Deconstructing False Perceptions

[Gem]

The deconstruction of the ego directly refers to seeing through the false perceptions of self to reveal your true nature.

By the accounts I have read and heard of, the process of 'getting over yourself' tends to be difficult and arduous, but in the end, facing the undeniable truth can't be avoided. It can be avoided for a very long time, but continually avoiding this and perpetually chasing that becomes exhausting, and can no longer be maintained, and then there's no choice but to lay down and surrender, come what may.

It doesn't matter what people think the ego is, or if we need the ego and all that which people always say. This matter isn't one of personality, it's a matter of false identity... This false identity is like a building. It have to be maintained and it takes constant work to keep it standing, and the moment you stop maintaining it, it begins to fall apart and crumble. One doesn't deconstruct the ego by attacking it and trying to get rid of it or kill it... on the contrary, one does nothing and it falls away.

[Emmalevine]

Hi Gem, I think i understand what you're saying and agree. By wanting to examine or even kill the ego, one gives it more energy because by nature focusing on something, even negatively, feeds it.

I have found that simply staying in awareness and not attaching to thoughts or feelings, particularly those routed in a sense of identity, makes the ego immaterial. It is essentially effortless for me. However, it has taken me a lot of understanding to reach this point because instinct tells you to keep trying to work everything out and make sense of self.

[Ivy]

It seems to me that there are numerous ways to 'get over yourself'.

This, like all those others, is another way that an individual may have found their way through.

But when one has found that way, the step is surely to keep going... not to describe a way that 'one does or doesn't do it'. All that does is deny that people find different ways and how can that be helpful?

[kkfern]

i like the ego or sense of self. but them i like myself too.

i do however agree that there comes a time you need to deconstruct your perceptions. the followings are from my writings when i had to deconstruct. there were many false impressions taught by religions.

I am thin skinned and thick headed and getting thru to me is not an easy task. It is a good thing that my spirit friends did not give up on me. There was a lesson to which I had much resistance. I had already accepted and learned so much from them. But this was different. This was un-acceptable. This was impossible. This shattered even my conception of reality.

The lesson they wanted to teach about was in direct conflict with everything I held to be true. The lessons made me question all that I had been taught to believe in. The lesson cut so deep that it made me question everything I had been taught not to believe in. How could I give up heaven when the only alternative I knew was hell? Reincarnation? I could not buy into the great record keeper in the sky that demanded payment for everything ever done. I did not experience this in the God I knew when I died. When I died? What was it that happened when I died?

I knew the subject matter for today’s lesson would be about the “continuation of life”. I would have nothing to do with any of it. I could not stand it if my concept of heaven was destroyed. On the upside though, this also meant my concept of hell would be nullified. I did not know much about reincarnation, all I knew for sure was I did not agree with it. What about the belief that that there is nothing when you are dead? I knew that was not true from personnel experience. Now what?


kk

[Gem]

It seems to me that there are numerous ways to 'get over yourself'.
I don't think there are. I think it's a fundamental thing that applies to everyone universally.

This, like all those others, is another way that an individual may have found their way through.
Coming to a stand still and surrendering come what may is pretty much it. What comes won't be the same for everyone, but giving up the ghost will.

But when one has found that way, the step is surely to keep going... not to describe a way that 'one does or doesn't do it'. All that does is deny that people find different ways and how can that be helpful?
I can't describe a way to do nothing, and one doesn't stop just because they want to, so it would be futile even if I could, but typically, people just get tired of trying to be somebody, and realise it's OK to just be be like 'this'.

I tried to explain to somebody before that I don't try to help anyone... but it happens due to my undying wish for happiness for all living beings.

[Ivy]

I don't think there are. I think it's a fundamental thing that applies to everyone universally.


Coming to a stand still and surrendering come what may is pretty much it. What comes won't be the same for everyone, but giving up the ghost will.


I can't describe a way to do nothing, and one doesn't stop just because they want to, so it would be futile even if I could, but typically, people just get tired of trying to be somebody, and realise it's OK to just be be like 'this'.

I tried to explain to somebody before that I don't try to help anyone... but it happens due to my undying wish for happiness for all living beings.

And in the belief that there is only one way and the wish for happiness for all living things, you promote this way.

You say it would be futile to describe it, but you have tried to describe it - you describe a building that needs maintaining to keep it, and how it can't be destroyed by attacking it, but how, when one stops maintaining it, it will fall away.

Gem, I respect your journey and if you have come to a stand still and that is what led to you surrendering and letting the false self fall away, then that's great.

Identity is something that is developed through childhood and that continues to change and develop through adulthood. My upbringing prevented me from developing a sense of identity. Instead I looked to others to identify me, and took on those temporary identities. When I moved away from people, I felt a mixture of relief, but also confusion and very vulnerable - because having no identity does make us vulnerable. Lol, how many people have tried to give me an identity on here? and there was a time when I would have taken that identity on, nowadays, I just say, no, that's not my identity.

So, though you and others may have experienced this build up of identity and letting it drop away, it's not a fundamental thing that applies to everyone at all. And that is what I'm saying to you here: no, this experience that you identify with is not mine, it is yours.

[luntrusreality]

It doesn't matter what people think the ego is, or if we need the ego and all that which people always say. This matter isn't one of personality, it's a matter of false identity... This false identity is like a building. It have to be maintained and it takes constant work to keep it standing, and the moment you stop maintaining it, it begins to fall apart and crumble. One doesn't deconstruct the ego by attacking it and trying to get rid of it or kill it... on the contrary, one does nothing and it falls away.

This is true.
Saying : "We need the Ego" is probably the biggest lie Ego tells Ego to perpetuate itself in spiritual seekers.

Deconstructing Ego is as you rightly said not an entity that you try to get rid of.
It is the false sense of being identified with the body and mind.
This identification is in itself just thoughts and feelings that refer to each other and build up a massive construct of a person.
This "Person" made of thoughts, feelings, memories, behaviour, character traits etc. is what is meant by Ego.

So how do we get rid of it?
As the Ego is non-existent there is no getting rid of it.
Just the realization of that fact.
It is always just the current thought, that the Ego is born and dies again with.

Abiding as aware presence is an important first step. You realize that you are not your thoughts and feelings but that which is aware of them.
They are being experienced by you and are made out of you.
There is no other substance to the Ego than consciousness (you) out of which thoughts of identification with a body and other thoughts arise.
Instead of focussing all attention towards the objects (including thoughts) you are aware of, be aware of the fact that you are aware.
You won't find awareness as an object like thought.
But it is undeniably there. The knowing of being aware and the awareness of knowing. It is the same "thing". Everything else is a "dream" you create that is arising out of you and therefore only made out of awareness itself.

Luntrus

[Classic]

I find it strange when people give our "SELF" a tagline of true or false. When they only truth there is that our selves are ever changing. There can't be a rock bottom 'true self ' that somehow lost itself from choice, from tramatic trauma sure. Eh...i think we're were going on about other things :/

[luntrusreality]

I find it strange when people give our "SELF" a tagline of true or false. When they only truth there is that our selves are ever changing. There can't be a rock bottom 'true self ' that somehow lost itself from choice, from tramatic trauma sure. Eh...i think we're were going on about other things :/

---------------------------------------
*doublepost*

[luntrusreality]

I find it strange when people give our "SELF" a tagline of true or false. When they only truth there is that our selves are ever changing. There can't be a rock bottom 'true self ' that somehow lost itself from choice, from tramatic trauma sure. Eh...i think we're were going on about other things :/

But the true self is the only thing that NEVER changes.
Everything else is given the tagline "false" to first realize that we are not necessarily only what can be experienced but that in which experience arises.

[Silver]

I find it strange when people give our "SELF" a tagline of true or false. When they only truth there is that our selves are ever changing. There can't be a rock bottom 'true self ' that somehow lost itself from choice, from tramatic trauma sure. Eh...i think we're were going on about other things :/

Oh, I agree! You wouldn't believe how much some over-think this kind of stuff.

[Classic]

But the true self is the only thing that NEVER changes.
Everything else is given the tagline "false" to first realize that we are not necessarily only what can be experienced but that in which experience arises.
I cant give a vaccum of experince a sense of self. When of course there isn't one.

[luntrusreality]

I cant give a vaccum of experince a sense of self. When of course there isn't one.

What if this vaccum had the quality of being aware ?

[skygazer]

The deconstruction of the ego directly refers to seeing through the false perceptions of self to reveal your true nature.

By the accounts I have read and heard of, the process of 'getting over yourself' tends to be difficult and arduous, but in the end, facing the undeniable truth can't be avoided. It can be avoided for a very long time, but continually avoiding this and perpetually chasing that becomes exhausting, and can no longer be maintained, and then there's no choice but to lay down and surrender, come what may.

It doesn't matter what people think the ego is, or if we need the ego and all that which people always say. This matter isn't one of personality, it's a matter of false identity... This false identity is like a building. It have to be maintained and it takes constant work to keep it standing, and the moment you stop maintaining it, it begins to fall apart and crumble. One doesn't deconstruct the ego by attacking it and trying to get rid of it or kill it... on the contrary, one does nothing and it falls away.

I agree. Unfortunately, it takes a type of self awareness that not everyone is able to muster or our interactions with one another would go so much better. It may have to be that one is faced with a true "dark night of the soul", and that the reason for having reached that point is their very own false identity. Some false identities are not strong enough to ever bring them to such a night, and so they carry on with the two selves; and some are so strong that upon being spotted and worked on, they reemerge under the guise of something else.

[sunsoul]

Yes, I think you can say that it takes constant work and mindfulness to keep away from ego driven behaviour as skygazer mentions. You only have to be honest with yourself to see what is going on.

Of course, it does get easier over time once the fires have been diminished!

[Classic]

What if this vaccum had the quality of being aware ?

I think I know what you're talking about here. Rupert Spira speaks about it in videos alot. He calls it 'Pure Awareness' Forgive me though if I say I have a problem imagining exactly what that is. In also doesn't help when spiritual teachers like Spira and others constantly use words of 'negation' to tackle ego constructs and such. I guess it's too make listeners understand better but it comes of sloppy for me and I get more confused than before I had the question.

Also in another post you said the experience of thoughts and feelings isn't what we are. But then you go on and say we are the awareness of these experience. Well there in lies our disagreement. I don't know experience from awareness. Both are one in the same for me.

[luntrusreality]

I think I know what you're talking about here. Rupert Spira speaks about it in videos alot. He calls it 'Pure Awareness' Forgive me though if I say I have a problem imagining exactly what that is. In also doesn't help when spiritual teachers like Spira and others constantly use words of 'negation' to tackle ego constructs and such. I guess it's too make listeners understand better but it comes of sloppy for me and I get more confused than before I had the question.



Yes, you can't imagine it, that would mean it is some sort of "object".
If you strip away all the content of experience ,
- that which remains is pure awareness.
That which right now knows this experience but does not need this experience to know itself.

It is impossible to imagine it and the frustration/confusion you have is due to the fact that you try to understand it with your mind.

Also in another post you said the experience of thoughts and feelings isn't what we are. But then you go on and say we are the awareness of these experience. Well there in lies our disagreement. I don't know experience from awareness. Both are one in the same for me.

We are the experience of thoughts and feelings. We are not thoughts and feelings. That is a very important distinction.
We are everything that arises and at the same time that in which it arises.

BUT, the illusion happens when we imagine ourself to be the objects that arise.
This object is a body and thoughts, feelings etc. -> the combination of body and self-identified mind is Ego or "sense of separation" / illusionary person.

Contradictions always happen when talking about it.
Saying "I am the awareness of thoughts, not the thoughts" is not entirely true.
It implies dualism .

You could say your essential nature is the awareness in which everything that changes appears (all experience is changing, except the fact that it is experienced).
But also what you are aware of only happens in awareness, so it is made out of awareness.

General Belief:

Objective world <- Mind/Body <- "My experience of reality"

Something to investigate:

Objective world, body and mind appearing as one experience which is known, only appear in this knowing and therefore ARE this knowing.

You are not separate from that "world" but also are not it, because it has no reality. It changes, it is dependent on awareness, but awareness is not dependent on one particular experience/body/mind/world.

Luntrus

[lemex]

Yes, I think you can say that it takes constant work and mindfulness to keep away from ego driven behaviour as skygazer mentions. You only have to be honest with yourself to see what is going on.

Of course, it does get easier over time once the fires have been diminished!

Would it help seeing it this way. Find the true ego. :smile: The self that sees no conflict having reached balance. The ego isn't false it is merely a level. When one views the concept of ego what do you see because you see something. Think about what you see and you have part of that answer. I've always seen every spiritual person tell us we are selfish. :smile: Leaving the ego goes against values we have not yet reached. You are seeing conflict. Conflict is awareness.

blessings,

[Mr Interesting]

I kinda just see an inside outside thing where a previous barrier was isn't really there anymore, stuff that occurs inside goes outside and stuff that;s outside ends up inside.

Yesterday I was wandering about and spotted a neatly patterned bag sitting alone and when I got close I saw a thermos and cups in it and at that moment looked up and saw someone spotting me out about 20 yards away; obviously the owner concerned I was going to nick her stuff. What came to me, after knowing it was hers, was it was time to go buy an icecream.

Blueberry, kid sized cone eaten very slowly to savour the taste.

[Classic]

You are right, it is impossible to imagine. I keep grasping and pin pointing exactly where this "awareness" is but I can't. I would have to reach that place of no-mind the wise ones and Tibetan Buddhist speak of in deep meditation correct? For me I can say I understand better now what you say but I have experience to KNOW that blank and still awareness for myself.

[luntrusreality]

I kinda just see an inside outside thing where a previous barrier was isn't really there anymore, stuff that occurs inside goes outside and stuff that;s outside ends up inside.


That is absolutely true. There is no inside and outside. Only what appears.

[Lorelyen]

Is anything else necessarily false? The ego is a social process and perceptions enable us to interpret what we believe to be real. Refinement (via one's particular path) leads to the selfhood. Delusion is the enemy - herein lie "false perceptions" usually from flawed analysis, misdirected beliefs, assumptions and presumptions based on expectations / hopes that need to be peeled away.

I have yet to determine how much of "ego" remains in what's here described as "true self". There is always a residual component of "I" in the selfhood, or without which one has no identity and would be unable to transact on any "plane"; perceptions would have nothing to which to refer. As the various components that "make up the ego" (in the traditional sense of the word) are shed, so goes the sense of linear time. So some aspect of your ontic state remains. There aren't words to describe this state though it's well understood (instinctively) by those who have battered down the doors of consciousness.

It might even be possible to consider false perceptions arising from misinterpretations of conscious awareness (which I'd regard related to but distinct from Freud's ego). When we look, we see what we think we know rather than what's there.

As above, so below....
.........o0o........

[lemex]

I kinda just see an inside outside thing where a previous barrier was isn't really there anymore, stuff that occurs inside goes outside and stuff that;s outside ends up inside.

Yesterday I was wandering about and spotted a neatly patterned bag sitting alone and when I got close I saw a thermos and cups in it and at that moment looked up and saw someone spotting me out about 20 yards away; obviously the owner concerned I was going to nick her stuff. What came to me, after knowing it was hers, was it was time to go buy an icecream.

Blueberry, kid sized cone eaten very slowly to savour the taste.

Absolutely insightful. Has anyone noticed how often things must be repeated. It's like going to church and hearing the same message repeated and repeated. We're only human.. :smile:

[silent whisper]

The deconstruction of the ego directly refers to seeing through the false perceptions of self to reveal your true nature.

By the accounts I have read and heard of, the process of 'getting over yourself' tends to be difficult and arduous, but in the end, facing the undeniable truth can't be avoided. It can be avoided for a very long time, but continually avoiding this and perpetually chasing that becomes exhausting, and can no longer be maintained, and then there's no choice but to lay down and surrender, come what may.



It doesn't matter what people think the ego is, or if we need the ego and all that which people always say. This matter isn't one of personality, it's a matter of false identity... This false identity is like a building. It have to be maintained and it takes constant work to keep it standing, and the moment you stop maintaining it, it begins to fall apart and crumble. One doesn't deconstruct the ego by attacking it and trying to get rid of it or kill it... on the contrary, one does nothing and it falls away.


Relying upon our false self is like climbing a shaky ladder. You climb it to keep check on your constructed Kingdom or building as you call it, you maintain it and take care of it, as you know it to be. You can gain a fantastic view of yourself! Over time one can come to the realization that your not only using the ladder to maintain this Kingdom/building in the greater view, but protecting your self from falling off the ladder. (Molly meldrum had this experience a few Christmas's ago I do believe) If you are one of those who has fallen off, and your ladder crashed one with you, you may get a feel for the fall, and go through some major withdrawals, you may even believe your no longer connected to your created building/Kingdom from that grounded perspective, but what begins to arise is a new perspective of that greater view you maintained for so long up your shaky ladder and feeling you had. If you decide not to rush out and buy a new ladder, or like Molly (forced landing and forced stay off his ladder, he couldn't get straight back up) you then have time and a change of view to realize your foundational supports that created that building/Kingdom from that grounded perspective suddenly no longer fit the view you had up high on your ladder. So you set about a new creative venture that may see you rebuild/recreate those supports in a new way, but when it comes time to climb your new ladder or repaired one if your a handy man (no longer the old shaky one this time) your climb takes on a whole new adventure, with new feelings, new awareness. If your grounded this time, the fear of falling may still arise but you will take that climb anyway, because you know your much more mindful, aware and conscious this time around. Of course when you do get back up, eventually, you realize that your created Kingdom/building looks very different from the last time you were there, it may not even be recognisable this time around......:)

If you don't climb ladders ever again or never fix your ladder and continue to climb it the way it is, that perspective can be fun too!

[Gem]

And in the belief that there is only one way and the wish for happiness for all living things, you promote this way.
This thing is inevitable and it applies to everyone. It's universal and there's no choice about it. People will do anything they want and go through different experiences, but the deconstruction itself applies to everyone.

You say it would be futile to describe it, but you have tried to describe it - you describe a building that needs maintaining to keep it, and how it can't be destroyed by attacking it, but how, when one stops maintaining it, it will fall away.
It's merely a figurative expression, and I don't care if people don't agree.

Gem, I respect your journey and if you have come to a stand still and that is what led to you surrendering and letting the false self fall away, then that's great.

Identity is something that is developed through childhood and that continues to change and develop through adulthood. My upbringing prevented me from developing a sense of identity. Instead I looked to others to identify me, and took on those temporary identities. When I moved away from people, I felt a mixture of relief, but also confusion and very vulnerable - because having no identity does make us vulnerable. Lol, how many people have tried to give me an identity on here? and there was a time when I would have taken that identity on, nowadays, I just say, no, that's not my identity.
Right, the ego would best develop and be healthy and strong, it's like I know where I stand and I love myself, and it's who I am, it's the sum of all my past which brought me here to this. But... Identifying with that is a false perception about our true nature, and the nature of transformation on the whole.

So, though you and others may have experienced this build up of identity and letting it drop away, it's not a fundamental thing that applies to everyone at all. And that is what I'm saying to you here: no, this experience that you identify with is not mine, it is yours.
Of course your experience is different to mine because we have different sensory organisms.

I understand people like the idea of the volitional individual who isn't subject to anything other than that which they themselves will, but you can't conjure the truth.

[Gem]

This is true.
Saying : "We need the Ego" is probably the biggest lie Ego tells Ego to perpetuate itself in spiritual seekers.

I think people have misconstrued the nature of ego because it's merely a set of socially constructed thoughts/behavior that enable us to live in societies. People all have culturally accepted behaviours that they need to learn in order to live harmoniously in their communities.

Deconstructing Ego is as you rightly said not an entity that you try to get rid of.
It is the false sense of being identified with the body and mind.
This identification is in itself just thoughts and feelings that refer to each other and build up a massive construct of a person.
This "Person" made of thoughts, feelings, memories, behaviour, character traits etc. is what is meant by Ego.

I think there's a distinction between what the ego is and the identification with it. 'Ego is thoughts and feelings in relation to each other', in itself, doesn't give rise to the assumption that there must be a me who has my ego. One can examine the ego unassumingly.

So how do we get rid of it?
As the Ego is non-existent there is no getting rid of it.
Just the realization of that fact.
It is always just the current thought, that the Ego is born and dies again with.

Abiding as aware presence is an important first step. You realize that you are not your thoughts and feelings but that which is aware of them.
They are being experienced by you and are made out of you.
There is no other substance to the Ego than consciousness (you) out of which thoughts of identification with a body and other thoughts arise.
Instead of focussing all attention towards the objects (including thoughts) you are aware of, be aware of the fact that you are aware.
You won't find awareness as an object like thought.
But it is undeniably there. The knowing of being aware and the awareness of knowing. It is the same "thing". Everything else is a "dream" you create that is arising out of you and therefore only made out of awareness itself.

Luntrus

[luntrusreality]

One can examine the ego unassumingly.

What is it that examines the ego? (the thoughts of being a separate person)
Is this awareness a person or have individual characteristics?
Or is it just pure awareness/knowing that is unlimited and impersonal.

Luntrus

[Gem]

What is it that examines the ego? (the thoughts of being a separate person)
Is this awareness a person or have individual characteristics?
Or is it just pure awareness/knowing that is unlimited and impersonal.

Luntrus

I think we're confusing the ego itself with the identity crisis that's attached to it. The ego can be perceived for what it is in a detatched manner. This is important because if that clarification isn't made, the myth of destroying the ego is perpetuated, and self hatred is promoted.

The detached view is impersonal and recognises the ego as thought constructs, belief systems and habitualised responses which are learned, practiced and ingrained.

Such an observation can, and very probably will, reveal the kinds of egoic behaviours that cause unhappiness, such as self depreciating internal dialogue, overt emotional reactivity or the harbouring old feelings attached to long passed events.

This doesn't change anything by directing effort toward it, it just gets you out of the way so change can occur more freely, leaving you to be happy as you are.

[Touched]

The title of this thread is 'Deconstructing False Perceptions". The subject of this thread is, or has become, the ego.

There has been a lot of discussion of the ego; The necessity or un-necessity of it, how it is transcended/experienced, it's existence/nonexistence, etc. Obviously, an individuals' views of it will hinge heavily on their perception of it. That is, what they think the ego actually is.

My thought is that the title and subject are intertwined on a subtle level. A better title might have been "The false perceptions of the ego" ??

The OP seems to feel that the ego doesn't actually exist, though it is an undeniable force. Perhaps he will endeavor to explain that further at some point.

My own thought on the ego is that it is our evolved animalistic consciousness. As such, it is a survival mechanism. This means it is all about domination and control. This is why it is so antithetical to spiritual awareness and growth, because spiritually we are all one (so the sages say), but egoistically there is only our self, and everything else which the ego sees itself in competition with, and must dominate/control in order to survive.

As animals, this was correct, but as sentient beings, it seems we have more options.

[silent whisper]

Fighting over the ego, brings out the superego...and that can be super! :D

[Ivy]

This thing is inevitable and it applies to everyone. It's universal and there's no choice about it. People will do anything they want and go through different experiences, but the deconstruction itself applies to everyone.

It's merely a figurative expression, and I don't care if people don't agree.

Gem, beneath this human is indescribable yet sensed. It's not a case of disagreeing or agreeing with your expression of deconstruction - it is that the deconstruction as you have described it, is not a universal experience.

Right, the ego would best develop and be healthy and strong, it's like I know where I stand and I love myself, and it's who I am, it's the sum of all my past which brought me here to this. But... Identifying with that is a false perception about our true nature, and the nature of transformation on the whole.


Yes it is. But if the ego hasn't developed, then the deconstruction model that you used doesn't happen in the way that you describe it. There is no construction... no building, to maintain. Therefore, there is no maintaining to stop. Life is seemingly a different experience when that building isn't built.

Of course your experience is different to mine because we have different sensory organisms.

I understand people like the idea of the volitional individual who isn't subject to anything other than that which they themselves will, but you can't conjure the truth.

I have no idea what this last part means. What people are you talking about? It's not an idea that I recognise ever thinking. And what truth are you speaking about here? The truth of the building that we are all going to deconstruct?

[Gem]

The title of this thread is 'Deconstructing False Perceptions". The subject of this thread is, or has become, the ego.
I think the focus should consistently return to the false perceptions, so titled it like that.

There has been a lot of discussion of the ego; The necessity or un-necessity of it, how it is transcended/experienced, it's existence/nonexistence, etc. Obviously, an individuals' views of it will hinge heavily on their perception of it. That is, what they think the ego actually is.
true.

My thought is that the title and subject are intertwined on a subtle level. A better title might have been "The false perceptions of the ego" ??
The OP seems to feel that the ego doesn't actually exist, though it is an undeniable force. Perhaps he will endeavor to explain that further at some point.
I didn't say the ego doesn't exist and I did explain the nature of it, though only briefly and in an overall generic sense. That wasn't included in the OP, but was part of the subsequent discussion.

My own thought on the ego is that it is our evolved animalistic consciousness. As such, it is a survival mechanism. This means it is all about domination and control. This is why it is so antithetical to spiritual awareness and growth, because spiritually we are all one (so the sages say), but egoistically there is only our self, and everything else which the ego sees itself in competition with, and must dominate/control in order to survive.

As animals, this was correct, but as sentient beings, it seems we have more options.

"If there is anything we are trying to destroy or get rid of (and that isn’t the language I would use), it is the sense of identification with the ego. The ego as “me.” It is possible to have a high-functioning ego in perfect working condition and to simultaneously understand on a very deep level that it is not who you are."

http://www.scienceandnonduality.com/deconstructing-yourself/#sthash.cPgx1Jsh.dpuf (http://www.spiritualforums.com/vb/redir.php?link=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.scienceandnonduali ty.com%2Fdeconstructing-yourself%2F%23sthash.cPgx1Jsh.dpuf)

[skygazer]

I think the focus should consistently return to the false perceptions, so titled it like that.


IMO the reason the thread has gone astray may have to do with what the intention of thread was to begin with: to discuss "false perceptions".

[Gem]

Gem, beneath this human is indescribable yet sensed. It's not a case of disagreeing or agreeing with your expression of deconstruction - it is that the deconstruction as you have described it, is not a universal experience.

Yes it is. But if the ego hasn't developed, then the deconstruction model that you used doesn't happen in the way that you describe it. There is no construction... no building, to maintain. Therefore, there is no maintaining to stop. Life is seemingly a different experience when that building isn't built.
Are we getting confused between the ego as it is and the identity that's attached to it?

I have no idea what this last part means. What people are you talking about? It's not an idea that I recognise ever thinking. And what truth are you speaking about here? The truth of the building that we are all going to deconstruct?
It means you can't conjure the truth by any exertion of will power. When that is left aside there's a different kind of will - willingness - which is alike the acceptance of what happens to be. Willingness is still and makes no effort, so the incessant activity that maintains the false identity can't be continued.

[Gem]

IMO the reason the thread has gone astray may have to do with what the intention of thread was to begin with: to discuss "false perceptions".

That's OK, it can go astray. Because the 'false perceptions' pertain to the self, it's inevitable that the ego would come up, since the basic false perception is confusing the ego with 'what I am'.

[Gem]

Relying upon our false self is like climbing a shaky ladder. You climb it to keep check on your constructed Kingdom or building as you call it, you maintain it and take care of it, as you know it to be. You can gain a fantastic view of yourself! Over time one can come to the realization that your not only using the ladder to maintain this Kingdom/building in the greater view, but protecting your self from falling off the ladder. (Molly meldrum had this experience a few Christmas's ago I do believe) If you are one of those who has fallen off, and your ladder crashed one with you, you may get a feel for the fall, and go through some major withdrawals, you may even believe your no longer connected to your created building/Kingdom from that grounded perspective, but what begins to arise is a new perspective of that greater view you maintained for so long up your shaky ladder and feeling you had. If you decide not to rush out and buy a new ladder, or like Molly (forced landing and forced stay off his ladder, he couldn't get straight back up) you then have time and a change of view to realize your foundational supports that created that building/Kingdom from that grounded perspective suddenly no longer fit the view you had up high on your ladder. So you set about a new creative venture that may see you rebuild/recreate those supports in a new way, but when it comes time to climb your new ladder or repaired one if your a handy man (no longer the old shaky one this time) your climb takes on a whole new adventure, with new feelings, new awareness. If your grounded this time, the fear of falling may still arise but you will take that climb anyway, because you know your much more mindful, aware and conscious this time around. Of course when you do get back up, eventually, you realize that your created Kingdom/building looks very different from the last time you were there, it may not even be recognisable this time around......:)

If you don't climb ladders ever again or never fix your ladder and continue to climb it the way it is, that perspective can be fun too!

It's fine to climb ladders, but you aren't somewhere at the top where you're trying to get to. You're here on this rung. If the ladder falls you don't retreat further from yourself, you are there falling. There's no way to approach the place you are. You are as you are. You may want to be other than that, which is willful, or you may be willing to be just as you are (whatever that might be).

[silent whisper]

It's fine to climb ladders, but you aren't somewhere at the top where you're trying to get to. You're here on this rung. If the ladder falls you don't retreat further from yourself, you are there falling. There's no way to approach the place you are. You are as you are. You may want to be other than that, which is willful, or you may be willing to be just as you are (whatever that might be).

Its only a fun way of perceiving and creating that perception from a past experience and perception...but in knowing it is all within...I don't have to go to far to know what you are saying when I let all that go what I shared but I have some further things to share..

In the perceptions held at the time of experience one only knows what one knows walking through the experience as they are so perceptions are what they are till that process reveals a new perception or awareness that lets the old one go. So in the climb initially, it can feel like your trying to get somewhere. You are it all as it is, until it no longer is all you are. In the reaching your reaching for yourself, so the extension of you in the way you perceive yourself on that ladder is just your own reach and idea around what you think you need of course. Sometimes we need the *higher* view to build awareness and in this way the self will create a perception of ideas around the self integrating and reaching for itself. Same goes if your standing at the bottom rung taking in the view down there. The experience will open up many connections to see/feel/experience the totality of experience to understand that kingdom/building..

You are as you are in the nature of experiences past present or future in the whole self as the self presents itself. There is nothing wilful about the view you see of self, the wilful nature of your view and what you do with it might determine more wilful behaviour and deem it as wilful in that way.

Being as you are in the nature of experiences and perception is all you can be, how you interact and extend that nature is whether your willing to own all of you, or disown and project the rest into reality outside of you as a source not fully owned as you.

[Ivy]

Are we getting confused between the ego as it is and the identity that's attached to it?

Perhaps you are, I don't know. I am simply re-stating the point that the model you described regarding the building/maintenance and non-maintenance is not applicable universally.


It means you can't conjure the truth by any exertion of will power. When that is left aside there's a different kind of will - willingness - which is alike the acceptance of what happens to be. Willingness is still and makes no effort, so the incessant activity that maintains the false identity can't be continued.

I understand non-action and simple acceptance. And perhaps that is what you have tried to show with your description of the building.

But, because you brought identity into the equation, the model that you used simply doesn't work for people who don't attach to an solid identity.

[sunsoul]

I think false perception is the central issue. Ego is not self, and from there the confusion begins.. Perhaps people like to look at it from different vantage points or use different techniques. Some want to embrace ego, others want to see through the illusion directly. People are people and on different paths so it doesn't matter so much.

The consensus is that ego is not self, and from there we must go......

[Touched]

I think the focus should consistently return to the false perceptions, so titled it like that.
Thank you for the clarification.


I didn't say the ego doesn't exist and I did explain the nature of it, though only briefly and in an overall generic sense. That wasn't included in the OP, but was part of the subsequent discussion.
My apologies. I confused your comments with Lantrus' in post 26.


"If there is anything we are trying to destroy or get rid of (and that isn’t the language I would use), it is the sense of identification with the ego. The ego as “me.”
Agreed, though I think we look at it in slightly different ways as well.


It is possible to have a high-functioning ego in perfect working condition and to simultaneously understand on a very deep level that it is not who you are."
Yes it is possible - but a great many things are also possible.


http://www.scienceandnonduality.com/deconstructing-yourself/#sthash.cPgx1Jsh.dpuf (http://www.spiritualforums.com/vb/redir.php?link=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.scienceandnonduali ty.com%2Fdeconstructing-yourself%2F%23sthash.cPgx1Jsh.dpuf)
To me, ego isn't just the structure of individuality, there is also a subtler mechanism arising from it's function of physical survival, and it's method of domination and control to accomplish that end, and that is the projection of identity.

Projection of identity is a condition of not only assuming one's own identity, the 'identification' of oneself with something, such as the ego's identification with physicality, but then the projected identification beyond one's self as well. The ego does not just see itself as a physical phenomenon, it sees the entire universe as a physical phenomenon.

And this is what makes projection of identity so sticky and confounding , is that even when one can finally 'see' the ego, such as through meditation, or even empathy and compassion, projection of identity can travel to the new POV as well, again forming the perspective through the new view. Growing past a pure ego consciousness can take time and many steps, resulting in many intermediate stops. Ego is not a discreet singular quantity to be switched on and off like a light, it is made up of many parts that all work together. Projection of identity is a major part of ego, and can be just as difficult to 'see' as ego itself.

We see this often in someone who is very opinionated about something, but then will have some sort of epiphany or life altering experience. For example, an atheist who has a powerful near-death experience. This person was previously absolutely adamant that physicality was the totality of the universe, but then he becomes just as persistently adamant of the existence of the afterlife. In both cases he is equally insistent that his view defines the universe and everyone in it. Even though some would say he has raised his consciousness by his new understanding, really he has only changed his reality, his consciousness remains much the same, having simply moved his 'identification' from one view to another. These people insist there is only one reality - the one they live in and experience, of course. It is classic ego, classic projection of identity.

[Greenslade]

The deconstruction of the ego directly refers to seeing through the false perceptions of self to reveal your true nature. True and false are curious and how we perceive them could be a window into our thinking. Perhaps it's not about what's ultimately (if there is such a thing) true but what is true for us, at that time, within our own realities. Even 'false' can bring its own realisations of what's true, and as you said yourself things only exist in relationship to something else, so true only exists in relationship to false. It's beginning to sound like computer programming. Calling (labelling) something as true can be a part of that which you're trying to de-construct.

But when do the false perceptions end and where do they become true? A perception that one may have as being a Spiritual person can be as much of a false perception as anything else because it doesn't take much to realise that everyone is Spiritual regardless. Following a Spiritual Path doesn't make anyone any better than 'non-Spiritual' people.

'True nature' is something I have difficulty subscribing to being honest because it implies that the nature we have now isn't true somehow and if we are not our True Selves can it be anything other than false? Is our True Nature (if there is such a thing) true or false as set against some perceptual Universal criterium? If so then that may not be our True Nature within our own existence. What you call false identity may well be the choice of what we chose to experience within this reality, if so what makes it true or false and against what?

Does the ego need to be de-constructed though? After all it's given us a sense of Self, individuality or individuation depending on how we perceive ourselves to be. The higher up the 'pecking order' you go you begin to realise that any perception of ego, Self or identity fade away into the distance. As we evolve 'Spiritually' our egos can evolve quite happily as part of that process, ego can become Self or whatever the next step is perceived to be. What we resist persists so in trying hard to de-construct it or tell yourself you don't have one all you're doing is perpetuating it and perhaps giving yourself a false perception that you don't have one.

[Touched]

'True nature' is something I have difficulty subscribing to being honest because it implies that the nature we have now isn't true somehow and if we are not our True Selves can it be anything other than false? Is our True Nature (if there is such a thing) true or false as set against some perceptual Universal criterium? If so then that may not be our True Nature within our own existence. What you call false identity may well be the choice of what we chose to experience within this reality, if so what makes it true or false and against what?

Very well said Greenslade. What some call delusion, others call reality. It's all about what you choose to experience, or, in the popular vernacular, how you look at it. If you want to 'change your mind', labeling the old way 'false' and the new way 'true' is a powerful tool for becoming who you want to be. Just don't confuse your reality with everyone elses.

[luntrusreality]

True and false are curious and how we perceive them could be a window into our thinking. Perhaps it's not about what's ultimately (if there is such a thing) true but what is true for us, at that time, within our own realities. Even 'false' can bring its own realisations of what's true, and as you said yourself things only exist in relationship to something else, so true only exists in relationship to false. It's beginning to sound like computer programming. Calling (labelling) something as true can be a part of that which you're trying to de-construct.

Everything that ever appears as an experience is ultimately not "true".
To speak of our "true nature" is something that points towards the Knowing itself. This Knowing of experience is the only thing that is ultimately real.
Everything else is known by and arises out of and in this knowing.

True only exists in relationship to false, that is correct.
I don't like the term "Truth" for our essential being but it is just another word.
You have to use some word if you want to talk about it.
In any case silence is the closest we can come to "describe" what we really are.
But even silence is not It.
It is that in which even silence arises. - that is our true nature.


But when do the false perceptions end and where do they become true? A perception that one may have as being a Spiritual person can be as much of a false perception as anything else because it doesn't take much to realise that everyone is Spiritual regardless. Following a Spiritual Path doesn't make anyone any better than 'non-Spiritual' people.

There is no such thing as false and true perceptions.
All that is perceived is "false" - the perception itself is "true".
Not as paradoxical as it might sound.

I like what you say here. Following a spiritual path doesn't mean anything. It is just the same as following a career path.
The search for peace and happiness in one way or another. With the exception that the "spiritual journey" can actually let you find it.( But not by the one who was looking)




'True nature' is something I have difficulty subscribing to being honest because it implies that the nature we have now isn't true somehow and if we are not our True Selves can it be anything other than false? Is our True Nature (if there is such a thing) true or false as set against some perceptual Universal criterium? If so then that may not be our True Nature within our own existence. What you call false identity may well be the choice of what we chose to experience within this reality, if so what makes it true or false and against what?

I wouldn't focus too much on the "true" part of the word.
There is only the "true nature" so false and truth does not apply.
What is false is not there anyway, only something that is labelled by the mind as such. The mind itself is arising in our "true nature" - awareness.


Does the ego need to be de-constructed though? After all it's given us a sense of Self, individuality or individuation depending on how we perceive ourselves to be.

People often use Ego as something that is itself part of the illusionary person. This is a misunderstanding (at least in spiritual "lingo")

Not to add anymore to the confusion:

Ego IS the illusionary person.
Ego does not give a sense of self, it IS the sense of self.


Deconstruction of Ego is one of the many paths that can lead to enlightenment.
This deconstruction works as following (in theory, this is going to sound a little technical now):

Be aware that you are aware. What is this awareness, where is it?
Don't answer with your mind. Abide as this awareness.
Everything other than this awareness is witnessed.
The witness itself is not witnessed as an object.
It knows itself by being itself. Self-Knowing.

The mind, feelings, the apparently physical world - everything that is the content of experience must be "deconstructed" / seen as "false".

More and more the Ego will crumble, letting go even of the things you love most. (internally!)
You have to lose everything (that was never yours) to gain everything there is.

Your true nature will reveal itself if it isn't clouded by an illusionary sense of self anymore. This final realization is often called "Ego-Death".
But in this realization it is realized that Ego can not die, because there is no such thing. There was only the illusion of it - thoughts that create Ego and a a construct of experiencing life as an individual that is separate from the whole.
From that "point " which is not a point in time, the mind does not identify with the body and other thoughts and feelings anymore. Therfore no more Ego.
Thoughts just arise in You as everything else.
Computer,...writing...a body...sense perceptions...everything that appears , appears. Even being totally involved in an activity ..appears.
Enlightenment is not about becoming "present" or "living in the now". These terms lose all their meaning because you ARE the Now.
you can not not live in the now.

This is where Ego-Deconstruction "leads" to.

So you ask if it is necessary.
Depends on what you are looking for, really.

Enlightenment - yes.
Anything that can be experienced as content - no.

Luntrus

[Mr Interesting]

One of my current things is believing in something and not believing in it at the same time, though it is kind of falling away a little bit, which is why, possibly, I threw it out there at a gathering of friends the other day.

One guy grabbed it and refuted it as impossible and I quickly tried to explain how we could believe in something as in define that way of looking at something as being true and real but then also being able to stand off at the side and watch with an open mind.

I suppose though that this mans refutation is simply based on the assumption that if a thing is black it cannot also be white, but I don't really know enough about philosophy, as a set of defined rules, to be able to state a axiom (that just came to me and I looked it up and it was what I was hoping it was) from which to build in a logical way the exercise.

And then that is our problem is it not, which is also why, in a sense, the problems keep being solved because any unsolved problem always needs, when brought out into the open, a defined way of stating the problem but spirituality doesn't really hold to logical premise. It's always expanding and going beyond the logical as understood and becoming illogical until a new logic exerts itself.

Here the ladder then kind of works where the person at the bottom of the ladder tries to communicate with the person at the top of the ladder and because of that difference the words they use are still the same but the understanding of what they mean has changed. While also what was false is now true and what was true is now false... but wholly dependant only on the new or 'less' new perception.

So I don't really think it helps any of us in trying to nail down what ego actually is in an objective sense and it might be better to accept it's far more subjective than we all like it to be... as it the nature of self.

It like looking at the sea and saying 'Oh, that's water with some salt in it.'

Oh, now it kinda makes sense... Ego is like water. Ice at the beginning but the application of heat, as in bouncy higher vibrations, make the ice melt into water as the vibrations of both find balance, then the heat goes up again and the water changes to steam, and again expands.

I'm lost again... it's hydrogen and oxygen just finding a bonding that suits the environment it finds itself in.

[Mr Interesting]

And I love how this explains things (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GaQB_tgS7f0ttp://)

[Molearner]

[QUOTE=Mr Interesting]One of my current things is believing in something and not believing in it at the same time, though it is kind of falling away a little bit, which is why, possibly, I threw it out there at a gathering of friends the other day.

Mr Interesting,

IMO, this is an extremely beneficial exercise. Years ago in school I participated in formal debates. One had to be prepared to argue both the positive and the negative sides of a given proposition. Later in life I engaged in speculation on commodities. One is faced with deciding whether a certain market will go up in price or whether it will decline. This particular activity really brings home the danger of the ego. If one is insistent that he is always right he can easily lose a fortune rapidly and be totally humbled by the stubbornness of his ego. If the ego has control of us it is impossible to be open-minded and truth will elude us.

[VinceField]

Interesting subject and discussion!

The concept of deconstructing the ego is a key aspect of the Buddhist path.

What we label as "the ego" in this case is the aspect of the mind that identifies with its own sense of self and gives rise to defilements.

The process of deconstructing the ego essentially consists of two main aspects: Insight and Volition.

It is the initial insight into the unsatisfactory nature of the ego and its tendency to give rise to thoughts and actions that lead to unwholesome states of mind which creates the intention to rid oneself of this undesirable aspect of mind.

From this volition arises actions in line with the intention to deconstruct the ego.

In Buddhism, this is essentially what the entire path of practice is aimed at: giving rise to insight regarding the nature of the self and using that insight to determine the most skillful courses of action that lead to the dissipation of the aspects of mind which cause itself suffering.

It is the ego, in the sense that we are using here, that gives rise to the defilements of attachment, aversion, and delusion; these are the three universal elements of stress and suffering that arise from ignorance. It is the ego that attaches to objects of desire, attaches to its own views, and attaches to that which it perceives as a source of happiness. It is the ego that is averse to that which opposes its own views or appears to jeopardize its objects of sense desire. It is the ego that deludes itself by identifying with its perceptions, views, and objects of attachment.

Freedom from these defilements is liberation from suffering, so it can be said that the process of deconstructing the ego is essentially the process of liberation.

[sunsoul]

Very nicely described, Vince. One of the most lucid posts that I have read on here in awhile!

[Mr Interesting]

Whats now struck me in the interim is the notion of ownership against or in relation to guardianship.

Guardianship because I came to spirit through my art and along the way what I now look at as a kind of attuned selflessness formed, in no uncertain terms, after I learnt of the Maori, the original settlers of New Zealand where I now reside, way of looking at their relationship to the land they inhabit as guardianship, or at least this being the nearest European (English) equivalent.

Basically it means that the land they inhabit, sit on top of and gives them sustenance, but at the same time is where they come from, is something they protect and nurture for the generations to come... it's not theirs but it's also of them and where they come from.

Whereas ownership is just that. We own something and it's ours to do with what we like... which could go all the way to guardianship, but essentially it's also as much about defensibility as to define something as owned must necessarily come with the need to, at some time or other, be able to defend that ownership.

So when poor old Freud, may he rest in peace, decided that the Greek word for I would suit as a description for what he was looking at he also defined that the descriptive term he choose would become subject to ownership and therefore defensible simply because he was part of a paradigm that saw things that way.

Them many, many years later the use of that word was somewhat co-opted as the nearest relatable term as Eastern religious ways of being found there way into Western ways of being and what is of due regard for me is that while we might see the same word, Ego, being used it more depends whether we come to it from the perception of ownership or guardianship, which in a sense is more akin to the Eastern ideas within relationships between defined separations.

And we can't help but swing between poles of difference even between what we might mean nevermind when others ideas of where they might sit join in.

Even when we say deconstructing it might be safe to say that deconstruction only has meaning in reference to ownership as in the construction is and was and now a decision has been made to deconstruct it whereas from the point of guardianship there is no deconstruction so much is there is just aiding decay as creation and decay are somewhat indistinct from each other and the idea of whether it's in decay or in creation is entirely dependant on the point from which viewing is made.

[sunsoul]

Interesting comparison, Interesting. I don't think your analysis holds so well, though, for a few reasons...

Land is something fixed and permanent. It has an identity whether you are the owner or guardian. The actual notions of selfhood are much more subtle and illusive.

You are the guardian of ego? Why would you want to be? Does this entail a different perspective from ownership?

I also notice in this thread a lot of talk on possible definitions of ego or self but little talk about the actual reasons for ego and what it manifests from. Although, Vince did start going into that in the post above.

[luntrusreality]

I

I also notice in this thread a lot of talk on possible definitions of ego or self but little talk about the actual reasons for ego and what it manifests from. .

There is no reason.
Reason and meaning is something that Ego itself looks for.
Because it imagines to be a separate entity that operates in time and space , cause and effect there has to be a reason to existence.
Or to things that manifest as existence.

On the relative level you could say the reason for Ego is, that consciousness "wants" to experience the illusion of duality.
(but that is extremely artificial and not a truth. Just a story, thoughtplay )

No reason is needed for everything that is to be as it is other than the pure joy of creation without limits. Without anybody enjoying, without anybody creating. The creation and joy are themselves what we are.


Luntrus

[Gem]

Thank you for the clarification.



My apologies. I confused your comments with Lantrus' in post 26.



Agreed, though I think we look at it in slightly different ways as well.



Yes it is possible - but a great many things are also possible.


To me, ego isn't just the structure of individuality, there is also a subtler mechanism arising from it's function of physical survival, and it's method of domination and control to accomplish that end, and that is the projection of identity.
Ok... good definition. Usually we model a primal psychic function, which people are born with, that is primarily concerned with physical survival and primal urges. During upbringing we develop ego as an adaption to the social system we need to live in. The ego is the mental mechanism we use to govern the primal urges and express them in a socially acceptable way. This gives rise to there being a 'me who chooses' how to express them, but we also know that it's a learned and conditioned behaviour. On that basis, I made the assertion that ego is a socially constructed mental framework.

Projection of identity is a condition of not only assuming one's own identity, the 'identification' of oneself with something, such as the ego's identification with physicality, but then the projected identification beyond one's self as well. The ego does not just see itself as a physical phenomenon, it sees the entire universe as a physical phenomenon.
Interesting. It does seem that beliefs that pertain to self tend to be affirmed by one's perception of the universe. 'Projected identification' is good expression.

And this is what makes projection of identity so sticky and confounding , is that even when one can finally 'see' the ego, such as through meditation, or even empathy and compassion, projection of identity can travel to the new POV as well, again forming the perspective through the new view. Growing past a pure ego consciousness can take time and many steps, resulting in many intermediate stops. Ego is not a discreet singular quantity to be switched on and off like a light, it is made up of many parts that all work together. Projection of identity is a major part of ego, and can be just as difficult to 'see' as ego itself.
I agree. That is what I refer to as the deconstruction, but in terms of the identity becoming disentangled from the socially constructed ego.

We see this often in someone who is very opinionated about something, but then will have some sort of epiphany or life altering experience. For example, an atheist who has a powerful near-death experience. This person was previously absolutely adamant that physicality was the totality of the universe, but then he becomes just as persistently adamant of the existence of the afterlife. In both cases he is equally insistent that his view defines the universe and everyone in it. Even though some would say he has raised his consciousness by his new understanding, really he has only changed his reality, his consciousness remains much the same, having simply moved his 'identification' from one view to another. These people insist there is only one reality - the one they live in and experience, of course. It is classic ego, classic projection of identity.
Because of perpetual change, the identity doesn't have anything to to base itself in. That requires a continual re-interpretation of identity, which in itself, suggests there is no actuality to it. A person like that is unlikely to have strong views that they dogmatically cling to and be more open minded to a broad range of possibilities.

[Gem]

True and false are curious and how we perceive them could be a window into our thinking. Perhaps it's not about what's ultimately (if there is such a thing) true but what is true for us, at that time, within our own realities. Even 'false' can bring its own realisations of what's true, and as you said yourself things only exist in relationship to something else, so true only exists in relationship to false. It's beginning to sound like computer programming. Calling (labelling) something as true can be a part of that which you're trying to de-construct.
I think it's fairly clear that fallacy or incorrect views exist. Truth is not so obvious, but it's also fair to say 'true nature' because there a quality or presence of being that is inherent to all life.

But when do the false perceptions end and where do they become true? A perception that one may have as being a Spiritual person can be as much of a false perception as anything else because it doesn't take much to realise that everyone is Spiritual regardless. Following a Spiritual Path doesn't make anyone any better than 'non-Spiritual' people.
There is an instant where the true nature becomes apparent. There is no process that can approach it because you can't approach the place you are at. That doesn't disrupt the personality because the genetic disposition and habitual mental processes are as they are. This has no reflection on a persons spiritual inclinations because I have seen people who experience incredible spiritual things who didn't realise it and I've seen very physically orientated folks who did. The 'theory' goes: You are not the person that you remember and you are not imaginary person who becomes enlightened in the future. You are just as you are now, and not some other way.

'True nature' is something I have difficulty subscribing to being honest because it implies that the nature we have now isn't true somehow and if we are not our True Selves can it be anything other than false? Is our True Nature (if there is such a thing) true or false as set against some perceptual Universal criterium? If so then that may not be our True Nature within our own existence. What you call false identity may well be the choice of what we chose to experience within this reality, if so what makes it true or false and against what?
Ah... OK the nature we have now is the true nature. There is a universal criterium in that 'this', as it is, is the actual state of conscious. In terms of choice, I think the main consideration is the subtle difference between willfulness and willingness.

Does the ego need to be de-constructed though? After all it's given us a sense of Self, individuality or individuation depending on how we perceive ourselves to be. The higher up the 'pecking order' you go you begin to realise that any perception of ego, Self or identity fade away into the distance. As we evolve 'Spiritually' our egos can evolve quite happily as part of that process, ego can become Self or whatever the next step is perceived to be. What we resist persists so in trying hard to de-construct it or tell yourself you don't have one all you're doing is perpetuating it and perhaps giving yourself a false perception that you don't have one.
The ego isn't defined clearly, but it isn't a thing, it's a set of thought patterns and beliefs that manifest in habitual behaviours. That doesn't deconstruct in terms of the behaviours that enable social functioning, but as the identity is disentangled from the egoic mental framework, things still happen, but they don't happen to 'me', meaning 'I' don't react to events so much as I respond to them mindfully. They call it detachment, which in real terms, is the willingness to accept life's changes gracefully.

[Gem]

One of my current things is believing in something and not believing in it at the same time, though it is kind of falling away a little bit, which is why, possibly, I threw it out there at a gathering of friends the other day.
Hahahahaha... I laugh at myself in wonder at my ability to believe in things that I know are untrue. (Or entertain two completely contradictory beliefs tee hee)

One guy grabbed it and refuted it as impossible and I quickly tried to explain how we could believe in something as in define that way of looking at something as being true and real but then also being able to stand off at the side and watch with an open mind.

I suppose though that this mans refutation is simply based on the assumption that if a thing is black it cannot also be white, but I don't really know enough about philosophy, as a set of defined rules, to be able to state a axiom (that just came to me and I looked it up and it was what I was hoping it was) from which to build in a logical way the exercise.
.... and the axiom is assumed in the first place.

And then that is our problem is it not, which is also why, in a sense, the problems keep being solved because any unsolved problem always needs, when brought out into the open, a defined way of stating the problem but spirituality doesn't really hold to logical premise. It's always expanding and going beyond the logical as understood and becoming illogical until a new logic exerts itself.

Here the ladder then kind of works where the person at the bottom of the ladder tries to communicate with the person at the top of the ladder and because of that difference the words they use are still the same but the understanding of what they mean has changed. While also what was false is now true and what was true is now false... but wholly dependant only on the new or 'less' new perception.
Yep... communicating meaning sure is a doozy.

So I don't really think it helps any of us in trying to nail down what ego actually is in an objective sense and it might be better to accept it's far more subjective than we all like it to be... as it the nature of self.

It like looking at the sea and saying 'Oh, that's water with some salt in it.'

Oh, now it kinda makes sense... Ego is like water. Ice at the beginning but the application of heat, as in bouncy higher vibrations, make the ice melt into water as the vibrations of both find balance, then the heat goes up again and the water changes to steam, and again expands.

I'm lost again... it's hydrogen and oxygen just finding a bonding that suits the environment it finds itself in.
Sure. The water is simultaneously present (H20) and transformational.

(I bet you didn't notice that I used a zero instead of an 'o') tee hee 0O.

[Mr Interesting]

No problem Gem, I'm just glad you didn't rip 'me' to bit's when I've not yet gone beyond sketching out a new me and would readily admit that getting a chance to exhibit the less than finished me was a risky business but because you found room to laugh then the old me making the new me may be quite open to more of the old risky me in the new maybe even riskier me.

Maybe it's even time for the puppet on a string analogies?

[Greenslade]

Everything that ever appears as an experience is ultimately not "true".
To speak of our "true nature" is something that points towards the Knowing itself. This Knowing of experience is the only thing that is ultimately real.
Everything else is known by and arises out of and in this knowing.

True only exists in relationship to false, that is correct.
I don't like the term "Truth" for our essential being but it is just another word.
You have to use some word if you want to talk about it.
In any case silence is the closest we can come to "describe" what we really are.
But even silence is not It.
It is that in which even silence arises. - that is our true nature.

I can agree with and understand what you're saying here. There are many things I take as given and seldom analyse them because to me they would colour what they are, simply allowing seems to give a clearer picture.


There is no such thing as false and true perceptions.
All that is perceived is "false" - the perception itself is "true".
Not as paradoxical as it might sound.

I like what you say here. Following a spiritual path doesn't mean anything. It is just the same as following a career path.
The search for peace and happiness in one way or another. With the exception that the "spiritual journey" can actually let you find it.( But not by the one who was looking)
This is where we part company slightly because I have difficulty with thinking in terms of 'true' and 'false'. I'm going through something of a consciousness shift right now and involuntarily leaving behind certain.... patterns, and one of those is 'true' and 'false'. Feet, shifting sand for the moment. For now I'm going to stay with all consciousness is consciousness and neither good nor bad although that may well change.

This is a strange place to be because there's a spiral of consciousness happening, and at the moment I'm 'reviewing' pretty much my whole life so far. Perhaps it was the 'Spiritual Journey' that led me away from it in the first place but it's all to the good because it's a Journey to Self. I have found peace in the thought that I've been 'Spiritual' all along as the attachments begin to drop off.


I wouldn't focus too much on the "true" part of the word.
There is only the "true nature" so false and truth does not apply.
What is false is not there anyway, only something that is labelled by the mind as such. The mind itself is arising in our "true nature" - awareness.
Well yes, I gave up 'Truth' a long time ago when I realised that it was either an expression of Truth itself or agenda.

People often use Ego as something that is itself part of the illusionary person. This is a misunderstanding (at least in spiritual "lingo")

Not to add anymore to the confusion:

Ego IS the illusionary person.
Ego does not give a sense of self, it IS the sense of self.


Deconstruction of Ego is one of the many paths that can lead to enlightenment.
This deconstruction works as following (in theory, this is going to sound a little technical now):

Be aware that you are aware. What is this awareness, where is it?
Don't answer with your mind. Abide as this awareness.
Everything other than this awareness is witnessed.
The witness itself is not witnessed as an object.
It knows itself by being itself. Self-Knowing.

The mind, feelings, the apparently physical world - everything that is the content of experience must be "deconstructed" / seen as "false".

More and more the Ego will crumble, letting go even of the things you love most. (internally!)
You have to lose everything (that was never yours) to gain everything there is.

Your true nature will reveal itself if it isn't clouded by an illusionary sense of self anymore. This final realization is often called "Ego-Death".
But in this realization it is realized that Ego can not die, because there is no such thing. There was only the illusion of it - thoughts that create Ego and a a construct of experiencing life as an individual that is separate from the whole.
From that "point " which is not a point in time, the mind does not identify with the body and other thoughts and feelings anymore. Therfore no more Ego.
Thoughts just arise in You as everything else.
Computer,...writing...a body...sense perceptions...everything that appears , appears. Even being totally involved in an activity ..appears.
Enlightenment is not about becoming "present" or "living in the now". These terms lose all their meaning because you ARE the Now.
you can not not live in the now.

This is where Ego-Deconstruction "leads" to.

So you ask if it is necessary.
Depends on what you are looking for, really.

Enlightenment - yes.
Anything that can be experienced as content - no.

Luntrus
This is not meant as dismissive but I need a little time to digest what you've said in this last part. It seems that there are quite a few things flying around right now that haven't quite gelled together and this adds to it but it's not confusion. What I will say is a meaningful thank you for the time being, true nature exerting itself it seems.

[Gem]

No problem Gem, I'm just glad you didn't rip 'me' to bit's

I'm soooo misunderstood.

when I've not yet gone beyond sketching out a new me and would readily admit that getting a chance to exhibit the less than finished me was a risky business but because you found room to laugh then the old me making the new me may be quite open to more of the old risky me in the new maybe even riskier me.

Maybe it's even time for the puppet on a string analogies?

No wonder you're called 'Mr Interesting'.

:smile:

[Touched]

Because of perpetual change, the identity doesn't have anything to to base itself in. That requires a continual re-interpretation of identity, which in itself, suggests there is no actuality to it. A person like that is unlikely to have strong views that they dogmatically cling to and be more open minded to a broad range of possibilities.
There is an old saying about constant change, but there is another one about nothing new being under the sun. So yes, while things are always changing, things are also always repeating.

Logic is a funny thing: it readily serves any master.

[Greenslade]

Very well said Greenslade. What some call delusion, others call reality. It's all about what you choose to experience, or, in the popular vernacular, how you look at it. If you want to 'change your mind', labeling the old way 'false' and the new way 'true' is a powerful tool for becoming who you want to be. Just don't confuse your reality with everyone elses.
Thank you. But I was thinking of keeping the god complex, the Q Continuum looks like fun.:smile: 'Who I want to be' is the confusing part - the one that left himself, stayed where he is and will greet himself on his return. I know what I mean.

There's an excellent line from a computer game I play - "You cannot run away from something you've been a part of since before you were born."

[Gem]

There is an old saying about constant change, but there is another one about nothing new being under the sun. So yes, while things are always changing, things are also always repeating.

Makes me think, in context of false perceptions, that there has never actually been a repetition of anything, and every moment is entirely new, and in contrast to that, within the psyche, due to belief systems, repetitive thought habits continually reaffirm the beliefs, and phenomenal experiences also appear as evidence for them.

Logic is a funny thing: it readily serves any master.

If truly logical, though, one would look at things objectively and notice that it's actually very hard to draw conclusions that reaffirm beliefs. One would notice evidence for and against that belief, and conclude the belief is illogical. For example, where a belief arises as thought to be true, along with it comes a slight doubt that the belief is actually true... hence the difficulty in drawing conclusions. Another example is that we can hold two completely contradictory beliefs simultaneously due to the 'for and against' set of evidence. Even when we can see that it doesn't make much sense, or we see that it's unfounded in actuality, we can still continue the belief... even if there's no evidence at all! Hahahaha... we sure are a logical and rational species ay.

[Touched]

If truly logical, though, one would look at things objectively and notice that it's actually very hard to draw conclusions that reaffirm beliefs. One would notice evidence for and against that belief, and conclude the belief is illogical. For example, where a belief arises as thought to be true, along with it comes a slight doubt that the belief is actually true... hence the difficulty in drawing conclusions. Another example is that we can hold two completely contradictory beliefs simultaneously due to the 'for and against' set of evidence. Even when we can see that it doesn't make much sense, or we see that it's unfounded in actuality, we can still continue the belief... even if there's no evidence at all! Hahahaha... we sure are a logical and rational species ay.

LOL so true! In my opinion it all comes down from what I consider the original sin, which is to confuse one's own thoughts and perceptions for reality, which in turn comes out of belief in the myth of objectivity.

Perception necessitates a perspective, for no matter where you are looking at things from, there you are looking at things from there. The belief in objectivity is nothing less than the belief in the perspectiveless perspective, which I believe in just as much as I believe in unicorns and pots of gold at the ends of rainbows.

On the other hand, I also believe the sun will rise, though with every sunrise, especially as I get older, comes the doubt, however small, that I will live to see another, so I certainly agree with you there.

It all makes perfectly logical and rational sense to me. :wink:

[Mr Interesting]

I read through stuff here then went back to the beginning and Moral Objectivism popped into my head. Now I'm definitely not a student of philosophy or even remotely interested in it's historical timeline but I do tend to enjoy my own kind of dumpster diving appropriation of that which I'd define as philosophical connected to the original Greek meaning of the word as 'Love of Wisdom'. By that token, and I don't know or care that it exists, I tend towards a romantic notion of philosophy which tended towards the poetic and there may have even been such a time in history when such was the main precedent.

All I'm saying within that is that 'Moral Objectivism' is then quite out of the blue and a tiny bit of research still has me on it's edges looking at it like a Dog wondering whether it's worth a sniff.

"Moral universalism is the position in meta-ethics that some moral values, or moral system, can be applied universally to everyone — or at least everyone in similar circumstances. It is also known as universal morality, moderate moral realism or minimal moral realism, and is a form of ethical objectivism.

Moral universalism holds that moral values apply to individuals regardless of their personal opinion, or the majority opinion of their culture. Other characteristics such as religion, race or gender are also excluded from moral judgements.

Moral universalism does not neccessarily imply that morals exist apart from humanity itself, but considers sources of morality outside of opinion. Universal truths about human nature and/or reason may come into play as reasons for the universality and objectivism of morality.

Moral realism and moral absolutism are strong forms of universalism. Realism is stronger in that it holds that moral truths are real in the same sense that other truths, such as those about the physical world, are real, while absolutism holds that moral and immoral acts are always so regardless of context."

Doing a little more entirely sparse research this set of ideas seems to come from Freud's ideal of the super ego, which seems to be the egos balance between the instinctive id and societies ideas of existing within a moral code.

So now I'm totally perplexed and have no idea where this might be going. There's definitely a big part of me now that sees this kind of advanced intellectualism as vastly silly and I'm always willing to just fall back to a position willing to trust intuition... whatever that might be.

Right, now I get it... just before Moral Objectivism popped into my head I was wondering that if the ego was to be constructed then what might we put in it's place in the sense that if there was then a void... was there possibly a guiding principle around, about and through this void?

But then again the true nature is mentioned as that which exists beyond and through the ego and that dismantling the ego allows this to show through.

Therefore I suppose what I'm asking, after all this meandering and potential subterfuge is; is there a guiding principle within the true nature that leads towards that true nature? ( with me thinking of the intuitive process)

[silent whisper]

I read through stuff here then went back to the beginning and Moral Objectivism popped into my head. Now I'm definitely not a student of philosophy or even remotely interested in it's historical timeline but I do tend to enjoy my own kind of dumpster diving appropriation of that which I'd define as philosophical connected to the original Greek meaning of the word as 'Love of Wisdom'. By that token, and I don't know or care that it exists, I tend towards a romantic notion of philosophy which tended towards the poetic and there may have even been such a time in history when such was the main precedent.

All I'm saying within that is that 'Moral Objectivism' is then quite out of the blue and a tiny bit of research still has me on it's edges looking at it like a Dog wondering whether it's worth a sniff.

"Moral universalism is the position in meta-ethics that some moral values, or moral system, can be applied universally to everyone — or at least everyone in similar circumstances. It is also known as universal morality, moderate moral realism or minimal moral realism, and is a form of ethical objectivism.

Moral universalism holds that moral values apply to individuals regardless of their personal opinion, or the majority opinion of their culture. Other characteristics such as religion, race or gender are also excluded from moral judgements.

Moral universalism does not neccessarily imply that morals exist apart from humanity itself, but considers sources of morality outside of opinion. Universal truths about human nature and/or reason may come into play as reasons for the universality and objectivism of morality.

Moral realism and moral absolutism are strong forms of universalism. Realism is stronger in that it holds that moral truths are real in the same sense that other truths, such as those about the physical world, are real, while absolutism holds that moral and immoral acts are always so regardless of context."

Doing a little more entirely sparse research this set of ideas seems to come from Freud's ideal of the super ego, which seems to be the egos balance between the instinctive id and societies ideas of existing within a moral code.



So now I'm totally perplexed and have no idea where this might be going. There's definitely a big part of me now that sees this kind of advanced intellectualism as vastly silly and I'm always willing to just fall back to a position willing to trust intuition... whatever that might be.


Right, now I get it... just before Moral Objectivism popped into my head I was wondering that if the ego was to be constructed then what might we put in it's place in the sense that if there was then a void... was there possibly a guiding principle around, about and through this void?

But then again the true nature is mentioned as that which exists beyond and through the ego and that dismantling the ego allows this to show through.

Therefore I suppose what I'm asking, after all this meandering and potential subterfuge is; is there a guiding principle within the true nature that leads towards that true nature? ( with me thinking of the intuitive process)

When you break it all down you reveal what you found...:wink:
And there *you* are in that question!!

I was wading through all the *beautifully processed words* was going to respond through the process, but thought, why do I need too do that? He already did....and found his way through..:wink:

True dat!~

[Gem]

I read through stuff here then went back to the beginning and Moral Objectivism popped into my head. Now I'm definitely not a student of philosophy or even remotely interested in it's historical timeline but I do tend to enjoy my own kind of dumpster diving appropriation of that which I'd define as philosophical connected to the original Greek meaning of the word as 'Love of Wisdom'. By that token, and I don't know or care that it exists, I tend towards a romantic notion of philosophy which tended towards the poetic and there may have even been such a time in history when such was the main precedent.

All I'm saying within that is that 'Moral Objectivism' is then quite out of the blue and a tiny bit of research still has me on it's edges looking at it like a Dog wondering whether it's worth a sniff.

"Moral universalism is the position in meta-ethics that some moral values, or moral system, can be applied universally to everyone — or at least everyone in similar circumstances. It is also known as universal morality, moderate moral realism or minimal moral realism, and is a form of ethical objectivism.

Moral universalism holds that moral values apply to individuals regardless of their personal opinion, or the majority opinion of their culture. Other characteristics such as religion, race or gender are also excluded from moral judgements.

Moral universalism does not neccessarily imply that morals exist apart from humanity itself, but considers sources of morality outside of opinion. Universal truths about human nature and/or reason may come into play as reasons for the universality and objectivism of morality.

Moral realism and moral absolutism are strong forms of universalism. Realism is stronger in that it holds that moral truths are real in the same sense that other truths, such as those about the physical world, are real, while absolutism holds that moral and immoral acts are always so regardless of context."

Doing a little more entirely sparse research this set of ideas seems to come from Freud's ideal of the super ego, which seems to be the egos balance between the instinctive id and societies ideas of existing within a moral code.

So now I'm totally perplexed and have no idea where this might be going. There's definitely a big part of me now that sees this kind of advanced intellectualism as vastly silly and I'm always willing to just fall back to a position willing to trust intuition... whatever that might be.

Right, now I get it... just before Moral Objectivism popped into my head I was wondering that if the ego was to be constructed then what might we put in it's place in the sense that if there was then a void... was there possibly a guiding principle around, about and through this void?

But then again the true nature is mentioned as that which exists beyond and through the ego and that dismantling the ego allows this to show through.

Therefore I suppose what I'm asking, after all this meandering and potential subterfuge is; is there a guiding principle within the true nature that leads towards that true nature? ( with me thinking of the intuitive process)
I think there is inherent goodness or greater good, but don't identify as a moral objectivist... but I've been called worse.

Even though modern psychoanalysts are more holistic than Freud, and new age gurus have put garlands around it, I don't know of a single exception to the rule of a socially constructed ego.

The objective moral is 'greater than thou' because it serve a purpose 'other than thou' and thrives on the genuine wish for happiness for all living things.

I believe that the infinite love that is the foundation of spirituality is with us and doesn't need to be sought after, and if anything, it's more prudent to raise awareness of what hinders or obstructs full awareness of it. Becoming conscious of that is like shining a torch around. It not only reveals what's there, but also illuminates it, and in the simplest terms, bulldust can't withstand examination... de-construct.

[Mr Interesting]

One of the things I connect with the deconstruction of ego is the construction of higher intelligence; intelligence beyond the constraints of self which is always entirely self reflective and into a form of linked consciousness where the self serves the Self.

I've always been a rather clever fellow and I'd be loathe not to ascribe most of that to intuition and while I might not be able to trace the beginnings of that I can see quite clearly now how much isn't and could never be me seeking to be the owner of that intelligence but by the same token this has also allowed me to see in others the need to keep hold of that ownership and the limits it can't help but define itself with and therefore be construed as somewhat of a cliffhanger mentality.

Just the other day I told someone that the quieting of the mind wasn't necessarily about it staying quiet but more about fine tuning a tool and making it more able to be used, brought back into use, in a finer and more efficient way as a tool.

And she grabbed hold of that willingly and has seemed to take it to heart... but they're the easy ones, the enjoyable ones.

Much more problematic are the ones convinced of their own intelligence as a direct consequence of their own efforts despite the fairly obvious setups of a deeper intelligence having set the benchmarks, the necessary widths within beginnings, which have defined the forward movements and the attainment of said intelligence. They are a sad lot grappling seemingly without end as they struggle to be more intelligent as they stand on the edge of real wisdom but are unable to let go of that which they surmise as the reason they have actually been able to achieve under their own merit.

The Ego... it is mine, I own it. That which rewards the way I feel must be the prizegiver.

Suffice to say it takes people a while to look under their own magnificence and see that the nudges and hints that led them to such profound levels of self have always a benefactor much wider and more glorious than our small minds might ever contain... until we realise the limits of containment.

[Touched]

... it takes people a while to look under their own magnificence and see that the nudges and hints that led them to such profound levels of self have always a benefactor much wider and more glorious than our small minds might ever contain... until we realize the limits of containment.
:notworthy:

[Greenslade]

I think it's fairly clear that fallacy or incorrect views exist. Truth is not so obvious, but it's also fair to say 'true nature' because there a quality or presence of being that is inherent to all life.
Granted there are fallacies flying around and that Truth is not so obvious but who decides what truth is? It seems like one person's truth is another's fallacy and what can be expressed as truth is more agenda than anything else. And while there is a quality or presence to all Life is that true nature? Using the words 'true nature' would imply to me there is a false one. Call it semantics if you will.


There is an instant where the true nature becomes apparent. There is no process that can approach it because you can't approach the place you are at. That doesn't disrupt the personality because the genetic disposition and habitual mental processes are as they are. This has no reflection on a persons spiritual inclinations because I have seen people who experience incredible spiritual things who didn't realise it and I've seen very physically orientated folks who did. The 'theory' goes: You are not the person that you remember and you are not imaginary person who becomes enlightened in the future. You are just as you are now, and not some other way.
I'd agree with you on that one - up to a point. It would be simple enough to say that there is no time, in which case you are the person in the past, present and future but I had an experience as a child that makes me wonder. There's a 'consciousness causality loop' being processed so while I don't agree here, I don't disagree neither. I also wonder about Spiritual inclinations because thinking back I've been Spiritual all my Life, even as a child.


Ah... OK the nature we have now is the true nature. There is a universal criterium in that 'this', as it is, is the actual state of conscious. In terms of choice, I think the main consideration is the subtle difference between willfulness and willingness.
Or to accept/understand that we are just the way we are.


The ego isn't defined clearly, but it isn't a thing, it's a set of thought patterns and beliefs that manifest in habitual behaviours. That doesn't deconstruct in terms of the behaviours that enable social functioning, but as the identity is disentangled from the egoic mental framework, things still happen, but they don't happen to 'me', meaning 'I' don't react to events so much as I respond to them mindfully. They call it detachment, which in real terms, is the willingness to accept life's changes gracefully.
You mean the Universe isn't out to get me after all? :D I find it curious that people say we come here to 'learn the lessons' but it's negative energies that brings those lessons; there must be some logic in that somewhere. So much for 'ego death'.

I think our perceptions are as they are in the moment, unless we're making something up to fool ourselves. Having 'false' perceptions one moment can lead to 'true' perceptions later on, it's all a part of the evolutionary process and as our consciousness changes how we perceived the same event might be very different - neither of them true nor false but simply the way they were at that time. It seems there's always something else going on in the background behind the mask. Perhaps it's not about what perceptions are true or false but understanding what perceptions we do have, in that moment. Spirit becoming the hamster on the wheel may well be an interesting experience.

[Gem]

Granted there are fallacies flying around and that Truth is not so obvious but who decides what truth is? It seems like one person's truth is another's fallacy and what can be expressed as truth is more agenda than anything else. And while there is a quality or presence to all Life is that true nature? Using the words 'true nature' would imply to me there is a false one. Call it semantics if you will.

I think there is a false nature in the identification with the socially constructed ego, but on the other hand, the true nature of consciousness is 'you as you are'... so it's somehow paradoxical and peculiar... but 'as you are' is close enough.

I'd agree with you on that one - up to a point. It would be simple enough to say that there is no time, in which case you are the person in the past, present and future but I had an experience as a child that makes me wonder. There's a 'consciousness causality loop' being processed so while I don't agree here, I don't disagree neither. I also wonder about Spiritual inclinations because thinking back I've been Spiritual all my Life, even as a child.

I guess there's time because I had breakfast when I woke up and dinner later in the day... but then I dinner yesterday before breakfast today... however, there is chronology, so we refer to time; however, 'you as you are' is present momentarily and there's no way to here. I'm not particularly spiritual with paranormal experience or ability, but I am what I am, as Popeyeji said.

Or to accept/understand that we are just the way we are.

:wink:

You mean the Universe isn't out to get me after all? :D I find it curious that people say we come here to 'learn the lessons' but it's negative energies that brings those lessons; there must be some logic in that somewhere. So much for 'ego death'.

(giggles)

I think our perceptions are as they are in the moment, unless we're making something up to fool ourselves. Having 'false' perceptions one moment can lead to 'true' perceptions later on, it's all a part of the evolutionary process and as our consciousness changes how we perceived the same event might be very different - neither of them true nor false but simply the way they were at that time. It seems there's always something else going on in the background behind the mask. Perhaps it's not about what perceptions are true or false but understanding what perceptions we do have, in that moment. Spirit becoming the hamster on the wheel may well be an interesting experience.

Moment yep, what is actually there as it is. Not evolutionary process stretched over before till now, all that can appear simultaneously like seeing the whole length of a string, or followed chronologically, but indeed, hamster wheel or not, the presence of being is present now.