How to practically force your ego to die?

Originally Posted by JustASimpleGuy

Agree about experience of an "I". focal point and ego, though I thought in the deepest Samadhi that vanished but I can't really say because I've never been that deep. However I suppose it's not quite like deep sleep so there is probably still some focal point for the experience and that has to be rooted in mind, right?

You can't have experience without an "I", the "I" gives you that point of reference through which experience happens. The trick to understanding this is to understand either Jung or Ahamkara. With Jung you have the self, the ego and the 'contents' of the ego, and he says that what most call the ego is really the 'contents'. That's the secret - what your "I am" is 'filled with'. If you have egotism your ego 'filled with' being better than everybody else, if you think "I am a good guy" then your ego is 'filled' with good stuff. Anything after "I am" is the 'contents' of the ego, and that is perceptual reality. As the ancients will tell you, all of that is transient and therefore not real - I'm sure David could chip in there with some wisdom of how that works. Donald Hoffman says the same thing, close to. Call that Maya or the 'false self', the self that's 'filled' with all that perceptual/transient stuff.

Where people can go wrong is when they think they are Spiritual and they should reach a state of Samadhi because that's a 'marker' of their Spiritual achievements. Ego 'contents', I'm afraid. Or in Ahamkara it's a kara or 'invented thing' because any markers are 'invented'.

With Samadhi there are no 'contents', there are no millstones around the neck to hold you back. That is a sense of "I am" beyond the perception of "I am Spiritual." It's the difference between "I am experiencing Samadhi" which isn't experiencing Samadhi and "I am," which is the experience of Samadhi. It's beyond "I am the Observer."

Yes, there is a focal point because without it there would be no perception of the experience, but a focal point for consciousness rather than perceptual reality. It's the difference between simply existing and existing as, if that makes sense. Within perceptual reality you exist as a Spiritual person I would assume, because you're in here discussing all this Spiritual stuff. When you stop existing as you 'lose' the 'contents' of your ego there is no absence, it simply doesn't exist because it was never really there in the first place. "I am" means you simply exist and have your focal point, it's simply an acknowledgement of your own existence and nothing beyond that. It's as though you're saying "Well yes, I exist because here I am. Obviously." Anything more has been 'invented' and becomes Ahamkara or 'contents of your ego'.

Originally Posted by davidsun

I hear you, Gramps (I am also old enough to be a Grampah, BTW ) My comments may only be pertinent for peeps who find themselves conscious in the 'midst' of experiencing a heartfelt 'crisis', whatever his or her biological or spiritual 'age'.

I appreciate (though I confess I don't fully 'get') the clarifications you provide with regard to your 'sense' of 'self' as well.

David, you've shattered my perceptual reality. Here's me thinking that the white beard was false and that you were wearing it to hide your boyish good looks. Well I never!

I've never really had a 'sense of self' underneath it all and while part of me has been present in this reality, there has always been a feeling that another part of me has been floating around with no reference points to call up, left of, above.... That's very disconcerting and it's no fun when you've spent your Life being at odds with yourself. The Inner Child is comforted the angry young man finally has someone who is OK with how he feels, and that makes it OK with him too. That feels very peaceful to me.

Originally Posted by davidsun

Do you do the same thing when you think you are Spiritual?


“The temple of the most high begins with the body which houses our life, the essence of our existence. Africans are in bondage today because they approach spirituality through religion provided by foreign invaders and conquerors. We must stop confusing religion and spirituality. Religion is a set of rules, regulations and rituals created by humans, which was suppose to help people grow spiritually. Due to human imperfection religion has become corrupt, political, divisive and a tool for power struggle. Spirituality is not theology or ideology. It is simply a way of life, pure and original as was given by the Most High of Creation. Spirituality is a network linking us to the Most High, the universe, and each other…”
― Haile Selassie I

Originally Posted by Anala

Yes, it is a blessing to have friends who are generous beyond belief. There are pearls and people who I hold a space in my heart for. The lessons that ring true in my heart will carry me through this lifetime.

Each one is a gift and from me, freely given. Each one makes this Universe a little better.

Originally Posted by Greenslade

You can't have experience without an "I", the "I" gives you that point of reference through which experience happens. The trick to understanding this is to understand either Jung or Ahamkara. With Jung you have the self, the ego and the 'contents' of the ego, and he says that what most call the ego is really the 'contents'. That's the secret - what your "I am" is 'filled with'. If you have egotism your ego 'filled with' being better than everybody else, if you think "I am a good guy" then your ego is 'filled' with good stuff. Anything after "I am" is the 'contents' of the ego, and that is perceptual reality. As the ancients will tell you, all of that is transient and therefore not real - I'm sure David could chip in there with some wisdom of how that works. Donald Hoffman says the same thing, close to. Call that Maya or the 'false self', the self that's 'filled' with all that perceptual/transient stuff.

Where people can go wrong is when they think they are Spiritual and they should reach a state of Samadhi because that's a 'marker' of their Spiritual achievements. Ego 'contents', I'm afraid. Or in Ahamkara it's a kara or 'invented thing' because any markers are 'invented'.

With Samadhi there are no 'contents', there are no millstones around the neck to hold you back. That is a sense of "I am" beyond the perception of "I am Spiritual." It's the difference between "I am experiencing Samadhi" which isn't experiencing Samadhi and "I am," which is the experience of Samadhi. It's beyond "I am the Observer."

Yes, there is a focal point because without it there would be no perception of the experience, but a focal point for consciousness rather than perceptual reality. It's the difference between simply existing and existing as, if that makes sense. Within perceptual reality you exist as a Spiritual person I would assume, because you're in here discussing all this Spiritual stuff. When you stop existing as you 'lose' the 'contents' of your ego there is no absence, it simply doesn't exist because it was never really there in the first place. "I am" means you simply exist and have your focal point, it's simply an acknowledgement of your own existence and nothing beyond that. It's as though you're saying "Well yes, I exist because here I am. Obviously." Anything more has been 'invented' and becomes Ahamkara or 'contents of your ego'.

Sounds about right. As for the experience the best analogy I can think of is that of a lucid dream. To "know" and without a shadow of doubt what is "real" and what is "unreal". In that sense and even though ego/Ahamkara is fully present it's recognized for what it is, or more importantly what it is not.

Concerning meditation/Samadhi, I practice in order to take advantage of neuroplasticity. Since the brain is plastic might as well have some input into its shaping and I'm not really concerned about Samadhi. I was at one point but I've let go of that desire as it felt counterproductive to my practice. Forced...

Donald Hoffman - Conscious Agents, right? It's interesting and I see some similarity between his conscious agents and the instances of proto-consciousness based on Platonic values embedded in the Planck scale in the Penrose-Hameroff Orch OR hypothesis, though I think Hoffman will say his conscious agents precede the Planck scale.

[davidsun]

Originally Posted by Greenslade

You can't have experience without an "I", the "I" gives you that point of reference through which experience happens. The trick to understanding this is to understand either Jung or Ahamkara. With Jung you have the self, the ego and the 'contents' of the ego, and he says that what most call the ego is really the 'contents'. That's the secret - what your "I am" is 'filled with'. If you have egotism your ego 'filled with' being better than everybody else, if you think "I am a good guy" then your ego is 'filled' with good stuff. Anything after "I am" is the 'contents' of the ego, and that is perceptual reality. As the ancients will tell you, all of that is transient and therefore not real - I'm sure David could chip in there with some wisdom of how that works. Donald Hoffman says the same thing, close to. Call that Maya or the 'false self', the self that's 'filled' with all that perceptual/transient stuff.

Where people can go wrong is when they think they are Spiritual and they should reach a state of Samadhi because that's a 'marker' of their Spiritual achievements. Ego 'contents', I'm afraid. Or in Ahamkara it's a kara or 'invented thing' because any markers are 'invented'.

With Samadhi there are no 'contents', there are no millstones around the neck to hold you back. That is a sense of "I am" beyond the perception of "I am Spiritual." It's the difference between "I am experiencing Samadhi" which isn't experiencing Samadhi and "I am," which is the experience of Samadhi. It's beyond "I am the Observer."

Yes, there is a focal point because without it there would be no perception of the experience, but a focal point for consciousness rather than perceptual reality. It's the difference between simply existing and existing as, if that makes sense. Within perceptual reality you exist as a Spiritual person I would assume, because you're in here discussing all this Spiritual stuff. When you stop existing as you 'lose' the 'contents' of your ego there is no absence, it simply doesn't exist because it was never really there in the first place. "I am" means you simply exist and have your focal point, it's simply an acknowledgement of your own existence and nothing beyond that. It's as though you're saying "Well yes, I exist because here I am. Obviously." Anything more has been 'invented' and becomes Ahamkara or 'contents of your ego'.

Great post, GS - meaning that I was able to relationally 'groove' with it and very much enjoyed doing (I the 'doer' in this case) so!

Re your saying: You can't have experience without an "I", the "I" gives you that point of reference through which experience happens." I say You are danged tootin' right! Bro.

Re your saying Anything after "I am" is the 'contents' of the ego, and that is perceptual reality. As the ancients will tell you, all of that is transient and therefore not real - I'm sure David could chip in there with some wisdom of how that works. Donald Hoffman says the same thing, close to. Call that Maya or the 'false self', the self that's 'filled' with all that perceptual/transient stuff., I say What I (you, anyone) experience and express is LIFE. And LIFE is not 'false'. In fact, though it is always in 'transit' IT is the only thing that IS REAL - you and I are REALLY living parts of an ever-ongoing LIVING 'happening'. LIFE is CO-motion, 'beyond which' there is NOTHING and NOTHING doesn't EXIST in REALITY, dude!

Re your saying With Samadhi there are no 'contents', there are no millstones around the neck to hold you back. That is a sense of "I am" beyond the perception of "I am Spiritual." It's the difference between "I am experiencing Samadhi" which isn't experiencing Samadhi and "I am," which is the experience of Samadhi. It's beyond "I am the Observer." Yes, there is a focal point because without it there would be no perception of the experience, but a focal point for consciousness rather than perceptual reality. It's the difference between simply existing and existing as, I say Yes. In the 'samadhi' state one ceases to exist AS an aspect of LIFE. One is then, for all practical purposes 'dead'. I (since preferring to be and being a very practically living soul) relate to such one(s) as NOT being a part of THE FLOW of LIFE. At least, they are NOT part of THE FLOW of LIFE that I am 'in'. If and to the extent that such one(s) choose to remain 'in' 'Samadhi' and so don't re-engage with LIFE , I regard and relate to them as 'bliss'-teat sucking 'deserters', who are lost causes in terms of what I care about - sadly so, I feel. This is the way I generally feel about you, except of course when you surprise me by making posts such as this, which give me something which I can actually relate to.

The contrast between the act of your making these posts and what you say and imply 'in' them leads me to think that you are sitting on some kind of 'fence' - somewhere between pro-actively living and just getting yer tush 'out' of LIFE's river-FLOW. Regarding this (contrast), I take heart in the operas-related saying: "It ain't 'over' until the 'fat lady' sings!"

P.S. My 'thesis' which will become obvious if your really think about it it, is that even the experience of 'samadhi' would be impossibe if one wasn't oneself a part of (i.e in) THE FLOW of LIFE to experience it! Permanent 'samadhi' = 'oblivion' = 'suicide' (as far as THE FLOW of LIFE which is the ONLY thing THAT IS is concerned), IOW!

To any and every 'one' tempted to go 'out' of here - watch out of Orwellian, 'Reality is Unreality' and 'Unreality is Reality' traps. Don't blow (away!) the opportunity!

Originally Posted by davidsun

Great post, GS - meaning that I was able to relationally 'groove' with it and very much enjoyed doing (I the 'doer' in this case) so!

Re your saying: You can't have experience without an "I", the "I" gives you that point of reference through which experience happens." I say You are danged tootin' right! Bro.

Re your saying Anything after "I am" is the 'contents' of the ego, and that is perceptual reality. As the ancients will tell you, all of that is transient and therefore not real - I'm sure David could chip in there with some wisdom of how that works. Donald Hoffman says the same thing, close to. Call that Maya or the 'false self', the self that's 'filled' with all that perceptual/transient stuff., I say What I (you, anyone) experience and express is LIFE. And LIFE is not 'false'. In fact, though it is always in 'transit' IT is the only thing that IS REAL - you and I are REALLY living parts of an ever-ongoing LIVING 'happening'. LIFE is CO-motion, 'beyond which' there is NOTHING and NOTHING doesn't EXIST in REALITY, dude!

Re your saying With Samadhi there are no 'contents', there are no millstones around the neck to hold you back. That is a sense of "I am" beyond the perception of "I am Spiritual." It's the difference between "I am experiencing Samadhi" which isn't experiencing Samadhi and "I am," which is the experience of Samadhi. It's beyond "I am the Observer." Yes, there is a focal point because without it there would be no perception of the experience, but a focal point for consciousness rather than perceptual reality. It's the difference between simply existing and existing as, I say Yes. In the 'samadhi' state one ceases to exist AS an aspect of LIFE. One is then, for all practical purposes 'dead'. I (since preferring to be and being a very practically living soul) relate to such one(s) as NOT being a part of THE FLOW of LIFE. At least, they are NOT part of THE FLOW of LIFE that I am 'in'. If and to the extent that such one(s) choose to remain 'in' 'Samadhi' and so don't re-engage with LIFE , I regard and relate to them as 'bliss'-teat sucking 'traitors', who are lost causes in terms of what I care about - sadly so, I feel. This is the way I generally feel about you, except of course when you surprise me by making posts such as this, which give me something which I can actually relate to.

The contrast between the act of your making these posts and what you say and imply 'in' them leads me to think that you are sitting on some kind of 'fence' - somewhere between pro-actively living and just getting yer tush 'out' of LIFE's river-FLOW. Regarding this (contrast), I take heart in the operas-related saying: "It ain't 'over' until the 'fat lady' sings!"

P.S. My 'thesis' which will become obvious if your really think about it it, is that even the experience of 'samadhi' would be impossibe if one wasn't oneself a part of (i.e in) THE FLOW of LIFE to experience it! Permanent 'samadhi' = 'oblivion' = 'suicide' (as far as THE FLOW of LIFE which is the ONLY thing THAT IS is concerned), IOW!

To any and every 'one' tempted to go 'out' of here - watch out of Orwellian, 'Reality is Unreality' and 'Unreality is Reality' traps. Don't blow (away!) the opportunity!

I suggest one can have one's cake and eat it too.

One can realize and be firmly ensconced in One's permanent and unchanging Self while still participating in the Divine Play of Consciousness as one's impermanent and changing self. One can be director, actor, character, stage and play.

[HITESH SHAH]

Originally Posted by davidsun

Methinks you are reading what you would like to be the case into my what I may have written (water gone by under the 'bridge' of memory now) about traditions.

Here are some additional thoughts of mine about the subject:

Inasmuch as
Even if you don't agree with all that I've stated above, I very much hope you appreciate the rationale of my attitude and positionality in the above regard, Hitesh.

This gives vivid insight into how one thinks . Yes we are not the same we were yesterday and we will not be the same tomorrow . Life is ever-changing / dynamic.

And I don't think there is much to disagree . It's all about one's tuning and understanding of flow of life and one's role in relation thereto. It's very much logical IMO .

[davidsun]

Originally Posted by Greenslade

Do you do the same thing when you think you are Spiritual?


“The temple of the most high begins with the body which houses our life, the essence of our existence. Africans are in bondage today because they approach spirituality through religion provided by foreign invaders and conquerors. We must stop confusing religion and spirituality. Religion is a set of rules, regulations and rituals created by humans, which was suppose to help people grow spiritually. Due to human imperfection religion has become corrupt, political, divisive and a tool for power struggle. Spirituality is not theology or ideology. It is simply a way of life, pure and original as was given by the Most High of Creation. Spirituality is a network linking us to the Most High, the universe, and each other…”
― Haile Selassie I

Your 'question' is too "Are you black-or-white?" small (to 'fit' me), GS. I operate on the basis of believing-knowing-feeling-seeing-embracing the fact that I and everyone and everything else is 'spiritual' and 'intelligently' 'creative' (to some 'degree' - some being 'blackbelts', etc. in said regard.

My 'idea-ology' (set of ideas which logically co-relate what I 'see' and experience as being THE Flow of Life) is fully presneted in my treatise (should you ever be really interested in knowing what and how I (logically, I think ) value. Here is a snippet from towards the end of it which will give you an idea in said regard - it is concordant with what's in your Haile Selassie quote, I think.

Psychospiritual communion in a Spirit of Love and Joy is what is most relevant to actualizing the kind of Life I speak of: Conscious affirmation and appreciation of intimately (via mutual recognition and empathy) shared thoughts and feelings, whereby and wherein one whole-mind-n-heart‑edly embraces and revels in the fact that whoever or whatever one is in the presence of is a wonderfully familial being-doing aspect of The Flow of Life Itself, any differences between one’s own and others’ worldly situations and/or conditions notwithstanding!

Except, since in my view we are all vitally co-related parts of THE same/ONE 'happening', there is no 'Most High' in the context of said Being-Doing. That (Most High) idea is the "I am in touch with 'the King of the Castle' and, if you are not with me, 'you are just a Rascal'" oneupsmanship 'achilles heel' bane of most of the world's 'religions' (not mine, but including Haile's evidently) till now. That idea is 'gears' peeps to look 'down' on others who don't believe-think-and-feel the same way they do.

I am an iconoclast in said regard! A significant aspect of my mission in Life is to pop all of 'em delusion-based balloons!

Originally Posted by davidsun

My 'idea-ology' (set of ideas which logically co-relate what I 'see' and experience as being THE Flow of Life) is fully presneted in my treatise (should you ever be really interested in knowing what and how I (logically, I think ) value. Here is a snippet from towards the end of it which will give you an idea in said regard - it is concordant with what's in your Haile Selassie quote, I think.

I am an iconoclast in said regard! A significant aspect of my mission in Life is to pop all of 'em delusion-based balloons!

How is your ideology and treatise different than any other religious dogma and how is your balloon popping any different than any other dogmatic religion's "mission" to save people?