More on the ego

[Guest guest]

I want to chime in on this discussion regarding the ‘ego’, but first in order to ensure that we are all playing in the same ball field, I want to express what I feel is a reasonably accurate definition of what we generally refer to as the ego. I think it is fair to say that the meaning that is typically associated with the word ‘ego’ is the sense of the individual self, or the sense of a ‘me’ that is apart and separate from everyone and everything else in the world.

 

During the process of inquiry into what it is that we actually are, sooner or later it must become apparent that this sense of a separate self was and is, not always there in our life, and is not, and never will be a constant in our life. It was not there at the initial stage of the newborn infant, and it is not there during the periods of our deep sleep. And even during our waking hours, it is only there intermittently throughout the course of our day. Quite often during the day, it seems to come and go, and then come back again, and then disappear again. So for any dedicated ‘seeker of the truth’ into the nature of what we are, it seems only natural to eventually come to the question(s), since this sense is not constantly with me “where did this ego sense

derive from?†and “from what and how did it arise?†and “why does it seem to have such a strong hold on everyone?â€

We can find answers to all of these questions when we begin to identify our self directly with consciousness as opposed to identifying our self as some individual physical body that harbors a collection of thoughts and feelings. This is when we begin to see (as Nisargadatta said):

“Understand that it is not the individual which has consciousness, it is the consciousness which assumes innumerable forms. That something which is born or which will die is purely imaginary.â€

 

When our eyes are at once opened to these facts, this is when we begin to recognize how backward our thinking has been for most all of our lives. When our perspective is turned around in this way, we should be able to acknowledge that there is no individuality within pure consciousness. There is no separate ‘person’; no ‘me’ that is apart from everything else; no one that was born, and no one that will die; consciousness is merely an awareness. The idea of the individual is seen to be just a mentally formulated concept that has taken center stage in our lives for reasons that I choose not to get into here. However, the fact of the matter is that this idea of a separate self is no more real than any other mentally formulated

concept, and the thoughtless acceptance of this concept places us in a world that is really no more real than the fabricated world(s) of our dreams.

 

Nisargadatta again: “The divine vision eliminates individuality; the manifest is clearly distinguished from the unmanifest. When the sense of individuality is replaced by that of impersonal consciousness the devotee knows that he is pure consciousness. Manifestation is pure consciousness manifesting itself in all the different names and forms; the spiritually enlightened take part in it sportively, knowing that it is only the play of universal consciousness.â€

 

It seems that Werner interprets this realization as somehow endorsing or encouraging the destruction of the ego. This is not at all what is being proposed or taught. Trying to ‘kill’ the ego is akin to trying to not think of a monkey. The harder you try to blank your mind of the image of the monkey, the stronger the image seems to become. It is therefore best to just let these thoughts come and go as they will, without directing or focusing too much energy or attention toward them.

 

I would venture to say that no self-realized sage would ever direct anyone toward trying to destroy the ego sense. I think that what he or she might say is that it is only necessary to recognize it for what it is, and trace and follow it back to its origin, in order that its hold on us might be lessened and therefore, diminished. I think they might also say that since this sense is not always present, it is important to question and investigate what it is that is always present. It is my feeling that any and all of the self-realized sages simply wanted to unmask our delusions in order to find that which seems to be present at all times; that which does not come and go; that which does not change. And once that was found, they realized that this ego sense was not

really who or what they were, and if I can encapsulate some of the things Nisargadatta’s said regarding this matter, I believe he really did not want to be identified as a person, and really wanted little if anything to do with any personal ‘I’.

 

“The bundle of memories and hopes, called the ‘I’, imagines itself existing everlastingly, and creates time to accommodate its false eternity: To be, I need no past or future. All experience is born of imagination; I do not imagine, so no birth or death happens to me. Only those who think themselves born can think themselves re-born. You are accusing me of having been born — I plead not guilty!â€

 

Marv

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , Marvin Moss <mmoss2932 wrote:

>

> I want to chime in on this discussion regarding the ‘ego’, but first in

order to ensure that we are all playing in the same ball field, I want to

express what I feel is a reasonably accurate definition of what we generally

refer to as the ego.  I think it is fair to say that the meaning that is

typically associated with the word ‘ego’ is the sense of the individual

self, or the sense of a ‘me’ that is apart and separate from everyone and

everything else in the world.

>  

> During the process of inquiry into what it is that we actually are, sooner or

later it must become apparent that this sense of a separate self was and is, not

always there in our life, and is not, and never will be a constant in our

life.  It was not there at the initial stage of the newborn infant, and it is

not there during the periods of our deep sleep.  And even during our waking

hours, it is only there intermittently throughout the course of our day.  Quite

often during the day, it seems to come and go, and then come back again, and

then disappear again. So for any dedicated ‘seeker of the truth’ into the

nature of what we are, it seems only natural to eventually come to the

question(s), since this sense is not constantly with me “where did this ego

sense derive from?†and “from what and how did it arise?†and “why does

it seem to have such a strong hold on everyone?â€

> We can find answers to all of these questions when we begin to identify our

self directly with consciousness as opposed to identifying our self as some

individual physical body that harbors a collection of thoughts and feelings. 

This is when we begin to see (as Nisargadatta said):

>  “Understand that it is not the individual which has consciousness, it is

the consciousness which assumes innumerable forms.  That something which is

born or which will die is purely imaginary.â€

>  

> When our eyes are at once opened to these facts, this is when we begin to

recognize how backward our thinking has been for most all of our lives.  When

our perspective is turned around in this way, we should be able to acknowledge

that there is no individuality within pure consciousness.  There is no separate

‘person’; no ‘me’ that is apart from everything else; no one that was

born, and no one that will die; consciousness is merely an awareness.  The idea

of the individual is seen to be just a mentally formulated concept that has

taken center stage in our lives for reasons that I choose not to get into here.

 However, the fact of the matter is that this idea of a separate self is no

more real than any other mentally formulated concept, and the thoughtless

acceptance of this concept places us in a world that is really no more real than

the fabricated world(s) of our dreams.

>  

> Nisargadatta again: “The divine vision eliminates individuality; the

manifest is clearly distinguished from the unmanifest. When the sense of

individuality is replaced by that of impersonal consciousness the devotee knows

that he is pure consciousness. Manifestation is pure consciousness manifesting

itself in all the different names and forms; the spiritually enlightened take

part in it sportively, knowing that it is only the play of universal

consciousness.â€

>  

> It seems that Werner interprets this realization as somehow endorsing or

encouraging the destruction of the ego.  This is not at all what is being

proposed or taught.  Trying to ‘kill’ the ego is akin to trying to not

think of a monkey.  The harder you try to blank your mind of the image of the

monkey, the stronger the image seems to become.  It is therefore best to just

let these thoughts come and go as they will, without directing or focusing too

much energy or attention toward them.

>  

> I would venture to say that no self-realized sage would ever direct anyone

toward trying to destroy the ego sense.  I think that what he or she might say

is that it is only necessary to recognize it for what it is, and trace and

follow it back to its origin, in order that its hold on us might be lessened and

therefore, diminished. I think they might also say that since this sense is not

always present, it is important to question and investigate what it is that is

always present.  It is my feeling that any and all of the self-realized sages

simply wanted to unmask our delusions in order to find that which seems to be

present at all times; that which does not come and go; that which does not

change.  And once that was found, they realized that this ego sense was not

really who or what they were, and if I can encapsulate some of the things

Nisargadatta’s said regarding this matter, I believe he really did not want to

be identified as a person, and

> really wanted little if anything to do with any personal ‘I’.

>  

> “The bundle of memories and hopes, called the ‘I’, imagines itself

existing everlastingly, and creates time to accommodate its false eternity: To

be, I need no past or future.  All experience is born of imagination; I do not

imagine, so no birth or death happens to me.  Only those who think themselves

born can think themselves re-born.  You are accusing me of having been born †"

I plead not guilty!â€

>  

> Marv

 

 

 

but did Nizzy believe??

 

:-)

 

..b b.b.

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , Marvin Moss <mmoss2932 wrote:

>

> I want to chime in on this discussion regarding the ‘ego’, but first in

order to ensure that we are all playing in the same ball field, I want to

express what I feel is a reasonably accurate definition of what we generally

refer to as the ego.  I think it is fair to say that the meaning that is

typically associated with the word ‘ego’ is the sense of the individual

self, or the sense of a ‘me’ that is apart and separate from everyone and

everything else in the world.

>  

> During the process of inquiry into what it is that we actually are, sooner or

later it must become apparent that this sense of a separate self was and is, not

always there in our life, and is not, and never will be a constant in our

life.  It was not there at the initial stage of the newborn infant, and it is

not there during the periods of our deep sleep.  And even during our waking

hours, it is only there intermittently throughout the course of our day.  Quite

often during the day, it seems to come and go, and then come back again, and

then disappear again. So for any dedicated ‘seeker of the truth’ into the

nature of what we are, it seems only natural to eventually come to the

question(s), since this sense is not constantly with me “where did this ego

sense derive from?†and “from what and how did it arise?†and “why does

it seem to have such a strong hold on everyone?â€

> We can find answers to all of these questions when we begin to identify our

self directly with consciousness as opposed to identifying our self as some

individual physical body that harbors a collection of thoughts and feelings. 

This is when we begin to see (as Nisargadatta said):

>  “Understand that it is not the individual which has consciousness, it is

the consciousness which assumes innumerable forms.  That something which is

born or which will die is purely imaginary.â€

>  

> When our eyes are at once opened to these facts, this is when we begin to

recognize how backward our thinking has been for most all of our lives.  When

our perspective is turned around in this way, we should be able to acknowledge

that there is no individuality within pure consciousness.  There is no separate

‘person’; no ‘me’ that is apart from everything else; no one that was

born, and no one that will die; consciousness is merely an awareness.  The idea

of the individual is seen to be just a mentally formulated concept that has

taken center stage in our lives for reasons that I choose not to get into here.

 However, the fact of the matter is that this idea of a separate self is no

more real than any other mentally formulated concept, and the thoughtless

acceptance of this concept places us in a world that is really no more real than

the fabricated world(s) of our dreams.

>  

> Nisargadatta again: “The divine vision eliminates individuality; the

manifest is clearly distinguished from the unmanifest. When the sense of

individuality is replaced by that of impersonal consciousness the devotee knows

that he is pure consciousness. Manifestation is pure consciousness manifesting

itself in all the different names and forms; the spiritually enlightened take

part in it sportively, knowing that it is only the play of universal

consciousness.â€

>  

> It seems that Werner interprets this realization as somehow endorsing or

encouraging the destruction of the ego.  This is not at all what is being

proposed or taught.  Trying to ‘kill’ the ego is akin to trying to not

think of a monkey.  The harder you try to blank your mind of the image of the

monkey, the stronger the image seems to become.  It is therefore best to just

let these thoughts come and go as they will, without directing or focusing too

much energy or attention toward them.

>  

> I would venture to say that no self-realized sage would ever direct anyone

toward trying to destroy the ego sense.  I think that what he or she might say

is that it is only necessary to recognize it for what it is, and trace and

follow it back to its origin, in order that its hold on us might be lessened and

therefore, diminished. I think they might also say that since this sense is not

always present, it is important to question and investigate what it is that is

always present.  It is my feeling that any and all of the self-realized sages

simply wanted to unmask our delusions in order to find that which seems to be

present at all times; that which does not come and go; that which does not

change.  And once that was found, they realized that this ego sense was not

really who or what they were, and if I can encapsulate some of the things

Nisargadatta’s said regarding this matter, I believe he really did not want to

be identified as a person, and

> really wanted little if anything to do with any personal ‘I’.

>  

> “The bundle of memories and hopes, called the ‘I’, imagines itself

existing everlastingly, and creates time to accommodate its false eternity: To

be, I need no past or future.  All experience is born of imagination; I do not

imagine, so no birth or death happens to me.  Only those who think themselves

born can think themselves re-born.  You are accusing me of having been born †"

I plead not guilty!â€

>  

> Marv

>

 

 

there are many confusions around when it come to this mentionned " pure

consciousness " .....

 

yes, such pure consciousness isn't related directly to an individual.......but

an individual is " driven " by such pure consciousness....with, or without being

aware of it....

 

as long there is individuality and as long there are appearent

seperations.....appearent others ...etc....

 

....there is an appearent world in which every forms and forces which work

together....are connected to each......

means, there is " whole " of appearent forms working, in fact, in complete

harmony....even if it doesn't look that

 

heavy ego minds aren't aware of such existing harmony....

 

and exactly because of such unawareness (ignorance), they believe many many many

stories.....from many many different pseudo Gurus, telling them as for

example....that there is No individuality.....that everything is perfect and

fine....and other non-sense stories....

 

the more heavy the ego mind.....the more heavy is the rejection of every

informations concerning the real nature of such silly ego-mind.....and so,

appearent world

 

 

Marc

[Guest guest]

do other living beings ie. birds, insects, fish, animals & other creatures including plants have ego or is it only evident in human form. or is it one more concept invented by humans to claim supremacy of high level thinking. till identity as a man is intact all subject of introspection will revolve on this character only whether it is ego, soul, mind, consiousness, god, devil, ghost, religion. only three things are common for all living beings -birth, sustenance & death. i cannot say that i am born in human form out of ego. these forms are continuously emerging from the cycle of reproduction. the cycle will continue till reproduction is on and the basis of reproduction is fertility and fertility comes from intense love. only when i

am intensely in love with everything will i be able to solve this riddle.

-mahesh

 

 

 

dennis_travis33 <dennis_travis33Nisargadatta Sent: Wednesday, March 11, 2009 1:25:22 PM Re: More on the ego

 

Nisargadatta, Marvin Moss <mmoss2932@. ..> wrote:>> I want to chime in on this discussion regarding the ‘ego’, but first in order to ensure that we are all playing in the same ball field, I want to express what I feel is a reasonably accurate definition of what we generally refer to as the ego. I think it is fair to say that the meaning that is typically associated with the word ‘ego’ is the sense of the individual self, or the sense of a ‘me’ that is apart and separate from everyone and everything else in the world.>  > During the process of inquiry into what it is that we actually are, sooner or later it must become apparent that this sense of a separate self was and is, not always there in our life, and is not,

and never will be a constant in our life. It was not there at the initial stage of the newborn infant, and it is not there during the periods of our deep sleep. And even during our waking hours, it is only there intermittently throughout the course of our day. Quite often during the day, it seems to come and go, and then come back again, and then disappear again. So for any dedicated ‘seeker of the truth’ into the nature of what we are, it seems only natural to eventually come to the question(s), since this sense is not constantly with me “where did this ego sense derive from?� and “from what and how did it arise?� and “why does it seem to have such a strong hold on everyone?�> We can find answers to all of these questions when we begin to identify our self directly with consciousness as opposed to identifying our self as some individual physical body that harbors a

collection of thoughts and feelings. This is when we begin to see (as Nisargadatta said): >  “Understand that it is not the individual which has consciousness, it is the consciousness which assumes innumerable forms. That something which is born or which will die is purely imaginary.�>  > When our eyes are at once opened to these facts, this is when we begin to recognize how backward our thinking has been for most all of our lives. When our perspective is turned around in this way, we should be able to acknowledge that there is no individuality within pure consciousness. There is no separate ‘person’; no ‘me’ that is apart from everything else; no one that was born, and no one that will die; consciousness is merely an awareness. The idea of the individual is seen to be just a mentally formulated concept that has taken center stage in our

lives for reasons that I choose not to get into here.  However, the fact of the matter is that this idea of a separate self is no more real than any other mentally formulated concept, and the thoughtless acceptance of this concept places us in a world that is really no more real than the fabricated world(s) of our dreams.>  > Nisargadatta again: “The divine vision eliminates individuality; the manifest is clearly distinguished from the unmanifest. When the sense of individuality is replaced by that of impersonal consciousness the devotee knows that he is pure consciousness. Manifestation is pure consciousness manifesting itself in all the different names and forms; the spiritually enlightened take part in it sportively, knowing that it is only the play of universal consciousness.�>  > It seems that Werner interprets this realization as somehow endorsing or encouraging the destruction of the

ego. This is not at all what is being proposed or taught. Trying to ‘kill’ the ego is akin to trying to not think of a monkey. The harder you try to blank your mind of the image of the monkey, the stronger the image seems to become. It is therefore best to just let these thoughts come and go as they will, without directing or focusing too much energy or attention toward them.>  > I would venture to say that no self-realized sage would ever direct anyone toward trying to destroy the ego sense. I think that what he or she might say is that it is only necessary to recognize it for what it is, and trace and follow it back to its origin, in order that its hold on us might be lessened and therefore, diminished. I think they might also say that since this sense is not always present, it is important to question and investigate what it is that is always present. It is my feeling

that any and all of the self-realized sages simply wanted to unmask our delusions in order to find that which seems to be present at all times; that which does not come and go; that which does not change. And once that was found, they realized that this ego sense was not really who or what they were, and if I can encapsulate some of the things Nisargadatta’s said regarding this matter, I believe he really did not want to be identified as a person, and> really wanted little if anything to do with any personal ‘I’.>  > “The bundle of memories and hopes, called the ‘I’, imagines itself existing everlastingly, and creates time to accommodate its false eternity: To be, I need no past or future. All experience is born of imagination; I do not imagine, so no birth or death happens to me. Only those who think themselves born can think themselves re-born. You are

accusing me of having been born â€" I plead not guilty!â€�>  > Marv>there are many confusions around when it come to this mentionned "pure consciousness" .....yes, such pure consciousness isn't related directly to an individual.. .....but an individual is "driven" by such pure consciousness. ...with, or without being aware of it....as long there is individuality and as long there are appearent seperations. ....appearent others ...etc.......there is an appearent world in which every forms and forces which work together.... are connected to each......means, there is "whole" of appearent forms working, in fact, in complete harmony....even if it doesn't look thatheavy ego minds aren't aware of such existing harmony....and exactly because of such unawareness (ignorance), they believe many many many stories..... from many many different pseudo Gurus, telling them as for

example....that there is No individuality. ....that everything is perfect and fine....and other non-sense stories....the more heavy the ego mind.....the more heavy is the rejection of every informations concerning the real nature of such silly ego-mind.... .and so, appearent worldMarc

[Guest guest]

All thoughts are nascent.... ;-)

 

Light and Love,

Anna

 

 

Nisargadatta , Marvin Moss <mmoss2932 wrote:

>

> I want to chime in on this discussion regarding the ‘ego’, but first in

order to ensure that we are all playing in the same ball field, I want to

express what I feel is a reasonably accurate definition of what we generally

refer to as the ego.  I think it is fair to say that the meaning that is

typically associated with the word ‘ego’ is the sense of the individual

self, or the sense of a ‘me’ that is apart and separate from everyone and

everything else in the world.

>  

> During the process of inquiry into what it is that we actually are, sooner or

later it must become apparent that this sense of a separate self was and is, not

always there in our life, and is not, and never will be a constant in our

life.  It was not there at the initial stage of the newborn infant, and it is

not there during the periods of our deep sleep.  And even during our waking

hours, it is only there intermittently throughout the course of our day.  Quite

often during the day, it seems to come and go, and then come back again, and

then disappear again. So for any dedicated ‘seeker of the truth’ into the

nature of what we are, it seems only natural to eventually come to the

question(s), since this sense is not constantly with me “where did this ego

sense derive from?†and “from what and how did it arise?†and “why does

it seem to have such a strong hold on everyone?â€

> We can find answers to all of these questions when we begin to identify our

self directly with consciousness as opposed to identifying our self as some

individual physical body that harbors a collection of thoughts and feelings. 

This is when we begin to see (as Nisargadatta said):

>  “Understand that it is not the individual which has consciousness, it is

the consciousness which assumes innumerable forms.  That something which is

born or which will die is purely imaginary.â€

>  

> When our eyes are at once opened to these facts, this is when we begin to

recognize how backward our thinking has been for most all of our lives.  When

our perspective is turned around in this way, we should be able to acknowledge

that there is no individuality within pure consciousness.  There is no separate

‘person’; no ‘me’ that is apart from everything else; no one that was

born, and no one that will die; consciousness is merely an awareness.  The idea

of the individual is seen to be just a mentally formulated concept that has

taken center stage in our lives for reasons that I choose not to get into here.

 However, the fact of the matter is that this idea of a separate self is no

more real than any other mentally formulated concept, and the thoughtless

acceptance of this concept places us in a world that is really no more real than

the fabricated world(s) of our dreams.

>  

> Nisargadatta again: “The divine vision eliminates individuality; the

manifest is clearly distinguished from the unmanifest. When the sense of

individuality is replaced by that of impersonal consciousness the devotee knows

that he is pure consciousness. Manifestation is pure consciousness manifesting

itself in all the different names and forms; the spiritually enlightened take

part in it sportively, knowing that it is only the play of universal

consciousness.â€

>  

> It seems that Werner interprets this realization as somehow endorsing or

encouraging the destruction of the ego.  This is not at all what is being

proposed or taught.  Trying to ‘kill’ the ego is akin to trying to not

think of a monkey.  The harder you try to blank your mind of the image of the

monkey, the stronger the image seems to become.  It is therefore best to just

let these thoughts come and go as they will, without directing or focusing too

much energy or attention toward them.

>  

> I would venture to say that no self-realized sage would ever direct anyone

toward trying to destroy the ego sense.  I think that what he or she might say

is that it is only necessary to recognize it for what it is, and trace and

follow it back to its origin, in order that its hold on us might be lessened and

therefore, diminished. I think they might also say that since this sense is not

always present, it is important to question and investigate what it is that is

always present.  It is my feeling that any and all of the self-realized sages

simply wanted to unmask our delusions in order to find that which seems to be

present at all times; that which does not come and go; that which does not

change.  And once that was found, they realized that this ego sense was not

really who or what they were, and if I can encapsulate some of the things

Nisargadatta’s said regarding this matter, I believe he really did not want to

be identified as a person, and

> really wanted little if anything to do with any personal ‘I’.

>  

> “The bundle of memories and hopes, called the ‘I’, imagines itself

existing everlastingly, and creates time to accommodate its false eternity: To

be, I need no past or future.  All experience is born of imagination; I do not

imagine, so no birth or death happens to me.  Only those who think themselves

born can think themselves re-born.  You are accusing me of having been born †"

I plead not guilty!â€

>  

> Marv

>

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , Mahesh Kamat <mv.kamat wrote:

>

> do other living beings ie. birds, insects, fish, animals & other creatures

including plants have ego or is it only evident in human form. or is it

one more concept invented by humans to claim supremacy of high level thinking.

till identity as a man is intact all subject of introspection will revolve

on this character only whether it is ego, soul, mind, consiousness, god,

devil, ghost, religion. only three things are common for all living beings

-birth, sustenance  & death. i cannot say that i am born in human form out of

ego. these forms are continuously emerging from the cycle of reproduction. the

cycle will continue till reproduction is on and the basis of reproduction is

fertility and fertility comes from intense love. only when i am intensely in

love with everything will i be able to solve this riddle.

> -mahesh      

>

>

egos talk about birth and death....

 

egos are coming and going...

 

like clouds are coming and going...

 

.....

 

egos can't create anything at all....

 

except other egos & clouds...

 

coming and going...

 

.....

 

etc...

 

.......

 

" intensely in love with everything " ....yes....

 

thats the only imaginary (free) choice egos have...

 

no other possible choice anyway...sooner or later

 

.....

 

in order to be what one has ever been...

 

for real

 

 

 

Marc

[Guest guest]

your words are subjective it is not from experience, first experience it. not just comprehending it after reading.

-mahesh

 

 

 

dennis_travis33 <dennis_travis33Nisargadatta Sent: Wednesday, March 11, 2009 8:16:25 PM Re: More on the ego

 

Nisargadatta, Mahesh Kamat <mv.kamat@.. .> wrote:>> do other living beings ie. birds, insects, fish, animals & other creatures including plants have ego or is it only evident in human form. or is it one more concept invented by humans to claim supremacy of high level thinking. till identity as a man is intact all subject of introspection will revolve on this character only whether it is ego, soul, mind, consiousness, god, devil, ghost, religion. only three things are common for all living beings -birth, sustenance & death. i cannot say that i am born in human form out of ego. these forms are continuously emerging from the cycle of reproduction. the cycle will continue till reproduction is on and the basis of

reproduction is fertility and fertility comes from intense love. only when i am intensely in love with everything will i be able to solve this riddle.> -mahesh      > > egos talk about birth and death....egos are coming and going...like clouds are coming and going........egos can't create anything at all....except other egos & clouds. ..coming and going.......etc.........."intensely in love with everything". ...yes... .thats the only imaginary (free) choice egos have...no other possible choice anyway...sooner or later....in order to be what one has ever been...for realMarc

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , Mahesh Kamat <mv.kamat wrote:

>

> your words are subjective it is not from experience, first experience it. not

just comprehending it after reading.  

> -mahesh

>

 

ahhh....enlightened mahash is speaking....

 

how come that you talk about experiences....?...

 

.....

 

so, yes....have some experiences beloved mahesh.....

 

.....

 

then maybe your ego slow down......in teaching appearent others....

 

 

Marc

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " dennis_travis33 " <dennis_travis33

wrote:

>

> Nisargadatta , Mahesh Kamat <mv.kamat@> wrote:

> >

> > your words are subjective it is not from experience, first experience it.

not just comprehending it after reading.  

> > -mahesh

> >

>

> ahhh....enlightened mahash is speaking....

>

> how come that you talk about experiences....?...

>

> ....

>

> so, yes....have some experiences beloved mahesh.....

>

> ....

>

> then maybe your ego slow down......in teaching appearent others....

>

>

> Marc

>

advaitin , >

> The present question is " Compared to other animals, it is observed, only

human beings have moha,mada,lobha and matsarya,in addition to kama and krodham,

which other animals also have ,may be in lower degree.Further the urge for

excelling others or for achieving perfection is found only in human beings. What

is the reason for this?

>

> The very purpose of Advaita Vedanta is to give answers to these interesting

concerns of human beings.

 

Namaste,

 

A Chimp in a Swedish Zoo, saves up caches of rocks to throw at visitors the next

time they visit.

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2009/mar/09/chimp-zoo-stones-science

 

This show imagination, anger,forward planning and future thinking and the desire

for a result in many ways.

I have always believed that humans build themselves up too much. In illusion we

all share one consciousness after all. 50% of mankind has an IQ of 100 or less,

close to the Apes even.

 

Most of mankinds brain is as large as it is due to speech and the need for

instruments to express and transfer it. Speech doesn't imply intelligence any

more than a birds abiliity to fly does.

 

Nisargadatta Maharaj said that only one person in Bombay/Mumbai could

intellectually understand non-duality never mind realise it. That works out at

about 1 in 10 million at the time. So there are probably only 60,000 people on

the planet that understand non duality and a handful that are realised. The

majority of humankind are not really any more advanced than an animal. The

animal at least is more in a state of surrender and doesn't suffer the illusion

of multiple Deities, and Religions and Beliefs.

 

Like Gandhi I fail to perceive a vast difference........Cheers Tony.

[Guest guest]

well mishmash..

 

if you've experienced " IT " ..

 

first hand or not..

 

there is by the very nature of " things "

 

the 'experience' AND an 'experience-er'

 

....two not ONE.

 

you're missing the boat.

 

cherish your experiences if you must.

 

but one to another..

 

those experiences are the same..

 

the experience of oneness..

 

or the experience of taking a disney-land ride..

 

have the same merit.

 

as long as " you " are around..

 

it's not REAL.

 

you can put the pope hat away now kid.

 

..b b.b.

 

 

 

 

 

Nisargadatta , Mahesh Kamat <mv.kamat wrote:

>

> your words are subjective it is not from experience, first experience it. not

just comprehending it after reading.  

> -mahesh

>

>

>

>

> ________________________________

> dennis_travis33 <dennis_travis33

> Nisargadatta

> Wednesday, March 11, 2009 8:16:25 PM

> Re: More on the ego

>

>

> Nisargadatta, Mahesh Kamat <mv.kamat@ .> wrote:

> >

> > do other living beings ie. birds, insects, fish, animals & other creatures

including plants have ego or is it only evident in human form. or is it

one more concept invented by humans to claim supremacy of high level thinking.

till identity as a man is intact all subject of introspection will revolve

on this character only whether it is ego, soul, mind, consiousness, god,

devil, ghost, religion. only three things are common for all living beings

-birth, sustenance  & death. i cannot say that i am born in human form out of

ego. these forms are continuously emerging from the cycle of reproduction. the

cycle will continue till reproduction is on and the basis of reproduction is

fertility and fertility comes from intense love. only when i am intensely in

love with everything will i be able to solve this riddle.

> > -mahesh      

> >

> >

> egos talk about birth and death....

>

> egos are coming and going...

>

> like clouds are coming and going...

>

> ....

>

> egos can't create anything at all....

>

> except other egos & clouds. ...

>

> coming and going...

>

> ....

>

> etc...

>

> ......

>

> " intensely in love with everything " . ...yes... .

>

> thats the only imaginary (free) choice egos have...

>

> no other possible choice anyway...sooner or later

>

> ....

>

> in order to be what one has ever been...

>

> for real

>

> Marc

>

[Guest guest]

I could pretend to be a total idiot just to egg people on and they would never

know.

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " jthabuddha " <jthabuddha wrote:

>

> I could pretend to be a total idiot just to egg people on and they would never

know.

 

 

why pretend?

 

..b b.b.

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111 wrote:

>

> Nisargadatta , " jthabuddha " <jthabuddha@> wrote:

> >

> > I could pretend to be a total idiot just to egg people on and they would

never know.

>

>

> why pretend?

>

> .b b.b.

 

 

this idiot thinks..totally.. that..

 

people on eggs are asking to be shelled...

 

or pushed off the wall they straddle atop.

 

they don't know it.

 

but they love it.

 

they seek out and goad the shell crushers and egg pushers..

 

just to tell them how much they hate them.

 

they get off on it.

 

going to pieces without falling apart...

 

standing up to their falling down.

 

well it is they know and go this silly show..

 

never knowing why they cry.

 

it's an i'm alive and must survive game of take and give.

 

what a way away from what it is.

 

..b b.b.

[Guest guest]

Nobody would ever know.

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " jthabuddha " <jthabuddha wrote:

>

> Nobody would ever know.

 

 

what's to know for nobody?

 

..b b.b.

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111 wrote:

>

> Nisargadatta , " jthabuddha " <jthabuddha@> wrote:

> >

> > Nobody would ever know.

>

>

> what's to know for nobody?

>

> .b b.b.

 

 

who knows what idiocy lurks in the hearts of men?

 

the ego egg of dementia's amentia knows.

 

without needing to say a word.

 

..b b.b.

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " Tony OClery " <aoclery wrote:

>

> Nisargadatta , " dennis_travis33 " <dennis_travis33@>

wrote:

> >

> > Nisargadatta , Mahesh Kamat <mv.kamat@> wrote:

> > >

> > > your words are subjective it is not from experience, first experience it.

not just comprehending it after reading.  

> > > -mahesh

> > >

> >

> > ahhh....enlightened mahash is speaking....

> >

> > how come that you talk about experiences....?...

> >

> > ....

> >

> > so, yes....have some experiences beloved mahesh.....

> >

> > ....

> >

> > then maybe your ego slow down......in teaching appearent others....

> >

> >

> > Marc

> >

> advaitin , >

> > The present question is " Compared to other animals, it is observed, only

> human beings have moha,mada,lobha and matsarya,in addition to kama and

krodham,

> which other animals also have ,may be in lower degree.Further the urge for

> excelling others or for achieving perfection is found only in human beings.

What

> is the reason for this?

> >

> > The very purpose of Advaita Vedanta is to give answers to these interesting

> concerns of human beings.

>

> Namaste,

>

> A Chimp in a Swedish Zoo, saves up caches of rocks to throw at visitors the

next

> time they visit.

>

> http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2009/mar/09/chimp-zoo-stones-science

>

> This show imagination, anger,forward planning and future thinking and the

desire

> for a result in many ways.

> I have always believed that humans build themselves up too much. In illusion

we

> all share one consciousness after all. 50% of mankind has an IQ of 100 or

less,

> close to the Apes even.

>

> Most of mankinds brain is as large as it is due to speech and the need for

> instruments to express and transfer it. Speech doesn't imply intelligence any

> more than a birds abiliity to fly does.

>

> Nisargadatta Maharaj said that only one person in Bombay/Mumbai could

> intellectually understand non-duality never mind realise it. That works out at

> about 1 in 10 million at the time. So there are probably only 60,000 people on

> the planet that understand non duality and a handful that are realised. The

> majority of humankind are not really any more advanced than an animal. The

> animal at least is more in a state of surrender and doesn't suffer the

illusion

> of multiple Deities, and Religions and Beliefs.

>

> Like Gandhi I fail to perceive a vast difference........Cheers Tony.

 

 

 

 

Hi Tony,

 

Despite scoring 144 on an IQ test, I am constantly confronted with the futility,

limitation, and total ignorance of my intelligence. I don't put much faith in

IQ tests, anyway. What was the IQ of the person who invented IQ tests? Very

limited stuff.

 

As for animals and men, I agree, very similar beasts. Birds of a feather.

Throw children in that category too. Aggressive, ignorant, violent, sometimes

affectionate.

 

As far as Nis speaking for all of Bombay (which I think now is closer to 20

million), why put faith in Nis's word? How would he know?

 

I agree with you we humans make much of ourselves. Despite all the evidence to

the contrary, we think we're the cat's pajamas.

 

Whatever.

 

Cheers,

 

--C

>

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111 wrote:

>

> Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@> wrote:

> >

> > Nisargadatta , " jthabuddha " <jthabuddha@> wrote:

> > >

> > > Nobody would ever know.

> >

> >

> > what's to know for nobody?

> >

> > .b b.b.

>

>

> who knows what idiocy lurks in the hearts of men?

>

> the ego egg of dementia's amentia knows.

>

> without needing to say a word.

>

> .b b.b.

>

 

haha

 

leggo my eggo : P

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " jthabuddha " <jthabuddha wrote:

>

> Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@> wrote:

> >

> > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@> wrote:

> > >

> > > Nisargadatta , " jthabuddha " <jthabuddha@> wrote:

> > > >

> > > > Nobody would ever know.

> > >

> > >

> > > what's to know for nobody?

> > >

> > > .b b.b.

> >

> >

> > who knows what idiocy lurks in the hearts of men?

> >

> > the ego egg of dementia's amentia knows.

> >

> > without needing to say a word.

> >

> > .b b.b.

> >

>

> haha

>

> leggo my eggo : P

 

 

:-)

 

..b b.b.

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111 wrote:

>

> Nisargadatta , " jthabuddha " <jthabuddha@> wrote:

> >

> > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@> wrote:

> > >

> > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@> wrote:

> > > >

> > > > Nisargadatta , " jthabuddha " <jthabuddha@> wrote:

> > > > >

> > > > > Nobody would ever know.

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > what's to know for nobody?

> > > >

> > > > .b b.b.

> > >

> > >

> > > who knows what idiocy lurks in the hearts of men?

> > >

> > > the ego egg of dementia's amentia knows.

> > >

> > > without needing to say a word.

> > >

> > > .b b.b.

> > >

> >

> > haha

> >

> > leggo my eggo : P

>

>

> :-)

>

> .b b.b.

 

 

p.s.

 

i should tell you how high my intelligence quotient is..

 

(no matter how nobody even cares...or ever asked about)..

 

and tell you in a humbling way of course..

 

just so you didn't think i was trying to impress you..

 

with how much i thought of myself...

 

despite it meaning nothing to someone like me..

 

who's too smart and above all that IQ nonsense.

 

i mean if i did...

 

did do something as openly ridiculous and crass as that..

 

you might get the idea..

 

that i was playing with a short deck..

 

more of a borderline intelligence than a sharp one.

 

and you'd be right.

 

i think i'll go asphyxiate a Mumbai cat in peejays.

 

just to prove i'm no better than a filthy feline.

 

..b b.b.

 

(the killer)

 

LOL!

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111 wrote:

>

> Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@> wrote:

> >

> > Nisargadatta , " jthabuddha " <jthabuddha@> wrote:

> > >

> > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@> wrote:

> > > >

> > > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@>

wrote:

> > > > >

> > > > > Nisargadatta , " jthabuddha " <jthabuddha@> wrote:

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Nobody would ever know.

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > what's to know for nobody?

> > > > >

> > > > > .b b.b.

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > who knows what idiocy lurks in the hearts of men?

> > > >

> > > > the ego egg of dementia's amentia knows.

> > > >

> > > > without needing to say a word.

> > > >

> > > > .b b.b.

> > > >

> > >

> > > haha

> > >

> > > leggo my eggo : P

> >

> >

> > :-)

> >

> > .b b.b.

>

>

> p.s.

>

> i should tell you how high my intelligence quotient is..

>

> (no matter how nobody even cares...or ever asked about)..

>

> and tell you in a humbling way of course..

>

> just so you didn't think i was trying to impress you..

>

> with how much i thought of myself...

>

> despite it meaning nothing to someone like me..

>

> who's too smart and above all that IQ nonsense.

>

> i mean if i did...

>

> did do something as openly ridiculous and crass as that..

>

> you might get the idea..

>

> that i was playing with a short deck..

>

> more of a borderline intelligence than a sharp one.

>

> and you'd be right.

>

> i think i'll go asphyxiate a Mumbai cat in peejays.

>

> just to prove i'm no better than a filthy feline.

>

> .b b.b.

>

> (the killer)

>

> LOL!

>

 

 

you don't have to.

 

somebody already beat you to it.

 

I love that I impress you.

 

smarty pants.

 

--c

[Guest guest]

all learnings are attributable to experiencing; how can i shed my identity just by comprehending from readings. one fine day Nisargadatta Maharaj left everything ie. family , home, business (owned 7 shops), money & all possessions. he roamed freely without attachments. he lived with pangs of hunger, with pain of commuting disease, bearing the extreme climates with minimum clothing, sleeping on the floor of cremation grounds/secluded areas, being with the masses for serving them out of love, opening himself to the world in utter silence. he says before the realisation he was like a parrot singing & his master told him one day to stop singing & experience it directly. losing one's identity needs courage,

conviction & dedication and cannot be validated with mere talks.

-mahesh

 

 

 

dennis_travis33 <dennis_travis33Nisargadatta Sent: Wednesday, March 11, 2009 8:54:10 PM Re: More on the ego

 

Nisargadatta, Mahesh Kamat <mv.kamat@.. .> wrote:>> your words are subjective it is not from experience, first experience it. not just comprehending it after reading. > -mahesh> ahhh....enlightened mahash is speaking....how come that you talk about experiences. ...?.......so, yes....have some experiences beloved mahesh.........then maybe your ego slow down......in teaching appearent others....;)Marc

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , Mahesh Kamat <mv.kamat wrote:

>

> all learnings are attributable to experiencing; how can i shed my identity

just by comprehending from readings. one fine day Nisargadatta Maharaj left

everything ie. family , home, business (owned 7 shops), money & all possessions.

he roamed freely without attachments. he lived with pangs of hunger, with pain

of commuting disease, bearing the extreme climates with minimum

clothing, sleeping on the floor of cremation grounds/secluded areas, being with

the masses for serving them out of love, opening himself to the world in utter

silence. he says before the realisation he was like a parrot singing & his

master told him one day to stop singing & experience it directly. losing one's

identity needs  courage, conviction & dedication and cannot be validated with

mere talks.  

> -mahesh

>

> ________________________________

 

 

exactly!

 

then maybe there is a chance that infinite love and enlightened " mahesh " get

less attached to (his) words....

 

 

Marc

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " Tony OClery " <aoclery wrote:

>

> Nisargadatta , " dennis_travis33 " <dennis_travis33@>

wrote:

> >

> > Nisargadatta , Mahesh Kamat <mv.kamat@> wrote:

> > >

> > > your words are subjective it is not from experience, first experience it.

not just comprehending it after reading.  

> > > -mahesh

> > >

> >

> > ahhh....enlightened mahash is speaking....

> >

> > how come that you talk about experiences....?...

> >

> > ....

> >

> > so, yes....have some experiences beloved mahesh.....

> >

> > ....

> >

> > then maybe your ego slow down......in teaching appearent others....

> >

> >

> > Marc

> >

> advaitin , >

> > The present question is " Compared to other animals, it is observed, only

> human beings have moha,mada,lobha and matsarya,in addition to kama and

krodham,

> which other animals also have ,may be in lower degree.Further the urge for

> excelling others or for achieving perfection is found only in human beings.

What

> is the reason for this?

> >

> > The very purpose of Advaita Vedanta is to give answers to these interesting

> concerns of human beings.

>

> Namaste,

>

> A Chimp in a Swedish Zoo, saves up caches of rocks to throw at visitors the

next

> time they visit.

>

> http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2009/mar/09/chimp-zoo-stones-science

>

> This show imagination, anger,forward planning and future thinking and the

desire

> for a result in many ways.

> I have always believed that humans build themselves up too much. In illusion

we

> all share one consciousness after all. 50% of mankind has an IQ of 100 or

less,

> close to the Apes even.

>

> Most of mankinds brain is as large as it is due to speech and the need for

> instruments to express and transfer it. Speech doesn't imply intelligence any

> more than a birds abiliity to fly does.

>

> Nisargadatta Maharaj said that only one person in Bombay/Mumbai could

> intellectually understand non-duality never mind realise it. That works out at

> about 1 in 10 million at the time. So there are probably only 60,000 people on

> the planet that understand non duality and a handful that are realised. The

> majority of humankind are not really any more advanced than an animal. The

> animal at least is more in a state of surrender and doesn't suffer the

illusion

> of multiple Deities, and Religions and Beliefs.

>

> Like Gandhi I fail to perceive a vast difference........Cheers Tony.

>

 

 

yeah......thousands of this proud pseudo non-dualists.....who realy feel

for/by/from their appearent misery and pain....in an appearent world.....means

in an appearent self made ego.....means, in an appearent self made misery and

pain.

 

some have high IQs...

 

some have less high IQs...

 

.....

 

nobody for real who care about...no external God who care about this poor

souls.....

 

until they wake up.....

 

and start to take finally some responsibility about this their self made

appearent little happeniss, misery and pain

 

 

Marc

[Guest guest]

enlightened "managers" not "masters" we are; good in making presentations, impressive in sharing ideas, immensely competitive and persuasive. divinely in love with our words will make us paranoid for sometime till a new thinking pops up to change the words. thinking will stop when the identity is shed for which i have to give up all that i have carried as my possessions all along- body, mind, home, family, words, intelligence, money, pleasure, fear, hope- everything . it is comfortable to live as an enlightened manager with experience of handling words effectively with focus on achieving objectives which are never reachable.

-mahesh

 

 

 

dennis_travis33 <dennis_travis33Nisargadatta Sent: Thursday, March 12, 2009 1:20:44 PM Re: More on the ego

 

Nisargadatta, "Tony OClery" <aoclery > wrote:>> Nisargadatta@ .. com, "dennis_travis33" <dennis_travis33@ > wrote:> >> > Nisargadatta, Mahesh Kamat <mv.kamat@> wrote:> > >> > > your words are subjective it is not from experience, first experience it. not just comprehending it after reading. > > > -mahesh> > > > > > > ahhh....enlightened mahash is speaking....>

> > > how come that you talk about experiences. ...?...> > > > ....> > > > so, yes....have some experiences beloved mahesh.....> > > > ....> > > > then maybe your ego slow down......in teaching appearent others....> > > > > > Marc> >> advaitin@ s.com, >> > The present question is " Compared to other animals, it is observed, only> human beings have moha,mada,lobha and matsarya,in addition to kama and krodham,> which other animals also have ,may be in lower degree.Further the urge for> excelling others or for achieving perfection is found only in human beings. What> is the reason for this?> >> > The very purpose of Advaita

Vedanta is to give answers to these interesting> concerns of human beings.> > Namaste,> > A Chimp in a Swedish Zoo, saves up caches of rocks to throw at visitors the next> time they visit.> > http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2009/mar/09/chimp-zoo-stones-science> > This show imagination, anger,forward planning and future thinking and the desire> for a result in many ways.> I have always believed that humans build themselves up too much. In illusion we> all share one consciousness after all. 50% of mankind has an IQ of 100 or less,> close to the Apes even.> > Most of mankinds brain is as large as it is due to speech and the need for> instruments to express and transfer it. Speech doesn't imply intelligence any> more than a birds abiliity to fly does.> > Nisargadatta Maharaj said that only one person in Bombay/Mumbai

could> intellectually understand non-duality never mind realise it. That works out at> about 1 in 10 million at the time. So there are probably only 60,000 people on> the planet that understand non duality and a handful that are realised. The> majority of humankind are not really any more advanced than an animal. The> animal at least is more in a state of surrender and doesn't suffer the illusion> of multiple Deities, and Religions and Beliefs.> > Like Gandhi I fail to perceive a vast difference.. ......Cheers Tony.>yeah.......thousands of this proud pseudo non-dualists. ....who realy feel for/by/from their appearent misery and pain....in an appearent world.....means in an appearent self made ego.....means, in an appearent self made misery and pain.some have high IQs...some have less high IQs.......nobody for real who care about...no external God who

care about this poor souls.....until they wake up.....and start to take finally some responsibility about this their self made appearent little happeniss, misery and painMarc