EGO I accept your apology for confusing the illusions of ego with "I" which is absolute and is all things conscious or asleep. Ego is not a THING, it is a function of a thing, namely the I, and the I gets all involved with the functions of the ego, to survive in space time as a self determined or other determined unit. What is missing from all these discussion is an analysis of AGENCY. Just as we can be certain we see (or are) red, we can also be certain we are agent. Sense of agency leads directly into sense of the true Self, the responsible one. There is a reason one feels guilty, and thus lives in shame. There may be illusions obscuring a clear view to this, but it is powered by the truth of an allmighty I AM, or SOMETHING IS. That agency may be a conscious reflection or even usurpation of a higher agency that powers even the I, we admit that without further argument. But that higher power is the GROUND of I, not a higher I. Those that hope to doff responsibility however by handing it over to the ground of all being, are in for a long haul of pain. The ground of all being gave full responsibility to you, so I suggest you use it. "Source sources only when will casts." What is also left out are the perceptions of perfect certainty that exists in consciousness and IS consciousness. It's too hot to handle. Running "I am not that" is a waste of time, unless one also runs "I am that, certainly". One may be wrong, but eventually one becomes right on the matter. The ego is a small piece and function of the totality of existence, that the I has come to think that's all it has, self image is somewhat good to describe this. Auditing self images is also cool. But the problem is not that the self is wrong about being that or this, it's error is in thinking it is this and NOT that. It is this AND that. And that grows big very fast. Concentrating on I AM NOT, or what I am NOT goes down hill very fast. It isn't true I is NOTHING, it is true that I is ALL. Something exists, that is certain. That which is certain, agent and gives a damn is the true *I* even in its illusion of abject finiteness. Homer Pip wrote: > Ego is a latin word meaning "I". Ego is also one of the three > constructs in Sigmund Freud's structural model of the psyche. > In spirituality the ego is often associated with mind and the sense of > time, which compulsively thinks in order to be assured of its future > existence, rather than simply knowing its own self and the present. > > The spiritual goal of many traditions involves the dissolving of the > ego, allowing self-knowledge of one's own true nature to become > experienced and enacted in the world. This is variously known as > enlightenment, Nirvana, Presence, and the "Here and Now". Eckhart Tolle > comments that, to the extent that the ego is present in an individual, > that individual is somewhat insane psychologially, in reference to the > ego's nature as compulsovely hyperactive and compulsively (and > pathologically) self-centered. However, since this is the norm, it goes > unrecognised as the source of much that could be classified as insane > behavior in everyday life. In South Asian traditions, the state of > being trapped in the illusory belief that one is the ego is known as > maya or samsara. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ego_%28spirituality%29 *** > > Like the four blind men describing an elephant, descriptions of the ego > never seem to tell the whole story. So what is the ego? Both > discussions below are relevant and Carol makes a good point and preface > for my view of the ego. The qualities ascribed to the ego like > arrogance, pride, or posessiveness are often called "ego" but ego > itself is something deeper, some more nebulous structure from which > these traits arise. The simplest description might just be that ego is > one's "self image" which might be strong, healthy, confident, or weak, > defensive, overbearing etc. It consists of one's story, memories, > personality, and situation. Confusion comes from "ego" meaning "I", > while the attributes of the ego structure being discussed are NOT one's > sense self awareness and existence but something else. So for this > discussion ego is not the real "I" but only those aspects of one's mind > and personality that one mistakenly takes oneself to be. > > So the ego is a false self which might be describes as the various > identities or programmed characteristics which one identifies with. > When a set of beliefs, memories, and goals are taken to represent ones > true beliefs memories and goals then we can say that the being is under > the control of the false self. One's existence or real "I" is a self > knowing state whereas what one feels and believes about oneself and what > one takes oneself to be may indeed be false, and certainly is, if it is > anything other than the real I. But then what is the real I? It is > possible to conceive of the real I to some degree, as one can conceive > of the Static, but the concept is of course not the thing. The problem > is that most of what we think of as being "ourselves" may be only > characteristics of our bodies, our circumstances, our memories, our > stories, our personality, and all the things which we HAVE, DO, or are > BEING (portraying). Yet all these things can and do change. Virtually > all these things change lifetime to lifetime and yet our essential > nature, our true self affirming "I" does not. You can see this right > now - you are always you even when you have other bodies and other > personalities - that's the real "I". The question then arises whether > ANY beliefs, memories, or characteristics can represent the true self. > The answer is, not unless the being has recognized what it is. While > these things are creations of the true self, unless they are informed by > the realization of truth in present time, they only represent an > evolving beingness, a character in a story who is continuously > transformed by its personality and circumstances. > > But we can take this deeper. What allows us to not see what we are? To > have a "false self" or to get falsely self-identified in the first > place? I believe that not seeing what we really are starts as a sense > of separation from our own experience. One can say of any aspect of > one's own experience "I experience that". The I and the "that" are > separate. This may be the ultimate illusion. This opens the door to > finding something to be (since one has in a sense forgotten what one > is) and identifying with it, ie strongly believing, assuming, and acting > as if one is that, be it a body, mind, character, story etc. Ideas like > oneness and "I am everything" are often expressed by those claiming to > have regained their original perspective as a self illuminated eternal > being. > > So those advocating the end of the ego may be pointing the way to > spiritual freedom but by declaring that the ego as "I" is an illusion or > non-existent, as I have done, they are treading on sacred ground. > The ego they are referring to is of course the false self, but as Carol > describes below, ideologies clash without proper duplication. Perhaps > the easiest route is to notice what one is NOT until one has a > realization. This would be an unlimited process. One way to look at > this is that the "NOT" is already the postulate in effect, so one is > taking it over and theoretically getting free of it at some point. We > are actually everything but we are identifying with something we assume > exists but does not. Another viewpoint is that this process eventually > exhausts the possibilities, or the ego itself, so that only the truth > remains. Also if one questions all identifications, all things one > believes one IS, and all concepts of reality continually, this may also > be a valid path to waking up from the virtual reality dream we are in as > well. > > "I ask you only to stop imagining that you were born, have parents, are > a body, will die and so on. Just try. Make a beginning - it's not as > hard as you think." -Nisargadatta Maharaj > > "All you have to do is get past the idea that you're a human being on > planet Earth. Flush that belief out of your system and a huge mass of > backed-up mental sewage automatically gets flushed out with it." -Jed > McKenna > > Pip > > > that's like calling a tree a forest when it is only one attribute of a > forest ecosystem although it is a microcosm of the forest and posseses > some of the characteristics of the forest. > > Clearing Archive Roboposter wrote: > >>CB Willis (cbwillis@adore.lightlink.com) wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> >>>"Ego" is a very ambiguous word in the history of psychology, world >>>religions, and metaphysics. Sometimes it has a positive healthy >>>connotation akin to soul or healthy individuality, other times it has an >>>undesirable or derogatory connotation akin to arrogance or >>>worldly-physicalworld self. So you have to know a tradition and how it >>>defines "ego", not mix traditions or desirable/undesirable connotations >>>and have broad historical awareness when you hear the term. >>> >>> >> >> >> >>>Prayer, meditation, contemplation, prayer intentions, postulates, >>>affirmations are a complex set of subjects. There is great danger that >>>one from outside of a tradition will misdefine and misunderstand, and then >>>argue against his own misdefinition and misunderstanding, with the >>>questionable purpose of setting his own view off against or in contrast to >>>some other view that he has now in effect trashed. >>> >>> >> >> >> >> >>>My preferred interpretation of Scn "thetan" is more like Hindu "atman" or >>>pure consciousness, spirit. >>> >>> >> >> >> >>>And I understand "theta" as spiritual substance in a classical sense. >>>But I've been told countless times that my understanding on these misses >>>LRH's view/definition. My view is more like Scn if I had invented it. >>>Sort of like the Society for Creative Anachronism (SCA) - the group that >>>acts out days from the middle ages as they should have been lived. >>> >>> >> >> >> >> >> >>>I think however that LRH modeled "thetan" in large part on, or was >>>inspired by, Kant's "transcendental unity of apperception." >>> >>> >> >> >> >>>My partial definition of Kant's "transcendental unity of apperception" >>>is a self that is a priori or prior and beyond sense experience and >>>logic, with an ability to look AT the contents of thought, and includes >>>self-consciousness or self awareness. This was a step beyond Descartes' >>>systematic doubt and his "I think, therefore I am." So what is prior to >>>and beyond sense experience and logic? Traditionally that would be >>>spirit, self as spirit. >>> >>> >> >> >> >>>In Scn, sometimes ego in an undesirable sense as in arrogance or excessive >>>pride or narcissism etc. get tangled up with thetan. I consider that a >>>liability and a failure to differentiate, but it does make for certain >>>kinds of "games" in life, people having an experience, and all who stand >>>witness then have an opportunity to see the consequences, how all that >>>tends to unfold. As Phil would say, "People are doing their demo in >>>life." >>> >>> >> >> >> >> >>>Carol >>> >>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>>jacksonmoore69@hotmail.com wrote: >>> >>> >>>>Please help me understand >>>> >>>> >> >> >> >>>>By auditing the past we are clearing the losses of the "being" >>>>individual. Of course this is placing "share of attention" on these >>>>areas of Duress and we of course can expect future slumps after >>>>auditing as a result. (A thetan creates what they postulate and >>>>validates whatever they put their attention on) >>>> >>>> >> >> >> >>>>It appears that the Thetan realises with more clarity that they are >>>>'source' and do not need to Prayer or Connect to a source point. >>>> >>>> >> >> >> >>>>Is this the premise behind all auditing type schools?? >>>> >>>> >> >> >> >>>>On the other hand - there are those that use the brotherhood of the >>>>universe - the infinite energy - an with meditation and intention, >>>>prayer and whatever ...do well in life. >>>> >>>> >> >> >> >>>>A true Scientologist may beleive they are falling into the oneness >>>>trap...a long term trap. >>>> >>>> >> >> >> >>>>However many people in a very loving way - say how many wins they have >>>>had from this path... >>>> >>>> >> >> >> >>>>Hardcore scios are the first to ridge against most other non scio >>>>things including oneness - we know they are awkward to be around and >>>>we know they have individuated. >>>> >>>> >> >> >> >>>>In Jungian or any other ology - this is the ego talking. >>>> >>>> >> >> >> >>>>Are we supposed ti audit this ego and make IT more aware...simply >>>>because.. >>>>WE THINK WE ARE A THETAN - THE I ....NOT PART OF AN OTHER... >>>> >>>> >> >> >> >>>>A few of you guys have said that god is a duality and we are both "at >>>>one" and "ourselves" simultaneously.. >>>> >>>> >> >> >> >>>>Or is it more correct to say... >>>> >>>> >> >> >> >>>>"we are all connected to the infinite...but we are all individual and >>>>this is how the glory of the infinite realises its own wonder..." or >>>>some stuff like that >>>> >>>> >> >> >> >>>>And if one person wants to exteriorise and realise they ARE a thetan >>>>(ie exteriorise the EGO to validate erroneously that we are super >>>>individual) then they may be subject to the ultimate CON >>>> >>>> >> >> >> >>>>That we can enforce everlasting life by empowering the ego through >>>>auditing the ?thetan? so that this ego can have everlasting life which >>>>was the original erroneous goal of the ego in teh original scriptures >>>>(refer to the story of aladdin and the lamp - aladin is the poor boy >>>>that wants to improve his lot by askiing the infinite wisdom, genie, >>>>BUT the bad guy wants the lamp for himself to have all the power for >>>>himself and thus wishes he has all the power of the genie and is thus >>>>destroyed in the attempt) >>>> >>>> >> >> >> >>>>This is the ancient way of describing hw the ego realises it can have >>>>the knowledge of GOD AS the ego instead f connecting with source. >>>> >>>> >> >> >> >>>>On the tone scale we may easily say - well at tone 400 (not tone 40) >>>>400!!, you are the one source (hyperthetically) - But that is theory. >>>> >>>> >> >> >> >>>>Are we just trying to enforce everlasting life by figuring out HOW the >>>>ego (thetan) failed in past eons..when we should be validating TRUE >>>>SELF.. straight off and placing most attention on that and ignoring >>>>most of the negative other than giving it acks.. >>>> >>>> >> >> >> >>>>TRUE SELF??? - is this the being that is part of the whole magic of >>>>the universe and can make an impact onteh universe with infinite >>>>loving power. With no ego and unlimited forgiveness and love can we >>>>use the theta energy or whatever you want to call it to truly move >>>>mountains...Shift galaxies (lovingly). >>>> >>>> >> >> >> >>>>Do WE live forever - operative word WE collectively and simply ebb and >>>>flow from each other...am I truly NOT YOU (i don't think so) - this is >>>>even proven in Scientology as auditing case from a % of the population >>>>is enough to handle the condition. >>>> >>>> >> >> >> >>>>Thanks for reading >>>> >>>> >> >> >> - -- - ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Homer Wilson Smith The Paths of Lovers Art Matrix - Lightlink (607) 277-0959 KC2ITF Cross Internet Access, Ithaca NY homer@lightlink.com In the Line of Duty http://www.lightlink.com - ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Homer Wilson Smith The Paths of Lovers Art Matrix - Lightlink (607) 277-0959 KC2ITF Cross Internet Access, Ithaca NY homer@lightlink.com In the Line of Duty http://www.lightlink.com Sat Feb 5 23:04:09 EST 2011 ================ http://www.clearing.org ==================== Tue Aug 30 12:06:01 EDT 2016 WEB: http://www.clearing.org BLOG: http://adoretheproof.blogspot.org FTP: ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore843.memo Send mail to archive@lightlink.com saying help in body =========== http://www.lightlink.com/theproof =============== Learning implies Learning with Certainty or Learning without Certainty. Learning across a Distance implies Learning by Being an Effect. Learning by Being an Effect implies Learning without Certainty. Therefore, Learning with Certainty implies Learning, but not by Being an Effect, and not across a Distance. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFXxa7pURT1lqxE3HERAspaAJ9Q/7x8Vz/W614vPACSmzioZ8zMnwCeL7u+ XpMJan5sUCq60Ythb1UBHLs= =G0e+ -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- Tue Aug 30 22:52:12 EDT 2016