Got Ego?

[Sahaj Nath]

this seemed to me like a topic worthy of its own thread, so i guess we'll just see how that goes.

 

"and any really powerful spiritual practice could potentially hinder the development of important socializing mechanisms in the psyche."

 

intruiging..

i dont quite understand,... please could you elaborate?...........

 

for you, rain, ANYTHING!

 

 

no, seriously.

 

 

i hope this post will also clear up any ambiguity relating to the term 'liberated' that i used in the 'mixing practices' thread.

 

 

i think the concept of "ego death" is one of the most misunderstood spiritual concepts to be imported from the east. it's a problem encountered most often by dabblers (like most of us) who treat eastern thought like a spiritual buffet and pick up words and phrases without a contextual foundation with which to understand them.

 

to put it as simply as possible: a good, strong, healthy ego structure is profoundly important- especially for the spiritual aspirant.

 

to drive a car, to take a shower, to use the toilet, to interact in commerse, even to move about effectively in any space, requires a functioning ego. immagine the idea of grocery shopping while in a state of devastating non-dual spiritual awakening. how absurd the notion of buying food- after all, you ARE the food! and the floor, and the lights, and the people in the grocery store who are looking at you like you're on drugs. you're the shopping carts, too.

 

the goal is to properly train the ego to know it's place and to willingly, happily embrace it's essential function as the servant to the continuous spirit. the skills and gifts of the ego are NOT to be denied or extinguished; rather they are to be offerings to the most high. this is one of the reasons why i believe that genuine service to others is our highest earthly calling.

 

one of the most important ways we strengthen the ego as adults is through self-discipline. it's implicit in the term: to have self-discipline is to become your own disciple. the ego's place is as the powerful, faithful servant, carrying out our true purpose without reservation. this, i believe, is a fundamental trait of truly enlightened beings.

 

 

so. children...

 

 

 

i think it's important for children to have a solid egoic foundation in order to develop mentally and emotionally, and to be able to interact (not just act) with their environment in a healthy, funtional manner. i believe profound spiritual experiences can hinder a child's ability to build a strong and healthy foundational ego structure, and this hinderance can potentially retard or even prevent the child from achieving psychological maturity/stability. in a BEST-case scenario you could end up with a spriritually gifted adult who has the phycological maturity of an adolescent, or, worse, a sociopath with clear cognitive & emotional deficiencies.

 

 

if i had not wrestled with identity, need for acceptance, and existential anxiety as i child, i could never have accomplished the well-integrated spiritual work that i have thus far. the basic fundamental struggles of children, including the struggles with fear and uncertainty, are ego-building and serve to give the child greater strength and resilience as they develop into adulthood. if i might borrow from SFJane's analogy: the mundane struggles (especially the existential ones) of childhood can be like the psychological push-ups that give us strength and character later in life.

 

for a child's spiritual consciousness to be liberated from the ego structure, BEFORE the structure is fully intact, is detrimental. i think it would take some truly skilled parenting or the guidance a master with experience with that phenomenon for the it to be otherwise.

 

that's what i think. i don't have kids, and i could be wrong. but that's what i think right now.

 

 

...i can already feel Lin Sifu rubbing his hands as he prepares to respond. lol!

[林愛偉]

You know me too well.. lol

 

Ego is just one's thoughts about themselves and things they feel they can't live without. Children already have it, and it flows through them without them realizing the conditions which let it arise. For children to embrace a mind of egoistic behavior would just be another obstacle they have to deal with. They can do quite well without views that they are better than others, that other people are less capable then they are, even with attitudes of competitiveness, children can do great without them.

 

With the putting down of one's personal attachments, which include views, they would not be less sociable. On the contrary, they would find the cultivation of bein gin the world good for their on cultivation...haha

Children , if taught and shown non-discrimination, they will be able to embrace things easily, be wiser, and not be filled with resentment, or hatred, or low self esteem...for there would be no personal attachment to a view of the self.

 

Ego is a view. Nothing we do everyday requires the view of ego. Its only that we have become so used to functioning with it, that we find an excuse for it. Like a person who smokes often finds excuses to smoke another one when trying to quite. The view of it satisfying some part of them is false, but was constantly entertained by the smoker that the view of a need for it to function arises.

 

Strength, character, these things are only expressions of mind. If one is wise, they know which expressions carry the meaning of how they present themselves. Strength, functioning, socializing...doesn't require an ego an at all. As long as one realizes that none of it is really separate, then using the view of there being others will not hinder their wisdom mind. But that must be very much realized, not just intellectually understood.

 

Un-enlightened, one is human, Enlightened, one is still human. This is because both have not realized their Buddha Mind, Buddhahood. Once one realizes the Buddha Mind, Buddha hood, a human is still a human, and a human is only of their own mind.

 

Peace...fun topic.

 

Lin

[Taomeow]

Ego is the Latin word for "me," coined into a term of psychoanalysis and used in this context by Freud, then picked up by multiple clones of this modality and the media, then trickling down to the masses, re-interpreted many times any way anyone wants to interpret it, and applied freely to modalities that never had the term or the concept to begin with -- e.g., to taoism. Taoism, in the meantime, has discovered, thousands of years ago, assorted "shen disharmonies" a human might be afflicted with, of either the Greater Shen or any one of the Lesser Shens (or all of them) and explored them exhaustively, both theoretically and pragmatically. These disharmonies are diagnostically accessible, and specific corrective actions are prescribed on a case by case individual basis depending on the precise nature of the disharmony.

 

Finger-pointing, either at others or at oneself, aimed at pinning down an "ego" and attributing any and all spiritual disharmonies, thoughts, words or actions to its purported workings, has never been part of this practice.

 

If anyone is aware of an authentic taoist text, whether religious or scientific or philosophical, that contains the diagnosis of "ego" or a prescription for "dispelling," "diminishing" or "eliminating" same, please let me know, I'll be happy to revise my information. (But please make sure the translator hasn't slipped in the E word where in the original it never existed.)

Edited November 3, 2007 by Taomeow

[林愛偉]

Ego is the Latin word for "me," coined into a term of psychoanalysis and used in this context by Freud, then picked up by multiple clones of this modality and the media, then trickling down to the masses, re-interpreted many times any way anyone wants to interpret it, and applied freely to modalities that never had the term or the concept to begin with -- e.g., to taoism. Taoism, in the meantime, has discovered, thousands of years ago, assorted "shen disharmonies" a human might be afflicted with, of either the Greater Shen or any one of the Lesser Shens (or all of them) and explored them exhaustively, both theoretically and pragmatically. These disharmonies are diagnostically accessible, and specific corrective actions are prescribed on a case by case individual basis depending on the precise nature of the disharmony.

 

Finger-pointing, either at others or at oneself, aimed at pinning down an "ego" and attribute any and all spiritual disharmonies, thoughts, words or actions to its purported workings, has never been part of this practice.

 

If anyone is aware of an authentic taoist text, whether religious or scientific or philosophical, that contains the diagnosis of "ego" or a prescription for "dispelling," "diminishing" or "eliminating" same, please let me know, I'll be happy to revise my information. (But please make sure the translator hasn't slipped in the E word where in the original it never existed.)

 

There wouldn't be, for Ego is a western perception of character/mind. But what cultivation texts would point to is the view of there being one observing, and or cultivating. Hinting to drop all views, and attention to all sensations as being "owned", or being one's own experience is written about in cultivation texts. In Chinese, the equivalent to Ego is Zi Wo. Basically a "mine" mentality, or even "Wo" a me perception.

Also because the Ego is false. A false thought in mind. Pointing to it may cause one to attach to it. So just don't bother, but at the same time don't get attached to experiences, for they are still of the mind either way...lol

The word ego may be used nowadays in translated texts to accommodate the language and way of understanding it, but that would be all I believe.

Peace,

Lin

Edited November 3, 2007 by 林愛偉

[Spectrum]

Hundun: Nice Work esp w/ Interelating and on no texts reinforcing western dualistic concepts.

[Taomeow]

There wouldn't be, for Ego is a western perception of character/mind. But what cultivation texts would point to is the view of there being one observing, and or cultivating. Hinting to drop all views, and attention to all sensations as being "owned", or being one's own experience is written about in cultivation texts. In Chinese, the equivalent to Ego is Zi Wo. Basically a "mine" mentality, or even "Wo" a me perception.

Also because the Ego is false. A false thought in mind. Pointing to it may cause one to attach to it. So just don't bother, but at the same time don't get attached to experiences, for they are still of the mind either way...lol

The word ego may be used nowadays in translated texts to accommodate the language and way of understanding it, but that would be all I believe.

Peace,

Lin

 

A while ago, I walked in a restroom at a large Asian supermarket and was thrilled to understand my first bit of conversational Chinese in real life rather than in a textbook. A woman with a little girl of about four walked in and the little girl kept repeating, with great urgency and conviction, Wo yao pipi! I think if she was divisible into an "observer" and "observed" (which I don't believe is the case, but then I'm no Buddhist), they would both agree on the authenticity of her desire, and neither one would require that she lose her "attachment" to using restrooms instead of wetting her pants.

 

One problem I see with the whole concept of "attachments" in Buddhism is that it is so arbitrary, so tweakable with. Where do legitimate needs end and false attachments begin? Ask a hundred people and you will get a hundred demarcation lines all drawn in different places, from total negation of all things human to total acceptance thereof, with all in-betweens. You may say all human needs are false attachments. I may say all human needs are normal and natural, and become abnormal and unnatural only when the normal and natural ones aren't met (that's when symbolic ones come to take their place, and that's what one might want to lose in order to cultivate the true self: all symbolic needs. No need to lose the real ones like "wo yao pipi" or "wo yao nide ai." )

[Sahaj Nath]

these types of discussions are always cumbersome because our different experiences have led us to different interpretations of concepts. we use a word, and we can each mean something different that, at best, all point in the same general direction. it's in the details where points of contention so often arise.

 

debate and discussion are inherently egoic in principle.

 

ego is perhaps even more of an illusive term than many others that get debated around here, which is part of the appeal of having a thread devoted to it. ego isn't a fixed object that we can objectively examine, yet it exists as an experiential fact for all (generally) functioning human beings.

 

the sense of 'me-ness' is a good definition, i think.

 

 

Lin Sifu, i think your interpretations are over-limiting, isolating ego structure to only a few low-grade expressions of mind. ego IS a view. a perspective. i say that view and perspective are necessary to function on this plain. it's like a sort of virtual hardware we use to effectively interface with our cultural operating system. (wow! that was REAL geeky!)

 

the ego is what carries out the mission to chop wood and carry water, before AND after enlightenment. the self-identified ego is perhaps developmentally retarded, but a well developed ego can take care of the human suit and function appropriately in human affairs, even as earth-shattering transformations are taking place internally.

 

 

your very vows, Sifu, are commitments of the ego to fulfill it's spiritual mandate. the spirit doesn't need vows. 'we' do.

 

i hope you don't take offense to that statement; and whether you ultimately agree or not, i hope you consider it.

 

 

 

the practice of high magick in the western esoteric tradition is largely a process of taming the ego. the magician evokes legions of demons from all of the infernal realms and binds them to a specific charge. the magician then has the demons swear allegiance to them in exchange for being properly honored and sharing in the bounty of divine union. this aspect of the western magickal formula was designed to embrace even the basest levels of the psyche, and to bring ALL levels in harmony for the performance of the Great Work. it is still widely practiced and misunderstood as evil or "black" magick.

 

when we make the ego into an enemy, we're creating yet more conflict and hindering our evolutionary potential.

Edited November 3, 2007 by Hundun

[sheng zhen]

 

when we make the ego into an enemy, we're creating yet more conflict and hindering our evolutionary potential.

 

I have heard that working with the ego is like training a dog. If you punish it, push it down or get agry at it, it will only grow up to be uncontrollable and angry. But if you give it awards at the right times, strengthen it by positive reinforcements and give it time to play, you will get an ego that does its job when it is told to. Just like a dog.

 

It is not a hidden fact that the further you develop in the spiritual path, the bigger ego grows, and the easier it is to suddely see that ego has "taken over". We see this in "masters" all over the world. I believe we need strong and healthy and stable egos to carry the higher vibrations that comes with cultivation. For every next stage we grow into we need a happy and satisfied ego corresponding to it. If ego has needs, if you have needs, that dosent correspond to the level you think are at, then I would say you arent at that level. You are at the lever where your needs are, that is where your ground is. Then you need to work on stabilizing ego at the level you want to be. This can be done to the ego as if training a dog, through positive reinforcements at the right times

[Spectrum]

it is still widely practiced and misunderstood as evil or "black" magick.

 

where bounty and divine union is concerned there is no misunderstanding

[Sahaj Nath]

where bounty and divine union is concerned there is no misunderstanding

 

 

not sure what you mean.

 

please elaborate.

[林愛偉]

A while ago, I walked in a restroom at a large Asian supermarket and was thrilled to understand my first bit of conversational Chinese in real life rather than in a textbook. A woman with a little girl of about four walked in and the little girl kept repeating, with great urgency and conviction, Wo yao pipi! I think if she was divisible into an "observer" and "observed" (which I don't believe is the case, but then I'm no Buddhist), they would both agree on the authenticity of her desire, and neither one would require that she lose her "attachment" to using restrooms instead of wetting her pants.

 

One problem I see with the whole concept of "attachments" in Buddhism is that it is so arbitrary, so tweakable with. Where do legitimate needs end and false attachments begin? Ask a hundred people and you will get a hundred demarcation lines all drawn in different places, from total negation of all things human to total acceptance thereof, with all in-betweens. You may say all human needs are false attachments. I may say all human needs are normal and natural, and become abnormal and unnatural only when the normal and natural ones aren't met (that's when symbolic ones come to take their place, and that's what one might want to lose in order to cultivate the true self: all symbolic needs. No need to lose the real ones like "wo yao pipi" or "wo yao nide ai." )

 

A need is simply something one is personally attached to. If one uses things, yet can put the down, not emotionally in need for them, not distrubed by them in mind, it is not attachment. So, if we use things for the function and not the need, it is not attachment. But one must be sure that emotionally, mentally they are not moved by what they are using.

 

Its simple really. I am sure there are those in the Buddhist school who only speak things that keep them supported by lay people...I know it happens in the Daoist school, people say things just to appease the lay person, or even fellow cultivator for financial support. The attachment for money doesn't end with leaving the home life...hahaha

 

Peace

Lin

[林愛偉]

these types of discussions are always cumbersome because our different experiences have led us to different interpretations of concepts. we use a word, and we can each mean something different that, at best, all point in the same general direction. it's in the details where points of contention so often arise.

 

debate and discussion are inherently egoic in principle.

 

ego is perhaps even more of an illusive term than many others that get debated around here, which is part of the appeal of having a thread devoted to it. ego isn't a fixed object that we can objectively examine, yet it exists as an experiential fact for all (generally) functioning human beings.

 

the sense of 'me-ness' is a good definition, i think.

Lin Sifu, i think your interpretations are over-limiting, isolating ego structure to only a few low-grade expressions of mind. ego IS a view. a perspective. i say that view and perspective are necessary to function on this plain. it's like a sort of virtual hardware we use to effectively interface with our cultural operating system. (wow! that was REAL geeky!)

 

the ego is what carries out the mission to chop wood and carry water, before AND after enlightenment. the self-identified ego is perhaps developmentally retarded, but a well developed ego can take care of the human suit and function appropriately in human affairs, even as earth-shattering transformations are taking place internally.

your very vows, Sifu, are commitments of the ego to fulfill it's spiritual mandate. the spirit doesn't need vows. 'we' do.

 

i hope you don't take offense to that statement; and whether you ultimately agree or not, i hope you consider it.

the practice of high magick in the western esoteric tradition is largely a process of taming the ego. the magician evokes legions of demons from all of the infernal realms and binds them to a specific charge. the magician then has the demons swear allegiance to them in exchange for being properly honored and sharing in the bounty of divine union. this aspect of the western magickal formula was designed to embrace even the basest levels of the psyche, and to bring ALL levels in harmony for the performance of the Great Work. it is still widely practiced and misunderstood as evil or "black" magick.

 

when we make the ego into an enemy, we're creating yet more conflict and hindering our evolutionary potential.

 

 

There is a saying in Buddhism; Put down all views, but if you are still to stay here, use those which benefit others and result in goodness.

 

Views are not necessary to exist, but can be used. My vows are just that. Tools, not a desire to attain them, but tools to instill goodness. I have no personal attachment to a desire to fulfill them. I know that what results from utilizing those views is a good outcome. It is the use of function, not the drive of ego.

There maybe the word "I" in there, but that is simply for the sake of saying so, not for the attachment of there being a "Me" who will be one day "attaining" anything.

 

Ego is really a general term, and is simply an outcome of there being a person who views that they cannot do without. Take someone's food and they scream "I'm hungry!" Take away the food , let's say a monk is eating...monk of both Buddhist and Daoist schools, and they will simply let it go. They let it go siply because it is impermanent, satisfaction. So, trying to please the personal wanting is also a false view. What is actually getting satisfied?

When one acts "selfless", they are trying to fulfill other's views, but that fulfillment isn't in giving what others want personally. It is in giving that which really nourishes one's desires, puts them out forever so as to not want any more, not view that there is a wanter. That thing which nourishes is cultivation. That is also one of the functions of my vows.

 

 

Please, disagree with me all you want.. haha it is only that we must accept that which makes sense to our own reasoning, logic, common sense. So please, believe nothing i say. Question , question, question. There is nothing that gets offended here.

 

 

Peace and Blessings,

Lin

[doc benway]

Cool topic... let me warm up my fingers a bit...

Very young children seem to have little sense of "I" but it develops rather quickly, probably with the development of language, not long beyond infancy. Once a person learns to speak, the world of thought rapidly takes over and you can see the child develop the sense, experiment with it, and eventually identify with it completely. I've watched it happen in my own two children.

 

Rather than experience the world, the mind develops images that represent the world. This keeps us safe and saves us time and allows us to become extremely efficient organisms. We no longer need to spend any time experiencing the large, hard brown thing with a crisp smell and green covering and rough taste and decide if it's a threat or of use, it's simply a "tree." Move on to the next item. This facility has made us so very effective at survival yet, along with it, comes the illusion of an individual organsim separated from everything around by a bag of skin and defined by our sensory organs. We are so effective, in fact, that we have enormous amounts of free time to suffer the consequencess of the separation created by this illusory identification with the body.

 

Suddenly there is "I" and that "I-ness" is what I think of as ego. But the "I-ness" is just another fragment of thought like all the others so that the observer and the observed are one and the same. The illusion of separation is the source of all suffering. The feeling of separation is the drive to always want to become something else, something more. The attachments and desires are a consequence of the feeling of isolation or separation from our true nature. Yet, no evolution, no becoming, no cultivation, or practice can restore that which is already and always still there. Unfortunately, the "I" thought is always there telling us a lie, that we are incomplete and separated, but we're not! And every practice we undertake, every effort we make, simply reinforces this illusion that something needs to be done to rectify the situation, but it's a lie!

 

The "I-ness" is quite possibly the very core thought, the first thought upon which all others arise and to which all others ulitmately refer to. Extinguishing that thought for brief periods of time is relatively easy. Doing it permanently is very elusive. If there are those that have done it (I believe there are some who have come close - names like UG Krishnamurti, Sri Ramana Maharshi, Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj, J Krishnamurti, Jeff Foster, Sailor Bob, maybe Muhammed and Laozi and Zhuangzi and Buddha and Jesus and so on), and we listen to what they say, it's fascinating to see the similarities and differences between their experiences. There still seems to be some coloration to their description and experience and subsequent actions and teachings that suggest that the "I-ness" is never completely gone during life.

 

I believe that some of us may achieve states where we function to a great degree without being terribly centered in the "I" thought and we may to varying degrees experience the direct connection with that which is within and underlying the "I" illusion (the Self, collective consciousness, God, Buddha-nature, Dao, earth mother, Wakantanka, call it what you will). I'm not sure that a strong and well defined "I" awareness is necessary to function on a "normal" level since the necessary and acceptable behaviors are already there and contained within that greater awareness and can be called upon as needed.

 

I do think that "I-ness" needs to develop at some point in our lives, however, for us to function in society. If we are successful at extinguishing it, I still think it's possible to function quite nicely, since we can draw on it as needed without it always influencing and annoying and causing us to suffer. I don't think it's likely that there are many children who escape the process of socialization but the few who have (kids raised by wolves and the like) seem never to fit in, if we can believe the case histories out there. Perhaps they are a glimpse at what the human without the "I" would be truly like, perhaps not.

 

"I" don't know.... but it's fun to speculate and talk about with others who share my obsession with this stuff!

Thanks for the opportunity to rant!

Edited November 4, 2007 by xuesheng

[Cameron]

Xue..

 

I don't know how others feel but there is no way I am reading that block of words you wrote.

 

Paragraphs man..paragraphs..It's a brave new world.

[Spectrum]

Beautiful. Scary. Lets dissolve the space between subject and object and discuss.

[Sahaj Nath]

Xue..

 

I don't know how others feel but there is no way I am reading that block of words you wrote.

 

Paragraphs man..paragraphs..It's a brave new world.

 

 

geeze,

 

and i was going to bet on you making it for the month!

 

 

xuesheng,

 

very well-said, my friend. it was a little daunting reading it without paragraph breaks, though. many people will just move right past a big block like that. paragraph breaks serve a very functional purpose.

[rain]

[,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

Edited April 17, 2008 by rain

[doc benway]

geeze,

 

and i was going to bet on you making it for the month!

xuesheng,

 

very well-said, my friend. it was a little daunting reading it without paragraph breaks, though. many people will just move right past a big block like that. paragraph breaks serve a very functional purpose.

Sorry y'all - inexperience and enthusiasm got the better of me.

Paragraphs have been created.

 

 

Xue..

 

I don't know how others feel but there is no way I am reading that block of words you wrote.

 

Paragraphs man..paragraphs..It's a brave new world.

Gottcha!! It's only been 3 days, my friend...

[Sahaj Nath]

hey rain,

 

i'm not sure what you're referencing with respect to the rites in egypt & greece to induce ego-death. the western esoteric tradition derived their practices from egypt, as did greece. the golden dawn, the hermetic brotherhood of luxor, the ordo templi orientis, and... i'll just say "others" (almost all hermetic traditions) go through the rites of first venturing into the deepest, basest levels of the psyche to secure allegiance at all levels for the performance of the Great Work. it's after that allegiance is secured that the worker then proceeds to *temporarily* sacrifice the ego without inner conflict.

 

'profound spiritual experience' was a bad choice of phrase on my part. but i think i already answered your other questions. perhaps you don't agree with my view (i'm not in total agreement with my view either), but i did express what can happen when one experiences extreme non-dual consciousness. and i'm not at all referring to a drug trip. it's something i experienced in isolation on the island of kauai. it can be devastatingly expansive, and without a solid ego structure to act as an effective ground and operate somewhat mechanically while the rest of you is blown into the great big everything, it could generate significant psychotic episodes.

 

i would think that spirituality is a natural ability that could be further cultivated in everyone given the right circumstances timed right.

 

 

--i think "timed right" is the point i'm trying to drive home here. i think children lack the psychological maturity to "suffer through" the metamorphosis and still manage to function appropriately in school or social activities. i think children tend to be more keen at listening to their bodies, but not as capable at metering or mitigating their response.

 

i don't think i'm correct about this, actually. i just think it's a matter worth exploring. i think socialization can give us appropriate controls so as not to be completely dominated by 'monkey mind'. i think children are more expressly xin than yi, but i could could merely be judging them that way. i think yi is only cultivated effectively through discipline that requires a certain amount of maturity. and i think that premature radical experiences can impede that maturation process.

 

this probably sounds more convoluted than i intend, but i'm in a bit of a rush at the moment.

 

i'll revisit this later.

[rain]

................

Edited April 17, 2008 by rain

[nightwatchdog]

My mind is the biggest bullshit artist there is. It's so confident that it's crap will convinve me that what it says is true, that it isn't the least bit afraid to come right out and say it. You see, my mind is writing this to you right now, and your mind is gobbling up these symbols we share and quietly whispering it's translation of these symbols to itself... your mind too is not afraid to let you in on it's secret.

 

Because mind knows you aren't just going to drop it. Anymore than you are likely to just decide to make your heart stop beating. This is ego. This little game we're playing.

 

But it isn't real.

 

It's you.

[Aporia]

[minusmode]

Good thread on an interesting topic. The paragraph factor doesn't bother me. i have a firefox add-on that blows stuff up as big as i need it to be to read it easily.

 

I think it might be possible for a person to function normally without feelings of being a separate self, but the person, it seems to me would have to have spent years reconditioning their thinking so that the mental processes would no longer manufacture the separation hallucination.

 

They would have to learn to replace their system of cognitions so that space, for example, would be seen as invisible self instead of some kind of nonexistence.

 

But those basic cognitions are pretty well hardwired; it's something you spent a lifetime learning (however long that may be) and they don't change over night if they change at all.

 

The mind is very complex and i definitely think the ego should not be seen as just a dispensable piece of luggage that can be permanently retired. i even think you can be enlightened and still have a self-concept of sorts...(not to get political, but if you know you are everyone, wouldn't you feel embarrassed about being George Bush?)

[nightwatchdog]

...wouldn't you feel embarrassed about being George Bush?)

 

Not at all. George Bush is very proud. We can all be proud of being a fool, especially when everyone surrounding us pats our collective back for it. When we find ourselves in a position of power over others, recognizing our own foolishness is almost impossible.

 

 

Mind, ego, that thing is a tool. Just like the eyes are a kind of tool. Some people think Georgie is a tool too. Actually, in a sense we are all tools, for we are sense organs for an infinite organism in the end, aren't we?

 

The problems of suffering and desire started when we stopped using the mind as a tool, and started thinking it was "the real me." The thing observing.

 

But there is no-thing observing. If there was, you could find it. Actually, you can find it, but not with any of your senses including the mind sense. Instead it is a totality. Angels dancing on the head of a pin.

[Cameron]

That whole Buddhist thing of "Don't kill, Cherish all life" is a good start to getting us on the right track "I" think.

 

Of course..we do that in stages. For example..I eat meat..thus I support the killing of animals. However I do not support wars or killing humans.

 

If we can get the world to be a bit more peaceful in the next 20 years or whatever and people in different countries can be "friends" then I would maybe start worrying about not eating my beloved steaks.