Spiritual Ego

[wolfgang]

Originally Posted by Maguru

I absolutely support 'practice what you preach' and there isn't much evidence of this either. I don't wish to create an us and them with the idea of a spiritual ego but I find the 'spiritual ego' mentality does just that. Regards

what are you preaching?

[wolfgang]

Originally Posted by Arcanum

...there is just perceiving happening. We can even throw away 'Being'.

yeah

Whatever it takes to dismiss the message or the messenger.

or to insist on making sure there is a messenger doing something and in the light of doing it wrong some how such that there is a superiority level going on

[seeds]

____________

alexplatups,

You said to Maguru:

Originally Posted by alexplatups

From my perspective, you are quite frustrated with not grasping the
simplicity of the true nature of reality, and you continue to accuse those
that seem to grasp it of acting somehow superior in relation those that don't.

Followed by:

Originally Posted by alexplatups

The funny thing is that it is all ONE experience. There is no you and me or
anyone else really.

The statement – “There is no you and me or anyone else really” – is based purely on speculation and your own personal opinion of what you and others imagine “…the true nature of reality…” to be.

In my own personal opinion, the “no me or you” line of reasoning is utterly useless.

Its total counter-intuitiveness completely disqualifies it from ever being a viable philosophy that humans can adopt and apply to life on earth.

Therefore, what good is it?

Furthermore, to pose such flagrant assumptions (“no you/me”) to Maguru as something that you and others “grasp” while she doesn’t is not only condescending, but downright silly in light of the speculative nature of the ideas.

(Ha! I guess my spiritual ego seems to be picking a fight with your spiritual ego. Playground, 4:00 PM, be there. )

The point is, I am quite certain that Maguru “grasps” what you guys are talking about, it’s just (and I’m guessing here, Maguru) that she merely isn’t buying what you’re selling (and the same goes for others of us).


seeds

[wolfgang]

Originally Posted by inri

yes, it is a pretty crazy thing indeed isn't it to have people who supposedly believe that spirituality expands our perspective and induces peace, getting stuck in feeling the need to defend and uphold our personal version of spiritual 'truth.'

I initially read your OP and immediately began pointing the finger at all those 'others' here who I deemed as doing precisely this, however, it soon became quite clear that that finger I was pointing, was actually directed squarely back at ME.

yeah I make fun of myself now when I see this happening to me.

"look at how high and mighty they are" - is another version of being high and mighty as well as this little statement too.

This has been a good reminder for me to acknowledge the one thing about all of this that I just might slap the actual label of 'truth' upon, and that is; In actuality, I know nothing with certainty.

truth is knowing nothing about it and letting it be mysterious (I red that somewhere recently, so I know that) hahaha

Anything I could ever conceive of, hold knowledge of, experience, or realize is also ultimately filtered through my own perceptions the moment that I ponder it, therefore, any argument about my realization being more 'truthful' or more 'correct' than another's is pretty much like saying, "The way I perceive reality is better than the way you perceive reality"...and if my own beliefs do anything for me, it is to remind me that there is no such thing as better or more correct when it comes to any of this.

perceiving reality happens, don't you think? that is what is. it is the light. thinking about it, about realizing what the mystery is, also happens and is the light, albeit a dimmer version of the light. but dimmer is not proper to say since it seems to carry a connotation it is not as good as full on light.

I love the process of debate so much that It's easy to get caught up and when spiritual beliefs are the topic, it really is very easy to lose sight of the forest for the trees.

or the leafs, some of those leafs are really cool man.

I can once again see the forest. Thanks so much Paula....(and Arcanum, Reefs, Chris, Alex, for the incredibly stimulating debate)

did you notice the mountain the forest is in? hehehe.

[ChrisGinsburg]

Originally Posted by inri

You have to realize that you really don't have any way of knowing how I experience or relate to that which I call 'me'...the same could be said for anyone here.

This is an important point within all these conversations. Without a clear understanding of exactly how each of us experiences 'self,' 'I" or "Me" "You" the words themselves really are quite meaningless.



I could say the same to you; the fact that you are here espousing your rejection of the term 'full circle' and seemingly believing that someone named Inri does not 'get it' denotes that you believe there is a person named 'chris' who 'does get it.'

It's impossible to have these conversations without using words such as 'me, my, I, You. I suppose if we really care to know where the other is coming from we'd get down to defining and explaining our experiences of those words...then again, even that would fall short of the actual experience.

I think if we could perhaps try to come at this with an understanding rather than an attempt to 'tear down' what the other is saying, the conversation would flow differently.

Imagine reading the post of another with an initial assumption that they actually DID understand what they were talking about, rather than a pre-supposition of them being delusional?...I rather think there'd be a lot greater level of understanding occurring.

This is mostly all projection. Once again, there is no me that gets it and you that doesn't get it. I believe this was what Arcanum was pointing out a while back with the ruthless truth people who were on this forum. To say that I have awakened or what not and you have not is still just another mind trip. The mind thinking it found the key to itself.

Knowing how you experience or relate to yourself is what's being asked to be left behind. However, there is no way you can do this. Any way you try to do it will only make it more difficult. The only way for it to happen is to simply let it happen by lowering any and all resistance. And yes, this can be a word trap if you look too deeply into it. So long as every word is bounced off these notions there is always the you that is taking the defensive stance. The you that goes full circle and the you that is full of love and compassion. The you that believes an impersonal truth is impossible or that anyone talking about it is trying to escape from something.

What is being asked is to simply be. Yes, even the notions that you're a loving compassionate person who resonates with others is all a game of pretend. This IS the spiritual ego. There is no way this thread or any expression of existence needs to flow. It's flowing exactly as it needs to right here right now.

[wolfgang]

Originally Posted by CaterpillarWoman

Socrates taught that this was the foundation of wisdom, indeed, it's the ONLY wisdom. I tend to agree with him on this one.

Even our experiences are really just interpretations of various sensual data, formed into something like a storyline, and woven into the story of "who we are" but the thing is, we're not really the story, or the experiences, or the data, or the interpretations... So what DO we really know?

To quote George Harrison, who was quoting Hindu scriptures, "The farther one travels, the less one knows, the less one really knows". I find this to be the case, and when I start thinking I DO know what's going on, it's always a sign that it's time to look around and see that, in fact, I damn well don't. It's actually only from the perspective of "I really don't know anything for certain" that I find any kind of lasting peace.

So why I keep taking myself out of that place, I have no idea. I suppose the siren song of "knowing" keeps calling me and seducing me. Maybe one day I'll get to where the siren call has no effect...

what if you could also see the seduction of "knowing" as that place? give it space as it is something that shows up. even give the feeling that, if you take this suggestion to heart, you should give it space - space. let it be too. as it occurs to me that in not letting the want to know have it's space is when it spins out and it seems harder to see the light. but the light is still there.

iow, if we carry on about knowing that the correct path is to not know, and freak about when we are having fun trying to know... oh buggers, lost my train of thought there...

[wolfgang]

Originally Posted by lycan

My impression so far is that "spiritual people" are engaged in a fantasy, a rationalization. It is a form of vanity. Because they think they can't achieve or sustain "outer beauty", they denounce it in favor of "inner beauty", or call it shallow. Same for wealth. Same for pretty much everything. It is the vanity of the powerless who pretend that their lack is a value so they don't have to deal with it. It is their own way to manufacture self-esteem, through which they hide from death, when they see themselves as impotent to achieve life "in the world".

I shouldn't live in a glass house because I throw stones.

[wolfgang]

Originally Posted by ChrisGinsburg

Spiritual ego? what is that. I have become Zeus. I shoot lightning bolts out of my chakras when I meditate.

oh cool man, can I learn that!!!???

[ChrisGinsburg]

Originally Posted by wolfgang

oh cool man, can I learn that!!!???

Yes, you must meditate indefinitely. But only indefinitely. Don't worry eternity can't be too long.

[wolfgang]

Originally Posted by CaterpillarWoman

This forum is, more and more, convincing me that these kinds of discussions truly are pointless.

the point is that thinking and posting in a forum is what IS and happens and is still BEING in the light. to say it is pointless is a way to call something that has just become distilled in thoughts and posts as dark and believing dark exists. the message is: there is no dark only less light. engage if you wish in what ever way that shows up. give pointless-ness space and see that as love/light/being (whatever term you like) as well.

and if you don't do this you are inferior and don't get it and need to be told how to BE. (jk)

[alexplatups]

[QUOTE=inri;963086]

So...no experience of personal joy when YOUR child is born, no personal experience of intimate love for your wife...no experience of having a different opinion than another...no experience of choosing clothes to wear that YOU like... This is what I'm referring to when I say 'experience of personal self."

The experience of personal self I refer to is evidenced in this very conversation about individual perspectives we are having...and YES, it is understood that this is not apart in any way from oneness.

while these things are being experienced, we can recognize that it is ONENESS but there is still, simultaneously, the experience occurring 'here' of joy over MY child being born or MY husband embracing ME.

Please do notice your frequent use of the word OF. I made it quite clear
and put it in big letters that Being is aware AS the one experience.

It is NOT aware OF, but AS. This is a very, very, very important distinction,
and it is the reason you continue to talk about duality.

When something is aware OF, there IS duality. The something, and the
thing it is aware OF.

When there is ONENESS there is something aware AS the thing.

This is where my confusion was rooted for a long time. After the contemplation
I wrote about in the "Being IS everything" thread, I became deeply conscious
of the difference between OF and AS.

Once you do the same you will have a crystal-clear picture of what I'm seeing.

yup.....this experience of 'me' is really an element of one experience...agreed.

Do you acknowledge an experience of having a body, specific thoughts, likes, dislikes? This is precisely what I'm speaking of.

Yes, I do acknowledge that Being is aware AS these things, but NOT of
them. And notice that once again you are using the word OF.

I continue to use the words 'experience of.' I see all experience as having existence in the moment it is occurring.

That OF word again

I get this completely Alex...everything in the experience is ONE.

When you see that Being is aware AS everything, then you will get this
completely. I think you are one step away from this

Full circle is merely a term/concept I use to try to explain a deepening of this 'seeing of BEING' you have described.

With this deepening ALL experience is simply accepted at face value as it is all known to be ONE.

There is no seeing OF Being. Every distinction, including whatever "at face
value" means - is Being, being aware AS these distinctions.

I might be repeating that AS way too much, but this IS the most important
distinction to make to awaken.

There is no experiencer. There is no doer. There is no observer.

There is only Being aware AS this one experience.

This IS oneness. One Being. One Experience.

...and remember AS not OF.

[alexplatups]

Originally Posted by inri

Sorry. It's bound to happen when you have two minds attempting to share their content.

True. But aren't you writing in here for an insight, and NOT just entertainment?

yup..that's what I've been saying' "THE EXPERIENCE" of being a human being.

there's that nasty word OF again, creating duality with two letters

Being is aware AS a human being, not OF. Human being is a distinction.

Being is aware AS this distinction. And all the other distinctions that exist.
Simultaneously. This is oneness. As, not if. Non-duality.

Everything. AS-Itself. This IS Being.

And once again, this is precisely what I've also been saying. It's all one experience...the experience of being a human is not apart from oneness in any way,shape or form.

By now, I do believe you have grasped the AS, and realized the OF is a
nasty little word creating duality. This duality is a distinction of course.
But, still, Being is aware AS this duality, not aware OF it.

The reason I ask is that it was not too long ago that you were very exicited and writing posts about the importance of love...in being as kind and loving as possible to your fellow humans.

The fact that your 'truth' has so recently seemed to have changed, tells me that you are quite new to this 'seeing of one' you are now so excited over...as I've said, once this seeing has been deeply accepted and becomes abiding, (the stage of seeing I refer to as full circle) there is an even greater, more expansive shift that occurs...not always, but usually this does a certain amount of time to assimilate this perspective into all facets of our experience.

That does not change. It remains THIS ONE EXPERIENCE.

And I'm not seeing OF One. I'm aware AS One.

I am able to love humans and all sentient beings even more, because I am
aware AS them. I am Being/Consciousness. So are you. You are also
aware AS everything. And you are also aware AS nothing.

Nothing is the true nature of Being/Consciousness.

It is the authentic state, before a distinction is made.

Without Being aware AS nothing, Being could not be aware AS something.
To be aware AS any distinction, Being first has to be aware AS nothing.

There is no other way. This means that our true nature IS nothing.

[inri]

Originally Posted by ChrisGinsburg

This is mostly all projection.

Are you positive about that? Who or what is perceiving this 'projection'?

Once again, there is no me that gets it and you that doesn't get it. I believe this was what Arcanum was pointing out a while back with the ruthless truth people who were on this forum. To say that I have awakened or what not and you have not is still just another mind trip. The mind thinking it found the key to itself.
There is no way this thread or any expression of existence needs to flow. It's flowing exactly as it needs to right here right now.

I don't think I said there was anything that 'needed' to happen. I think you're looking for points of disagreement here.

I get the sense Chris, that you are also quite new to this 'seeing' and that you appear to be quite enamored with it presently. I base this on our previous conversation about your articles to 'help others'..and how you've shifted recently in terms of your perceptions about the lack of need or desire to continue to write the types of articles that you write for your website.





I think at first when we see this, we're very focused upon the fact that there is seeing of oneness, expressing. In this extreme focus and our excitement about what it is that is being seen, we often perceive a need to sever all engagement with that which is being expressed in favor of the expressor, oneness.

This is where we get these silly conversations where individuals refuse to acknowledge that they are experiencing an individuated focus and thus do everything possible to avoid using pronouns such as I, you, me, mine, etc.

[wolfgang]

Originally Posted by alexplatups

from here:



You ARE talking about certain human beings having a spiritual ego, are you
not in your posts? If you are talking ONLY about spiritual ego ITSELF, then
there is no problem of any kind, because then there is nothing personal
in that, it just IS, as everything else.

From my perspective, you are quite frustrated with not grasping the
simplicity of the true nature of reality, and you continue to accuse those
that seem to grasp it of acting somehow superior in relation those that don't.

are you one of the superior ones that knows that she doesn't see true nature like you do?

what happened to everyone is where they are and if they are somewhere they don't like they can get clear by knowing they are BEING anyway?

why the telling someone else they don't get it?

why not ask them if this is how they feel or something instead of casting them into the dark as if you have psychic powers?

like, maguru, does what he wrote describe what you are going through?

The funny thing is that it is all ONE experience. There is no you and me or
anyone else really. It is all simply occuring as ONE experience.

Everything is occuring as ONE experience, including what you are writing
about in every post, and what everyone else is writing. You are not seeing
this. You continue to want to separate stuff that can't be separated in
reality. You are separating stuff by making a distinction "separation" but
this distinction still remains an element of the whole.

if she is posting as occurring as ONE experience, why would there be a need to point out she isn't doing it right and has this affliction in seeing things as separate? how could she be as ONE experience and also be spotted as not seeing this ONE? what is that all about?

and if you would apply what you preach - even her perceived (by you) separating stuff out instead of seeing as distinction (whatever the difference is) - then this too is BEING ONE, etc... and therefor not in need of being told she isn't getting it! dude.

[wolfgang]

Originally Posted by Reefs

It's rather that questions are asked and answering happens. Who is wise or unwise when neither the one who is asking the question nor the one who is answering them is the doer?

behold a wisdom happening

[inri]

[QUOTE=alexplatups;963149]

Originally Posted by inri

Please do notice your frequent use of the word OF. I made it quite clear
and put it in big letters that Being is aware AS the one experience.

It is NOT aware OF, but AS. This is a very, very, very important distinction,
and it is the reason you continue to talk about duality.

When something is aware OF, there IS duality. The something, and the
thing it is aware OF.


Once you do the same you will have a crystal-clear picture of what I'm seeing.

Yes, I do acknowledge that Being is aware AS these things, but NOT of
them. And notice that once again you are using the word OF.


That OF word again

When you see that Being is aware AS everything, then you will get this
completely. I think you are one step away from this

The two have always meant exactly the same thing 'here.' But I do see your point in feeling the need to make the distinction.

I think this statement that I often make takes care of it.

"All experience as having existence in the moment it is occurring."

Therefore a feeling of joy at observing my child be born is a knowing of the experience as BEING......as Oneness.

"having existence in the moment" equals 'being experienced as.....'

[wolfgang]

Originally Posted by inri

Once oneness is fully known and embraced and the personal self is also known to be an expression of oneness, there is nothing to fear. We are free to engage or disengage at will. When we've reached this place, The awareness of oneness never wavers regardless of engagement or non-engagement of mind/body.

there is no way to not be embracing oneness. we all are right now in whatever awareness is happening. we don't decide to engage or disengage anything. there is awareness given to oneness in the exact size that it shows up as. there is nothing more or less than what is right now in your experience. if it be your thoughts, then that is it. if it be a universal orgasm that is it. if you go on about there being big and small onenesses, then that's not oneness anymore, but another different concept of like spheres of awareness or thought comparing experiences.

[alexplatups]

Originally Posted by seeds

The statement – “There is no you and me or anyone else really” – is based purely on speculation and your own personal opinion of what you and others imagine “…the true nature of reality…” to be.

There is no speculation or personal opinion here. It is all ONE experience,
there are distinctions, but there is NO separation.

What is there before a distinction is made? The answer is the true
nature of Being/Consciousness. It is what is Original. What is Authentic.

Without THIS - Distinctions could not exist.

This also means that the true nature of a distinction IS also this.

In my own personal opinion, the “no me or you” line of reasoning is utterly useless.

Its total counter-intuitiveness completely disqualifies it from ever being a viable philosophy that humans can adopt and apply to life on earth.

Therefore, what good is it?

The truth is meaningless. But it IS the truth.

Furthermore, to pose such flagrant assumptions (“no you/me”) to Maguru as something that you and others “grasp” while she doesn’t is not only condescending, but downright silly in light of the speculative nature of the ideas.

(Ha! I guess my spiritual ego seems to be picking a fight with your spiritual ego. Playground, 4:00 PM, be there. )

The point is, I am quite certain that Maguru “grasps” what you guys are talking about, it’s just (and I’m guessing here, Maguru) that she merely isn’t buying what you’re selling (and the same goes for others of us).

We don't know if there is a you/me. We believe and have assumptions about
this. We simply have NO WAY of knowing anything. If this is not crystal-clear
to you, I think you are in the wrong sub-forum.


seeds

[wolfgang]

Originally Posted by alexplatups

This "you" or whatever this "you" - you believe is thinking or doing or feeling
is the same as the tree outside, or a fish swimming in the ocean, or the
sun, or anything else in this one experience.

I don't see any tree or fish right now, how can that be this "you" if there is absolutely no awareness of it right now?

It is simply Being/Consciousness being aware AS all these things.

aware of things not in awareness - like the trees in the park that are not in my awareness!!!!???

There is NOTHING that can engage or disengage at will. This is the point
that is very important to grasp.

listen up kiddies - the secret is about to be revealed - try to engage now with your will, grasp NOW!!!

Consciousness is aware AS this ONE EXPERIENCE.

Engaging or disengaging are simply distinctions in this one experience.

my thoughts are getting muddy reading this now.

Being/Consciousness is aware AS engaging/disengaging at will. But it is
aware AS these distinctions as part of one experience. There is no such
thing as a personal self, in the way you speak of.

let's examine this further please. we need a microscope and some gloves to make the proper distinctions of oneness being consciousness AS what will engages without personal selfs, ok. go get your safety goggles.

There is simply Being/Consciousness being aware AS a belief that there is
a personal self. But, this is different from what you are trying to say. You
are speaking as if there really is a "personal self" or a "you" that exists.

...and that you CAN engage or disengage from it.

I'm saying there really isn't and never has been and never can be.

not sure why this sounds empty, even though I agree with it.

There is NOTHING but the experience that is occuring.

Anything in the experience IS still this ONE experience, and this is the part
that you are not grasping. At least this is what I am observing
based on what you are wrote in the post above.

ONE experience!!! then not grasping is not not ONE either!!!

If you do actually become conscious that Being/Consciousness is aware AS
this one experience, you will understand that there is no full circle, there is
only Being/Consciousness that IS aware.

This is oneness.

What you are talking about is DUALITY.

what everyone talks about is duality.

It is where you are trying to say that Being/Consciousness is aware OF
this experience, that it can engage or disengage from it, and this is not
what is occuring.

ALL IS ONE REMEMBER!!! (accordingly to you) so how can there be something to point out that is not what it is!!!???

This awareness OF is part of the experience, but it is a distinction, an illusion
that Being/Consciousness is aware AS, not of!

yeah - AS not of - get with it everyone (oppss what kind of monster is this)

[inri]

[QUOTE]

Originally Posted by wolfgang

there is no way to not be embracing oneness. we all are right now in whatever awareness is happening.

I'm speaking about seeing it and thus being aware of it. When I say 'embracing' it is in an effort to describe how this knowing 'colors' every aspect of experience. Perception changes with awareness.

we don't decide to engage or disengage anything.

I'm speaking here of focused perspective. For example; in this very moment I can choose to engage with the perspective or vantage point of body/mind to determine there is hunger or I can disengage from it to adopt a broader perspective where this hunger is not even noticed.

there is nothing more or less than what is right now in your experience. if it be your thoughts, then that is it. if it be a universal orgasm that is it. if you go on about there being big and small onenesses, then that's not oneness anymore, but another different concept of like spheres of awareness or thought comparing experiences.

Nope, no big or small onenesses.

The only thing that varies is the awareness of oneness. For someone who identifies solely with the body it could be said that there is little awareness of oneness, and yet, oneness did not cease to be simply because it was not recognized.

[wolfgang]

Originally Posted by alexplatups

Once again. Based on everything you wrote above, I'm going to repeat that
this is ONE experience. Not two or three. The experience "human being" is
not separate from anything else. It is all ONE experience, and so "human
being" is a distinction in one experience.

is distinction different than separation?

If it is all one experience (oneness) what is there to change, or what
can be changed?

apparently inri's concepts need changing (according to you) since she's not talking about oneness according to you.

[wolfgang]

Originally Posted by agsags

But there is "in the know" in spirituality. Otherwise there would be no psychics. Otherwise there would be no (spiritual) teachers. There is no single LANGUAGE/PATH to describe/explore spirituality (as in "a map is not a territory"), but it doesn't mean that there is no spiritual landscape and some can orient themselves better on it.

the best teachers are the ones that show you, that you don't need them.

[wolfgang]

Originally Posted by ChrisGinsburg

Yes, you must meditate indefinitely. But only indefinitely. Don't worry eternity can't be too long.

if I start later but do it forever it doesn't matter when I start or even start at all, perhaps.

[wolfgang]

Originally Posted by alexplatups

I might be repeating that AS way too much, but this IS the most important
distinction to make to awaken.

There is no experiencer. There is no doer. There is no observer.

There is only Being aware AS this one experience.

This IS oneness. One Being. One Experience.

...and remember AS not OF.

yeah get with it!!

everyone quick, do this (even though there is no doer) make this important distinction because you are doing it wrong (even though everything that is being experienced is ONE) so just go with it and REALIZE this and awaken: it's not OF it's AS!!!! I see the light.

[alexplatups]

@wolfgang: Your answers sound like a person writing that does not
know English very well, and is in 8th or 9th grade. I am not even going to waste
my time responding to any of them, except one. BTW...I have nothing against
people that don't know English very well or 8 or 9 graders, I just don't want to
communicate with them in this forum. It is not what I like doing while I spend
my time in here.

Here's one thing I will respond to:

A distinction is anything that is different from what it is NOT. Separation, is
when things are separate. They are not together. Separation is a distinction
itself. It is distinct from what it is not.

[wolfgang]

Originally Posted by inri

I'm speaking about seeing it and thus being aware of it. When I say 'embracing' it is in an effort to describe how this knowing 'colors' every aspect of experience. Perception changes with awareness.

so let's see. you are saying seeing it or being aware of it. it being this oneness or whatever term. I am also trying to address what seeing or being aware of it is. to me it isn't something we get to control. we don't get to sit down and say, ok know I'm going to embrace or see or be aware of this mysterious oneness thing. and that's because we get what we get - what is in our experience is there, regardless of embracing seeing or "awareness of" going on. there is nothing else to go to other that what we experience. we don't get to embrace it or not, it happens.

I'm speaking here of focused perspective. For example; in this very moment I can choose to engage with the perspective or vantage point of body/mind to determine there is hunger or I can disengage from it to adopt a broader perspective where this hunger is not even noticed.

a focused perspective ok. but what brings about this focused or broader perspective? I don't see it as something "I" get to do. Mostly I seem to get to cause focusing down from a broader view. I don't get to be the one that expands to broader views. To do that is to let go of focus and allow.

Nope, no big or small onenesses.

The only thing that varies is the awareness of oneness. For someone who identifies solely with the body it could be said that there is little awareness of oneness, and yet, oneness did not cease to be simply because it was not recognized.

yay! oneness never is not. (you know the "of" police is gonna jump on all that "of" ing)

[spacedout]

Originally Posted by Maguru

I wonder if the 'spiritual ego' is the last of a long line of selves that needs to go?

After long contemplation over this introspective question, my ego has decided that there is no difference between a spiritual ego and any other ego. There is only one ego and if you think otherwise it's because of your exaggerated ego.

[Arcanum]

Originally Posted by inri

You describe this really well, and I'm guessing that the abiding awareness you speak of, makes it impossible to engage the storyline in a way that would put you in any 'real danger' of suffering greatly, as the moment 'actual' suffering began to appear , the awareness would enter in to mitigate any attachment that might have otherwise occurred.

I think what happens with many who are seeking enlightenment/freedom from suffering is that they attempt to sever all engagement with the personal self (which is really not possible so long as we remain a physical being) and the storyline, for fear that they'll forget what they know and once again get sucked back in, becoming attached, believing again that the experience is everything, thereby experience pain and suffering.

This is an understandable position in one who has just recently come to this awareness, but as you demonstrate, the awareness deepens to the point where the need to try to disengage 'completely,' disappears.

My own experience (and this sounds like what you're also describing) is that once this awareness is fully assimilated and becomes an abiding knowing, there is no danger anymore of 'forgetting' our divinity...therefore no reason to purposefully try to eschew ALL engagement with the mind/body, personal self.

This said, there is little doubt that the relationship with the personal self experience WILL change, because of the awareness.

In those who feel the need to purposefully move away from ALL engagement with personal self, there seems to be a judgment being made (and I very much see this as indicating involvement of the spiritual ego) that says, "there is danger in engaging the individualized, personal perspective" and thus, the decision is made to try to align oneself solely with the absolute.

Of course, so long as we remain a human being, this total and complete alignment to the exclusion of the personal self is not really possible, so it becomes a game the spiritual ego plays, of telling itself that all identification with the personal self has been dissolved, when really this aspect of self is simply being denied. This denial can result in some ugly human behaviors,but of course along with the personal self, these also get denied....after all, if there is 'no me' here, then how could 'I' possibly be responsible for them.

What these folks will see when they can get past the fear of suffering is that engagement with the personal self and personal story is not 'dangerous' at all once we've fully assimilated this awareness about the totality of self.

With this awareness firmly in place, WE are then free to flow from a more contracted/focused perspective, all the way up to a more expanded one, freely and without fear, because of the abiding knowing of the oneness that lies behind all experience.

Anyway, your input here is very much appreciated. You have such a concise way of putting these things and I think we see this subject similarly.

This is the difficulty of viewing everything through a personal lens. Recognizing that there is no separate, volitional 'me' turns into "eschewing ALL engagement with the mind/body, personal self" or " purposefully move away from ALL engagement with personal self", which implies judgment, which implies spiritual ego that says there is a danger and a decision made to align with some absolute thingy. Once all these giraffes are in place, then we can conclude that "this aspect of self is simply being denied" which leads to "This denial can result in some ugly human behaviors", which of course also get denied along with responsible behavior.

Now we have a whole herd of giraffes that reveal this complex personal psychodrama that never happened anywhere except in the personal mind.

[wolfgang]

Originally Posted by alexplatups

@wolfgang: Your answers sound like a person writing that does not
know English very well, and is in 8th or 9th grade. I am not even going to waste
my time responding to any of them, except one. BTW...I have nothing against
people that don't know English very well or 8 or 9 graders, I just don't want to
communicate with them in this forum. It is not what I like doing while I spend
my time in here.

Here's one thing I will respond to:

A distinction is anything that is different from what it is NOT. Separation, is
when things are separate. They are not together. Separation is a distinction
itself. It is distinct from what it is not.

lol. sorry man. didn't really expect replies to much at all really, just posting to what I'm reading here. maybe even be a bit trollish of me.

your posts sound like regurgitated oneness non-duality mental elitist stuff that I have gotten sick of, nothing personal - this kind of material is just bland or needless wordiness to me now a days.

if you feel a need to defend that you have had insight about this - then you are having an abstraction concept stuck in your mental distinction maker.

[wolfgang]

Originally Posted by spacedout

After long contemplation over this introspective question, my ego has decided that there is no difference between a spiritual ego and any other ego. There is only one ego and if you think otherwise it's because of your exaggerated ego.

like