the > term and spiritualists have perverted it. since thousands of years people are thinking and reflecting the " ego " issue....don't think that Freud was the first one..... > > For example, in psychotherapy there is no such term as " egoic " , the > correct term is " egoistic " but most so called spiritualist who having no > understanding of any of Freud's work, have no idea what they are talking > about. why should one get an understanding of Freud's work....?.... should one get an understanding of Freuds work...in order to just know the meaning of ego?.... ridiculous... Marc > > > > tyga > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 24, 2008 Report Share Posted September 24, 2008 dennis_travis33 wrote: >> >> What ego? Haven't we already determined that the ego is an illusion? >> > > > yes, ego is of illusion only! > > But one can't ignore such nature of illusion. > One should be a fool to ignore such nature. > > It take more or less (long) times to slowly get detached from such > illusion. > > Such illusion is causing the opposite of > liberation....constantly...... > > And it doesn't disappear in just reading a book....or with some nice > studies about....or even to work as a (pseudo) expert in it. > I agree. > > >> No, I certainly do not consider myself an expert on the subject of >> psychotherapy (were the term ego comes from), however my partner is >> somewhat of an expert on psychotherapy, having a degree in >> > psychology. > > > good for " you " ... > Thank you. > >>> Ps: i remind you that this is a spiritual group..... >>> >>> >> I wonder if Sri Nis would have described himself as " spiritual'? >> >>> and i don't think that Freud give the same meaning >>> > to " ego " ...than > >>> spiritual people >>> > > > ahh....so do you believe that Freud gave a kind of better meaning to > ego than your mentionned " spiritual people " ....? > Actually just to clarify, I wrote " I wonder if Sri Nis would describe himself as spiritual " ? I think the second part of the sentence got mingled in there by error of email formatting. > > since thousands of years people are thinking and reflecting the " ego " > issue....don't think that Freud was the first one..... > No he wasn't the first person to conceive of something similar to ego but he was the person that developed the theories associated with the development of that particular word, that is my only point. > > why should one get an understanding of Freud's work....?.... > To have a better understanding. Why did you bother to learn to read and write English? Why do you share your thoughts and ideas to people over the internet? > should one get an understanding of Freuds work...in order to just > know the meaning of ego?.... > > ridiculous... > > > Marc > If that's how you feel about learning what Freud meant by " ego " , then that is your choice. " Ridiculous " though is a value judgement, I wonder how Sri Nis might have felt about value judgements? tyga Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 24, 2008 Report Share Posted September 24, 2008 Nisargadatta , tyga <tyga wrote: > > dennis_travis33 wrote: > >> > >> What ego? Haven't we already determined that the ego is an illusion? > >> > > > > > > yes, ego is of illusion only! > > > > But one can't ignore such nature of illusion. > > One should be a fool to ignore such nature. > > > > It take more or less (long) times to slowly get detached from such > > illusion. > > > > Such illusion is causing the opposite of > > liberation....constantly...... > > > > And it doesn't disappear in just reading a book....or with some nice > > studies about....or even to work as a (pseudo) expert in it. > > > > I agree. > > > > > > >> No, I certainly do not consider myself an expert on the subject of > >> psychotherapy (were the term ego comes from), however my partner is > >> somewhat of an expert on psychotherapy, having a degree in > >> > > psychology. > > > > > > good for " you " ... > > > > Thank you. > > > > >>> Ps: i remind you that this is a spiritual group..... > >>> > >>> > >> I wonder if Sri Nis would have described himself as " spiritual'? > >> > >>> and i don't think that Freud give the same meaning > >>> > > to " ego " ...than > > > >>> spiritual people > >>> > > > > > > ahh....so do you believe that Freud gave a kind of better meaning to > > ego than your mentionned " spiritual people " ....? > > > > Actually just to clarify, I wrote " I wonder if Sri Nis would describe > himself as spiritual " ? > > I think the second part of the sentence got mingled in there by error of > email formatting. > > > > > since thousands of years people are thinking and reflecting the " ego " > > issue....don't think that Freud was the first one..... > > > > No he wasn't the first person to conceive of something similar to ego > but he was the person that developed the theories associated with the > development of that particular word, that is my only point. > > > > > why should one get an understanding of Freud's work....?.... > > > > To have a better understanding. > > Why did you bother to learn to read and write English? Why do you share > your thoughts and ideas to people over the internet? > > > > should one get an understanding of Freuds work...in order to just > > know the meaning of ego?.... > > > > ridiculous... > > > > > > Marc > > > > If that's how you feel about learning what Freud meant by " ego " , then > that is your choice. " Ridiculous " though is a value judgement, I wonder > how Sri Nis might have felt about value judgements? > > > tyga .... " Freud " .... " Sri Nis " ......your partner diplomas....etc.... i'm wondering if you could get anything by " your " own.... Marc > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 24, 2008 Report Share Posted September 24, 2008 dennis_travis33 wrote: > > > > ... " Freud " .... " Sri Nis " ......your partner diplomas....etc.... > > i'm wondering if you could get anything by " your " own.... > > Marc > > > > > --- > > Yes of course. I wonder why you feel it necessary to focus on my personal abilities rather than answer the questions? Does this need to refocus the attention on others fit in with your need to annihilate any sense of self? tyga Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 24, 2008 Report Share Posted September 24, 2008 Nisargadatta , tyga <tyga wrote: > > dennis_travis33 wrote: > > > > > > > > ... " Freud " .... " Sri Nis " ......your partner diplomas....etc.... > > > > i'm wondering if you could get anything by " your " own.... > > > > Marc > > > > > > > > > > --- > > > > > Yes of course. > > I wonder why you feel it necessary to focus on my personal abilities > rather than answer the questions? > > Does this need to refocus the attention on others fit in with your need > to annihilate any sense of self? > > tyga i'm not the one who feel some fabulous need......for whatever... we are talking about ego you are trying to escape your illusory ego....in mentionning Freud....Nis...your partner....who all have ...in your opinion, some great definitions. you focus all the time the attention on others so i only focus the attention on " you " ....because i'm talking to " you " ......not to Freud, nor to Nis, nor to your partner. you don't like any attention on this your illusory ego?... Marc > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 24, 2008 Report Share Posted September 24, 2008 dennis_travis33 wrote: > > i'm not the one who feel some fabulous need......for whatever... > > we are talking about ego > > you are trying to escape your illusory ego....in mentionning > Freud....Nis...your partner....who all have ...in your opinion, some > great definitions. > > you focus all the time the attention on others so > > i only focus the attention on " you " ....because i'm talking > to " you " ......not to Freud, nor to Nis, nor to your partner. > > you don't like any attention on this your illusory ego?... > > > > Marc > > > > Thank you for being clearer in what you meant, it does go a long way to making communication much more effective. I'm not trying to escape my illusory ego though Marc, why would I attempt to escape something that doesn't exist? That would be absurd. Let me be as concise as possible though. In mentioning the ego, I was only pointing out that the term " ego " originated with Freud, which I have been informed by my partner, that is all, anything else to do with ego I have stated is illusion. so I think we are actually in agreement about " ego " , that it is an illusion. I mentioned Sri Nis because of the supposed nature of this forum and was wandering what you might have thought he might have thought? Was I mistaken that this forum was in the nature of discussion of Nisargadatta and his theories? If I am mistaken, then I'm in the wrong forum. tyga Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 24, 2008 Report Share Posted September 24, 2008 Nisargadatta , tyga <tyga wrote: > > dennis_travis33 wrote: > > > > i'm not the one who feel some fabulous need......for whatever... > > > > we are talking about ego > > > > you are trying to escape your illusory ego....in mentionning > > Freud....Nis...your partner....who all have ...in your opinion, some > > great definitions. > > > > you focus all the time the attention on others so > > > > i only focus the attention on " you " ....because i'm talking > > to " you " ......not to Freud, nor to Nis, nor to your partner. > > > > you don't like any attention on this your illusory ego?... > > > > > > > > Marc > > > > > > > > > Thank you for being clearer in what you meant, it does go a long way to > making communication much more effective. > > I'm not trying to escape my illusory ego though Marc, why would I > attempt to escape something that doesn't exist? That would be absurd. > > Let me be as concise as possible though. In mentioning the ego, I was > only pointing out that the term " ego " originated with Freud, which I > have been informed by my partner, that is all, anything else to do with > ego I have stated is illusion. so I think we are actually in agreement > about " ego " , that it is an illusion. so why, is this your illusion (ego) talking about " love & compassion " ?.... why talking about some famous illusions " who " once wrote some nice definitions....to nobody realy.....? " love & compassion " for whom?.....except for the reflection of this your self made illusory ego & world......in need. > > I mentioned Sri Nis because of the supposed nature of this forum > and was wandering what you might have thought he might > have thought? Was I mistaken that this forum was in the nature of > discussion of Nisargadatta and his theories? If I am mistaken, then I'm > in the wrong forum. > > tyga nobody in here who could know what Nis would have been thought and answered to whatever questions.... Marc > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 24, 2008 Report Share Posted September 24, 2008 dennis_travis33 wrote: > > so why, is this your illusion (ego) talking > about " love & compassion " ?.... > > why talking about some famous illusions " who " once wrote some nice > definitions....to nobody realy.....? > > " love & compassion " for whom?.....except for the reflection of this > your self made illusory ego & world......in need. > Thanks for asking. I was merely making a suggestion on what would be a beneficial way to live ones life. I am assuming that living life with love and compassion would be far better than living life with hate and bitterness. I understand that everything is meaningless and that when investigated there is no self to speak of but even with this knowledge, I still need to interact with people on a very regular basis and I assume you do also. During these interactions, I find it much more beneficial to behave with love and compassion than to not do so. Only my opinion of course. > >> I mentioned Sri Nis because of the supposed nature of this forum >> and was wandering what you might have thought he >> > might > >> have thought? Was I mistaken that this forum was in the nature of >> discussion of Nisargadatta and his theories? If I am mistaken, then >> > I'm > >> in the wrong forum. >> >> tyga >> > > > > nobody in here who could know what Nis would have been thought and > answered to whatever questions.... > > > Marc > > > > > --- > > Ok, well thanks for that information. I suppose my question ought have been, what do we know of what Nis said that could help us to understand the situation better? tyga Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 24, 2008 Report Share Posted September 24, 2008 Nisargadatta , tyga <tyga wrote: > > dennis_travis33 wrote: > > > > so why, is this your illusion (ego) talking > > about " love & compassion " ?.... > > > > why talking about some famous illusions " who " once wrote some nice > > definitions....to nobody realy.....? > > > > " love & compassion " for whom?.....except for the reflection of this > > your self made illusory ego & world......in need. > > > > Thanks for asking. > > I was merely making a suggestion on what would be a beneficial way to > live ones life. I am assuming that living life with love and compassion > would be far better than living life with hate and bitterness. I > understand that everything is meaningless and that when investigated > there is no self to speak of but even with this knowledge, I still need > to interact with people on a very regular basis and I assume you do > also. During these interactions, I find it much more beneficial to > behave with love and compassion than to not do so. Only my opinion of > course. > > > > >> I mentioned Sri Nis because of the supposed nature of this forum > >> and was wandering what you might have thought he > >> > > might > > > >> have thought? Was I mistaken that this forum was in the nature of > >> discussion of Nisargadatta and his theories? If I am mistaken, then > >> > > I'm > > > >> in the wrong forum. > >> > >> tyga > >> > > > > > > > > nobody in here who could know what Nis would have been thought and > > answered to whatever questions.... > > > > > > Marc > > > > > > > > > > --- > > > > > Ok, well thanks for that information. I suppose my question ought have > been, what do we know of what Nis said that could help us to understand > the situation better? > > tyga > which situation?..... who is it who reject the need to understand the nature of the mentionned " illusion " of " ego " ?.... it's not " me " .... Marc Ps: your choice this your " love & compassion " .....in fact, " you " don't have any choice Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 24, 2008 Report Share Posted September 24, 2008 dennis_travis33 wrote: > > which situation?..... > Any situation, within any or without any context. Whatever, I'm not fussed, anything you would like to share. > who is it who reject the need to understand the nature of the > mentionned " illusion " of " ego " ?.... > > it's not " me " .... > > Marc > I don't know, I'm not sure I understand your question? > > Ps: your choice this your " love & compassion " .....in fact, " you " don't > have any choice > > > --- > > Oh yes indeed, it is my choice, I understand that. And I also understand why you say I have no choice, as there is nobody to choose much less something to choose. But from a practical perspective, my choice is a most beneficial one. tyga Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 24, 2008 Report Share Posted September 24, 2008 Nisargadatta , tyga <tyga wrote: > > dennis_travis33 wrote: > > > > which situation?..... > > > > Any situation, within any or without any context. Whatever, I'm not > fussed, anything you would like to share. > > > > who is it who reject the need to understand the nature of the > > mentionned " illusion " of " ego " ?.... > > > > it's not " me " .... > > > > Marc > > > > I don't know, I'm not sure I understand your question? > > > > > Ps: your choice this your " love & compassion " .....in fact, " you " don't > > have any choice > > > > > > --- > > > > > Oh yes indeed, it is my choice, I understand that. And I also understand > why you say I have no choice, as there is nobody to choose much less > something to choose. > > But from a practical perspective, my choice is a most beneficial one. > > tyga > ego's don't have any free choice. as far i see...you don't understand that. the only practical perspective you can ever have, is related to your own illusory ego....to nobody else. ...... wish you good luck with this your nice attitudes of being proud of whatever fabulous known definitions etc. Marc 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.