How to practically force your ego to die?

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!

Thank you, David.

In short, I'd very much agree with what you're saying about reality and what I'd say myself is that reality is perception. If you are conscious of it then it's real, and the reality of what is unreal is that unreal is a concept and not reality itself. At the same time though, I can just as easily argue reality from a number of different contexts including mental health, which is a great position to discuss reality from. In the context of Ahamkara/ego and ancient wisdom then transient reality is subjective and therefore not real, and coming from that perspective gave that discussion the context. I think the misunderstanding in how these things are put across comes in using the words 'true' and 'false', and subsequently their connotations. Transient and non-transient works for me, but within Triplex Unity rather than duality/binary thinking. Transient and non-transient are in a symbiotic relationship.

[quote=davidsun]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 interesting thing about Samadhi is that it doesn't deny/discredit Maya or the 'false self', it actually embraces it and recognises and acknowledges its existence and reason for being. This is where Spirituality often falls down but that is really where the understanding of the ego and its machinations operate. When consciousness encompasses, it all comes into its own. Being in the flow of Life or not is simply a matter of perspective, and the only real difference is a sidestep. There is a consciousness of the perceptions both within and without the flow, and being the flow, being Life itself, and having Life.

In Africa they have a saying - "Ubuntu." It means "I am because we are."

Originally Posted by davidsun

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!

You mean I'm multi-faceted and not one-dimensional? I'll take that as a compliment. Just right now I'm following my passion, and that's photography. Interestingly, what you said about " they are NOT part of THE FLOW of LIFE that I am 'in' " brought that to mind.

Originally Posted by davidsun

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.

I embrace the fact that really the word itself only has importance to the person who attaches the importance to it, that the use of the word has more to do with ego than Spirit. Spirit doesn't do Spirituality. Just right now it's a beautiful day and the light isn't too harsh, so I'm off to create a photo opportunity or two in a challenging landscape. It's the same landscape but different. Only a couple of days ago I was photographing the Laird of Pitsligo's castle, where Bonnie Prince Charlie used to visit. While it has a commanding view over the landscape it's lying in ruins.


The delusion is that there is delusion.

[davidsun]

Originally Posted by Greenslade

The delusion is that there is delusion.

Any of my words to the contrary notwithstanding, I agree with this. There is only 'subject'ivity - IMO, the only thang worth 'contest'ing in said regard is whether one's or others' subjective views, values, actions, etc. are maximally Life (as a Wgole) serving or because selfishly biased less than that.

'Judgments' in said regard are necessarily 'subject'ive as well. There is therefore no 'way' (in terms of 'way' to soul-maturation) around that - in my opinion, that is.

[davidsun]

Originally Posted by JustASimpleGuy

To my way of thinking if everyone has the same Divine identity that places everyone on the same level of existence regardless what belief they might subscribe to. No one's superior or inferior because at our deepest core we are all One.

Yes, that is my 'point' as well, which includes the 'point' that the concept (belief in?) 'Divinity' has histrically been miss-used to disguise and reify individual and group 'selfishness' under the 'flag' of "the 'Divine' Rights of 'Kings' (look up the history of this!) and the prolamation that "All men, i.e. mini-'kings', are created equal. Talk about the abomination of the idea of 'male' 'supremacy'. My best guess is that 'you' naively choose to be blind to the consequences of people subscribing to the idea of 'Divinity' because that idea/concept lends itself to being co-opted as a selfishnessness-legitimizing 'flag', presumably because it in some way suits 'you' to do so.

Originally Posted by JustASimpleGuy

On the other hand saying some souls cease to exist, presumably because of actions or lack thereof, seems to me to establish some souls are inferior to others. Beyond that it speaks to dualism as the reality and not non-dualism.

No - 'you' are choosing to distort the implications of my statement(s) here IMO, said opinion being based on the fact that I think 'you' are intellgient enough to see/think otherwise. There is no 'inferiority' implied when one 'recognizes' that Intelligence learns from 'success' and 'failure'. Children only learn to 'balance' as they stand, walk and run by 'falling' and/or witnessing others 'fall' as a result of 'negligence' and/or 'aiming' to actualize something that is 'out of balance' in terms superordinate (this is not the same as 'superior') Reality.

Originally Posted by JustASimpleGuy

This is where I have difficulty reconciling what you profess to believe vs. how you express what you believe. That is you do indicate you subscribe to some form of non-duality but I'm just not getting it. Perhaps I'm just dense.

Dense, yes - but by choice, I would say. It is because you think that "Non-Duality" means or 'should' mean what you think it means that you do not (cannot?) relate to my understanding of THE Reality THE Flow of THE One Life which each and every mini-one of is a psychospiritually 'living' aspect of as long as we psychospiritualy live - which Flow can only move (o.e. evolve) 'forward' by way of the 'play' of opposites within It.

You will not be able to 'see' what I am talkng about if you only look through the ideational 'lenses' that you presently wear, i.e. if you continue to (smugly?) choose to remain throne-ensconced in the 'bubble' that is presently your 'comfort'-zone; that is as long as you only 'seek' confirmation of what you already thnk, feel and believe. Note: this is not about 'necessary' 'agreement'; even if you see what I talking about, you might still disagree with me.

[davidsun]

Originally Posted by Greenslade

You mean I'm multi-faceted and not one-dimensional? I'll take that as a compliment. Just right now I'm following my passion, and that's photography. Interestingly, what you said about " they are NOT part of THE FLOW of LIFE that I am 'in' " brought that to mind.

Great (for want of a 'better' word) photo, GS. Thanks! for sharing.

My 'spirit' soars in response to your 'commentary' as well.

Originally Posted by davidsun

Any of my words to the contrary notwithstanding, I agree with this. There is only 'subject'ivity - IMO, the only thang worth 'contest'ing in said regard is whether one's or others' subjective views, values, actions, etc. are maximally Life (as a Wgole) serving or because selfishly biased less than that.

'Judgments' in said regard are necessarily 'subject'ive as well. There is therefore no 'way' (in terms of 'way' to soul-maturation) around that - in my opinion, that is.

The objective reality is that all reality is subjective, or put another way Absolute Reality is absolutely relative. As for judgements, within Ahamkara they are 'invented things.

Originally Posted by davidsun

Great (for want of a 'better' word) photo, GS. Thanks! for sharing.

My 'spirit' soars in response to your 'commentary' as well.

This is why I like it so much, there are always four perspectives of the same scene and it's a witnessing of creation and its expression.

[davidsun]

Originally Posted by Greenslade

As for judgements, within Ahamkara they are 'invented things.

Ahh ... BUTT the word/idea of something being invented may (and often is, in 'truth'-talking venues) be understood and mucky-muck-smugly used to imply that something or other is not 'real', or to suggest that it just 'distracts' attention from what is 'really' (i.e. 'supremely' or 'absolutey') valuable - like when something is thought of and labeled as being an illusion or illusory.

The FACT (in my opinion it IS a fact!) is that the words invent and invented references an act of and consequence of Creation (a/k.a LIFE!!)( whereby something or other is brought (i,e, vented!) into really BEING and thenceforth may be used/deployed to augment to the Flow of Love and Joy in that LIFE-BEING-and-DOING context.

I haven't studied what people who use the Ahamkara word actually mean, but my overall judgment' being that Hindo-Vedic philosopy has generally hisprically been focused on getting 'out' of LIVING here rather than on creatively 'making' LIVING here more Love and Joy productive, I think it indicates an nose-held-high-in-the-air eschewal of 'judgment' as a desirable activity (albeit if done it ha d better be done wisely) in favor of a no-[u]new[u]-in[/i]vention, 'escapist' LIFE-style.

Hence my rejection of many of the premises of said philosophy (note: I was born and experienced LIFE growing up in tradition-bound Hindu-Veda land, albeit I had a 'British' mother) so I have a gut-feeling for the philosophical contrasts what I speak of).

[Altair]

Originally Posted by KonrD111

How can you kill your ego to be happy in life and unveil the truth by stopping your mind? Some creative ideas please.

If you've got an unhappy mind than you need to fill it up with better things.

[davidsun]

Originally Posted by Altair

If you've got an unhappy mind than you need to fill it up with better things.

This is an over-'simplistic' statement, like a doctor administering a shot saying "This won't 'hurt'. C'mon Altair, you can 'dig' deeper than this!

[Ewwerrin]

Originally Posted by Altair

If you've got an unhappy mind than you need to fill it up with better things.

Who is this guy? I've never seen him around here?!

*speaks to you in third person*

Oh, MY LORD, SORRY. I DID NOT MEAN TO PRETEND YOU WERE NOT HERE!

You grace us with your mighty presence.

Can you please spare some change for an old fool like me? CHAAAAaaaaahhhngehhh!

Chhaaaaeeenghuuu!

*transforms into a little spider and crawls away really cute*