Ego question I would love help with......

[Wagner]

Originally Posted by DreamKey

I disagree that meditation results in awakening, although this shift from consciousness perceived through the filter of thinking/conceptualization versus consciousness absent conceptualization is a noticeable shift.

It could be a crisis in variable use of terminology. Anyways, who or what is disagreeing? Where does this disagreement occur? It occurs in the thoughts, and the one that believes that the thoughts belong to it is the Ego. It is the innate tendencies of the mind which cause the thoughts to go out and assign name and form and substance to what we perceive. This is the creation of maya. Thought is the substratum of all belief/concept. When the thoughts are made silent through meditation (or any other means which can accomplish this) then the beliefs/concepts have no substance to subsist on and disappear. This gives the Ego absolutely nothing to identify with. What is left is an unalloyed, pristine state of pure am-ness.

"I am x." No matter what you assign to the variable 'x' in that sentence, it denotes an identification with something and that defines, implicitly or explicitly, an Ego.

What you mention is direct experiential insight into the illusory nature of the one who would claim an experience as personal. That can be a great insight to have, and I don't mean to discount that, but to parallel that insight with awakening would be misguided.

How do you define awakening? What awakens and to what state?

[Moonglow]

Originally Posted by DreamKey

The point in talking about how the unconscious mind (ego) functions is to make the person more conscious. As the person becomes more conscious, there can be a split movement, where the person unconsciously wants to resist the becoming conscious process, yet simultaneously experiences the benefits of being less unconscious. These benefits are noticed as absences, and not additions.



Yea when all else fails, blame the ego! But right, the ego is not an entity, in the same way the pain body is not an entity. If we just call the ego the unobserved mind, then we can turn the focus to noticing how the mind is functioning, and becoming conscious.



Repetitive thoughts tend to possess hooks in the unconscious mind. Typically what is resisted is some form of pain, and the classical resistance mechanism is seeking. Of course you can become conscious of all sorts of fears that mask that pain, which can be a good starting point.

The first that comes to mind is fear of pain, haha. But fear of loss, vulnerability, rejection, abandonment, judgment: these are very common fears in the collective engine.



And to you as well.

The question that pops into mind is; What is the person becoming conscious of?
Can say that the person is becoming aware of oneself, yet what comprises this?

What makes up a person seems complex. Some things just take time to unfold and to make sense of. A person may not be ready to face certain things about him/ her self at the moment, so it gets placed on the back burner.

I have found have come across information and been told certain things about me in the past, but it took some experience and maturing to bring understanding and acceptance of these. Other things have been dropped. Getting at that it is an on going process.

A process that not only involves the mind, but the body and the connection however felt to life ( spirit).

Yes, thoughts influence ones perceptive and feelings. The body also holds emotion. What is forgotten or repressed in the mind is held in the body.
Find this to be true when doing message work and the person has an emotional release.

This is what leads me to state it is all connected. Focusing on one aspect may help, but if not considering the other aspects of my being this person. To me can be damanging as well. Further expanding my view on this.

Can agree, noticing the thoughts and what they may bring is a good start.
Would venture to say it is not only the thoughts, but also being conscious of how one acts upon these. To distinguish whether they serve to motivate and/or bring more understanding or they hinder/and cause more division seems to be what I get through noticing thoughts.

Where yes fear can be a factor. Look at it this way can either face the fear or be stuck in the same pattern until I do. Or have the pain grow in me until there is no choice but to face it or have it make me sick. For with the pain comes held emotions, which is held energy, which will eventually go somewhere. Which would venture to say the course chosen to take is affected by ones thinking.

[DreamKey]

Originally Posted by Wagner

It could be a crisis in variable use of terminology. Anyways, who or what is disagreeing? Where does this disagreement occur? It occurs in the thoughts, and the one that believes that the thoughts belong to it is the Ego.

I didn't see a crisis. I saw you describe a meditative experience and was simply pointing out that awakening is from the experiential framework and not a person in it. Relatively speaking obviously my thoughts are mine and yours are yours, and when these thoughts are different it's called a disagreement. Trump and Hilary really do disagree with each other in Maya.

It is the innate tendencies of the mind which cause the thoughts to go out and assign name and form and substance to what we perceive. This is the creation of maya.

Mind is nothing but thought/emotion, and so to call thought the cause of itself would be a misnomer. Apparent movement (which is singular) appearing to the non-appearing witness (which isn't 'actually separate') allows identification with an object, the mind.

So, consciousness is the cause of the mind, as opposed to the mind being the cause of itself.

Thought is the substratum of all belief/concept. When the thoughts are made silent through meditation (or any other means which can accomplish this) then the beliefs/concepts have no substance to subsist on and disappear. This gives the Ego absolutely nothing to identify with. What is left is an unalloyed, pristine state of pure am-ness.

What is left is a mind state without thought, and that is exactly what the Ego identifies with. The thing in the mind state is the person, and the thing identified with a personal experience of am-ness is the Ego. Are you the only one having this experience or can other people have it too?

"I am x." No matter what you assign to the variable 'x' in that sentence, it denotes an identification with something and that defines, implicitly or explicitly, an Ego.


How do you define awakening? What awakens and to what state?

I would say awakening is a loss of identification with the mind or person. You could say consciousness awakens from identification with the person, who is unconscious.

Awakening isn't a state of consciousness, however. The state of the person exists in awakened consciousness.

[DreamKey]

Originally Posted by Moonglow

The question that pops into mind is; What is the person becoming conscious of?
Can say that the person is becoming aware of oneself, yet what comprises this?

The person isn't becoming conscious of anything. Consciousness becomes conscious of unconsciousness. Or you could say, consciousness transmutes unconsciousness into itself. Unconsciousness can be anything from mental dynamics to actual energy.

As far as the merging experience into oneness, you could say awareness is becoming aware it is not the person in awareness.

What makes up a person seems complex. Some things just take time to unfold and to make sense of. A person may not be ready to face certain things about him/ her self at the moment, so it gets placed on the back burner.

I have found have come across information and been told certain things about me in the past, but it took some experience and maturing to bring understanding and acceptance of these. Other things have been dropped. Getting at that it is an on going process.

A process that not only involves the mind, but the body and the connection however felt to life ( spirit).

Yes, thoughts influence ones perceptive and feelings. The body also holds emotion. What is forgotten or repressed in the mind is held in the body.
Find this to be true when doing message work and the person has an emotional release.

Those emotions are what are being made conscious.

This is what leads me to state it is all connected. Focusing on one aspect may help, but if not considering the other aspects of my being this person. To me can be damanging as well. Further expanding my view on this.

Can agree, noticing the thoughts and what they may bring is a good start.
Would venture to say it is not only the thoughts, but also being conscious of how one acts upon these. To distinguish whether they serve to motivate and/or bring more understanding or they hinder/and cause more division seems to be what I get through noticing thoughts.

Sure, noticing the division can initiate the willingness to surrender the divisive thoughts. In this sense surrender does not result from doing anything, but noticing and being conscious.

Where yes fear can be a factor. Look at it this way can either face the fear or be stuck in the same pattern until I do. Or have the pain grow in me until there is no choice but to face it or have it make me sick. For with the pain comes held emotions, which is held energy, which will eventually go somewhere. Which would venture to say the course chosen to take is affected by ones thinking.

Right, no choice. Noticing leading to willingness giving way to allowing.

[guthrio]

Originally Posted by bflare

Wow! I did not expect all those interesting replies. I shall take my time to digest them.

Thanks,

Tony.

Tony,

Am glad that so many respondents to your OP have provided such interesting replies about ego.

I'd like to provide yet another reply for your digestion, in addition to my earlier posts within this thread...but which you may find to be more to-the-point than references to "dawning realizations".

I invite you to look at the PDF version of the reference, below, received through channeler Jane Roberts, entitled, The Nature of Personal Reality.

Incidentally, this reference more satisfactorily answered many of my own questions, such as from an earlier post in this thread about finding solutions to the ego-generated problems of the human condition.

I believe many of your questions about ego can be answered in this reference....even some of those you raised in a 2nd post pertaining to drugs, personality, etc,. (You may find it helpful to apply the "find" function to pinpoint paragraphs among the 468 pages containing the words "ego", "purpose", "drugs", and "problems").

The 2nd reference is aptly named, A Compilation of Exercises, and includes guidance from some of Jane Roberts' other books about dealing with many of Life's problems....by applying knowledge that has always been available to us, but has historically (and purposely) been blocked out of our cultural awareness, to deny us its benefits.

Hope these help...

Reference: http://www.shemeam.com/pdf/Jane_Robe...al_Reality.pdf The Nature of Personal Reality

Reference: http://www.gestaltreality.com/downlo...%20Roberts.pdf A Compilation Of Exercises

Reference: http://www.spiritualforums.com/vb/sh...6&postcount=10 The Silent Knowledge

[Wagner]

Originally Posted by DreamKey

I didn't see a crisis. I saw you describe a meditative experience and was simply pointing out that awakening is from the experiential framework and not a person in it. Relatively speaking obviously my thoughts are mine and yours are yours, and when these thoughts are different it's called a disagreement. Trump and Hilary really do disagree with each other in Maya.

I was being facetious by my use of the word "crisis." Trust me. ;)

Mind is nothing but thought/emotion, and so to call thought the cause of itself would be a misnomer. Apparent movement (which is singular) appearing to the non-appearing witness (which isn't 'actually separate') allows identification with an object, the mind.

So, consciousness is the cause of the mind, as opposed to the mind being the cause of itself.

What is left is a mind state without thought, and that is exactly what the Ego identifies with. The thing in the mind state is the person, and the thing identified with a personal experience of am-ness is the Ego. Are you the only one having this experience or can other people have it too?

Yet these are all still just thoughts. This is what I'm saying. These thoughts themselves, with our awareness going through them and assimilating them, as one reads the words of a storybook, is samsara. Maybe that is what you refer to as an "Experiential Framework", DreamKey?

Anything that you can say or that I can say is all concepts existing in thought. And all of these concepts are ultimately garbage, save in so far as they can lead us to cultivating that experience which obtains before and beyond the ratiocinating faculty.

Everything that we think we are exists in thoughts: memories, sensations, beliefs, feelings, etc. The mind is nothing more than the sum of all of these, anchored, as it were, to an illusory identity that calls itself "I."

Now, this mind, tethered as it is to the central illusion of "I" or Ego, is cast upon a background of pure, blissful being-ness or consciousness (which are the same thing, semantics aside; the Silent Witness this background has been called). The experience of that being-ness, when totally bereft of definition or modification, is called samadhi. (Samadhi as meant in the Hindu sense, not the Buddhist. They are different.)

Again, my words are all garbage because words can only convey a suggestive counterfeit, which is nothing compared to the experience.

I would say awakening is a loss of identification with the mind or person. You could say consciousness awakens from identification with the person, who is unconscious.

Awakening isn't a state of consciousness, however. The state of the person exists in awakened consciousness.

Then it seems we both agree that eventually one needs to experience nirvikalpa samadhi, as the Hindus call it. The Buddhists call it nirodha samapatti. In either case the terms are identical in practical meaning and refer to the utter cessation of all being.

You are Buddhist, DreamKey? I'm a practicing Jnani...in progress of course.

That said, obviously it is up to the individual to agree or disagree with what we say as they wish. I will aver that I am not under the delusion that my words (or any words) can foster truth. Again and again I repeat, echoing the words of St. Thomas Aquinas: "My words are as straw."

I can but exhort anyone who wishes to experience these things for themselves, beyond the realm of mere intellectual interest, to still the thoughts and silence the mind, lest you get lost in The Endless Jungle of Words and Concepts.

That's just my unworthy opinion, and commentary on my own words and opinions is clearly stated above. :)

Peace to all.

[DreamKey]

Originally Posted by Wagner

I was being facetious by my use of the word "crisis." Trust me. ;)

Give me a reason to trust you and I will.

Yet these are all still just thoughts. This is what I'm saying. These thoughts themselves, with our awareness going through them and assimilating them, as one reads the words of a storybook, is samsara. Maybe that is what you refer to as an "Experiential Framework", DreamKey?

Sometimes thoughts are logical and rational, while sometimes they lack both those qualities. The former are products of a conscious mind, the latter products of the unconsciously mind identified. They are still just thoughts, not what you are, but I always do my best to point one to the former, and point one away from the latter.

As far as experiential framework, I mean the framework of time and space. I also mean that the mind state without thought is in that framework, while what is aware of the framework is not. Whether or not you are thinking does not affect the fact that what you are not the thinker. A quiet mind may be a byproduct of consciousness realization, but it is not the path to it.

Anything that you can say or that I can say is all concepts existing in thought. And all of these concepts are ultimately garbage, save in so far as they can lead us to cultivating that experience which obtains before and beyond the ratiocinating faculty.

Everything that we think we are exists in thoughts: memories, sensations, beliefs, feelings, etc. The mind is nothing more than the sum of all of these, anchored, as it were, to an illusory identity that calls itself "I."

Ok but what is prior to the faculties is not an experience you perceive with your faculties. You mention cultivating an experience of awareness and I am saying awareness is having an experience of the person. To point toward awareness as an experience is misguided.

Now, this mind, tethered as it is to the central illusion of "I" or Ego, is cast upon a background of pure, blissful being-ness or consciousness (which are the same thing, semantics aside; the Silent Witness this background has been called). The experience of that being-ness, when totally bereft of definition or modification, is called samadhi. (Samadhi as meant in the Hindu sense, not the Buddhist. They are different.)

I agree there is a witness to experience and I also agree in the absence of the conceptual overlay mind states of samadhi arise. I'm also saying the feeling of bliss/beingness is in your body, and in that sense the feeling is entirely personal, and also, witnessed. The witness is not a feeling witnessed.

On a certain level, you could say awareness permeates everything appearing in awareness, but it is in no way shape or form limited to any one feeling, particularly bliss/beingness.

Again, my words are all garbage because words can only convey a suggestive counterfeit, which is nothing compared to the experience.

I don't think your words are garbage. They convey a level of consciousness that I can appreciate. The direct experience of Samadhi can be conceptualized as both blissful and even sacred. It is also, logically speaking, an experience in the time space framework. The awareness I'm pointing toward is not in that framework.

Along that line, Samadhi isn't a key to the realization that awareness is not the person, which is what I'm talking about. The idea that a person is going into and out of Samadhi based on whether or not he or she is thinking (which is what you seem to be saying), actually, can be the biggest obstacle to self realization. The reason for that is the mind's tendency to divide itself into a thinking mind and a silent mind, and call the silent mind 'direct experience of awareness'. Then the direct experience of awareness is used to re-enforce a new identity to shield and cope with the effects of the apparent limitations of the emotional body. This is not a conscious thing.

Then it seems we both agree that eventually one needs to experience nirvikalpa samadhi, as the Hindus call it. The Buddhists call it nirodha samapatti. In either case the terms are identical in practical meaning and refer to the utter cessation of all being.

I don't think anyone needs to experience anything. I am saying freedom from suffering is possible and realizable, it just isn't attainable except through any other means than a loss, and not a gain.

You are Buddhist, DreamKey? I'm a practicing Jnani...in progress of course.

If you're practicing, does that not make one still ajnani? No, I'm not Buddhist. I have spiritual lines in Hinduism and Christianity, but consider myself more of a wandering mystic.

That said, obviously it is up to the individual to agree or disagree with what we say as they wish. I will aver that I am not under the delusion that my words (or any words) can foster truth. Again and again I repeat, echoing the words of St. Thomas Aquinas: "My words are as straw."

Ok but words really can embody delusion. Saying all words are ultimately speaking garbage can be a great way to bypass scrutinizing what one is thinking. Meaning, within a certain context, all words are not garbage. Some can be quite direct, sharp, useful, and informative. Other can be uplifting and jovial. Others can be mean spirited and divisive. What is the expression? Throwing the baby out with the bath water?

I can but exhort anyone who wishes to experience these things for themselves, beyond the realm of mere intellectual interest, to still the thoughts and silence the mind, lest you get lost in The Endless Jungle of Words and Concepts.

That's just my unworthy opinion, and commentary on my own words and opinions is clearly stated above. :)

Peace to all.

Well it's not that clearly stated. You say things and then reiterate everything you say is garbage. Then you proclaim yourself as a pointer toward mystical union, which makes it seem as if your ego has co-opted your experience in order to perpetuate an ongoing identification issue of which you seem completely unconscious. In order to remain unconscious, you brush off probes to your reason and intellect, re-state your original conclusion that words are garbage (a dismissive conclusion with little basis in argument as posited by you), declare you are not your intellect, but hold onto the idea that you can use your intellect to help others transcend the intellect and directly experience oneness. It's a big giant con job, and while you may not be able to see it, I'm sure others can.