Connie

My tendencies would be to know more about what the vedas have to say about this.

I believe The Golden Age was at the time of the vedas.

My inclination is, to believe we may exist in the eternal but the false-ego does not.

I am not sure we are integral components.

I have heard about "emanations" from Tibetan buddhists.

I am also concerned dualism is all false ego.

What do people here think about "Patanjali's Vision of Oneness"

an interpretative translation by Swami Venkatesananda

ref:http://dailyreadings.com/sutras_1.htm

in particular,

IV. 34.

 

The qualities and the characteristics of a person have no goal nor motivation any more. They return to their cause, ignorance! There emerges creative independence. The undivided cosmic intelligence which is omnipotent regains as it were its own identity.

 

OM TAT SAT

(in) finis

 

 

ref: http://dailyreadings.com/ys4-3.htm

Here is an interesting read, google: ego - the false center.

I would like to know this.

June 13, 1947 12:28:14 -5 GMT Sagittarius Navamsa Lagna

83W 6 18.50 42 N 23 42.53 actual birth location

from birth record: 12:30 PM -5 GMT Highland Park, Wayne County, MI

Wrong topic. Wrong-headed discussion.

Sigmund Freud wrote a little paper about, what, 39 "neurotic" housewives of failed WWI German Army officers.

His "fame" was that the invention of the pseudo-science "social sciences" were to benefit Hitler's Germany, and did. He did not "invent" that: he was "used".

Read the Preface to the 2nd Edition, Totems and Taboos by Sigmund Freud.

He was astonished he got so much attention.

If you like to go on and on talking about Ego, ID and Super-ego, go ahead.

However, it will not be a "spiritual discussion" except if you let it drop.

If "someone" were knowledgeable in the nuances of language, it would never have been "translated" to the word ego.

The fact is, a "translator" also needs to "translate" according to the connotations and denotations of a language. If a singular word will not "fit" then it is more correct to write a paragraph, or have a footnote explanation.

Ego is not the self, not the Self and certainly not the higher Self.

We have been discussing ego. The answer depends on your starting point.

For some, ego is only a balloon of hot air.

Why not? Maybe you are considering if the advaita cartoon description is true?

It is the cartoon of the circle and a dot. The dot is in the center of the circle.

When you find the center, the "circumference" disappears. Then, the dot disappears.

(Note: Most people are off on a tangent.)

In my view, that is nihilism unless you realize it is no longer necessary to say there is more than One.

I do not have that realization however. I know I am not all of that. Nevertheless I feel I can touch all of that and that I believe is completely natural.

If such-ness is your question, I have answered. If no-mind, ask a zen buddhist if no-mind is not nihilism. I understand no-mind is "mushin" ref: wikipedia.

My exposure to zen and zen koans is limited. I believe zen and zen koans are about reality and be-ing fully present in the moment.

It is not a question, then.

The Self and the ego are not the same.

Do not be persuaded by the pseudo-science psychology.

Sant, The false ego is not self.

Is your identification the bird on the lower branch or on the higher?

Is it acceptable to realize you are a bird?

Make 15 posts.

There must be other topical threads, you would like to participate. Ask the question about gemstones, separately. There are more posts.

Jagannath has three persons. I feel a strong connection with one, some feeling for one, and I feel I don't know the other one.

I want to reject casuistry entirely. I accept casuistry, to some extent, however I do not accept hypocrisy, or lies, and so I have problems accepting anyone who (or any book) that propounds lies as virtue.

This is honest. That said, I am not pleased at limiting the dimensional charts of "vedic astrology" to 16 vargas, either, just to let you know something I feel about Parashara and Vyassa, father and son. I feel the Vyassa compilations of the vedas were editing the vedas. I don't like it. It seems to me, few sacred slokas made it through.

I will never have moksha, if I have to love Krishna. I believe Arjuna was not to kill. If he died on the battlefield, it would have been better for him, if he is not only a fictional character.

I do not accept dualism. I can only count to One.

I am not seeking moksha. I have been told vedic astrology shows I am living a moksha lifetime.

I do feel equanimity. I have aversions. I have likes and dislikes. I ask questions only because I am conditioned to ask questions for learning. I am sincere. I do want to know about moksha.

I do appreciate the comments here. This is a great forum.

People here care about spiritual life.

sambya, I once heard a Tibetan "physician" teach how to incarnate, as technique. Is that for "avatars".

I don't know much about it. For example, I know practically nothing about how to find "timing" in astrological charts.

I understand that yoga is gain from other's losses, or, by steady effort.

I have chosen steady effort, however "life" throws situations at me whereby I can gain from the losses of others. I keep on, with steady effort. I do not know, if I am doing what is indicated by the vedic charts.

Perhaps, someone with more knowledge has something they will say?

Is anyone practicing vedic astrology here for spiritual discussions?

Does ego exist during stillness of thoughts?

In meditation, I watched my thoughts drop.

Is there ego there? I say, no.

Is mind there?

I will answer this way: unspoiled consciousness is there.

Memory is there.

The sense "I am experiencing" is there.

Relationship is there.

It is not a void. It is not nothing. It is not no-thing. However it could be no-thing. I am not certain.

It feels good. It feels completely natural.

I have looked around, both with so-called "third eye" seeing and "ordinary" seeing, but I do that in waking-state if I want to. There is "vision". There is eyesight.

It is not a void.

I will say, most meditations are only feeling. Only?

I feel completely loved.

Nope, not a void.

I know my real self, perhaps called my "higher Self"? is there.

Thank you.

I will tell you more about my question.

I have strong bhakti tendencies, or did. I have some jnani understanding. I know advaita vedantas.

Is moksha liberation from samsara? or, rather to say, liberation from illusion, then? I am experiencing that.

Is moksha merging? Is moksha the "salt doll" who finding the ocean, knows they are salt and knows they are the ocean? that merging? I have that.

Is moksha no rebirth? never?

or, voluntary like Tibetan lamas? or bodhisattvas?

Is moksha "only" liberation from ignorance? or is moksha finally liberation from ignorance!

sambya,

is short , moksha is the end result of spiritual practice through which a soul get liberated from sufferings and material existence ....

that sounds VERY SWEET, to me.

What is moksha?