Guest guest Report post Posted April 14, 2006 In a message dated 4/13/2006 8:49:22 PM Pacific Daylight Time, ADHHUB writes: > L: Mind and its individual contents are not the ego. > > P: Ego is a concept that refers to a collection of self referential > thoughts. It's not a thing or a pattern or something that exists separately > from > mind. > > > L: If the ego can play a game to hide itself from itself, it is exactly > doing what you are doing. > I don't do that, > > P: You do that more effectively than anyone else here, Larry, which is why > you don't know you're doing it. > > L.E; It seems we can call a collection of self-referential thoughts a pattern or an organization of energies. I keep saying the ego is an expression of mind and not separate from it. It depends on the contents of mind like mind depends on the existence of brain and brain depends on body. The whole thing together can be called the human organism. If I am the most effective at using the ego to hide the ego, then you and Len are next in line. Or perhaps you know you are doing it, but I don't? I accept the nature and expression of the ego as an intrinsic part of my human organism, but you look at it, which is yourself as an enemy, or a deception, a trickster and I don't. In that sense, I accept myself as myself and you don't, and that is part of your confusion and insoluable problem. And that is why you go on and on about trying to outwit the ego which is yourself, and it can't be done. Perhaps you and Len are just amusing yourselves by continuing in such futility. Larry Epston Larry Epston Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted April 14, 2006 In a message dated 4/13/2006 6:55:17 PM Pacific Daylight Time, Nisargadatta writes: Fri, 14 Apr 2006 01:14:18 -0000 " Bob N. " <Roberibus111 Re: Non-Existing Ego Nisargadatta , epston wrote: > > > > In a message dated 4/12/2006 7:40:56 AM Pacific Daylight Time, > lissbon2002 writes: > > >>Yes. The idea of non existing ego is meant to keep the ego intact > >>(no need to pay attention to something which doesn´t exist) and at > >>the same time reach the state which can be only there when the ego > >>is not ;-) > >> > >>Len > > > L.E: This conversation is so strange as you all try to talk about the ego > but > cannot recognize that you are the ego that is talking. You talk about the > ego as if it was something other than what you are. As if by splitting > yourself > as ego into an observer and the observed ego you can analyze and understand > > yourself as ego. lCan't be done. And there's a big lesson there. The ego, > you, > cannot divide into two and understand your own nature. But you can relax > and > let the ego subside, and let is dissolve for a moment in the reservoir of > mind from which it arises. Then the you who talks to yourself disappears > and the > experience of healing and peace can occurr. > > Larry Epston > > > > And so you demonstrate Len's point perfectly. > > > L.E; That's absurd. The ego doesn't invent the idea of the non- existing ego > as a defense. It has no independent volition at all. You are your ego. If > anyone is running from anything, it is you pretending to be not you. Is that > what you are doing to keep your ego intact? Are you the demonstration of Len's > point perfectly? > > Larry Epston > '' > OK you(who are not your ego) are pretending to not be you(also not the ego), and the ego(not you) doesn't invent the idea of it's(ego's) non-existence, which by the way it is i.e.:not existing. I'm not having an easy time with this , but let us proceed. Near the end of line two above we reverse ourselves and you are your ego now. And furthermore, now that you is the ego again, you is running pretending to be the you that you are not; which is the ego that you is/is not. And the purpose of this running, which by the way is non-volitional (BIG WORD..a little drama here), is all about keeping this ego/no- ego/you/not you/ Self(methiks) INTACT! OK now damn't all Len..are you demonstrating Len's point here? Someone thinks so. I NEED guys like Larry to get me back on track with his humour as/like this terrific fun demonstration of his. Thanks L.E., you're a lot of fun and a big blessing too. ..........bob > Thanks for muddling through that, Bob. I gave up cause there didn't seem to be a point. When somebody says, " The ego....has no independent volition at all. You are your ego. " I'm not quite sure what kind of a response would be useful. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted April 14, 2006 In a message dated 4/13/2006 11:17:37 PM Pacific Daylight Time, ADHHUB writes: > Thanks for muddling through that, Bob. I gave up cause there didn't seem to > > be a point. When somebody says, " The ego....has no independent volition at > all. You are your ego. " I'm not quite sure what kind of a response would be > > useful. > L.E: If this statement confuses you, let me again say, the ego is produced by the mind, which itself is produced by the brain which is supported by the body. The whole thing together is the human organism. The ego or sense of self has no independent existence but is an expression of the forces supporting it, the mind. That seems simple and clear enough. It has no independent volition, or existence because it does not exist on its own, but is the result of the deeper and hidden processes of the mind. You know, this discussion is rather complex and if you are not up to it let's not knock it. If you cannot or will not understand what I am writing, perhaps that you your limitation or perhaps mine, but all we can do is to try to communicated, difficult as that may be at times. Larry Epston Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted April 14, 2006 Nisargadatta , ADHHUB wrote: > > > In a message dated 4/13/2006 6:55:17 PM Pacific Daylight Time, > Nisargadatta writes: > > Fri, 14 Apr 2006 01:14:18 -0000 > " Bob N. " <Roberibus111 > Re: Non-Existing Ego > > Nisargadatta , epston@ wrote: > > > > > > > > In a message dated 4/12/2006 7:40:56 AM Pacific Daylight Time, > > lissbon2002@ writes: > > > > >>Yes. The idea of non existing ego is meant to keep the ego > intact > > >>(no need to pay attention to something which doesn´t exist) and > at > > >>the same time reach the state which can be only there when the > ego > > >>is not ;-) > > >> > > >>Len > > > > > L.E: This conversation is so strange as you all try to talk about > the ego > > but > > cannot recognize that you are the ego that is talking. You talk > about the > > ego as if it was something other than what you are. As if by > splitting > > yourself > > as ego into an observer and the observed ego you can analyze and > understand > > > > yourself as ego. lCan't be done. And there's a big lesson there. > The ego, > > you, > > cannot divide into two and understand your own nature. But you > can relax > > and > > let the ego subside, and let is dissolve for a moment in the > reservoir of > > mind from which it arises. Then the you who talks to yourself > disappears > > and the > > experience of healing and peace can occurr. > > > > Larry Epston > > > > > > > > And so you demonstrate Len's point perfectly. > > > > > > L.E; That's absurd. The ego doesn't invent the idea of the non- > existing ego > > as a defense. It has no independent volition at all. You are your > ego. If > > anyone is running from anything, it is you pretending to be not > you. Is that > > what you are doing to keep your ego intact? Are you the > demonstration of Len's > > point perfectly? > > > > Larry Epston > > '' > > > OK you(who are not your ego) are pretending to not be you(also not > the ego), and the ego(not you) doesn't invent the idea of it's (ego's) > non-existence, which by the way it is i.e.:not existing. I'm not > having an easy time with this , but let us proceed. Near the end of > line two above we reverse ourselves and you are your ego now. And > furthermore, now that you is the ego again, you is running pretending > to be the you that you are not; which is the ego that you is/is not. > And the purpose of this running, which by the way is non-volitional > (BIG WORD..a little drama here), is all about keeping this ego/no- > ego/you/not you/ Self(methiks) INTACT! OK now damn't all Len..are you > demonstrating Len's point here? Someone thinks so. > I NEED guys like Larry to get me back on track with his humour > as/like this terrific fun demonstration of his. Thanks L.E., you're a > lot of fun and a big blessing too. > .........bob > > > > > > > Thanks for muddling through that, Bob. I gave up cause there didn't seem to > be a point. When somebody says, " The ego....has no independent volition at > all. You are your ego. " I'm not quite sure what kind of a response would be > useful. > > Hi Phil.you're right. There is no use or usefulness in trying to teach someone who needs to be taught. It's a losin' battle. But in this special case I have fun with it.It's like a rousing game of canasta. Nobody plays it anymore and my pardner Larry is a limited and peculiar type of nobody to play with. I get a lot of my other frustrations taken care of in so doing this game. Plus the frustration from Larry get's turned into fun. As I've come to know and love Larry throughout our special and silent(between each other) relationship, I've come to understand why some people believe God is a comedian. :-)) ......bob Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted April 14, 2006 L: If I am the most effective at using the ego to hide the ego, then you and Len are next in line. Or perhaps you know you are doing it, but I don't? P: The point that's being made is that such deception can be revealed and is no more. That means that those who are willing to look at it and reveal it have the least rather than the most. There are some clues to this deception. If negative feelings arise as though some mysterious button has been pushed or one feels the need to defend or attack or avoid or make wrong and it's not clearly understood what internal fears are being activated, then there are unconscious processes going on and these things are being falsely justified so that we don't notice those processes. L: I accept the nature and expression of the ego as an intrinsic part of my human organism, but you look at it, which is yourself as an enemy, or a deception, a trickster and I don't. In that sense, I accept myself as myself and you don't, and that is part of your confusion and insoluable problem. P: The opposite is true. If these self deceptions are going on, you can't possibly accept yourself because you don't consciously know what it is you're accepting. What you accept is a lie. Since self is not accepted, this judgment is projected onto others and you judge others for that which you fail to accept in yourself. The ego is not an enemy, it's a creation of your own mind. As long as it's seen as an enemy, it will always be struggled with, resulting in a split mind. And so when the unconscious processes are revealed, they are allowed to be and not struggled with. Nothing needs to be done with them but to notice them. They fade on their own because they can't operate if they don't deceive. Self deception IS the process. L: And that is why you go on and on about trying to outwit the ego which is yourself, and it can't be done. Perhaps you and Len are just amusing yourselves by continuing in such futility. P: I can't speak for Len, but it's neither amusing nor futile. For me, it is essentially done; has already been accomplished. Once again, the mind is not what you are and you're free to look at it. The mind can never get what it wants; can never satisfy all it's wants and needs; can never be good enough, smart enough, spiritual enough, loving enough, and so it pretends to split itself in an attempt to convince itself it really is good enough. THAT, is the futility. The need to play that silly game is surrendered. After that, it's just a self exploration that has the effect of weakening ego and revealing the illusion. If what we're all looking for is Truth, and that's not being noticed, why doesn't it make sense to challenge our own processes that we use to distract ourselves from noticing that Truth; that keep us unconsciously attached to our own self created illusion? Conversely, how long does one wait for the Truth to become apparent while we do everything we can to hide it from ourselves and then hide the fact that we're hiding it? Does anybody here think the Truth is really hidden by anything but mind/ego? Is it possible the only reason that doesn't sound like a very bright idea is because ego doesn't want ego challenged? In a message dated 4/14/2006 2:48:11 AM Pacific Daylight Time, Nisargadatta writes: Fri, 14 Apr 2006 00:27:03 EDT epston Non-Existing Ego In a message dated 4/13/2006 8:49:22 PM Pacific Daylight Time, ADHHUB writes: > L: Mind and its individual contents are not the ego. > > P: Ego is a concept that refers to a collection of self referential > thoughts. It's not a thing or a pattern or something that exists separately > from > mind. > > > L: If the ego can play a game to hide itself from itself, it is exactly > doing what you are doing. > I don't do that, > > P: You do that more effectively than anyone else here, Larry, which is why > you don't know you're doing it. > > L.E; It seems we can call a collection of self-referential thoughts a pattern or an organization of energies. I keep saying the ego is an expression of mind and not separate from it. It depends on the contents of mind like mind depends on the existence of brain and brain depends on body. The whole thing together can be called the human organism. If I am the most effective at using the ego to hide the ego, then you and Len are next in line. Or perhaps you know you are doing it, but I don't? I accept the nature and expression of the ego as an intrinsic part of my human organism, but you look at it, which is yourself as an enemy, or a deception, a trickster and I don't. In that sense, I accept myself as myself and you don't, and that is part of your confusion and insoluable problem. And that is why you go on and on about trying to outwit the ego which is yourself, and it can't be done. Perhaps you and Len are just amusing yourselves by continuing in such futility. Larry Epston Larry Epston Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted April 14, 2006 L.E: If this statement confuses you, let me again say, the ego is produced by the mind, which itself is produced by the brain which is supported by the body. The whole thing together is the human organism. The ego or sense of self has no independent existence but is an expression of the forces supporting it, the mind. The human mind, also, has no independent existence. The point, of course, which is being sidetracked, is that the ego is not what you are. As such, it can be looked at. Your justification for not being able to look at it was that you couldn't because that's what you are, or at least that's how it came across. You know, this discussion is rather complex and if you are not up to it let's not knock it. If you cannot or will not understand what I am writing, perhaps that you your limitation or perhaps mine, but all we can do is to try to communicated, difficult as that may be at times. Yes, no doubt I'm having a bit of difficulty keeping up with your razor sharp mind, but I'm willing to keep trying if you are. In a message dated 4/14/2006 2:48:11 AM Pacific Daylight Time, Nisargadatta writes: Fri, 14 Apr 2006 05:19:03 EDT epston Re: Non-Existing Ego In a message dated 4/13/2006 11:17:37 PM Pacific Daylight Time, ADHHUB writes: > Thanks for muddling through that, Bob. I gave up cause there didn't seem to > > be a point. When somebody says, " The ego....has no independent volition at > all. You are your ego. " I'm not quite sure what kind of a response would be > > useful. > L.E: If this statement confuses you, let me again say, the ego is produced by the mind, which itself is produced by the brain which is supported by the body. The whole thing together is the human organism. The ego or sense of self has no independent existence but is an expression of the forces supporting it, the mind. That seems simple and clear enough. It has no independent volition, or existence because it does not exist on its own, but is the result of the deeper and hidden processes of the mind. You know, this discussion is rather complex and if you are not up to it let's not knock it. If you cannot or will not understand what I am writing, perhaps that you your limitation or perhaps mine, but all we can do is to try to communicated, difficult as that may be at times. Larry Epston Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted April 14, 2006 In a message dated 4/14/2006 10:51:56 AM Pacific Daylight Time, Nisargadatta writes: Fri, 14 Apr 2006 12:11:06 -0000 " Bob N. " <Roberibus111 Re: Non-Existing Ego Nisargadatta , ADHHUB wrote: > > > In a message dated 4/13/2006 6:55:17 PM Pacific Daylight Time, > Nisargadatta writes: > > Fri, 14 Apr 2006 01:14:18 -0000 > " Bob N. " <Roberibus111 > Re: Non-Existing Ego > > Nisargadatta , epston@ wrote: > > > > > > > > In a message dated 4/12/2006 7:40:56 AM Pacific Daylight Time, > > lissbon2002@ writes: > > > > >>Yes. The idea of non existing ego is meant to keep the ego > intact > > >>(no need to pay attention to something which doesn´t exist) and > at > > >>the same time reach the state which can be only there when the > ego > > >>is not ;-) > > >> > > >>Len > > > > > L.E: This conversation is so strange as you all try to talk about > the ego > > but > > cannot recognize that you are the ego that is talking. You talk > about the > > ego as if it was something other than what you are. As if by > splitting > > yourself > > as ego into an observer and the observed ego you can analyze and > understand > > > > yourself as ego. lCan't be done. And there's a big lesson there. > The ego, > > you, > > cannot divide into two and understand your own nature. But you > can relax > > and > > let the ego subside, and let is dissolve for a moment in the > reservoir of > > mind from which it arises. Then the you who talks to yourself > disappears > > and the > > experience of healing and peace can occurr. > > > > Larry Epston > > > > > > > > And so you demonstrate Len's point perfectly. > > > > > > L.E; That's absurd. The ego doesn't invent the idea of the non- > existing ego > > as a defense. It has no independent volition at all. You are your > ego. If > > anyone is running from anything, it is you pretending to be not > you. Is that > > what you are doing to keep your ego intact? Are you the > demonstration of Len's > > point perfectly? > > > > Larry Epston > > '' > > > OK you(who are not your ego) are pretending to not be you(also not > the ego), and the ego(not you) doesn't invent the idea of it's (ego's) > non-existence, which by the way it is i.e.:not existing. I'm not > having an easy time with this , but let us proceed. Near the end of > line two above we reverse ourselves and you are your ego now. And > furthermore, now that you is the ego again, you is running pretending > to be the you that you are not; which is the ego that you is/is not. > And the purpose of this running, which by the way is non-volitional > (BIG WORD..a little drama here), is all about keeping this ego/no- > ego/you/not you/ Self(methiks) INTACT! OK now damn't all Len..are you > demonstrating Len's point here? Someone thinks so. > I NEED guys like Larry to get me back on track with his humour > as/like this terrific fun demonstration of his. Thanks L.E., you're a > lot of fun and a big blessing too. > .........bob > > > > > > > Thanks for muddling through that, Bob. I gave up cause there didn't seem to > be a point. When somebody says, " The ego....has no independent volition at > all. You are your ego. " I'm not quite sure what kind of a response would be > useful. > > Hi Phil.you're right. There is no use or usefulness in trying to teach someone who needs to be taught. It's a losin' battle. But in this special case I have fun with it.It's like a rousing game of canasta. Nobody plays it anymore and my pardner Larry is a limited and peculiar type of nobody to play with. I get a lot of my other frustrations taken care of in so doing this game. Plus the frustration from Larry get's turned into fun. As I've come to know and love Larry throughout our special and silent(between each other) relationship, I've come to understand why some people believe God is a comedian. :-)) .......bob Yup, God is a very funny dude. I'm glad Larry works for you, and actually he's doing me some good too. Folks like Len and I get criticized a lot for looking at ego on the grounds that it should be left alone, no thinking should be done, no concepts should be understood and there's nobody there to do it anyway. This little discussion has served to clarify for me how these objections are really ego defenses: valid concepts that are used to serve the purpose of not noticing the ego games. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted April 14, 2006 In a message dated 4/14/2006 3:34:48 PM Pacific Daylight Time, Nisargadatta writes: Fri, 14 Apr 2006 22:34:00 -0000 " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002 Re: Non-Existing Ego Nisargadatta , ADHHUB wrote: > > > L: If I am the most effective at using > the ego to hide the ego, then you and Len are next in line. Or perhaps you > know > you are doing it, but I don't? > > > P: The point that's being made is that such deception can be revealed and is > no more. That means that those who are willing to look at it and reveal it > have the least rather than the most. There are some clues to this deception. If > negative feelings arise as though some mysterious button has been pushed or > one feels the need to defend or attack or avoid or make wrong and it's not > clearly understood what internal fears are being activated, then there are > unconscious processes going on and these things are being falsely justified so > that we don't notice those processes. > > > > > L: I accept the nature and expression of the ego > as an intrinsic part of my human organism, but you look at it, which is > yourself as an enemy, or a deception, a trickster and I don't. In that > sense, I > accept myself as myself and you don't, and that is part of your confusion > and > insoluable problem. > > > > P: The opposite is true. If these self deceptions are going on, you can't > possibly accept yourself because you don't consciously know what it is you're > accepting. What you accept is a lie. Since self is not accepted, this judgment > is projected onto others and you judge others for that which you fail to > accept in yourself. > > The ego is not an enemy, it's a creation of your own mind. As long as it's > seen as an enemy, it will always be struggled with, resulting in a split mind. > And so when the unconscious processes are revealed, they are allowed to be > and not struggled with. Nothing needs to be done with them but to notice them. > They fade on their own because they can't operate if they don't deceive. Self > deception IS the process. > > > > > > L: And that is why you go on and on about trying to outwit the > ego which is yourself, and it can't be done. Perhaps you and Len are just > amusing yourselves by continuing in such futility. > > > > P: I can't speak for Len, but it's neither amusing nor futile. For me, it is > essentially done; has already been accomplished. Once again, the mind is not > what you are and you're free to look at it. The mind can never get what it > wants; can never satisfy all it's wants and needs; can never be good enough, > smart enough, spiritual enough, loving enough, and so it pretends to split > itself in an attempt to convince itself it really is good enough. THAT, is the > futility. The need to play that silly game is surrendered. After that, it's > just a self exploration that has the effect of weakening ego and revealing the > illusion. > > If what we're all looking for is Truth, and that's not being noticed, why > doesn't it make sense to challenge our own processes that we use to distract > ourselves from noticing that Truth; that keep us unconsciously attached to our > own self created illusion? Conversely, how long does one wait for the Truth to > become apparent while we do everything we can to hide it from ourselves and > then hide the fact that we're hiding it? Does anybody here think the Truth > is really hidden by anything but mind/ego? Is it possible the only reason that > doesn't sound like a very bright idea is because ego doesn't want ego > challenged? Well put, Phil. One question though: what has been accomplished? Len For myself? I posted about it a couple of days ago to Patricia, or at least I thought I did. I can find it and repost it if you want. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted April 15, 2006 Nisargadatta , ADHHUB wrote: > > > L: If I am the most effective at using > the ego to hide the ego, then you and Len are next in line. Or perhaps you > know > you are doing it, but I don't? > > > P: The point that's being made is that such deception can be revealed and is > no more. That means that those who are willing to look at it and reveal it > have the least rather than the most. There are some clues to this deception. If > negative feelings arise as though some mysterious button has been pushed or > one feels the need to defend or attack or avoid or make wrong and it's not > clearly understood what internal fears are being activated, then there are > unconscious processes going on and these things are being falsely justified so > that we don't notice those processes. > > > > > L: I accept the nature and expression of the ego > as an intrinsic part of my human organism, but you look at it, which is > yourself as an enemy, or a deception, a trickster and I don't. In that > sense, I > accept myself as myself and you don't, and that is part of your confusion > and > insoluable problem. > > > > P: The opposite is true. If these self deceptions are going on, you can't > possibly accept yourself because you don't consciously know what it is you're > accepting. What you accept is a lie. Since self is not accepted, this judgment > is projected onto others and you judge others for that which you fail to > accept in yourself. > > The ego is not an enemy, it's a creation of your own mind. As long as it's > seen as an enemy, it will always be struggled with, resulting in a split mind. > And so when the unconscious processes are revealed, they are allowed to be > and not struggled with. Nothing needs to be done with them but to notice them. > They fade on their own because they can't operate if they don't deceive. Self > deception IS the process. > > > > > > L: And that is why you go on and on about trying to outwit the > ego which is yourself, and it can't be done. Perhaps you and Len are just > amusing yourselves by continuing in such futility. > > > > P: I can't speak for Len, but it's neither amusing nor futile. For me, it is > essentially done; has already been accomplished. Once again, the mind is not > what you are and you're free to look at it. The mind can never get what it > wants; can never satisfy all it's wants and needs; can never be good enough, > smart enough, spiritual enough, loving enough, and so it pretends to split > itself in an attempt to convince itself it really is good enough. THAT, is the > futility. The need to play that silly game is surrendered. After that, it's > just a self exploration that has the effect of weakening ego and revealing the > illusion. > > If what we're all looking for is Truth, and that's not being noticed, why > doesn't it make sense to challenge our own processes that we use to distract > ourselves from noticing that Truth; that keep us unconsciously attached to our > own self created illusion? Conversely, how long does one wait for the Truth to > become apparent while we do everything we can to hide it from ourselves and > then hide the fact that we're hiding it? Does anybody here think the Truth > is really hidden by anything but mind/ego? Is it possible the only reason that > doesn't sound like a very bright idea is because ego doesn't want ego > challenged? Well put, Phil. One question though: what has been accomplished? Len Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted April 15, 2006 Nisargadatta , ADHHUB wrote: > > > In a message dated 4/14/2006 3:34:48 PM Pacific Daylight Time, > Nisargadatta writes: > > Fri, 14 Apr 2006 22:34:00 -0000 > " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002 > Re: Non-Existing Ego > > Nisargadatta , ADHHUB@ wrote: > > > > > > L: If I am the most effective at using > > the ego to hide the ego, then you and Len are next in line. Or > perhaps you > > know > > you are doing it, but I don't? > > > > > > P: The point that's being made is that such deception can be > revealed and is > > no more. That means that those who are willing to look at it and > reveal it > > have the least rather than the most. There are some clues to this > deception. If > > negative feelings arise as though some mysterious button has been > pushed or > > one feels the need to defend or attack or avoid or make wrong and > it's not > > clearly understood what internal fears are being activated, then > there are > > unconscious processes going on and these things are being falsely > justified so > > that we don't notice those processes. > > > > > > > > > > L: I accept the nature and expression of the ego > > as an intrinsic part of my human organism, but you look at it, > which is > > yourself as an enemy, or a deception, a trickster and I don't. In > that > > sense, I > > accept myself as myself and you don't, and that is part of your > confusion > > and > > insoluable problem. > > > > > > > > P: The opposite is true. If these self deceptions are going on, > you can't > > possibly accept yourself because you don't consciously know what > it is you're > > accepting. What you accept is a lie. Since self is not accepted, > this judgment > > is projected onto others and you judge others for that which you > fail to > > accept in yourself. > > > > The ego is not an enemy, it's a creation of your own mind. As long > as it's > > seen as an enemy, it will always be struggled with, resulting in a > split mind. > > And so when the unconscious processes are revealed, they are > allowed to be > > and not struggled with. Nothing needs to be done with them but to > notice them. > > They fade on their own because they can't operate if they don't > deceive. Self > > deception IS the process. > > > > > > > > > > > > L: And that is why you go on and on about trying to outwit the > > ego which is yourself, and it can't be done. Perhaps you and Len > are just > > amusing yourselves by continuing in such futility. > > > > > > > > P: I can't speak for Len, but it's neither amusing nor futile. For > me, it is > > essentially done; has already been accomplished. Once again, the > mind is not > > what you are and you're free to look at it. The mind can never get > what it > > wants; can never satisfy all it's wants and needs; can never be > good enough, > > smart enough, spiritual enough, loving enough, and so it pretends > to split > > itself in an attempt to convince itself it really is good enough. > THAT, is the > > futility. The need to play that silly game is surrendered. After > that, it's > > just a self exploration that has the effect of weakening ego and > revealing the > > illusion. > > > > If what we're all looking for is Truth, and that's not being > noticed, why > > doesn't it make sense to challenge our own processes that we use > to distract > > ourselves from noticing that Truth; that keep us unconsciously > attached to our > > own self created illusion? Conversely, how long does one wait for > the Truth to > > become apparent while we do everything we can to hide it from > ourselves and > > then hide the fact that we're hiding it? Does anybody here think > the Truth > > is really hidden by anything but mind/ego? Is it possible the only > reason that > > doesn't sound like a very bright idea is because ego doesn't want > ego > > challenged? > > > > Well put, Phil. > One question though: what has been accomplished? > > Len > > > > > For myself? I posted about it a couple of days ago to Patricia, or at least > I thought I did. I can find it and repost it if you want. Yes, please. Len Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted April 15, 2006 In a message dated 4/14/2006 9:33:31 PM Pacific Daylight Time, Nisargadatta writes: Fri, 14 Apr 2006 23:22:54 -0000 " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002 Re: Non-Existing Ego > For myself? I posted about it a couple of days ago to Patricia, or at least > I thought I did. I can find it and repost it if you want. Yes, please. Len I don't talk about it cause I have no need to, but to the extent that an ego can remain and be free of unconscious processes, I believe that's where I am. I can sometimes go weeks without any upset over anything, I have a relationship virtually conflict free and very loving and supportive, There are no conflicts with anyone in my life, there is much joy and peace, and there is a deep longing remaining which is not experienced as suffering. I've had some powerful meditative experiences, but I believe it's not my path to fall in love with these experiences but rather to seek truth within the self, and then to seek a greater Truth. Nothing is resisted, and so it can be seen that, if the search with the illusory mind into these illusory concepts is still happening, then it is allowed to happen and it has a purpose, but the thinkingness is almost gone. The concepts I prattle about here are not from my mind and my thinkingness, but instead are conceptual translations of what is seen intuitively. It's clear to me that this intuition would not be possible, and was not possible, while ego remained non-integrous. From my perspective, it seems clear to me why a path of ego integrity is not a popular one. It hasn't been easy and is very humbling, but this is the point of it all. I admire folks like Len who are on such a path cause I know exactly how much courage it requires. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted April 15, 2006 In a message dated 4/15/2006 7:43:27 AM Pacific Daylight Time, lissbon2002 writes: > > Ego is not integrous, but it likes to believe it is. > > Len > L.E: You are living in your own stupid little myth and don't know it. Too bad. Larry Epston Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted April 15, 2006 Nisargadatta , ADHHUB wrote: > > > In a message dated 4/14/2006 9:33:31 PM Pacific Daylight Time, > Nisargadatta writes: > > Fri, 14 Apr 2006 23:22:54 -0000 > " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002 > Re: Non-Existing Ego > > > > > > For myself? I posted about it a couple of days ago to Patricia, or > at least > > I thought I did. I can find it and repost it if you want. > > > Yes, please. > > Len > > > I don't talk about it cause I have no need to, but to the extent that an > ego > can remain and be free of unconscious processes, I believe that's where I > am. While I would say that the ego is only there because it´s not entirely conscious. The claim of being free of unconscious processes is part of ego. > I can sometimes go weeks without any upset over anything, I have a > relationship virtually conflict free and very loving and supportive, There > are no > conflicts with anyone in my life, there is much joy and peace, and there is > a > deep longing remaining which is not experienced as suffering. > > I've had some powerful meditative experiences, but I believe it's not my > path to fall in love with these experiences but rather to seek truth within > the > self, and then to seek a greater Truth. I wonder whether there is a need at all to seek Truth. When all illusion is gone, truth is what´s left. > Nothing is resisted, and so it can > be > seen that, if the search with the illusory mind into these illusory concepts > is still happening, then it is allowed to happen and it has a purpose, but > the thinkingness is almost gone. The concepts I prattle about here are not > from > my mind and my thinkingness, but instead are conceptual translations of > what > is seen intuitively. It's clear to me that this intuition would not be > possible, and was not possible, while ego remained non-integrous. Ego is not integrous, but it likes to believe it is. Len Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted April 15, 2006 Nisargadatta , " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , ADHHUB@ wrote: > > > > > > In a message dated 4/14/2006 9:33:31 PM Pacific Daylight Time, > > Nisargadatta writes: > > > > Fri, 14 Apr 2006 23:22:54 -0000 > > " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002@> > > Re: Non-Existing Ego > > > > > > > > > > > For myself? I posted about it a couple of days ago to Patricia, > or > > at least > > > I thought I did. I can find it and repost it if you want. > > > > > > Yes, please. > > > > Len > > > > > > I don't talk about it cause I have no need to, but to the extent > that an > > ego > > can remain and be free of unconscious processes, I believe that's > where I > > am. > > > > While I would say that the ego is only there because it´s not > entirely conscious. > The claim of being free of unconscious processes is part of ego. > > > > > > I can sometimes go weeks without any upset over anything, I have > a > > relationship virtually conflict free and very loving and > supportive, There > > are no > > conflicts with anyone in my life, there is much joy and peace, > and there is > > a > > deep longing remaining which is not experienced as suffering. > > > > I've had some powerful meditative experiences, but I believe it's > not my > > path to fall in love with these experiences but rather to seek > truth within > > the > > self, and then to seek a greater Truth. > > > > I wonder whether there is a need at all to seek Truth. > When all illusion is gone, truth is what´s left. > > > > > > Nothing is resisted, and so it can > > be > > seen that, if the search with the illusory mind into these > illusory concepts > > is still happening, then it is allowed to happen and it has a > purpose, but > > the thinkingness is almost gone. The concepts I prattle about > here are not > > from > > my mind and my thinkingness, but instead are conceptual > translations of > > what > > is seen intuitively. It's clear to me that this intuition would > not be > > possible, and was not possible, while ego remained non- integrous. > > > > Ego is not integrous, but it likes to believe it is. > > Len > " I know Ego. Ego was a friend of mine. And I'm no Ego. " ..variation on Lloyd Bentsen's comment to Dan Quayle...hey I loved Danny..I went to high school with him at Scottsdale High. He was a year behind me. Probably why he misspells potato..always adds an e at the end. Hey I've done that too....Dan, your contagious sometimes! :-) ........bob Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted April 15, 2006 Nisargadatta , epston wrote: > > In a message dated 4/15/2006 7:43:27 AM Pacific Daylight Time, > lissbon2002 writes: > > > > > Ego is not integrous, but it likes to believe it is. > > > > Len > > > > L.E: You are living in your own stupid little myth and don't know it. > Too bad. > > Larry Epston You are indeed the best teacher you can ever find, Larry. Just apply all your words to yourself. Len Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted April 15, 2006 While I would say that the ego is only there because it´s not entirely conscious. The claim of being free of unconscious processes is part of ego. P: That's interesting. It sounds like what you're saying is that without unconscious processes, there is no ego at all......... I guess I don't see unconscious processes and identity with illusion as the same thing. The first is ego deceiving itself, the second is Self being identified (or misidentified, if you like) with it's own creation. As mentioned before, I see them as parallels, but I don't think living consciously leads to awakening from the illusion. I wonder whether there is a need at all to seek Truth. When all illusion is gone, truth is what´s left. P: I agree. By " seeking Truth " I mean recognizing the illusion. How do you see that taking place? Ego is not integrous, but it likes to believe it is. P: Even though ego itself is a concept (misconception), it can still function without self deception and a split mind. That's all that's meant by integrated. n a message dated 4/15/2006 11:15:12 AM Pacific Daylight Time, Nisargadatta writes: Sat, 15 Apr 2006 14:41:41 -0000 " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002 Re: Non-Existing Ego Nisargadatta , ADHHUB wrote: > > > In a message dated 4/14/2006 9:33:31 PM Pacific Daylight Time, > Nisargadatta writes: > > Fri, 14 Apr 2006 23:22:54 -0000 > " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002 > Re: Non-Existing Ego > > > > > > For myself? I posted about it a couple of days ago to Patricia, or > at least > > I thought I did. I can find it and repost it if you want. > > > Yes, please. > > Len > > > I don't talk about it cause I have no need to, but to the extent that an > ego > can remain and be free of unconscious processes, I believe that's where I > am. While I would say that the ego is only there because it´s not entirely conscious. The claim of being free of unconscious processes is part of ego. > I can sometimes go weeks without any upset over anything, I have a > relationship virtually conflict free and very loving and supportive, There > are no > conflicts with anyone in my life, there is much joy and peace, and there is > a > deep longing remaining which is not experienced as suffering. > > I've had some powerful meditative experiences, but I believe it's not my > path to fall in love with these experiences but rather to seek truth within > the > self, and then to seek a greater Truth. I wonder whether there is a need at all to seek Truth. When all illusion is gone, truth is what´s left. > Nothing is resisted, and so it can > be > seen that, if the search with the illusory mind into these illusory concepts > is still happening, then it is allowed to happen and it has a purpose, but > the thinkingness is almost gone. The concepts I prattle about here are not > from > my mind and my thinkingness, but instead are conceptual translations of > what > is seen intuitively. It's clear to me that this intuition would not be > possible, and was not possible, while ego remained non-integrous. Ego is not integrous, but it likes to believe it is. Len Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted April 15, 2006 - In Nisargadatta , ADHHUB wrote: > While I would say that the ego is only there because it´s not >entirely conscious.The claim of being free of unconscious processes is part of ego. L.E: Do you really think you as ego can make ego, yourself, entirely consciousness. Ridiculous! > >>P: That's interesting. It sounds like what you're saying is that > without unconscious processes, there is no ego at all......... I guess I > don't see unconscious processes and identity with illusion as the same > thing. The first is ego deceiving itself, L.E: Ego cannot decieve itself, it is the self. the second is Self being identified (or > > misidentified, if you like) with it's own creation. L.E: The ego doesn't create anything. It is the creation or expression of the mind. As mentioned before, I see them > as parallels, but I don't think living > consciously leads to awakening from the illusion. L.E: Verbally, the common definition of living consciously mean being free from illusion. Of course you can devise your own vocabulary. > Illusion can only exist as long as the fact that it is a product of > image processes is not entirely conscious. L.E: Aren't you contradicting yourself? You just wrote that becoming conscious is not the end to illusion. Wouldn´t you agree? L.E; No, I will not! > > If you see clearly how an illusion is brought about, do you still > buy it? And if you don´t, what is left of it? L.E: If the ego is the principle illusion how are you going to use ego to end its own illusion. Do you think, feel, experience that there is a you or self separte from you as ego? That can see an illusion and therefore dissolve it? I don't. > I wonder whether there is a need at all to seek Truth. > >When all illusion is gone, truth is what´s left. L.E: If what you call illusion is really intrinsic self, if it is destroyed, nothing is left. > P: I agree. By " seeking Truth " I mean recognizing the illusion. > >How do you see that taking place? L.E Who or what is going to recognize the illusion is you are the illusion? > > Trough (TROUGH?) seeing that it is made of images only. > But this is not always so evident. The unwilligness to face the emotional > reaction connected to the image seems to keep the illusion in place. Have you > observed it yourself? L.E: Images are part of the essential nature of the mind. The ego, you, cannot destroy them. They are not harmful. The reason it is not evident is because you are mistaken about the whole ego process You will feel the emotional reaction to the mind's images because you as ego, can't stop that from happening. The image and the emotional, feeling reaction are organically connected and occur simultaneously. > Ego is not integrous, but it likes to believe it is. > L.E: As I said before, this is part of you myth story and doesn't exist. > >P: Even though ego itself is a concept (misconception), it can > still function without self deception and a split mind. That's all that's > meant by > >integrated. L.E: Ego is not a concept or misconception, it is the organic expression of the mind and is the connecting link between you and other selves. > But ego is a split mind, don´t you think? L.E: If you split the ego, you will be mentally ill, but the two of you can have some interesting conversations, like where each of you want to eat lunch. > > Len Larry Epston p.s. You guys don't mind if I include this conversation in my book do you? <BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE style= " BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2p> > Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted April 16, 2006 Nisargadatta , ADHHUB wrote: > > > While I would say that the ego is only there because it´s not > entirely conscious. > The claim of being free of unconscious processes is part of ego. > > > P: That's interesting. It sounds like what you're saying is that without > unconscious processes, there is no ego at all......... I guess I don't see > unconscious processes and identity with illusion as the same thing. The first is > ego deceiving itself, the second is Self being identified (or misidentified, if > you like) with it's own creation. As mentioned before, I see them as > parallels, but I don't think living consciously leads to awakening from the illusion. Illusion can only exist as long as the fact that it is a product of image processes is not entirely conscious. Wouldn´t you agree? If you see clearly how an illusion is brought about, do you still buy it? And if you don´t, what is left of it? > I wonder whether there is a need at all to seek Truth. > When all illusion is gone, truth is what´s left. > > > > P: I agree. By " seeking Truth " I mean recognizing the illusion. > How do you see that taking place? Trough seeing that it is made of images only. But this is not always so evident. The unwilligness to face the emotional reaction connected to the image seems to keep the illusion in place. Have you observed it yourself? > Ego is not integrous, but it likes to believe it is. > > > > P: Even though ego itself is a concept (misconception), it can still > function without self deception and a split mind. That's all that's meant by > integrated. But ego is a split mind, don´t you think? Len Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted April 16, 2006 In a message dated 4/16/2006 12:44:13 AM Pacific Daylight Time, Nisargadatta writes: Sat, 15 Apr 2006 22:09:08 -0000 " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002 Re: Non-Existing Ego Nisargadatta , ADHHUB wrote: > > > While I would say that the ego is only there because it´s not > entirely conscious. > The claim of being free of unconscious processes is part of ego. > > > P: That's interesting. It sounds like what you're saying is that without > unconscious processes, there is no ego at all......... I guess I don't see > unconscious processes and identity with illusion as the same thing. The first is > ego deceiving itself, the second is Self being identified (or misidentified, if > you like) with it's own creation. As mentioned before, I see them as > parallels, but I don't think living consciously leads to awakening from the illusion. Illusion can only exist as long as the fact that it is a product of image processes is not entirely conscious. Wouldn´t you agree? If you see clearly how an illusion is brought about, do you still buy it? And if you don´t, what is left of it? Phil: Very interesting area of discussion, Len. These are the sort of questions I've been asking myself. I would say the process by which we've been conditioned by experience is very different from the processes of the unconscious. (For example, pretending not to judge and then judging others for being judgmental) Phil: Where we find ourselves now is that all of our senses point to the illusion as being the only reality there is, and the only tool we have to explore this supposed reality is the mind, which is essentially an illusion maker; it created it to begin with. And so I would say that the tool we used to reveal our unconscious processes is not going to reveal that the illusion is not real. True, the image creating process can be seen, and this has value, but to me this process just looks like the process of perceiving an objective reality. > I wonder whether there is a need at all to seek Truth. > When all illusion is gone, truth is what´s left. > > > > P: I agree. By " seeking Truth " I mean recognizing the illusion. > How do you see that taking place? Trough seeing that it is made of images only. But this is not always so evident. The unwilligness to face the emotional reaction connected to the image seems to keep the illusion in place. Have you observed it yourself? Phil: It's very interesting that you would bring this up, cause last night I was focussing intuitively on consciousness, noticing with more clarity how consciousness is not really the witness of the experience, but the experience itself. I started to feel nauseous, feverish and very disconnected. I stopped and answered some emails and in about 20 min, I felt fine. Phil: The thing is, this has happened a couple of times before and I just attributed it to an energy problem. (I had a kundalini release a few years ago, and I've had many odd energy related things happen.) This time, I realized that I was resisting in some way. It didn't feel like fear, but I believe now that it was. The feeling of being disconnected from everything was odd and extremely uncomfortable. I caught myself projecting into the future what it would be like to feel that way all the time, and all I could think about was how to stop it. Phil: I guess the point here is that I do agree with you, but I believe it needs to be an intuitive process beyond mind. I'm very interested in what you've observed. > Ego is not integrous, but it likes to believe it is. > > > > P: Even though ego itself is a concept (misconception), it can still > function without self deception and a split mind. That's all that's meant by > integrated. But ego is a split mind, don´t you think? Phil: Hmmmm.....Well, how bout this; The mind, by it's nature, is split in the process of perception. This is the source of duality. Ego, as part of the mind process, then naturally is divisive in it's handling of self referential data. The difference is that ego hides part of it's own perception of illusion, while the mind is just doing the only thing it can do in terms of perceiving. In that sense, I don't call the mind nonintegrous when it functions as 'designed', but the ego aspect of it can certainly be so. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted April 17, 2006 In a message dated 4/17/2006 12:09:11 PM Pacific Daylight Time, lissbon2002 writes: > Phil: The thing is, this has happened a couple of times before > and I just > >attributed it to an energy problem. (I had a kundalini release a > few years ago, > >and I've had many odd energy related things happen.) This time, I > realized > >that I was resisting in some way. It didn't feel like fear, but I > believe now > >that it was. The feeling of being disconnected from everything > was odd and > >extremely uncomfortable. I caught myself projecting into the > future what it > >would be like to feel that way all the time, and all I could > think about was how > >to stop it. > > > > So, thought created the image of you feeling that way all the time, > it attached a negative judgment to it and triggered an unpleasant > reaction of fear. Body was ready to fight or to run away, but there > was nothing to fight or to run away from, except of a thought. And > it was also a thought which wanted to fight or to run away. So > actually it was thought, split in two opposites, which was fighting > or running away from itself. > > Len > > > L.E: Here you are. Back to the same old crap. Round and round using mind to > unravel mind. Hope you find it interesting, because it just keeps you > trapped within your thinking, and it's only when thinking stops that reality can > be seen and known. It's all self-talking, using each other to keep the ego > energy going. Larry Epston > > > > Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted April 17, 2006 Nisargadatta , ADHHUB wrote: > > > In a message dated 4/16/2006 12:44:13 AM Pacific Daylight Time, > Nisargadatta writes: > Illusion can only exist as long as the fact that it is a product of > image processes is not entirely conscious. Wouldn´t you agree? > If you see clearly how an illusion is brought about, do you still > buy it? And if you don´t, what is left of it? > > > > > > Phil: Very interesting area of discussion, Len. These are the sort of > questions I've been asking myself. I would say the process by which we've been > conditioned by experience is very different from the processes of the > unconscious. (For example, pretending not to judge and then judging others for being > judgmental) I wonder: aren´t the processes of the unconscious also conditioned by experience? If projection, pretence and judgment are something I see in my environment, I´m very likely to take it over through experiencing it. > Phil: Where we find ourselves now is that all of our senses point to the > illusion as being the only reality there is, and the only tool we have to > explore this supposed reality is the mind, which is essentially an illusion maker; > it created it to begin with. And so I would say that the tool we used to > reveal our unconscious processes is not going to reveal that the illusion is not > real. True, the image creating process can be seen, and this has value, but > to me this process just looks like the process of perceiving an objective > reality. It is perception which reveals the image creating process. We just need to realize that the content of an image is just that: a content of an image. Thinking cannot realize that, only perception can make it obvious. > Phil: It's very interesting that you would bring this up, cause last night I > was focussing intuitively on consciousness, noticing with more clarity how > consciousness is not really the witness of the experience, but the experience > itself. I started to feel nauseous, feverish and very disconnected. I stopped > and answered some emails and in about 20 min, I felt fine. > > > Phil: The thing is, this has happened a couple of times before and I just > attributed it to an energy problem. (I had a kundalini release a few years ago, > and I've had many odd energy related things happen.) This time, I realized > that I was resisting in some way. It didn't feel like fear, but I believe now > that it was. The feeling of being disconnected from everything was odd and > extremely uncomfortable. I caught myself projecting into the future what it > would be like to feel that way all the time, and all I could think about was how > to stop it. So, thought created the image of you feeling that way all the time, it attached a negative judgment to it and triggered an unpleasant reaction of fear. Body was ready to fight or to run away, but there was nothing to fight or to run away from, except of a thought. And it was also a thought which wanted to fight or to run away. So actually it was thought, split in two opposites, which was fighting or running away from itself. Len Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted April 17, 2006 Nisargadatta , epston wrote: > > In a message dated 4/17/2006 12:09:11 PM Pacific Daylight Time, > lissbon2002 writes: > > > Phil: The thing is, this has happened a couple of times before > > and I just > > >attributed it to an energy problem. (I had a kundalini release a > > few years ago, > > >and I've had many odd energy related things happen.) This time, I > > realized > > >that I was resisting in some way. It didn't feel like fear, but I > > believe now > > >that it was. The feeling of being disconnected from everything > > was odd and > > >extremely uncomfortable. I caught myself projecting into the > > future what it > > >would be like to feel that way all the time, and all I could > > think about was how > > >to stop it. > > > > > > > > So, thought created the image of you feeling that way all the time, > > it attached a negative judgment to it and triggered an unpleasant > > reaction of fear. Body was ready to fight or to run away, but there > > was nothing to fight or to run away from, except of a thought. And > > it was also a thought which wanted to fight or to run away. So > > actually it was thought, split in two opposites, which was fighting > > or running away from itself. > > > > Len > > > > > > L.E: Here you are. Back to the same old crap. Round and round using mind to > > unravel mind. Hope you find it interesting, because it just keeps you > > trapped within your thinking, and it's only when thinking stops that reality can > > be seen and known. It's all self-talking, using each other to keep the ego > > energy going. > > Larry Epston > > > O BS Y DA... .......bob > > > > > > > > > > Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted April 18, 2006 In a message dated 4/17/2006 1:23:01 PM Pacific Daylight Time, Nisargadatta writes: Mon, 17 Apr 2006 19:06:43 -0000 " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002 Re: Non-Existing Ego Nisargadatta , ADHHUB wrote: > > > In a message dated 4/16/2006 12:44:13 AM Pacific Daylight Time, > Nisargadatta writes: > Illusion can only exist as long as the fact that it is a product of > image processes is not entirely conscious. Wouldn´t you agree? > If you see clearly how an illusion is brought about, do you still > buy it? And if you don´t, what is left of it? > > > > > > Phil: Very interesting area of discussion, Len. These are the sort of > questions I've been asking myself. I would say the process by which we've been > conditioned by experience is very different from the processes of the > unconscious. (For example, pretending not to judge and then judging others for being > judgmental) I wonder: aren´t the processes of the unconscious also conditioned by experience? If projection, pretence and judgment are something I see in my environment, I´m very likely to take it over through experiencing it. P: Ultimately, everything in mind is conditioned by experience, but I don't think we, for example, notice others projecting and then start doing that ourselves. The reason is that the process of projection isn't clear to anybody until they've seen themselves do it. I think the unconscious ego games are the natural outcome of our conditioning, but is not itself conditioned. > Phil: Where we find ourselves now is that all of our senses point to the > illusion as being the only reality there is, and the only tool we have to > explore this supposed reality is the mind, which is essentially an illusion maker; > it created it to begin with. And so I would say that the tool we used to > reveal our unconscious processes is not going to reveal that the illusion is not > real. True, the image creating process can be seen, and this has value, but > to me this process just looks like the process of perceiving an objective > reality. It is perception which reveals the image creating process. We just need to realize that the content of an image is just that: a content of an image. Thinking cannot realize that, only perception can make it obvious. P: What we've been calling 'direct perception', right? What I call intuition. I'll spend some time 'looking' in that 'direction' and see what shows up. Have you been able to notice this, Len? > Phil: It's very interesting that you would bring this up, cause last night I > was focussing intuitively on consciousness, noticing with more clarity how > consciousness is not really the witness of the experience, but the experience > itself. I started to feel nauseous, feverish and very disconnected. I stopped > and answered some emails and in about 20 min, I felt fine. > > > Phil: The thing is, this has happened a couple of times before and I just > attributed it to an energy problem. (I had a kundalini release a few years ago, > and I've had many odd energy related things happen.) This time, I realized > that I was resisting in some way. It didn't feel like fear, but I believe now > that it was. The feeling of being disconnected from everything was odd and > extremely uncomfortable. I caught myself projecting into the future what it > would be like to feel that way all the time, and all I could think about was how > to stop it. So, thought created the image of you feeling that way all the time, it attached a negative judgment to it and triggered an unpleasant reaction of fear. Body was ready to fight or to run away, but there was nothing to fight or to run away from, except of a thought. And it was also a thought which wanted to fight or to run away. So actually it was thought, split in two opposites, which was fighting or running away from itself. P: Yup, that's what happens. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted April 18, 2006 In a message dated 4/17/2006 1:23:01 PM Pacific Daylight Time, Nisargadatta writes: Mon, 17 Apr 2006 15:13:35 EDT epston Re: Re: Non-Existing Ego In a message dated 4/17/2006 12:09:11 PM Pacific Daylight Time, lissbon2002 writes: > Phil: The thing is, this has happened a couple of times before > and I just > >attributed it to an energy problem. (I had a kundalini release a > few years ago, > >and I've had many odd energy related things happen.) This time, I > realized > >that I was resisting in some way. It didn't feel like fear, but I > believe now > >that it was. The feeling of being disconnected from everything > was odd and > >extremely uncomfortable. I caught myself projecting into the > future what it > >would be like to feel that way all the time, and all I could > think about was how > >to stop it. > > > > So, thought created the image of you feeling that way all the time, > it attached a negative judgment to it and triggered an unpleasant > reaction of fear. Body was ready to fight or to run away, but there > was nothing to fight or to run away from, except of a thought. And > it was also a thought which wanted to fight or to run away. So > actually it was thought, split in two opposites, which was fighting > or running away from itself. > > Len > > > L.E: Here you are. Back to the same old crap. Round and round using mind to > unravel mind. Hope you find it interesting, because it just keeps you > trapped within your thinking, and it's only when thinking stops that reality can > be seen and known. It's all self-talking, using each other to keep the ego > energy going. Larry Epston Does that create a problem for you, Larry? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted April 18, 2006 Nisargadatta , epston wrote: > > In a message dated 4/17/2006 12:09:11 PM Pacific Daylight Time, > lissbon2002 writes: > > > Phil: The thing is, this has happened a couple of times before > > and I just > > >attributed it to an energy problem. (I had a kundalini release a > > few years ago, > > >and I've had many odd energy related things happen.) This time, I > > realized > > >that I was resisting in some way. It didn't feel like fear, but I > > believe now > > >that it was. The feeling of being disconnected from everything > > was odd and > > >extremely uncomfortable. I caught myself projecting into the > > future what it > > >would be like to feel that way all the time, and all I could > > think about was how > > >to stop it. > > > > > > > > So, thought created the image of you feeling that way all the time, > > it attached a negative judgment to it and triggered an unpleasant > > reaction of fear. Body was ready to fight or to run away, but there > > was nothing to fight or to run away from, except of a thought. And > > it was also a thought which wanted to fight or to run away. So > > actually it was thought, split in two opposites, which was fighting > > or running away from itself. > > > > Len > > > > > > L.E: Here you are. Back to the same old crap. Round and round using mind to > > unravel mind. Hope you find it interesting, because it just keeps you > > trapped within your thinking, and it's only when thinking stops that reality can > > be seen and known. It's all self-talking, using each other to keep the ego > > energy going. > > Larry Epston *********** Mind sharing some of your energy with me, Larry? Silver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
