I think I have a handle on it now and I appreciate the thoughts. It is mostly a matter of recalibrating my understanding or what is normal and how I should respond to that reality. In matters of the heart some things are not meant to be understood but rather to be experienced.

Can you breathe?
Then you can meditate.. Maybe tweaking the concept a little from what you think it is to what it is..

With Love
Eelco

Pray tell me, how can ego be exerted from unconsciousness?

.

easy imo, the brain though there may be no exertion on spirit or unconsciousness. :smile: But why? You are in a conscious state, notice how it can change but one always returns to this one.

And you are how well-versed in psychology?

"To Jung, the ego was the center of the field of consciousness, the part of the psyche where our conscious awareness resides, our sense of identity and existence. This part can be seen as a kind of “command HQ”, organizing our thoughts, feelings, senses, and intuition, and regulating access to memory. It is the part that links the inner and outer worlds together, forming how we relate to that which is external to us."

http://journalpsyche.org/jungian-model-psyche/

I guess 'ignorant' is relative.

I need to go talk to the sea again. Thanks.

In my honest view (and experience), anything that associates with an "I" or "Self" (with a small or big "s") in regards to anything or any concept, cognitive perception or even an awareness of 'being' as it corresponds to, relates to or incorporates anything else - it's all ego!

There is the delineation between "I am THAT" or "I am Consciousness/Oneness/God" or whatever association there is, and "That/God ALONE exists" irrespective of what "I" am...or what "Self" is, because the former realisation is still an aspect of the mind or ego.

In the total experience of Laya (absorption) the "I" or "Self" either differentiated or undifferentiated totally vanishes and so, one cannot have the notion of "I am That" because everything is "That" which includes, but isn't limited to what "I" or any notion of being any kind of 'separate' entity or Consciousness IS.

Many will believe and experience the "I AM" but all I can say is "keep going my friend, because that's only half the story", but to stop there, in the belief that that's all there IS - that's just the ego still clinging on to it's last bit of dominance over a full experience of a totally abject and transcendent oblivion.

Hi Shivani Devi,

What you share find for myself to be a good clarification of what is being pointed to in regards to "ego" with in spiritual teachings.

Thank you

Hey stranger

We've talked about this before in our innate ramblings. :tongue:

You reality is defined by your perceptions, your perceptions are defined by your beliefs and your beliefs are defined by your definitions. The mainstream definition of 'ego' seems to be that it's the root of all evil and should be cast out with the aid of a plastic fork at all costs. Very simply Jung defines it as the 'information central' of our consciousness, which handles everything we process from information to emotions, perceptions... Spirituality..... It's the point of origin for our existential experience, essentially, and gives us a framework of perspective that without, we'd go bonkers. Ego simply gives us a reference point so we can be 'here' and see 'there'. In some religious practices there's the dissolution of the ego but there's always a sense of 'I Am' even in that process.

I had a discussion with someone who was trying to define various stages of ego, self, Self.... but ironically the discussion was becoming more and more like the definition of ego she was trying to set herself against.

I Am is only limited by what you can think of I Am as being, and when you think about is as merely being a place where you put your feet everything looks differently. You even have the choice of whether to put your feet there or realise you have no feet, and everywhere is.

With all of the wise words spouted in the forum, nobody is listening to themselves - http://www.gestaltreality.com/2013/0...ensional-self/
We are multi-dimensional after all. Perhaps we should start using the word 'entity', and should I look out my floppy hat and flowery dress that makes my hairy legs so elegant?

With respect to all.

My main consternation deals solely with 'personalising' any notion of a transcendent experiential reality to bring it into the framework of an individuised existence, thus associating with only a related perception of it to satisfy the needs of an inquiring mind.

I also agree that ego is something that is not 'evil' or should be 'cast out' as trying to get rid of/kill ego is a mere exercise in futility as it makes us who we are as individual beings. The whole crux of the matter is a question of association/identification with ourselves as being sovereign in relation to a transcendent consciousness and merely 'believing' one is That without the subsequent Moksha (liberation from Karma) as the accompanying hallmark of such actuality.

When you are joined with a beloved in conjugal bliss, so there is no separation of body, mind and soul is there still an "I"? in that scenario, only love exists. You cannot really say "I am my partner" or "I am love" or "I am anything", really as there's only the climax...you're not thinking about "oh, I'm having an orgasm right now, so I am the orgasm"...you just feel it...surrender the I/ego TO it and let it flow from the heart...you don't hold it back with thoughts or words, identifying with that experience on any level.

Maybe this is only what happens TO my 'ego-self' and maybe I am the only human being on the planet who experiences it in this way, but that's also fine - my fingerprint isn't the same as anybody else's either....and just because one 'believes' the earth is flat, doesn't necessarily make it so.