Got Ego?

[rain]

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?)

 

who said being someone is not embarrassing?

Edited November 7, 2007 by rain

[rain]

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.

 

ahh. nicedog. silence. gift. thankyou.

 

rainbow.

[passenger1980]

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.

 

Sorry but that doesn't make any sense. It's just a lame justification. You can still be a vegetarian/vegan if you think it's wrong without framing the human race as a scapegoat. You don't really have any control over other people lives and how they kill each other everyday. However, you do have control over what you eat, and it doesn't matter if animals will get killed anyway, you just won't be another gear in that engine, it's a conscious decision. You don't need world peace to start, it's not a matter of stages, you have the decision. It's like saying you are a rapist because the world is sick and wrong, and only when we achieve world peace, you will quit. Ridiculous.

 

Sorry if i sound too harsh, nothing personal of course.

 

For the record, i'm not a vegetarian or a vegan just because of my weakness and desire, since i am a strong supporter of animal rights and ethics. I hope to have the strength to change that in the near future.

[VeeCee]

For the record, i'm not a vegetarian or a vegan just because of my weakness and desire, since i am a strong supporter of animal rights and ethics. I hope to have the strength to change that in the near future.

 

Same here. Everytime I try to go veggie, I fall back on my evil ways (baby). Oops - my Santana is showing.

[Cameron]

Sorry but that doesn't make any sense. It's just a lame justification. You can still be a vegetarian/vegan if you think it's wrong without framing the human race as a scapegoat. You don't really have any control over other people lives and how they kill each other everyday. However, you do have control over what you eat, and it doesn't matter if animals will get killed anyway, you just won't be another gear in that engine, it's a conscious decision. You don't need world peace to start, it's not a matter of stages, you have the decision. It's like saying you are a rapist because the world is sick and wrong, and only when we achieve world peace, you will quit. Ridiculous.

 

Sorry if i sound too harsh, nothing personal of course.

 

For the record, i'm not a vegetarian or a vegan just because of my weakness and desire, since i am a strong supporter of animal rights and ethics. I hope to have the strength to change that in the near future.

 

 

Sifu Max told Mantra he needs to eat meat to ground from the powerful energies of Kunlun.

 

Sorry..I will take his word over yours.

 

Also...steaks are delicious.

 

*sparks up George Foreman Grill..throws on an angus*

[passenger1980]

Sifu Max told Mantra he needs to eat meat to ground from the powerful energies of Kunlun.

 

Sorry..I will take his word over yours.

 

Also...steaks are delicious.

 

*sparks up George Foreman Grill..throws on an angus*

 

About the steaks...I am aware.

 

But sorry, to me the end doesn't justify the means. What matters is that you just killed and caused suffering to another living being. Don't take anyone's word, take your own. And i think you already know it's wrong, no matter how great steaks are, and how much you need them "to ground from the powerful energies of Kunlun".

Edited November 9, 2007 by passenger1980

[Aporia]

But sorry, to me the end doesn't justify the means. What matters is that you just killed and caused suffering to another living being. Don't take anyone's word, take your own. And i think you already know it's wrong, no matter how great steaks are, and how much you need them "to ground from the powerful energies of Kunlun".

This little chat has already digressed miles from the original topic, so I'll push it a bit further...

 

I'm just not convinced by this argument. You are warranting your point with an appeal to some subjective ethical system that says taking another being's life is wrong. As far as I can see, that system is unfounded, especially when you look at other carnivorous animals, and their eating habits. I'll stick with the bear example that I used above: do you consider it wrong that a bear murders a fish for sustenance? Do you really think that the bear feels guilt for the suffering it causes?

It was a rhetorical question. The answer it absolutely not, it's doing what it needs to survive.

 

There is nothing inherently wrong about someone's dietary habits, and by imposing human moral systems onto other animals you are creating sets of rules and truths that simply don't exist.

...I'm just sayin that sometimes you gotta get your kill on in order to get your eat on...that's all

[Sahaj Nath]

There is nothing inherently wrong about someone's dietary habits, and by imposing human moral systems onto other animals you are creating sets of rules and truths that simply don't exist.

...I'm just sayin that sometimes you gotta get your kill on in order to get your eat on...that's all

 

lol!

 

[SiliconValley]

Sifu Max told Mantra he needs to eat meat to ground from the powerful energies of Kunlun.

 

 

Lol

 

Kunlun gets better day after day! Or is it really *people* practicing Kunlun

 

So veggies are 'out' of the Kunlun path? Hoooooo la

[Gerard]

Only a Buddha has no ego.

 

How many living Buddhas today in this earthly plane? None.

 

Aspiring ones: some

[Sahaj Nath]

hmm.

 

 

is kunlun energy higher than that of the Buddha?

[Cameron]

Same here. Everytime I try to go veggie, I fall back on my evil ways (baby). Oops - my Santana is showing.

 

 

If steaks are good enough for VeeCee they are good enough for me.

 

Girls just wanna' have fun.

[minkus]

hmm.

is kunlun energy higher than that of the Buddha?

 

I wonder what shakyamuni buddha would have answered when they asked him this same question ?

[Cameron]

Buddha wasn't into "high and low".

 

So..you might want to get the basics down before you start speculating on what Shakyamuni would say about topics.

[林愛偉]

I wonder what shakyamuni buddha would have answered when they asked him this same question ?

 

 

You mean "IF" this was a concern in the first place. I'm very sure Kun Lun cultivation wasn't around at the time of the Buddha. If it was, it would have been spoken of in the sutras if it led to Pure Complete Enlightenment. And so, not eating flesh is what will happen at higher levels of cultivation...enlightenment. Not by one's own ideas of moral behavior, but because eating another living flesh being is no longer in the mind, plus the causes and conditions of such an action wihtin the mind wouldn't be there.

 

There are two monks I know who have eaten meat and were Buddhas. One of them was named JiGong, the other, I forgot. The other monk would eat whole birds, but then spit them out and they would return to life again.. and Jigong knew the causes and conditions of all things, was a Buddha, and would eat meat and drink wine, but that was only due to his own conditions of enlightenment. Not to be taken as an example to follow though.

 

 

This thread has gotten interesting.. haha

 

 

Peace,

Lin

Edited November 9, 2007 by 林愛偉

[minkus]

Buddha wasn't into "high and low".

 

So..you might want to get the basics down before you start speculating on what Shakyamuni would say about topics.

 

Im glad you got the point

[passenger1980]

This little chat has already digressed miles from the original topic, so I'll push it a bit further...

 

I'm just not convinced by this argument. You are warranting your point with an appeal to some subjective ethical system that says taking another being's life is wrong. As far as I can see, that system is unfounded, especially when you look at other carnivorous animals, and their eating habits. I'll stick with the bear example that I used above: do you consider it wrong that a bear murders a fish for sustenance? Do you really think that the bear feels guilt for the suffering it causes?

It was a rhetorical question. The answer it absolutely not, it's doing what it needs to survive.

 

There is nothing inherently wrong about someone's dietary habits, and by imposing human moral systems onto other animals you are creating sets of rules and truths that simply don't exist.

...I'm just sayin that sometimes you gotta get your kill on in order to get your eat on...that's all

 

It's called evolution of consciouness and awareness. Animals don't seem to have one, yet they seem much more ethical than us. We are breeding them in factory lines, torture and killing them as if they were plagues. They suffer, we look away. A steak after all really taste great.

 

We don't have the need to kill another living being capable of suffering to survive. Not only that, we are actually making them suffer more than ever, with the most selfish justifications. There's nothing pretty or divine in killing an animal. If you want to turn away and close your eyes, that's fine, but i dare you to kill a lamb or a pig by yourself and not feel anything, just because is "natural". I didn't create that rule. It's called compassion.

Edited November 9, 2007 by passenger1980

[Pero]

Yawn. All this talk of meat is making me hungry. Maybe I'll go on a walk and get myself a chicken kebab. Or I could go to a McDonalds, haven't been in ages. Though it is a bit cold outside, so I might just get some salami from the store. I could order a horse burger, but they always bring it cold, which sucks. Otherwise horse meat is really delicious, anyone tried it?

[Sahaj Nath]

i'm really torn about this issue.

 

on one hand i believe that there are some species that lack the capacity for evolution of consciousness; on the other hand, though, there are more species than just our own who DO have the capacity. plus, i'm quite sure there are some that express evolutionary traits in ways haven't yet recognized.

 

 

i just have a hard time believing that inter-species or intra-species conflicts matter a whole lot to anything or anyone other than the species themselves. compassion is natural, i think. but at the same time i also think it's a value choice that's become institutionalized into a social force.

 

a million galaxies, each with a billion stars, with planets orbiting almost every star... and we're only one of those planets. at the point that we realize spiritually that we ARE the universe, and not just actors in it, what does it *ultimately* matter what our species does? we could get off on eating illegitimate children and wiping our asses with freshly clubbed baby seals, and it wouldn't impact the greater balance of the forces of the universe.

 

and yet,

 

even if these things matter only to us, doesn't that make them significant, all the same? shouldn't we be responsible to our natural inclination towards compassion?

 

only i don't think that natural inclination is the same for everyone. i think it evolves as we do. we are not all at the same evolutionary point, and so conflict arises, thereby necessitating a sort of 'social force' intervention for the sake of (at least) moderate stability.

 

in the end, if there such a thing as righteous action, doesn't it ultimately come down to:

 

to thine own self be true?

 

not as in, "do what you want," but rather "live in harmony with your natural inclination, from moment to moment."

 

 

thoughts?

[sheng zhen]

a million galaxies, each with a billion stars, with planets orbiting almost every star... and we're only one of those planets. at the point that we realize spiritually that we ARE the universe, and not just actors in it, what does it *ultimately* matter what our species does? we could get off on eating illegitimate children and wiping our asses with freshly clubbed baby seals, and it wouldn't impact the greater balance of the forces of the universe.

I studied astronomy some years ago. On night while reading for my exam I did a visualisation experiment.

 

As I zoomed out of my self I tried to see how big I was compared to my house. so far so good. Then I zoomed further out and saw how big I was compared to the city. Then further how big I was compared to my country. Now I was so small I couldnt see myself at all, but I still had some idea of my size. Then further, how big I was compared to the earth. And so on, how big the earth is compared to the sun, and again how big am I compared to the sun? And even further, how big am I compared to the solar system? How big am I compared to this part of our galaxy? How big am I compared to the galaxy? By now, if you follow this visualisation you will probably be as dizzy as I was. Now, the galaxy we are in is just one of thousands of galaxies in our galaxy cluster! How big am I comapared to this galaxy cluster? And... our galaxy cluster(!!!) is just one of millions of galaxy clusters(!!!) out there! How big and important am I to the whole universe?

 

Now I opened my eyes and was totally "out" the rest of the day. Not because I was spaced out, but because I felt totally useless, pointless, not important at all. If I die, the universe will go on just as before. My dramas, my loved ones, everything that I consider important in my life dosent mean a shit in the big picture. These things only has meaning in my subjective micro universe, which is so small it would probaly be closer to pico universe compared to the real thing.

 

I read Hitchickrs Guide to the Galaxy where the author described a box called "total perspective vortex". If you walked into this box you will see the total perspective of everything, the whole universe and everything in relative to everything else. Noone ever came out of that box alive. Maby the author explained the true ego death?

[nightwatchdog]

Our natural inclination is change, change, change.

 

Who knows what sort of consciousness will arise next?

 

People eat animals.

 

People do not eat animals.

 

When we choose not to eat animals, consciousness becomes different than when we do.

 

When we realize we are the universe, we begin to learn what love really is.

 

Sometimes we hurt the ones we love. Often we hurt ourselves.

 

These are the same thing.

 

It is very hard to kill someone you love. Some say impossible. It's been a long time since I tried and I don't really remember.

 

I do know now that since I don't need to hurt my loved ones, I choose not to.

 

I love you.

 

Take care.

[Sahaj Nath]

thought this might be a good thread to recycle since the topic of "egolessness" came up.

 

 

plus, there are lots of new folks on the forum who may have some fresh insights to contribute.

 

[emily]

Hmmmmm.....EGO!!! That old chestnut.

 

 

The internet is the global EGO!! Mostly reams of unecessary bullshit with the occasional hint of something a little deeper.

 

 

In my opinion conceptualisation is something which should be confined to the practicalities and trivialities of life! The fun stuff and the necessary stuff. Not all this mental masturbation which for some reason goes hand in hand with whole spirituality deal. Seeking to experience a concept that one has not known experentially is a bit psychotic....best to be real.

 

It's all very well someone who has experienced liberation to say that we need to transcend the ego. However to someone living from a ego identified state this is just another concept to add to a stream of conceptualised conscious, that one would equate with the end of self. Not a very pleasant thought and one which could send the mind reeling for hours trying to work it out. I agree with what Hundun said earlier on about words meaning slightly different things to us individually. Amalgamations of past experiences.

 

Someone summed it up pretty well when they said the map is not the terrain. I think the majority of spiritual conceptualisation has the potential to do more harm than good to an unruly mind.

 

I have had one short experience of ego death; it ocurred spontaneously whilst walking down a street one evening....it has left me with this perspective on the old EGO debate...

 

It was basically like dissolving, actually more obliterating, that subconscious filter that is like the internal police officer and feeling totally free and uninhibited and VIBRANTLY ALIVE. Like all of life is some great big dance and your right on the rhythm.

 

It was totally non dualistic, although at the time that thought never crossed my MIND!! As mentioned earlier in this thread it would not have left me gawping at vegetables in a supermarket because I was so at one with them; in fact it would have only served to allow me to be more effective in any activity, aside from the initial rush of waking up which was a little intense. I burst out laughing, like all of a sudden everything clicked, all problems suddenly seemed totally absurd, like a flash of "why haven't i got this all along?". Of course none of this crossed my MIND, it was like acessing a greater source of knowing totally non conceptualised. This is merely my interpretation after the experience.

 

During this time, I would look at a tramp and feel overcome with emotion, I guess intense compassion, but I didn't go and do anything stupid like give him a great big kiss or the keys to my house cos I knew I was him!!! I just gave hims a smile and a pound or whatever and kept going. But I literally felt at one with everything. Everything was beautiful. Even toilet roll, I kid you not. but not in an "ode to the roll" kind of way.

 

I still knew I was ME, I just never thought it. No need to navel gaze, too busy BEING me. The veil was lifted, and I was acting from the core of my being.

 

That faded after a few days. I a bit low afterwards, like coming back down to earth. I was again goverend by the mind. It comes back more and more frequently, ocasionally I can maintain this state consciously, sometimes I invite it, sometimes it just happens.

 

 

So to me transcending the ego is not what I would at all have THOUGHT it to be. It basically amounted to getting rid of the BULLSHIT. That is it. Lifting the veil. Seeing truth.

 

Incidentally it did leave me with a reverence for all life, and understanding the true meaning of the word God. I had grown up very anti religion as I didn't like my expriences with Christians as a child....but after my experience I realised all religions were basically rattling on about the same thing and somewhere along the line we had all started taken poetic metaphors literally. I knew what Jesus meant when he said "the kingdom of heaven is with you". Again, someone summed it up really well with the map is not the terrain.

 

Anyone at any age could experience this, whether they have any notion of spirituality or not. I wasn't adhering to any spiritual doctrine at the time: I had what would be perceived as "obstacles on the path" and all that jazz....

 

Being more fully yourself would never cause a problem. It would support greater socialisation, achievement yadayadayada....any worries i had no longer affected me internally and I got along with people one hundred times better than normal.....not once did I feel tempted to go up to a stranger clasp their hand and whisper "we are one in our divinity" or whatever!!!!!

 

Ego...not what I thought it was!!! haha

[Sunya]

 

 

It's all very well someone who has experienced liberation to say that we need to transcend the ego. However to someone living from a ego identified state this is just another concept to add to a stream of conceptualised conscious, that one would equate with the end of self. Not a very pleasant thought and one which could send the mind reeling for hours trying to work it out. I agree with what Hundun said earlier on about words meaning slightly different things to us individually. Amalgamations of past experiences.

 

Someone summed it up pretty well when they said the map is not the terrain. I think the majority of spiritual conceptualisation has the potential to do more harm than good to an unruly mind.

 

 

 

beautiful experience, thank you for sharing

 

about what you said quoted above.. i understand, and this is probably why my teacher always shoots down people that try to intellectualize and philosophize, which is unfortunately my forte. as i've been trying to 'figure it out' for the past year.. now i'm realizing what you ( and Hundun and probably others here) have said. to 'think' about it and create more theories is just creating more barriers from the truth. so it doesn't even matter if you're on the right track, just having a conception will stop you from actually experiencing it.

 

so i've been trying to get away from all the thinking and mind talk.

 

though its tough

 

but you gotta do what you gotta do!

 

[Patrick Brown]

Edited July 14, 2008 by Patrick Brown