Guest guest Report post Posted April 22, 2006 Phil: > What I did suggest is that the illusion of ego obscures the > awareness of > Reality > > L.E. It is reality that is producing the existence of the ego, illusion or > not. > How can it be otherwise? Who or what else is there to create it? > Is reality hiding from itself? Absurd! > The ego comes and goes as needed. It is not the enemy. It arises within or > from the mind when steering or choice is needed. Without the ego, you would > walk into walls and break your nose. Drive your car into the lake. Have > sex with fire hydrants. Why don't you do these things? Ego, sense of self. > > Larry Epston Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted April 22, 2006 In a message dated 4/22/2006 1:50:46 AM Pacific Daylight Time, Nisargadatta writes: Fri, 21 Apr 2006 23:42:08 EDT epston Re: Ego Drives the Car Phil: > What I did suggest is that the illusion of ego obscures the > awareness of > Reality > > L.E. It is reality that is producing the existence of the ego, illusion or > not. > How can it be otherwise? Who or what else is there to create it? > Is reality hiding from itself? Absurd! > The ego comes and goes as needed. It is not the enemy. It arises within or > from the mind when steering or choice is needed. Without the ego, you would > walk into walls and break your nose. Drive your car into the lake. Have > sex with fire hydrants. Why don't you do these things? Ego, sense of self. > > Larry Epston It's the habit of ego to perceive all sorts of things that aren't being said. This is how perception is distorted. Yes, consciousness creates it's own illusion and then identifies with it's creation. Don't you do the same thing in your nightly dreams? Perhaps it is absurd, and sometimes you notice that absurdity when you wake up and reflect on your dreams. The ego isn't the enemy, and as long as you see it that way, you're going to keep struggling with it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted April 23, 2006 In a message dated 4/22/2006 8:07:57 PM Pacific Daylight Time, lastrain writes: > > > > > > > >It's the habit of ego to perceive all sorts of things that aren't > being > >said. This is how perception is distorted. > >Yes, consciousness creates it's own illusion and then identifies > with it's > >creation. Don't you do the same thing in your nightly dreams? > Perhaps it is > >absurd, and sometimes you notice that absurdity when you wake up and > reflect on > >your dreams. > > > L.E: The ego isn't the enemy, and as long as you see it that way, you're > going to keep struggling with it. > > > This 'you' of which you speak is nothing other then the 'ego'. > > toombaru > L.E: Of course. Nothing new here. Phil: as long as you interpret Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted April 23, 2006 In a message dated 4/22/2006 8:45:19 PM Pacific Daylight Time, lastrain writes: > > >>> > >>L.E: The ego isn't the enemy, and as long as you see it that way, > you're > >>going to keep struggling with it. > >> > >> > >>This 'you' of which you speak is nothing other then the 'ego'. > >> > >>toombaru > >> > >L.E: Of course. Nothing new here. Phil: as long as you interpret > > > > > > > > Above you speak of the ego as if the 'you' has the option of > objectively and selectively viewing it in a manner that will be of > benefit to itself. > > > Can you see the gaping holes in this thought structure? > L.E: Just a word problem. Perhaps it would be clearer to say, " The ego isn't the enemy, and as long as you see yourself that way, you're going to keep struggling with yourself. Is that better? Or, the ego isn't the enemy, you are the ego, and as long as you see the ego, yourself as the enemy you are fighting what you are, yourself. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted April 23, 2006 In a message dated 4/22/2006 8:46:45 PM Pacific Daylight Time, Nisargadatta writes: Sun, 23 Apr 2006 03:07:25 -0000 " toombaru2006 " <lastrain Re: Ego Drives the Car > > > It's the habit of ego to perceive all sorts of things that aren't being > said. This is how perception is distorted. > Yes, consciousness creates it's own illusion and then identifies with it's > creation. Don't you do the same thing in your nightly dreams? Perhaps it is > absurd, and sometimes you notice that absurdity when you wake up and reflect on > your dreams. > > The ego isn't the enemy, and as long as you see it that way, you're going to > keep struggling with it. > > This 'you' of which you speak is nothing other then the 'ego'. toombaru Which makes it absurd to struggle with it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted April 23, 2006 In a message dated 4/22/2006 8:46:45 PM Pacific Daylight Time, Nisargadatta writes: Sat, 22 Apr 2006 23:14:27 EDT epston Re: Re: Ego Drives the Car In a message dated 4/22/2006 8:07:57 PM Pacific Daylight Time, lastrain writes: > > > > > > > >It's the habit of ego to perceive all sorts of things that aren't > being > >said. This is how perception is distorted. > >Yes, consciousness creates it's own illusion and then identifies > with it's > >creation. Don't you do the same thing in your nightly dreams? > Perhaps it is > >absurd, and sometimes you notice that absurdity when you wake up and > reflect on > >your dreams. > > > L.E: The ego isn't the enemy, and as long as you see it that way, you're > going to keep struggling with it. > > > This 'you' of which you speak is nothing other then the 'ego'. > > toombaru > L.E: Of course. Nothing new here. Phil: as long as you interpret ...........................What? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted April 23, 2006 In a message dated 4/22/2006 10:01:46 PM Pacific Daylight Time, lastrain writes: > L.E: Just a word problem. Perhaps it would be clearer to say, " The > ego isn't > >the enemy, and as long as you see yourself that way, > >you're going to keep struggling with yourself. Is that better? Or, > the ego isn't the enemy, you are the ego, and as long as you see the ego, > yourself as > >the enemy you are fighting what you are, yourself. > > > > > There are two of you? > > A fighter and a fightee? > > toombaru L.E:Your comment is valid. I'm not sure if you are directingi it me, Phil, or both. This false idea of two is part of the problem. Part a grammar problme , part a self-perception problem. Maybe I can say, the ego talks about itself that way, as if it was not the only one here. It may be an illusion or just a familiar pattern of speech, use of words. As in " I want to know myself. " You or I can say, " are there two of you there?' So, if that is what the speaker thinks exists or is it just a habit of speech? Hard to say in general. > > > Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted April 23, 2006 In a message dated 4/22/2006 8:46:45 PM Pacific Daylight Time, Nisargadatta writes: Sun, 23 Apr 2006 03:44:26 -0000 " toombaru2006 " <lastrain Re: Ego Drives the Car > > > > > L.E: The ego isn't the enemy, and as long as you see it that way, you're > > going to keep struggling with it. > > > > > > This 'you' of which you speak is nothing other then the 'ego'. > > > > toombaru > > > L.E: Of course. Nothing new here. Phil: as long as you interpret > > Above you speak of the ego as if the 'you' has the option of objectively and selectively viewing it in a manner that will be of benefit to itself. Can you see the gaping holes in this thought structure? toombaru I don't see where any " option " is implied. The sun rises, the sun sets. Does the sun exercise it's options? By saying, 'There will be light until the sun sets', have I assigned volition to the sun? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted April 23, 2006 In a message dated 4/22/2006 10:34:49 PM Pacific Daylight Time, Nisargadatta writes: Sun, 23 Apr 2006 05:01:22 -0000 " toombaru2006 " <lastrain Re: Ego Drives the Car Nisargadatta , epston wrote: > > In a message dated 4/22/2006 8:45:19 PM Pacific Daylight Time, > lastrain writes: > > > > > >>> > > >>L.E: The ego isn't the enemy, and as long as you see it that way, > > you're > > >>going to keep struggling with it. > > >> > > >> > > >>This 'you' of which you speak is nothing other then the 'ego'. > > >> > > >>toombaru > > >> > > >L.E: Of course. Nothing new here. Phil: as long as you interpret > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Above you speak of the ego as if the 'you' has the option of > > objectively and selectively viewing it in a manner that will be of > > benefit to itself. > > > > > > Can you see the gaping holes in this thought structure? > > > L.E: Just a word problem. Perhaps it would be clearer to say, " The ego isn't > the enemy, and as long as you see yourself that way, > you're going to keep struggling with yourself. Is that better? Or, the ego > isn't the enemy, you are the ego, and as long as you see the ego, yourself as > the enemy you are fighting what you are, yourself. > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > There are two of you? A fighter and a fightee? toombaru Huh? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted April 23, 2006 In a message dated 4/22/2006 10:34:49 PM Pacific Daylight Time, Nisargadatta writes: Sun, 23 Apr 2006 05:13:15 -0000 " toombaru2006 " <lastrain Re: Ego Drives the Car Nisargadatta , ADHHUB wrote: > > > In a message dated 4/22/2006 8:46:45 PM Pacific Daylight Time, > Nisargadatta writes: > > Sun, 23 Apr 2006 03:07:25 -0000 > " toombaru2006 " <lastrain > Re: Ego Drives the Car > > > > > > > > It's the habit of ego to perceive all sorts of things that aren't > being > > said. This is how perception is distorted. > > Yes, consciousness creates it's own illusion and then identifies > with it's > > creation. Don't you do the same thing in your nightly dreams? > Perhaps it is > > absurd, and sometimes you notice that absurdity when you wake up and > reflect on > > your dreams. > > > > The ego isn't the enemy, and as long as you see it that way, you're > going to > > keep struggling with it. > > > > > > > This 'you' of which you speak is nothing other then the 'ego'. > > > toombaru > > > > Which makes it absurd to struggle with it. > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > Nothing can struggle against itself. toombaru That's right, and the nothing that is mind/ego does this all the time. Pretty remarkable feat, actually. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted April 23, 2006 In a message dated 4/22/2006 10:34:49 PM Pacific Daylight Time, Nisargadatta writes: Sun, 23 Apr 2006 01:27:56 EDT epston Re: Re: Ego Drives the Car In a message dated 4/22/2006 10:01:46 PM Pacific Daylight Time, lastrain writes: > L.E: Just a word problem. Perhaps it would be clearer to say, " The > ego isn't > >the enemy, and as long as you see yourself that way, > >you're going to keep struggling with yourself. Is that better? Or, > the ego isn't the enemy, you are the ego, and as long as you see the ego, > yourself as > >the enemy you are fighting what you are, yourself. > > > > > There are two of you? > > A fighter and a fightee? > > toombaru L.E:Your comment is valid. I'm not sure if you are directingi it me, Phil, or both. This false idea of two is part of the problem. Part a grammar problme , part a self-perception problem. Maybe I can say, the ego talks about itself that way, as if it was not the only one here. It may be an illusion or just a familiar pattern of speech, use of words. As in " I want to know myself. " You or I can say, " are there two of you there?' So, if that is what the speaker thinks exists or is it just a habit of speech? Hard to say in general. I don't see a problem with your sentence, Larry: the ego isn't the enemy, you are the ego, and as long as you see the ego, > yourself as > >the enemy you are fighting what you are, yourself. How does this imply two? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted April 23, 2006 > > > It's the habit of ego to perceive all sorts of things that aren't being > said. This is how perception is distorted. > Yes, consciousness creates it's own illusion and then identifies with it's > creation. Don't you do the same thing in your nightly dreams? Perhaps it is > absurd, and sometimes you notice that absurdity when you wake up and reflect on > your dreams. > > The ego isn't the enemy, and as long as you see it that way, you're going to > keep struggling with it. > > This 'you' of which you speak is nothing other then the 'ego'. toombaru Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted April 23, 2006 > > > > > L.E: The ego isn't the enemy, and as long as you see it that way, you're > > going to keep struggling with it. > > > > > > This 'you' of which you speak is nothing other then the 'ego'. > > > > toombaru > > > L.E: Of course. Nothing new here. Phil: as long as you interpret > > Above you speak of the ego as if the 'you' has the option of objectively and selectively viewing it in a manner that will be of benefit to itself. Can you see the gaping holes in this thought structure? toombaru Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted April 23, 2006 Nisargadatta , epston wrote: > > In a message dated 4/22/2006 8:45:19 PM Pacific Daylight Time, > lastrain writes: > > > > > >>> > > >>L.E: The ego isn't the enemy, and as long as you see it that way, > > you're > > >>going to keep struggling with it. > > >> > > >> > > >>This 'you' of which you speak is nothing other then the 'ego'. > > >> > > >>toombaru > > >> > > >L.E: Of course. Nothing new here. Phil: as long as you interpret > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Above you speak of the ego as if the 'you' has the option of > > objectively and selectively viewing it in a manner that will be of > > benefit to itself. > > > > > > Can you see the gaping holes in this thought structure? > > > L.E: Just a word problem. Perhaps it would be clearer to say, " The ego isn't > the enemy, and as long as you see yourself that way, > you're going to keep struggling with yourself. Is that better? Or, the ego > isn't the enemy, you are the ego, and as long as you see the ego, yourself as > the enemy you are fighting what you are, yourself. > > > Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted April 23, 2006 Nisargadatta , ADHHUB wrote: > > > In a message dated 4/22/2006 8:46:45 PM Pacific Daylight Time, > Nisargadatta writes: > > Sun, 23 Apr 2006 03:07:25 -0000 > " toombaru2006 " <lastrain > Re: Ego Drives the Car > > > > > > > > It's the habit of ego to perceive all sorts of things that aren't > being > > said. This is how perception is distorted. > > Yes, consciousness creates it's own illusion and then identifies > with it's > > creation. Don't you do the same thing in your nightly dreams? > Perhaps it is > > absurd, and sometimes you notice that absurdity when you wake up and > reflect on > > your dreams. > > > > The ego isn't the enemy, and as long as you see it that way, you're > going to > > keep struggling with it. > > > > > > > This 'you' of which you speak is nothing other then the 'ego'. > > > toombaru > > > > Which makes it absurd to struggle with it. > > > Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted April 23, 2006 Nisargadatta , ADHHUB wrote: > > > In a message dated 4/22/2006 8:46:45 PM Pacific Daylight Time, > Nisargadatta writes: > > Sun, 23 Apr 2006 03:44:26 -0000 > " toombaru2006 " <lastrain > Re: Ego Drives the Car > > > > > > > > > L.E: The ego isn't the enemy, and as long as you see it that way, > you're > > > going to keep struggling with it. > > > > > > > > > This 'you' of which you speak is nothing other then the 'ego'. > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > L.E: Of course. Nothing new here. Phil: as long as you interpret > > > > > > > > Above you speak of the ego as if the 'you' has the option of > objectively and selectively viewing it in a manner that will be of > benefit to itself. > > > Can you see the gaping holes in this thought structure? > > > > toombaru > > > > I don't see where any " option " is implied. The sun rises, the sun sets. Does > the sun exercise it's options? By saying, 'There will be light until the sun > sets', have I assigned volition to the sun? The sun does not rise and set. You speak as though the self can see the ego in different ways. .......some of which are apparently more beneficial then others. Implicit in that belief structure is the assumption of volition. toombaru Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted April 23, 2006 Nisargadatta , ADHHUB wrote: > > > In a message dated 4/22/2006 10:34:49 PM Pacific Daylight Time, > Nisargadatta writes: > > Sun, 23 Apr 2006 05:01:22 -0000 > " toombaru2006 " <lastrain > Re: Ego Drives the Car > > Nisargadatta , epston@ wrote: > > > > In a message dated 4/22/2006 8:45:19 PM Pacific Daylight Time, > > lastrain@ writes: > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>L.E: The ego isn't the enemy, and as long as you see it that way, > > > you're > > > >>going to keep struggling with it. > > > >> > > > >> > > > >>This 'you' of which you speak is nothing other then the 'ego'. > > > >> > > > >>toombaru > > > >> > > > >L.E: Of course. Nothing new here. Phil: as long as you interpret > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Above you speak of the ego as if the 'you' has the option of > > > objectively and selectively viewing it in a manner that will be of > > > benefit to itself. > > > > > > > > > Can you see the gaping holes in this thought structure? > > > > > L.E: Just a word problem. Perhaps it would be clearer to say, " The > ego isn't > > the enemy, and as long as you see yourself that way, > > you're going to keep struggling with yourself. Is that better? Or, > the ego > > isn't the enemy, you are the ego, and as long as you see the ego, > yourself as > > the enemy you are fighting what you are, yourself. > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > > > > There are two of you? > > A fighter and a fightee? > > > toombaru > > > > Huh? > > The self and the ego are one and the same. toombaru Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted April 23, 2006 In a message dated 4/23/2006 4:45:56 AM Pacific Daylight Time, Nisargadatta writes: Sun, 23 Apr 2006 06:10:45 -0000 " toombaru2006 " <lastrain Re: Ego Drives the Car Nisargadatta , ADHHUB wrote: > > > In a message dated 4/22/2006 8:46:45 PM Pacific Daylight Time, > Nisargadatta writes: > > Sun, 23 Apr 2006 03:44:26 -0000 > " toombaru2006 " <lastrain > Re: Ego Drives the Car > > > > > > > > > L.E: The ego isn't the enemy, and as long as you see it that way, > you're > > > going to keep struggling with it. > > > > > > > > > This 'you' of which you speak is nothing other then the 'ego'. > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > L.E: Of course. Nothing new here. Phil: as long as you interpret > > > > > > > > Above you speak of the ego as if the 'you' has the option of > objectively and selectively viewing it in a manner that will be of > benefit to itself. > > > Can you see the gaping holes in this thought structure? > > > > toombaru > > > > I don't see where any " option " is implied. The sun rises, the sun sets. Does > the sun exercise it's options? By saying, 'There will be light until the sun > sets', have I assigned volition to the sun? The sun does not rise and set. You speak as though the self can see the ego in different ways. .......some of which are apparently more beneficial then others. Implicit in that belief structure is the assumption of volition. toombaru The assumption is yours only. Why do you find it necessary to keep making this assumption? You keep saying " You speak as though " and " you speak of the ego as if " . This is your mental process of association and implication and I wonder how it serves you to engage this process since it seems you wish to negate the process. No volition has been implied, only a description of the apparent process. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted April 23, 2006 In a message dated 4/23/2006 4:45:56 AM Pacific Daylight Time, Nisargadatta writes: Sun, 23 Apr 2006 06:14:57 -0000 " toombaru2006 " <lastrain Re: Ego Drives the Car Nisargadatta , ADHHUB wrote: > > > In a message dated 4/22/2006 10:34:49 PM Pacific Daylight Time, > Nisargadatta writes: > > Sun, 23 Apr 2006 05:01:22 -0000 > " toombaru2006 " <lastrain > Re: Ego Drives the Car > > Nisargadatta , epston@ wrote: > > > > In a message dated 4/22/2006 8:45:19 PM Pacific Daylight Time, > > lastrain@ writes: > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>L.E: The ego isn't the enemy, and as long as you see it that way, > > > you're > > > >>going to keep struggling with it. > > > >> > > > >> > > > >>This 'you' of which you speak is nothing other then the 'ego'. > > > >> > > > >>toombaru > > > >> > > > >L.E: Of course. Nothing new here. Phil: as long as you interpret > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Above you speak of the ego as if the 'you' has the option of > > > objectively and selectively viewing it in a manner that will be of > > > benefit to itself. > > > > > > > > > Can you see the gaping holes in this thought structure? > > > > > L.E: Just a word problem. Perhaps it would be clearer to say, " The > ego isn't > > the enemy, and as long as you see yourself that way, > > you're going to keep struggling with yourself. Is that better? Or, > the ego > > isn't the enemy, you are the ego, and as long as you see the ego, > yourself as > > the enemy you are fighting what you are, yourself. > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > > > > There are two of you? > > A fighter and a fightee? > > > toombaru > > > > Huh? > > The self and the ego are one and the same. toombaru This is understood. Again, you take a statement that does not imply two (Larry's) and you construct an implication that is not present. This is not only an unnecessary mentation, but one that actively creates discontinuity where there originally was none. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted April 23, 2006 Nisargadatta , ADHHUB wrote: > > > In a message dated 4/23/2006 4:45:56 AM Pacific Daylight Time, > Nisargadatta writes: > > Sun, 23 Apr 2006 06:10:45 -0000 > " toombaru2006 " <lastrain > Re: Ego Drives the Car > > Nisargadatta , ADHHUB@ wrote: > > > > > > In a message dated 4/22/2006 8:46:45 PM Pacific Daylight Time, > > Nisargadatta writes: > > > > Sun, 23 Apr 2006 03:44:26 -0000 > > " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> > > Re: Ego Drives the Car > > > > > > > > > > > > > L.E: The ego isn't the enemy, and as long as you see it that way, > > you're > > > > going to keep struggling with it. > > > > > > > > > > > > This 'you' of which you speak is nothing other then the 'ego'. > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > > L.E: Of course. Nothing new here. Phil: as long as you interpret > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Above you speak of the ego as if the 'you' has the option of > > objectively and selectively viewing it in a manner that will be of > > benefit to itself. > > > > > > Can you see the gaping holes in this thought structure? > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > > > I don't see where any " option " is implied. The sun rises, the sun > sets. Does > > the sun exercise it's options? By saying, 'There will be light until > the sun > > sets', have I assigned volition to the sun? > The sun does not rise and set. > > > You speak as though the self can see the ego in different ways. > > ......some of which are apparently more beneficial then others. > > Implicit in that belief structure is the assumption of volition. > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > The assumption is yours only. Why do you find it necessary to keep making > this assumption? You keep saying " You speak as though " and " you speak of the ego > as if " . This is your mental process of association and implication and I > wonder how it serves you to engage this process since it seems you wish to > negate the process. > > No volition has been implied, only a description of the apparent process. > > The ego or self is nothing without volition. toombaru Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted April 24, 2006 In a message dated 4/23/2006 4:22:32 PM Pacific Daylight Time, Nisargadatta writes: Sun, 23 Apr 2006 20:30:59 -0000 " toombaru2006 " <lastrain Re: Ego Drives the Car Nisargadatta , ADHHUB wrote: > > > In a message dated 4/23/2006 4:45:56 AM Pacific Daylight Time, > Nisargadatta writes: > > Sun, 23 Apr 2006 06:10:45 -0000 > " toombaru2006 " <lastrain > Re: Ego Drives the Car > > Nisargadatta , ADHHUB@ wrote: > > > > > > In a message dated 4/22/2006 8:46:45 PM Pacific Daylight Time, > > Nisargadatta writes: > > > > Sun, 23 Apr 2006 03:44:26 -0000 > > " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> > > Re: Ego Drives the Car > > > > > > > > > > > > > L.E: The ego isn't the enemy, and as long as you see it that way, > > you're > > > > going to keep struggling with it. > > > > > > > > > > > > This 'you' of which you speak is nothing other then the 'ego'. > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > > L.E: Of course. Nothing new here. Phil: as long as you interpret > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Above you speak of the ego as if the 'you' has the option of > > objectively and selectively viewing it in a manner that will be of > > benefit to itself. > > > > > > Can you see the gaping holes in this thought structure? > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > > > I don't see where any " option " is implied. The sun rises, the sun > sets. Does > > the sun exercise it's options? By saying, 'There will be light until > the sun > > sets', have I assigned volition to the sun? > The sun does not rise and set. > > > You speak as though the self can see the ego in different ways. > > ......some of which are apparently more beneficial then others. > > Implicit in that belief structure is the assumption of volition. > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > The assumption is yours only. Why do you find it necessary to keep making > this assumption? You keep saying " You speak as though " and " you speak of the ego > as if " . This is your mental process of association and implication and I > wonder how it serves you to engage this process since it seems you wish to > negate the process. > > No volition has been implied, only a description of the apparent process. > > The ego or self is nothing without volition. toombaru That's right, and so volition is assumed by both you and I, which makes us both liars. Nothing can be done about that, eh? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted April 24, 2006 In a message dated 4/23/2006 8:52:39 PM Pacific Daylight Time, ADHHUB writes: > >No volition has been implied, only a description of the apparent > process. > > > > > > > The ego or self is nothing without volition. > > > toombaru L.E: The ego or self is nothing even with volition. Ha! (rather, it, I, you are not an independent entity but arise when thinking or mind, a function of brain interacts with body. The interaction of the first two entities, creates the apparent third entity, the ego, self, or I.) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted April 24, 2006 In a message dated 4/23/2006 9:21:50 PM Pacific Daylight Time, Nisargadatta writes: Mon, 24 Apr 2006 04:07:34 -0000 " toombaru2006 " <lastrain Re: Ego Drives the Car > > The assumption is yours only. Why do you find it necessary to keep > making > > this assumption? You keep saying " You speak as though " and " you > speak of the ego > > as if " . This is your mental process of association and implication > and I > > wonder how it serves you to engage this process since it seems you > wish to > > negate the process. > > > > No volition has been implied, only a description of the apparent > process. > > > > > > > The ego or self is nothing without volition. > > > toombaru > > > > That's right, and so volition is assumed by both you and I, which makes us > both liars. Nothing can be done about that, eh? > > There is no assumption of volition here. toombaru Oh, okay, I actually didn't know that. I 'assume' that if this is a knowing rather than just a belief held, that the whole ego structure must collapse. Am I mistaken? Phil Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted April 24, 2006 Nisargadatta , ADHHUB wrote: > > > In a message dated 4/23/2006 4:22:32 PM Pacific Daylight Time, > Nisargadatta writes: > > Sun, 23 Apr 2006 20:30:59 -0000 > " toombaru2006 " <lastrain > Re: Ego Drives the Car > > Nisargadatta , ADHHUB@ wrote: > > > > > > In a message dated 4/23/2006 4:45:56 AM Pacific Daylight Time, > > Nisargadatta writes: > > > > Sun, 23 Apr 2006 06:10:45 -0000 > > " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> > > Re: Ego Drives the Car > > > > Nisargadatta , ADHHUB@ wrote: > > > > > > > > > In a message dated 4/22/2006 8:46:45 PM Pacific Daylight Time, > > > Nisargadatta writes: > > > > > > Sun, 23 Apr 2006 03:44:26 -0000 > > > " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> > > > Re: Ego Drives the Car > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > L.E: The ego isn't the enemy, and as long as you see it that > way, > > > you're > > > > > going to keep struggling with it. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This 'you' of which you speak is nothing other then the 'ego'. > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > > > > L.E: Of course. Nothing new here. Phil: as long as you interpret > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Above you speak of the ego as if the 'you' has the option of > > > objectively and selectively viewing it in a manner that will be of > > > benefit to itself. > > > > > > > > > Can you see the gaping holes in this thought structure? > > > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > > > > > > > I don't see where any " option " is implied. The sun rises, the sun > > sets. Does > > > the sun exercise it's options? By saying, 'There will be light until > > the sun > > > sets', have I assigned volition to the sun? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The sun does not rise and set. > > > > > > You speak as though the self can see the ego in different ways. > > > > ......some of which are apparently more beneficial then others. > > > > Implicit in that belief structure is the assumption of volition. > > > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > > > > > The assumption is yours only. Why do you find it necessary to keep > making > > this assumption? You keep saying " You speak as though " and " you > speak of the ego > > as if " . This is your mental process of association and implication > and I > > wonder how it serves you to engage this process since it seems you > wish to > > negate the process. > > > > No volition has been implied, only a description of the apparent > process. > > > > > > > The ego or self is nothing without volition. > > > toombaru > > > > That's right, and so volition is assumed by both you and I, which makes us > both liars. Nothing can be done about that, eh? > > There is no assumption of volition here. toombaru Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted April 24, 2006 Nisargadatta , epston wrote: > > In a message dated 4/23/2006 8:52:39 PM Pacific Daylight Time, ADHHUB > writes: > > > >No volition has been implied, only a description of the apparent > > process. > > > > > > > > > > > > The ego or self is nothing without volition. > > > > > > toombaru > > L.E: The ego or self is nothing even with volition. > Ha! > (rather, it, I, you are not an independent entity but arise when thinking or > mind, a function of brain interacts with body. The interaction of the first > two entities, creates the apparent third entity, the ego, self, or I.) > > The assumption of volition is necessary for the assumption of a self. toombaru Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
