Guest guest Report post Posted April 25, 2006 In a message dated 4/24/2006 5:35:53 PM Pacific Daylight Time, Nisargadatta writes: Mon, 24 Apr 2006 23:52:25 -0000 " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002 Re: Non-Existing Ego Nisargadatta , ADHHUB wrote: > It is a thought, which becomes a memory in the next moment. If the thought > occurs to 'see' that thought, then it becomes an object observed by the thought > of observing. The mind can turn any thought into an object seen because all > thoughts are contained in memory. Recalling the experience of your first kiss > is not direct perception by the witnessing consciousness, it's just a > recalled memory. Of course it is a memory, your first love may be dead by now. This is not the issue. It is not thought which sees, thought can be seen but it cannot see. In the same was as a chair you sit on can be seen but cannot see. In the same way as a camera can take a picture, but it needs you to see the picture, the camera itself cannot see it. Thought is slightly different from a chair, and also a little bit different from a camera, but the principle is the same: they all cannot see. > When this recollection occurs within a split second of the thought > being recalled, the illusion is created that the thought is being observed > as it occurs, but it is also a memory. The process occurs too quickly for mind > to notice the gap. I can see that you´re very attached to this concept, so probably you have invested something in it, and aren´t willing to let go of it. It is indeed so, that realizing that seeing is not thinking is very dangerous to the ego process which is entirely made of thoughts. The time hasn´t come yet, I guess :-) Len, I'm not challenging your intuitive ability to observe unconscious ego processes. I'm just saying that observing a thought that you just had is not intuition. If you're able to observe unconscious processes, then look and see what the resistance is all about that you've been experiencing around this subject for the last two or three days. I can see it the same way and for the same reason we discussed; your consciousness is not separate from mine. Phil Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted April 25, 2006 Mind cannot be used to remove the basic ego structure of mind. L.E: That seems accurate. But. if ego decides to limit its exposure to excitement, it will dissolve and perhaps surprise itself at its absence. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted April 25, 2006 Nisargadatta , epston wrote: > > > > Mind cannot be used to remove the basic > > ego structure of mind. > > L.E: That seems accurate. But. if ego decides to limit its exposure to excitement, it will dissolve and perhaps surprise itself at its absence. > > > Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted April 25, 2006 In a message dated 4/24/2006 11:59:06 PM Pacific Daylight Time, Nisargadatta writes: Mon, 24 Apr 2006 21:38:13 -0400 epston Re: Non-Existing Ego Mind cannot be used to remove the basic ego structure of mind. L.E: That seems accurate. But. if ego decides to limit its exposure to excitement, it will dissolve and perhaps surprise itself at its absence. Ego can get very weak but the basic structure need not be removed, and in fact should not be removed. Even when enlightenment has 'occurred', the ego structure remains. The body wouldn't survive without it. Phil Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted April 25, 2006 In a message dated 4/24/2006 11:59:06 PM Pacific Daylight Time, Nisargadatta writes: Tue, 25 Apr 2006 01:53:44 -0000 " toombaru2006 " <lastrain Re: Non-Existing Ego Nisargadatta , epston wrote: > > > > Mind cannot be used to remove the basic > > ego structure of mind. > > L.E: That seems accurate. But. if ego decides to limit its exposure to excitement, it will dissolve and perhaps surprise itself at its absence. > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > Speculating about the nature of the 'mind' or the 'ego' is comparable to trying to find out the nature of the man in the moon....or debating the color of Cinderella's eyes. toombaru If there is a belief system that is held regarding the man in the moon, I would say finding out about the nature of this would be very advantageous, especially if it results in struggle such as whether he may be lonely or perhaps he is spying on us all and reporting to the FBI. Discovering one's own self created truth about this could relieve much unnecessary struggle. (I speculate Cinderella's eyes are blue.) Phil Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted April 25, 2006 Nisargadatta , ADHHUB wrote: > > > In a message dated 4/24/2006 11:59:06 PM Pacific Daylight Time, > Nisargadatta writes: > > Mon, 24 Apr 2006 21:38:13 -0400 > epston > Re: Non-Existing Ego > > > > Mind cannot be used to remove the basic > > ego structure of mind. > > L.E: That seems accurate. But. if ego decides to limit its exposure to > excitement, it will dissolve and perhaps surprise itself at its absence. > > > > Ego can get very weak but the basic structure need not be removed, and in > fact should not be removed. Even when enlightenment has 'occurred', the ego > structure remains. The body wouldn't survive without it. > > Phil > > > it is said that some people leave also the body.....(shortly) after the realisation of (highest) truth.... Marc Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted April 25, 2006 Have you discovered the " true nature " of your self, Phil ? Or have you just read a lot about its " true nature " ? Werner Nisargadatta , ADHHUB wrote: > > > In a message dated 4/24/2006 11:59:06 PM Pacific Daylight Time, > Nisargadatta writes: > > Tue, 25 Apr 2006 01:53:44 -0000 > " toombaru2006 " <lastrain > Re: Non-Existing Ego > > Nisargadatta , epston@ wrote: > > > > > > > > Mind cannot be used to remove the basic > > > > ego structure of mind. > > > > L.E: That seems accurate. But. if ego decides to limit its exposure > to excitement, it will dissolve and perhaps surprise itself at its > absence. > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > Speculating about the nature of the 'mind' or the 'ego' is comparable to > trying to find out the nature of the man in the moon....or debating > the color of Cinderella's eyes. > > > > > > toombaru > > > > If there is a belief system that is held regarding the man in the moon, I > would say finding out about the nature of this would be very advantageous, > especially if it results in struggle such as whether he may be lonely or perhaps > he is spying on us all and reporting to the FBI. Discovering one's own self > created truth about this could relieve much unnecessary struggle. > (I speculate Cinderella's eyes are blue.) > > Phil > > > > Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted April 25, 2006 Nisargadatta , ADHHUB wrote: > The mind will never be able to notice it's own process because noticing IS > the process; it's contained within the process it's trying to notice. This is a belief ego hangs on to. Ego claims to possess the perception, this way it can never be questioned and understood as being just a dead, mechanical thought- collection. I must say this is very clever, but cunning is maybe a better word. Practically all people on earth are ego identyfied, through more or less this kind of belief. That´s why it´s so difficult to see through it. One must be standing on his own, free from influence of this huge, tricky misconception, to see through it, and this is not easy. However, it does happen from time to time, it happened to me, so it may happen to you. You need to question all you think you know, you have to start from scratch and watch, and be very aware of the difference between images and facts. > The only > way what I'm describing can be noticed is by intuition. Direct perception > will reveal how the mind functions, it cannot reveal it as it is functioning > because this direct perception only occurs when the mind is silent and focus > rests in consciousness. Very cunning indeed. This belief guarantees ego will never be understood, cause: it cannot be observed when it is functioning, it can only be observed when it is not functioning. This comes down to suppression, because this is what so called silent mind is. The function of ego is being suppressed temporary in some kind of " meditation " , and when the ego is safely hidden and suppressed, then the " intuition " is there to understand what it cannot see, because it is suppressed in name of a silent mind. Genius! ;-) Meditation is a foolish and useless occupation without understanding the ego, and a silent mind is ego in disguise. Therefore meditation must be the observation of the ego in action. Only when this movement is understood and dissolved, the silence can be present. Len > Intuition will not reveal a thought occurring. The > thought, the thinker and the observer are all the same. Only mind can make them > appear separate. > > > Phil > > > > Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted April 25, 2006 Nisargadatta , ADHHUB wrote: > > > In a message dated 4/24/2006 5:35:53 PM Pacific Daylight Time, > Nisargadatta writes: > > Mon, 24 Apr 2006 23:32:23 -0000 > " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002 > Re: Non-Existing Ego > > Nisargadatta , ADHHUB@ wrote: > > > Phil: What you're talking about is different. When I need a break, > I > > conceptualize to my heart's content, and it grounds my mind and > reestablishes it's > > imagined identity. There is no tension in thought, the tension > arises from an > > emptiness, a nothingness when the thought ceases. > > > > There is no tension in nothingness. > The only source of tension is thought. > If the tension is there, it is not nothingness, but the image of > nothingness, which is thought. > > Len > > > > Of course. There was, however, a point that I was trying to make. > > Phil Which was?... Len Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted April 26, 2006 Nisargadatta , ADHHUB wrote: > Len, I'm not challenging your intuitive ability to observe unconscious ego > processes. I'm just saying that observing a thought that you just had is not > intuition. I´m not saying this either. I have no idea what you mean by intuition. Seeing a thought is just that: seeing a thought. Seeing (no matter what)is not a thought process. > If you're able to observe unconscious processes, I´m not, how could I observe something which is not conscious? > then look and see what the > resistance is all about that you've been experiencing around this subject for > the last two or three days. There is no resistance. > I can see it the same way and for the same reason > we discussed; your consciousness is not separate from mine. I don´t know what you mean by consciousness, but it is certain that I can be aware of something which you aren´t aware of, and vice versa. Len Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted April 26, 2006 Nisargadatta , ADHHUB wrote: > > > In a message dated 4/24/2006 11:59:06 PM Pacific Daylight Time, > Nisargadatta writes: > > Mon, 24 Apr 2006 21:38:13 -0400 > epston > Re: Non-Existing Ego > > > > Mind cannot be used to remove the basic > > ego structure of mind. > > L.E: That seems accurate. But. if ego decides to limit its exposure to > excitement, it will dissolve and perhaps surprise itself at its absence. > > > > Ego can get very weak but the basic structure need not be removed, and in > fact should not be removed. Even when enlightenment has 'occurred', the ego > structure remains. The body wouldn't survive without it. > > Phil Good to know that you know what happens when enlightenment has occured. It must make you feel safe about the future ;-) Len Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted April 26, 2006 Nisargadatta , " dennis_travis33 " <dennis_travis33 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , ADHHUB@ wrote: > > > > > > In a message dated 4/24/2006 11:59:06 PM Pacific Daylight Time, > > Nisargadatta writes: > > > > Mon, 24 Apr 2006 21:38:13 -0400 > > epston@ > > Re: Non-Existing Ego > > > > > > > > Mind cannot be used to remove the basic > > > > ego structure of mind. > > > > L.E: That seems accurate. But. if ego decides to limit its > exposure to > > excitement, it will dissolve and perhaps surprise itself at its > absence. > > > > > > > > Ego can get very weak but the basic structure need not be removed, > and in > > fact should not be removed. Even when enlightenment has 'occurred', > the ego > > structure remains. The body wouldn't survive without it. > > > > Phil > > > > > > > it is said that some people leave also the body.....(shortly) after > the realisation of (highest) truth.... > > Marc How come you still didn´t leave yours? Or did you? :-) Len Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted April 26, 2006 Nisargadatta , " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , ADHHUB@ wrote: > > > > > > In a message dated 4/24/2006 11:59:06 PM Pacific Daylight Time, > > Nisargadatta writes: > > > > Mon, 24 Apr 2006 21:38:13 -0400 > > epston@ > > Re: Non-Existing Ego > > > > > > > > Mind cannot be used to remove the basic > > > > ego structure of mind. > > > > L.E: That seems accurate. But. if ego decides to limit its > exposure to > > excitement, it will dissolve and perhaps surprise itself at its > absence. > > > > > > > > Ego can get very weak but the basic structure need not be removed, > and in > > fact should not be removed. Even when enlightenment > has 'occurred', the ego > > structure remains. The body wouldn't survive without it. > > > > Phil > > All the other sentient creatures will be alamed by that. toombaru Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted April 26, 2006 In a message dated 4/25/2006 9:54:32 AM Pacific Daylight Time, Nisargadatta writes: Tue, 25 Apr 2006 07:44:23 -0000 " dennis_travis33 " <dennis_travis33 Re: Non-Existing Ego --- In Nisargadatta , ADHHUB wrote: > > > In a message dated 4/24/2006 11:59:06 PM Pacific Daylight Time, > Nisargadatta writes: > > Mon, 24 Apr 2006 21:38:13 -0400 > epston > Re: Non-Existing Ego > > > > Mind cannot be used to remove the basic > > ego structure of mind. > > L.E: That seems accurate. But. if ego decides to limit its exposure to > excitement, it will dissolve and perhaps surprise itself at its absence. > > > > Ego can get very weak but the basic structure need not be removed, and in > fact should not be removed. Even when enlightenment has 'occurred', the ego > structure remains. The body wouldn't survive without it. > > Phil > > > it is said that some people leave also the body.....(shortly) after the realisation of (highest) truth.... Marc Yes, I've heard that too. Maybe it would seem silly to remain? In any event, it would seem to be the dance of the One, however that plays out. Phil Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted April 26, 2006 In a message dated 4/25/2006 9:54:32 AM Pacific Daylight Time, Nisargadatta writes: Tue, 25 Apr 2006 09:00:29 -0000 " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr Re: Non-Existing Ego Have you discovered the " true nature " of your self, Phil ? Or have you just read a lot about its " true nature " ? Werner Strangely, neither. I feel a little like that kid on 'The Sixth Sense' who says, " I see dead people " . It's sufficiently interesting so as to be problematic, and I'm not really sure what good it is. Phil Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted April 26, 2006 In a message dated 4/25/2006 9:54:32 AM Pacific Daylight Time, Nisargadatta writes: Tue, 25 Apr 2006 16:52:41 -0000 " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002 Re: Non-Existing Ego Nisargadatta , ADHHUB wrote: > > > In a message dated 4/24/2006 5:35:53 PM Pacific Daylight Time, > Nisargadatta writes: > > Mon, 24 Apr 2006 23:32:23 -0000 > " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002 > Re: Non-Existing Ego > > Nisargadatta , ADHHUB@ wrote: > > > Phil: What you're talking about is different. When I need a break, > I > > conceptualize to my heart's content, and it grounds my mind and > reestablishes it's > > imagined identity. There is no tension in thought, the tension > arises from an > > emptiness, a nothingness when the thought ceases. > > > > There is no tension in nothingness. > The only source of tension is thought. > If the tension is there, it is not nothingness, but the image of > nothingness, which is thought. > > Len > > > > Of course. There was, however, a point that I was trying to make. > > Phil Which was?... Len Pointless....at this point. Phil Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted April 26, 2006 Nisargadatta , " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " dennis_travis33 " > <dennis_travis33@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , ADHHUB@ wrote: > > > > > > > > > In a message dated 4/24/2006 11:59:06 PM Pacific Daylight Time, > > > Nisargadatta writes: > > > > > > Mon, 24 Apr 2006 21:38:13 -0400 > > > epston@ > > > Re: Non-Existing Ego > > > > > > > > > > > > Mind cannot be used to remove the basic > > > > > > ego structure of mind. > > > > > > L.E: That seems accurate. But. if ego decides to limit its > > exposure to > > > excitement, it will dissolve and perhaps surprise itself at > its > > absence. > > > > > > > > > > > > Ego can get very weak but the basic structure need not be > removed, > > and in > > > fact should not be removed. Even when enlightenment > has 'occurred', > > the ego > > > structure remains. The body wouldn't survive without it. > > > > > > Phil > > > > > > > > > > > it is said that some people leave also the body.....(shortly) > after > > the realisation of (highest) truth.... > > > > Marc > > > How come you still didn´t leave yours? Or did you? :-) > > Len how come that your restless mind still is talking to ghosts in here? Marc > Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted April 26, 2006 Nisargadatta , ADHHUB wrote: > > > In a message dated 4/25/2006 9:54:32 AM Pacific Daylight Time, > Nisargadatta writes: > > Tue, 25 Apr 2006 07:44:23 -0000 > " dennis_travis33 " <dennis_travis33 > Re: Non-Existing Ego > > --- In Nisargadatta , ADHHUB@ wrote: > > > > > > In a message dated 4/24/2006 11:59:06 PM Pacific Daylight Time, > > Nisargadatta writes: > > > > Mon, 24 Apr 2006 21:38:13 -0400 > > epston@ > > Re: Non-Existing Ego > > > > > > > > Mind cannot be used to remove the basic > > > > ego structure of mind. > > > > L.E: That seems accurate. But. if ego decides to limit its > exposure to > > excitement, it will dissolve and perhaps surprise itself at its > absence. > > > > > > > > Ego can get very weak but the basic structure need not be removed, > and in > > fact should not be removed. Even when enlightenment has 'occurred', > the ego > > structure remains. The body wouldn't survive without it. > > > > Phil > > > > > > > it is said that some people leave also the body.....(shortly) after > the realisation of (highest) truth.... > > Marc > > > > Yes, I've heard that too. Maybe it would seem silly to remain? In any event, > it would seem to be the dance of the One, however that plays out. > > Phil > > silly to remain.....?..... maybe " who " knows...... (to remain where?....and when?...) " the dance of the One... " ...nice words, thanks Marc Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted April 26, 2006 Nisargadatta , " dennis_travis33 " <dennis_travis33 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002@> > wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " dennis_travis33 " > > <dennis_travis33@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , ADHHUB@ wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > In a message dated 4/24/2006 11:59:06 PM Pacific Daylight > Time, > > > > Nisargadatta writes: > > > > > > > > Mon, 24 Apr 2006 21:38:13 -0400 > > > > epston@ > > > > Re: Non-Existing Ego > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Mind cannot be used to remove the basic > > > > > > > > ego structure of mind. > > > > > > > > L.E: That seems accurate. But. if ego decides to limit its > > > exposure to > > > > excitement, it will dissolve and perhaps surprise itself at > > its > > > absence. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ego can get very weak but the basic structure need not be > > removed, > > > and in > > > > fact should not be removed. Even when enlightenment > > has 'occurred', > > > the ego > > > > structure remains. The body wouldn't survive without it. > > > > > > > > Phil > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it is said that some people leave also the body.....(shortly) > > after > > > the realisation of (highest) truth.... > > > > > > Marc > > > > > > How come you still didn´t leave yours? Or did you? :-) > > > > Len > > > how come that your restless mind still is talking to ghosts in here? > > > > Marc because it´s yours, not mine ;-) len Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted April 26, 2006 In a message dated 4/25/2006 4:40:18 PM Pacific Daylight Time, Nisargadatta writes: Tue, 25 Apr 2006 23:12:02 -0000 " toombaru2006 " <lastrain Re: Non-Existing Ego Nisargadatta , " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , ADHHUB@ wrote: > > > > > > In a message dated 4/24/2006 11:59:06 PM Pacific Daylight Time, > > Nisargadatta writes: > > > > Mon, 24 Apr 2006 21:38:13 -0400 > > epston@ > > Re: Non-Existing Ego > > > > > > > > Mind cannot be used to remove the basic > > > > ego structure of mind. > > > > L.E: That seems accurate. But. if ego decides to limit its > exposure to > > excitement, it will dissolve and perhaps surprise itself at its > absence. > > > > > > > > Ego can get very weak but the basic structure need not be removed, > and in > > fact should not be removed. Even when enlightenment > has 'occurred', the ego > > structure remains. The body wouldn't survive without it. > > > > Phil > > All the other sentient creatures will be alamed by that. toombaru Shocked and awed, I'm sure. So the story goes that David Hawkins (PHD) left his practice, became homeless and almost died if not for his now wife who fed him and such. He describes his impressions of the 'ordeal' as not having any interest in this body or what he later came to see as " a beloved pet " . It was 30 years before he was able to return a focus in his body enough to teach. Phil Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted April 27, 2006 Mind cannot be used to remove the basic ego structure of mind. L.E: That seems accurate. But. if ego decides to limit its exposure to excitement, it will dissolve and perhaps surprise itself at its absence. Phil: Ego can get very weak but the basic structure need not be removed, and in fact should not be removed. Even when enlightenment has 'occurred', the ego structure remains. The body wouldn't survive without it. L.E: Ego is an aspect of mind projecting into the beyond-body world. When interest is removed, it retreats back into mind and dissolves until it is relevant to the circomstances as defined by mind, which is fed by sensual experiences. If a tooth starts to ache, ego will appears to connect with a dentist. Egos are the connecting links between minds. The body doesn't need an ego to survive, it doesn't need arms and legs either, or a kidney, etc. The body maintains the brain out of which mind arises and projects ego as needed. Enlightenment, as least one kind occurrs when the ego dissolves back into the mind and the mind/organism experiences its own existence without ego. but this condition is usually temporary and the mind will eventually project itself as ego again when it has to relate to the environment or other egos. Larry Epston Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted April 27, 2006 Very cunning indeed. This belief guarantees ego will never be understood, cause: it cannot be observed when it is functioning, it can only be observed when it is not functioning. This comes down to suppression, because this is what so called silent mind is. The function of ego is being suppressed temporary in some kind of " meditation " , and when the ego is safely hidden and suppressed, then the " intuition " is there to understand what it cannot see, because it is suppressed in name of a silent mind. Genius! ;-) Meditation is a foolish and useless occupation without understanding the ego, and a silent mind is ego in disguise. Therefore meditation must be the observation of the ego in action. Only when this movement is understood and dissolved, the silence can be present. Len L.E: Obviously you have never meditated or if you have, you're teacher was inadequate. It's not only that I disagree with you, your ideas about meditation and the ego are dead wrong. " A silent mind is ego in disguise, " you write. How and where do you get this opinion? Does it have any basis of experience in it? Perhaps your mind, self is so active with energy that you are unable to relax and sit still so you have these opinions that there is no value to it. I don't know what you have done, and can only evaluate from the words you write. You can never understand the ego with the ego, and mind is hidden but when you stop trying to do what is impossible to do, you may just let go and relax, or maybe the truth of things will just come upon you as an undeserved response to your stubboness. Remember the story of Saul on the road to Damascus. It's probably just a story, but the enemy of Jesus changed into the chief advocate of Jesus due to an unexpected inner experience. Perhaps that will happen to you and you will change your view of things. It is possible although unlikely. Stubborn ignorant people often go to the the grave proclaiming their " white superiority, " " anti-semitism " " profit-directed " lives with no changes as they fade away. So even death is no gurrantor of wisdom. But even the ignorant, foolish and insane are part of, and an expression of, LIFE ITSELF, and all are included in the Oneness of Everything. Larry Epston www.epston.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted April 29, 2006 In a message dated 4/27/2006 12:25:27 PM Pacific Daylight Time, Nisargadatta writes: Thu, 27 Apr 2006 14:11:53 -0400 epston Re: Non-Existing Ego Mind cannot be used to remove the basic ego structure of mind. L.E: That seems accurate. But. if ego decides to limit its exposure to excitement, it will dissolve and perhaps surprise itself at its absence. Phil: Ego can get very weak but the basic structure need not be removed, and in fact should not be removed. Even when enlightenment has 'occurred', the ego structure remains. The body wouldn't survive without it. L.E: Ego is an aspect of mind projecting into the beyond-body world. When interest is removed, it retreats back into mind and dissolves until it is relevant to the circomstances as defined by mind, which is fed by sensual experiences. If a tooth starts to ache, ego will appears to connect with a dentist. Egos are the connecting links between minds. The body doesn't need an ego to survive, it doesn't need arms and legs either, or a kidney, etc. The body maintains the brain out of which mind arises and projects ego as needed. Enlightenment, as least one kind occurrs when the ego dissolves back into the mind and the mind/organism experiences its own existence without ego. but this condition is usually temporary and the mind will eventually project itself as ego again when it has to relate to the environment or other egos. Larry Epston The body functions internally without need of ego, but will not interface with the world at all without a self identifying structure. It will not care for itself or feed itself without a sense of self. Phil Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted April 29, 2006 In a message dated 4/28/2006 10:39:11 PM Pacific Daylight Time, ADHHUB writes: > > > In a message dated 4/27/2006 12:25:27 PM Pacific Daylight Time, > Nisargadatta writes: > > Thu, 27 Apr 2006 14:11:53 -0400 > epston > Re: Non-Existing Ego > > Mind cannot be used to remove the basic ego structure of mind. > > L.E: That seems accurate. But. if ego decides to limit its exposure to > excitement, it will dissolve and perhaps surprise itself at its absence. > > Phil: Ego can get very weak but the basic structure need not be removed, > and > in fact should not be removed. Even when enlightenment has 'occurred', the > ego structure remains. The body wouldn't survive without it. > > L.E: Ego is an aspect of mind projecting into the beyond-body world. > When interest is removed, it retreats back into mind and dissolves until it > > is relevant to the circomstances as defined by mind, which is fed by > sensual > experiences. If a tooth starts to ache, ego will appears to connect with a > > dentist. Egos are the connecting links between minds. > The body doesn't need an ego to survive, it doesn't need arms and legs > either, or a kidney, etc. The body maintains the brain out of which mind > arises > and projects ego as needed. Enlightenment, as least one kind occurrs when > the > ego dissolves back into the mind and the mind/organism experiences its own > existence without ego. but this condition is usually temporary and the > mind > will eventually project itself as ego again when it has to relate to the > environment or other egos. > > Larry Epston > > > > The body functions internally without need of ego, but will not interface > with the world at all without a self identifying structure. It will not > care > for itself or feed itself without a sense of self. > > Phil > L.E: As you think this through, there are problems with your argument. The body can function without an ego, but not without a brain and the mind is produced by the brain. So as you mention body, do you include brain and mind? There are people who will take care of a body that has an inactive brain and no ego or sense of self. Recently a woman was kept alive for a long time although brain dead. In this case, she did not have to take care of her individual self. It's not clear how much brain, mind, ego is necessary for a human organism to desire to eat and deficate. Babies eat and poop and have very little if any ego structure. But they are fed as was the brain dead woman. Severly mentally ill people with low intelligence probably recognize food and eat and even if grown have little or minimal ego structure. I can say that the existence of the body, is itself, a sense of self. Body as self-aware substance. As an accumulation of cells that wants nourishment, it knows, as body, it needs and wants to eat to survive. Very little sense of self is needed for this to occurr. Also consider an organism like a worm, that has a mouth and an anus and lives with no recognizable ego structure. Anyhow, what is your concern here? If the ego is dissolved how can the body survive? I wrote this is a temporary state when this happens. It is like sleep but one is still awake until you or I has disappeared or dissolved. I don't see it as a big deal because we do it all the time. Of course when we do that, time disappears. But some adults in India dissolve the self and never return and they are called 'masts.' They do not or can not return to the ordinary ego level of awareness and have to be fed by others or they will die as you say. In that sense, I agree with you. Larry Epston Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted April 29, 2006 Nisargadatta , ADHHUB wrote: > > > In a message dated 4/27/2006 12:25:27 PM Pacific Daylight Time, > Nisargadatta writes: > > Thu, 27 Apr 2006 14:11:53 -0400 > epston > Re: Non-Existing Ego > > Mind cannot be used to remove the basic ego structure of mind. > > L.E: That seems accurate. But. if ego decides to limit its exposure to > excitement, it will dissolve and perhaps surprise itself at its absence. > > Phil: Ego can get very weak but the basic structure need not be removed, and > in fact should not be removed. Even when enlightenment has 'occurred', the > ego structure remains. The body wouldn't survive without it. > > L.E: Ego is an aspect of mind projecting into the beyond-body world. > When interest is removed, it retreats back into mind and dissolves until it > is relevant to the circomstances as defined by mind, which is fed by sensual > experiences. If a tooth starts to ache, ego will appears to connect with a > dentist. Egos are the connecting links between minds. > The body doesn't need an ego to survive, it doesn't need arms and legs > either, or a kidney, etc. The body maintains the brain out of which mind arises > and projects ego as needed. Enlightenment, as least one kind occurrs when the > ego dissolves back into the mind and the mind/organism experiences its own > existence without ego. but this condition is usually temporary and the mind > will eventually project itself as ego again when it has to relate to the > environment or other egos. > > Larry Epston > > > > The body functions internally without need of ego, but will not interface > with the world at all without a self identifying structure. It will not care > for itself or feed itself without a sense of self. > > Phil > An amoeba feeds itself. Therefore an amoeba has a sense of self? Bill Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
