The Ego Loves Self-Improvement

[TheJourney]

Yes, the ego can only survive through thought, which is inherently of the past or future.

[agsags]

Originally Posted by zeitgeist

Self-improvement gives the ego something to work with. You aspire, become, live in the future. You have a suspicion that you are miserable now, but guess what, it doesn't matter because you will be better off, enlightened, in the future! Please stop fooling yourself my friend, embrace the now, accept that you are naked and realize that you are drifting like a leaf in the wind. After that realization there is nothing more to fear and perhaps at that moment there is peace of mind.

I like people with strong egos who have done their share of self-improvement to build up the ego and who, at the same time, are very aware of this very ego. I found those who claim to be egoless to be either unaware or boring and uninteresting and I don't know which is worse. Maybe I need to meet Buddha.

[zeitgeist]

Originally Posted by agsags

I like people with strong egos who have done their share of self-improvement to build up the ego and who, at the same time, are very aware of this very ego. I found those who claim to be egoless to be either unaware or boring and uninteresting and I don't know which is worse. Maybe I need to meet Buddha.

I saw two pictures of Sri Ramana Marhashi, one when he was a little younger and one when he was older. I am pretty sure he is one of the few masters who actually was enlightened. When he was younger you could see so much attitude in his face; on the photo when he was older all the attitude seemed to have melted away. People can burn ego and get more fascinating in the process.

[agsags]

Originally Posted by zeitgeist

I saw two pictures of Sri Ramana Marhashi, one when he was a little younger and one when he was older. I am pretty sure he is one of the few masters who actually was enlightened. When he was younger you could see so much attitude in his face; on the photo when he was older all the attitude seemed to have melted away. People can burn ego and get more fascinating in the process.

I am not anywhere new SRM's territory - whether personally or socially. Still, I am not sure if your interpretation of "burning through one's ego" is correct. I would stay rather than killing a strong ego (what a monumental and almost sisyphean task), SRM made good friends with it so it step into the background from the main stage.

[taylor]

I fell off my center yesterday so I only had a very clear focus of action. It was terrible. So frustrating.

Here's to non-doing, the only way to do.

[SquarePeg]

Originally Posted by VinceG

My goals have always been more about being a certain kind a person rather than accomplishing particular things. I wanted to be like the characters in the books I read. I picked up on all these moral and ethical imperatives and set my mind to appropriating them.

Interesting -- I used to be like this, too. I suppose all young people go through this phase.

Now I realize, however, that the goal and the action are one and the same. There is no difference. In a very important sense, I am what I produce: apple trees give apples, orange trees bear oranges...there is no difference between being and the natural effects of being (a certain way). IOW, no difference between cause and effect, except we make it so.

But it's all good. As Goethe said somewhere, every age of man has its own philosophy: the child is a realist, and doesn't doubt the existence of apples; the youth is an idealist, amorous and passionate about dreams; the middle-aged man is pragmatic, what with a family and all; and the old man is a mystic, thankful to God seeing how much of his life was luck.

[SquarePeg]

Originally Posted by agsags

I like people with strong egos who have done their share of self-improvement to build up the ego and who, at the same time, are very aware of this very ego. I found those who claim to be egoless to be either unaware or boring and uninteresting and I don't know which is worse. Maybe I need to meet Buddha.

Hmm, I bet the Buddha was a pretty boring dude. I mean, he just sat there, when he wasn't asking for a handout, and if you asked him a question, he just raised a hand and made some gesture!

[SquarePeg]

Originally Posted by TheJourney

Yes, the ego can only survive through thought, which is inherently of the past or future.

I'm fascinated by the idea that the ego is a natural result of our self-reflective nature -- of which thought is one constituent faculty. Not sure if this is a "correct" view, but it's how I explain things to myself, seeing how thought needs a referent, a thing to point to, and so I've made this construct I label ego and go on to (purport to?) observe various characteristics of it....

Speaking of survival, would you say that the ego was an evolutionary necessity? Or just a simple natural consequence, whatever its effects? That's another aspect of all this which fascinates me so....

[SquarePeg]

Originally Posted by cortocabezas1111

The ego loves to talk about how the ego loves to talk about the ego talking about ego!

Yeah! That's the crazy dream-within-a-dream-within-a-dream-like nature of dealing with the ego! Not to mention "the self" and "free will"...OMG!!!!

Seriously, it's like the more we speak of such matters, the less we understand...kinda depressing, in a way, as it were, but perhaps a necessary phase for some folks??

[ChrisGinsburg]

Originally Posted by SquarePeg

Yeah! That's the crazy dream-within-a-dream-within-a-dream-like nature of dealing with the ego! Not to mention "the self" and "free will"...OMG!!!!

Seriously, it's like the more we speak of such matters, the less we understand...kinda depressing, in a way, as it were, but perhaps a necessary phase for some folks??

The ego loves whatever you believe the ego loves. It's entire existence is completely dependent on you believing it's there. Transcend this, eradicate that. What exactly are we transcending and eradicating? That voice in your head that you swear isn't you but is really your ego? And what makes you think that other voice or train of thought is somehow different from the ego?

You are quite correct. The more we talk about "the ego" the more we give it life. As much life as you can give a mirage anyway. Maybe we should ditch the word ego and start referring to it as that other selfish voice that I like to believe isn't me but some vague entity I must control/eliminate. At least then we would be reminded how insane the whole train of thought is.

[zeitgeist]

Originally Posted by ChrisGinsburg

You are quite correct. The more we talk about "the ego" the more we give it life. As much life as you can give a mirage anyway. Maybe we should ditch the word ego and start referring to it as that other selfish voice that I like to believe isn't me but some vague entity I must control/eliminate. At least then we would be reminded how insane the whole train of thought is.

The Course in Miracles referred to the 'voice that always speaks first'. I used the expression 'the force that tries to lead you away from your core', but people rightly complained that this is pretty vague too. Fact of the matter is that you can observe this cancerous force inside your head that looks out for your benefit, that sizes people up, that is ever unhappy independent of what it gets, and you have the ability to say no to this voice in your head as you interact with people and choose kind actions instead. But as you say, if you question everything you are, you will have little else left.

[VinceG]

How can a dozen people say the exact same thing in the exact same thread yet nobody understands each other?

[SquarePeg]

Originally Posted by VinceG

How can a dozen people say the exact same thing in the exact same thread yet nobody understands each other?

Because it's impossible to communicate experiences, because words are just symbols when it's the thing itself we really want to know -- to experience...which, by definition, means finding out for ourselves!

[SquarePeg]

Originally Posted by zeitgeist

But as you say, if you question everything you are, you will have little else left.

If I follow you correctly, this is what I think "the sages" meant at times when they say things like "you don't exist" or "there is no self"....

Anyway, I'm really curious as to the ontology of this "force" or whatever we mean by the word "ego." To me, it seems as if it's a natural consequence of our ability to self-reflect and be self-aware.

What comes first, the thinker or thinking?

I used to believe that there is a thinker first, who thinks...but actually it's the process of thinking that creates a thinker! Just like how one is a waiter because one works as a waiter, or the Queen of England because one works (or loafs around attending hospital openings) as the Queen of England -- the process comes first, then the result!

Thus, in the same vein, it could be that our capacity for self-reflective awareness naturally, inevitably -- by default -- creates an inviolable sense of ourselves which many have taken to referring to as an eternal soul but which I think is nothing more than "the ego," ultimately a mirage...which, I should say, is not some discrete thing in itself that can be pointed to in the physical world but just a useful idea, like a number -- a tool for referring to the world and working with it....

And speaking of useful, it seems to me that the ego may be a necessary evolutionary development, that ironically egotistical behavior can lead to self-destruction or it could, when the ego is recognized and managed properly, lead to a better world, a concern for individuals and individual rights...I could go on and on but I'd be interested in more opinions....

[zeitgeist]

Originally Posted by VinceG

How can a dozen people say the exact same thing in the exact same thread yet nobody understands each other?

Could you please enlighten us ...

[zeitgeist]

Originally Posted by SquarePeg

And speaking of useful, it seems to me that the ego may be a necessary evolutionary development, that ironically egotistical behavior can lead to self-destruction or it could, when the ego is recognized and managed properly, lead to a better world, a concern for individuals and individual rights...I could go on and on but I'd be interested in more opinions....

I increasingly believe we have a choice to make. We either appeal to the better half in us like the Course in Miracles claims which is nothing but our old - by some disliked - concept of religion in new clothes, or we go the scientific route, that of the Buddha and many Indian sages before him, and sit for 7 years in deep meditation, thinking and saying nothing, and remove layer over layer of our personality skin in the process. Everything in-between sounds good when we discuss it, but seems pretty flawed when you dig a little deeper.

[VinceG]

Originally Posted by zeitgeist

Could you please enlighten us ...

It's exactly as I say. I'll give an example.

Originally Posted by ChrisGinsburg

The ego loves whatever you believe the ego loves. It's entire existence is completely dependent on you believing it's there. Transcend this, eradicate that. What exactly are we transcending and eradicating? That voice in your head that you swear isn't you but is really your ego? And what makes you think that other voice or train of thought is somehow different from the ego?

You are quite correct. The more we talk about "the ego" the more we give it life. As much life as you can give a mirage anyway. Maybe we should ditch the word ego and start referring to it as that other selfish voice that I like to believe isn't me but some vague entity I must control/eliminate. At least then we would be reminded how insane the whole train of thought is.

Every single sentence here says the exact same thing.

The dream-within-a-dream nature of dealing with the ego, self and free will, all three of which refer to the same thing, is the same sentiment as "the more we speak the less we understand" which is the same sentiment as "the ego loves whatever the ego loves," which means the same as the idea that it only exists due to belief, and so on and so on.

Everybody's just finding different words to help everybody else illuminate the exact same concept. All of those statements mean the same thing as all of these statements:

Originally Posted by zeitgeist

Self-improvement gives the ego something to work with. You aspire, become, live in the future. You have a suspicion that you are miserable now, but guess what, it doesn't matter because you will be better off, enlightened, in the future! Please stop fooling yourself my friend, embrace the now, accept that you are naked and realize that you are drifting like a leaf in the wind. After that realization there is nothing more to fear and -- at that moment there is peace of mind.

I simply can't fathom how nobody's seeing this.

[zeitgeist]

Originally Posted by VinceG

It's exactly as I say. I'll give an example.


Every single sentence here says the exact same thing.


I simply can't fathom how nobody's seeing this.

Many thanks! But what is your conclusion? Doesn't this mean that we either fall onto our knees and ask the divine voice within ourself for inspiration, or go and meditate for 7 years until all layers of our personality has been dissolved? Everything in-between seems to be a mental merry-go-around.

[SquarePeg]

Originally Posted by zeitgeist

I increasingly believe we have a choice to make. We either appeal to the better half in us like the Course in Miracles claims which is nothing but our old - by some disliked - concept of religion in new clothes, or we go the scientific route, that of the Buddha and many Indian sages before him, and sit for 7 years in deep meditation, thinking and saying nothing, and remove layer over layer of our personality skin in the process. Everything in-between sounds good when we discuss it, but seems pretty flawed when you dig a little deeper.

Eh? Interesting...maybe the choice is indeed that stark -- or maybe it could be like that biological phenomenon whereby a whole species suddenly starts doing the same thing, like what's been reported with those Japanese macaques, when geographically isolated groups of them started washing fruits...so that we needn't all individually spend seven years under a bodhi tree but, I dunno, if only enough folks do suddenly the idea gets in the intellectual aether somehow, the Jungian collective unconscious...?

Wishful thinking, perhaps, but we do have such an analogue in the Axial Age, when Buddha, Christ, Confucius, et cetera, all taught more or less contemporaneously....

I'm not a New Ager by any means, but I do try to keep an open mind and so I do wonder...perhaps there is such a thing as a Zeitgeist and such a thing as the Jungian collective unconscious....

[SquarePeg]

Originally Posted by VinceG

It's exactly as I say. I'll give an example.


Every single sentence here says the exact same thing.

The dream-within-a-dream nature of dealing with the ego, self and free will, all three of which refer to the same thing, is the same sentiment as "the more we speak the less we understand" which is the same sentiment as "the ego loves whatever the ego loves," which means the same as the idea that it only exists due to belief, and so on and so on.

Everybody's just finding different words to help everybody else illuminate the exact same concept. All of those statements mean the same thing as all of these statements:



I simply can't fathom how nobody's seeing this.

I think it's often a case of the classic three-blind-men-feeling-up-an-elephant-and-describing-it to each other.

Besides, you do realize that words are more often than not as variable as, well, algebraic variables, right?

[SquarePeg]

Originally Posted by zeitgeist

Many thanks! But what is your conclusion? Doesn't this mean that we either fall onto our knees and ask the divine voice within ourself for inspiration, or go and meditate for 7 years until all layers of our personality has been dissolved? Everything in-between seems to be a mental merry-go-around.

Perhaps the mental merry-go-round is necessary. Not everyone is a Mozart, giving piano concertos to the Hapsburg Emperor at age four!

It may well be that some are more spiritually talented than others, whether due to many past lifetimes, as they say of the Buddha (me personally, I'm really a complete skeptic when it comes to the supernatural -- which doesn't mean "spiritual" to me, obviously) or just some genetic predisposition to sensing things in the manner of someone with a better situational awareness ("more in tune with their gut-feelings," you might say, in the manner of a good soldier)....

One more thing: wasn't the point of the Buddha's own exploration of extremes to disprove extreme measures?? Indeed, Buddhism is often described as The Middle Way....

[VinceG]

Originally Posted by zeitgeist

Many thanks! But what is your conclusion?

Err, that was my conclusion.

Doesn't this mean that we either fall onto our knees and ask the divine voice within ourself for inspiration, or go and meditate for 7 years until all layers of our personality has been dissolved? Everything in-between seems to be a mental merry-go-around.

If you're looking for a sense of spiritual purpose, then you're best off finding one by searching yourself and trying to figure what part of reality you're best off exploring and devoting your energy to.

[VinceG]

Originally Posted by SquarePeg

Besides, you do realize that words are more often than not as variable as, well, algebraic variables, right?

The mind divides up reality by creating words for each thing it sees. The mind can hold lots and lots of words, but reality is a much smaller set than that.

Take the example above: ego, self, and free will. Ask yourself what's the difference between these three concepts. While the usage differs, you wouldn't go around saying stuff like, "I like to wake my ego up in the morning," or "You have ego, you can choose to stop if you want," that's only because these phrasings are awkward, not incorrect.

Describing ego, self, and free will, since they're all the same concept, requires just one sentence, something like, "ego's illusory." To say any more on the topic is to verbalize unnecessarily. To have a discussion about it is to not discuss anything, because what you're discussing doesn't exist.

Best just to find something else to talk about.

[TheJourney]

Originally Posted by SquarePeg

I'm fascinated by the idea that the ego is a natural result of our self-reflective nature -- of which thought is one constituent faculty. Not sure if this is a "correct" view, but it's how I explain things to myself, seeing how thought needs a referent, a thing to point to, and so I've made this construct I label ego and go on to (purport to?) observe various characteristics of it....

Speaking of survival, would you say that the ego was an evolutionary necessity? Or just a simple natural consequence, whatever its effects? That's another aspect of all this which fascinates me so....

I do not think that thought=ego, and I think that's what throws some people off. Ego is the result of attachment and assumptions. I keep repeating these repetitive thought patterns, and therefore ascribe real truth to them. I start to believe these thoughts are real. I gain my sense of identity through these limiting thoughts. We also have assumptions about reality, which also limits it, and therefore prevents us from seeing the limitless self. Ego is that which divides and limits. Thought does not necessarily mean ego, but ego exists through thinking, and it's a fine art to learn to egolessly, and without any sort of judgement of good/bad or right/wrong, observe thoughts.

[SquarePeg]

Originally Posted by VinceG

The mind divides up reality by creating words for each thing it sees. The mind can hold lots and lots of words, but reality is a much smaller set than that.

Hmm, not to get into a semantic quibble, but in case it might prove relevant, I'd imagine that reality is a much larger set -- that it is the ueber-set, the set of all sets! What do you mean by saying reality is a much smaller set than the set of all words created by the mind?

Originally Posted by VinceG

Take the example above: ego, self, and free will. Ask yourself what's the difference between these three concepts. While the usage differs, you wouldn't go around saying stuff like, "I like to wake my ego up in the morning," or "You have ego, you can choose to stop if you want," that's only because these phrasings are awkward, not incorrect. Describing ego, self, and free will, since they're all the same concept, requires just one sentence, something like, "ego's illusory."

Ah, but you're presupposing they're all the same thing! I would say that the thinking self creates the sense of ego, which then goes on to create the sense of free will.

Originally Posted by VinceG

To say any more on the topic is to verbalize unnecessarily. To have a discussion about it is to not discuss anything, because what you're discussing doesn't exist.

Best just to find something else to talk about.

I don't think communication is ever unnecessary, though I do understand the benefit of silence and rest.

As for discussing something that doesn't exist...well, we all love reading stories, right? Watching movies, that kind of thing...so the events and characters depicted do not exist, or did once but no more -- so what? Still fun.

The point is to learn. That's what all this sophistry is for, ultimately.

Though yes, sometimes just being quiet is an education in itself!

[SquarePeg]

Originally Posted by TheJourney

I do not think that thought=ego, and I think that's what throws some people off.

No, actually; if you notice, I'm saying that both thought and ego are natural consequences of our self-reflective abilities...not sure if that's true (though it seems true to me so far), but that's what I'm saying -- not that thought is ego, but that they both arise from the same fertile ground which is our uniquely human abilities....

Originally Posted by TheJourney

Ego is the result of attachment and assumptions. I keep repeating these repetitive thought patterns, and therefore ascribe real truth to them. I start to believe these thoughts are real. I gain my sense of identity through these limiting thoughts.

Yes, that's what seems true to me as well! What a life-changing moment that was for me when I finally came to realize that one day!

Originally Posted by TheJourney

We also have assumptions about reality, which also limits it, and therefore prevents us from seeing the limitless self.

Would you please elaborate on these assumptions about reality? I agree with the statement, but I'm not sure we may mean the same thing here. Are you into Law of Attraction and stuff like that?

And what is the limitless self? Really, I'm not being a wise guy here; just want to be careful I understand what you mean!

Originally Posted by TheJourney

Ego is that which divides and limits. Thought does not necessarily mean ego, but ego exists through thinking, and it's a fine art to learn to egolessly, and without any sort of judgement of good/bad or right/wrong, observe thoughts.

Yeah, that's what I'm trying to do, observe thoughts without fear or desire -- which is very hard to do, especially when those thoughts are fears and desires!

[VinceG]

Originally Posted by SquarePeg

Hmm, not to get into a semantic quibble, but in case it might prove relevant, I'd imagine that reality is a much larger set -- that it is the ueber-set, the set of all sets! What do you mean by saying reality is a much smaller set than the set of all words created by the mind?

From a non-dual perspective, there's nothing but existence. One idea to rule them all. Mind divides up existence into the things it needs. When you divide up something, you get more of it. You could divide up existence into "reality" and "experience" or something like that, and so have two things instead of one.

Ah, but you're presupposing they're all the same thing! I would say that the thinking self creates the sense of ego, which then goes on to create the sense of free will.

Why create such a hierarchy? All you're doing is promoting disagreement with people who don't share your way of distinguishing. And then you have this big disagreement just to come to the realization afterward that all you disagreed about was a silly matter of wording.

As for discussing something that doesn't exist...well, we all love reading stories, right? Watching movies, that kind of thing...so the events and characters depicted do not exist, or did once but no more -- so what? Still fun.

If you say so.

The point is to learn. That's what all this sophistry is for, ultimately.

What exactly are you learning? Different ways that ego doesn't exist? The dynamics of the nothing? How the nothing impacts your life? How the nothing survives?

[SquarePeg]

Originally Posted by VinceG

From a non-dual perspective, there's nothing but existence. One idea to rule them all. Mind divides up existence into the things it needs. When you divide up something, you get more of it. You could divide up existence into "reality" and "experience" or something like that, and so have two things instead of one.

LOL, okay, Zeno's Paradox!

Originally Posted by VinceG

Why create such a hierarchy?

Because we're using words and language and unless you believe in telepathy (and are indeed clairvoyant!) it's all we've got with each other.

Not that I think of ego, self, free will, and mind as a "hierarchy"...but to simply conflate everything as you do seems besides the point: might as well say King Arthur, Guenevere, and Lancelot are all the same, too -- they're just made-up characters....

Originally Posted by VinceG

All you're doing is promoting disagreement with people who don't share your way of distinguishing.

That's why it's so important for folks to be of good will, to be mature -- and to recognize the difference between investigating an idea and having one's own ego all bound up in it!

Originally Posted by VinceG

And then you have this big disagreement just to come to the realization afterward that all you disagreed about was a silly matter of wording.

That's often the case but doesn't necessarily have to be true. For one thing, agreement or disagreement is not very important to genuine truth-seekers. If I'm after understanding, it really doesn't matter to me whether folks agree or disagree -- I just want to know why...the what will take care of itself, as it were.

Originally Posted by VinceG

If you say so.

If I say so??

You mean you're not interested in this topic? You originally checked this out and commented to...just say how uninteresting things are and we'll never get to the bottom of it so why bother...??

Originally Posted by VinceG

What exactly are you learning? Different ways that ego doesn't exist? The dynamics of the nothing? How the nothing impacts your life? How the nothing survives?

Yes, though obviously not with the (non-meaning) meanings you mean!

Look, maybe you are just young. When I was young, I didn't get modern art, much less postmodern fiction and such things. I didn't understand all this mystical Zen talk, either. But I've had experiences (no drugs, BTW -- been drug-free all my life, unless you count the occasional coffee or Nyquil!), and now I understand much more...and I'm not talking about light-at-the-end-of-the-tunnel kind of stuff, nothing paranormal...but I've had experiences and so it made me curious as to things....

I wish the same insatiable curiosity on you, too!

[VinceG]

Originally Posted by SquarePeg

LOL, okay, Zeno's Paradox!

That's a good way of putting it.

Because we're using words and language and unless you believe in telepathy (and are indeed clairvoyant!) it's all we've got with each other.

Not that I think of ego, self, free will, and mind as a "hierarchy"...but to simply conflate everything as you do seems besides the point: might as well say King Arthur, Guenevere, and Lancelot are all the same, too -- they're just made-up characters....

The concepts we put in front of us start out divided, separate. We grow when we realize that the separation comes not from the concepts themselves, but our minds.

Naturally, the mind cannot accept "everything as one" to start with. That's why the growth process, the realization, is necessary.

That's why it's so important for folks to be of good will, to be mature -- and to recognize the difference between investigating an idea and having one's own ego all bound up in it!

Importance is an idea also created by the mind. It's not important for others to do anything. The world was here before you were. If you want friendly relations with people, you have to create those yourself. Love is a choice you make, it is dependent on nobody else's decision to be of good will or to be mature, or to even recognize differences.

That's often the case but doesn't necessarily have to be true. For one thing, agreement or disagreement is not very important to genuine truth-seekers. If I'm after understanding, it really doesn't matter to me whether folks agree or disagree -- I just want to know why...the what will take care of itself, as it were.

I have learned that it is more important than one thinks. For example, I have always had a materialist, humanist bent. It is easy to ignore others when you have a convenient reference for reality right in front of you. Lately I've been unresisting non-material truths, such as the clairvoyance and telepathy you mentioned. When you're exploring metaphysical ideas such as these, it's helpful to have an overarching model of how this stuff works.

To get that model, I follow threads here about psychic stuff and play close attention to posters like Erin and Midnite and wstein. I weigh what they say against the spiritual truths that I already know and am so slowly working in non-material reality into my perception.

Consensus reality can show us things about our personal realities that we've missed. This works in all areas of life, not just the non-material.

If I say so??

You mean you're not interested in this topic? You originally checked this out and commented to...just say how uninteresting things are and we'll never get to the bottom of it so why bother...??

I followed it wondering why people were having the discussion. There's something about it that was confusing me. I can understand why people have political discussions, or why they get so heated in the sex and relationship threads, but these threads still confuse me.

People have political discussions to protect and advance their physical realities. They debate relationship topics to help them understand the other sex. Here, I still have no clue. So I'm going to keep following them until I can understand why people have these discussions. The actual topic, ego, isn't terribly interesting to me, I've exhausted that one years ago.

I can't just take your word for it when you say it's intrinsically fun. So are all other forms of interaction. There has to be a reason you're having this particular discussion. That reason is what I'm after.

Yes, though obviously not with the (non-meaning) meanings you mean!

Look, maybe you are just young. When I was young, I didn't get modern art, much less postmodern fiction and such things. I didn't understand all this mystical Zen talk, either. But I've had experiences (no drugs, BTW -- been drug-free all my life, unless you count the occasional coffee or Nyquil!), and now I understand much more...and I'm not talking about light-at-the-end-of-the-tunnel kind of stuff, nothing paranormal...but I've had experiences and so it made me curious as to things....

I wish the same insatiable curiosity on you, too!

I am curious about a great many things, but the level at which I'm interested in them in is hard to convey usefully.

[TheJourney]

Originally Posted by SquarePeg

No, actually; if you notice, I'm saying that both thought and ego are natural consequences of our self-reflective abilities...not sure if that's true (though it seems true to me so far), but that's what I'm saying -- not that thought is ego, but that they both arise from the same fertile ground which is our uniquely human abilities....

Well, we are naturally curious. We keep that curiosity, regardless of how much we develop. There is no ceiling.

Yes, that's what seems true to me as well! What a life-changing moment that was for me when I finally came to realize that one day!

The range of your thoughts become your reality. What you incoorporate into your feeling is how it will appear.

Would you please elaborate on these assumptions about reality? I agree with the statement, but I'm not sure we may mean the same thing here. Are you into Law of Attraction and stuff like that?

Well, it could be anything. Anything you think about reality is based on assumptions. Only the ultimate perspective is free of assumptions, and therefore in control. I'm recently getting into Law of Attraction, but as it is obviously true from the perspective of ultimate truth.

And what is the limitless self? Really, I'm not being a wise guy here; just want to be careful I understand what you mean!

That which is, and creates, anything he thinks of. This is who you truly are.

Yeah, that's what I'm trying to do, observe thoughts without fear or desire -- which is very hard to do, especially when those thoughts are fears and desires!

Try not to think of your thoughts as they pertain to "you." They are just outflow of your state of consciousness, but are no more "you" than anything.