Judgment vs. Discernment

[Gem]

Originally Posted by davidsun

Very well thought OUT and word-articulated, Gem!

I didn't really think it out. Just said it.

Said 'delusional' (by thought definition!) presentation which 'I', in my case happen to think, feel and believe is really meaningfull play in the sandbox of LIFE's thought-feeling-and-belief arena, is, or a least can be, a really fun and worthwhile (in the sense of productive creative) activity, IMO.

It's quite OK with me if you (delusionally or otherwise) wish to neti-neti your LIFE away. What Ramana is doing (modeling) as a life-style strikes this (delusional or not depending on one's perspective ) me as being waaay toooo dissociative and passive a response/reaction in face of the opportunity that LIFE in this sandbox providentially provides.

I never said anything about neti-ing life away.

But let me say it again, I thought and still think that your clearly-expressed thought-summation pertaining to the subject of delusional (to you) but really developmentally worthwhile fun (to me) is really brilliant!

IMO, such a 'Creative' exploration of ideas - Jane Roberts' Seth speaks of the Universe as being (mental) Idea-Construction as a means to (spiritual) Value-Fulfillment -- is, I believe, an example of why we, delusional in your eyes, beings-and-doings are what we are and choose to be-and-do here-now. If its all just 'a delusion', why not just pick up our marbles and go 'home' wherever that is, aye what?

The idea of and choice to just neti-neti away the whole 'game' as just being delusional (ridiculous) leave me both 'cold' and 'amazed' that any creative being would think and choose to be-and-do so, to be so LIFE-(i.e. Creativity)-in-'the-world' dispelling, 'dispelling' it as being nothing more than delusional non-sense to 'dispell'!

Just think ... Ramana thinks (feels and believes) (and Buddha) thought (felt and believed) that having wives and raising children and having personal friends (etc.) were a essentially a distraction from (hence 'waste' of) their creative energy. YIKES!

To delusional-in-your-eyes me, it is really 'nutty' to just 'want' and 'choose' to dissociationally get 'out' of the (projected?) 'delusion'? of being here, even if that 'eliminates' (delusional in one's eyes!) 'problems' in the process.

From a google search:

dis·so·ci·a·tion
diˌsōSHēˈāSH(ə)n,diˌsōsēˈāSH(ə)n/
noun
noun: dissociation

- the disconnection or separation of something from something else or the state of being disconnected.
-"the dissociation between the executive and the judiciary is the legacy of the Act of Settlement"
-synonyms: separation, disconnection, detachment, severance, divorce, split;

More: segregation, division;
- literary: sundering
- "the dissociation of behavior from consciousness"

- antonyms: union

Chemistry:
- the splitting of a molecule into smaller molecules, atoms, or ions, especially by a reversible process.

Psychiatry:
- separation of normally related mental processes, resulting in one group functioning independently from the rest, leading in extreme cases to disorders such as multiple personality.

The search also yielded the following link, which I think some readers here may find interesting:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dissociation_(psychology)

I tried, but the frequent underlining, bolding and other unnecessary emphasis makes it more difficult for me to read. If you could refrain from such emphasis when addressing me, I'd appreciate that and be able to listen much better.

[davidsun]

Originally Posted by Molearner

It seems difficult in spiritual talk, especially on a forum of Non-Duality, to espouse something called a healthy ego. After all, ego nearly always seems to characterize that which separates us from one another. Separation of any sort cannot seem to be a marker of non duality. In most people's minds there is a rather negative connotation of 'healthy ego'. It commonly is understood to indicate a being who is overly full of themselves. Normally we would tend to admire someone who exhibits the reverse.....a subdued ego.

Ego has its place in the material world......the world of life and death, right and wrong, good vs. bad, etc. It is employed as a mechanism for survival, advancement, self-promotion etc. ultimately at the expense and/or degradation of others. We use it to navigate in the world of duality and it serves our self-preservation. In my mind, for spiritual progress we must seek to overcome this instinctual force to open ourselves to the spiritual world. Perhaps the ego can serve a purpose, if in an attempt to better ourselves we discover that overcoming and/or subduing the ego can aid us in reaching a higher goal..........." When I was a child, I spoke as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child; but when I became a man, I put away childish things. "

Like fire or a knife or a gun or maleness or femaleness, anything with 'potential' to be 'potentially' useful may be deployed for 'positive' (in the sense of balancing, uniting, synergetic) or 'negative' (in the of separating, unbalancing self-at-the-expense-of-other) purposes.

Ego has been given a 'bad' rap, a 'bad' name, reputation by peeps who have only 'seen' or only chosen to 'see' its 'negative' applications.

The spirituality (the philosophies, schools etc of 'spirituality) that you speak of are 'tainted' by such 'vilifying' (unbalanced-view) reactivity, IMO Mo. True non-duality implies a balanced yin-yang - something is potentially both 'good' and 'bad' - understanding of 'power' and its uses, I think.

Most 'schools' of 'non-duality' have co-opted the meaning to the word to suit their 'biased' IMO purposes, just as most schools of 'Christianity' have first misunderstood and then co-opted by way of 'assertion' of such misunderstanding Jesus teachings, IMO.

If you can't or don't 'see' the wisdom in what I am saying, then I would suggest (because this is how it appears to me) that you are still a 'child' who thinks (asserts) he is an 'adult' and thinks and asserts that someone else is (still) a 'child' by mis-using "When I was a child, I spoke as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child; but when I became a man, I put away childish things." in a condescending way to suit and reinforce his positionality as being more 'adult' than mine in what I consider and have been arguing is a self-serving/other-deprecating way.

I am saying there is validity and so potentially positive usefulness in the view/philosophy of non-dualism (we, including our egos, are all part of the same One creation) that I present which represents my understanding of the all-encompassing truth.

Sheesh - whetehr you agree with my 'assessment' in this regard or not, can't you at least see and publicly acknowledge that you see how somone intelligent can 'see' a view of 'ego' which regards it as being inherently fault-prone is a just an 'Eastern' version of (supposedly monotheistic) Western beliefs about 'Satan'?

The way I 'see' it, such 'vilification' clealry is just dualism posing as non-dualism by way of 'wearing' it as a 'holy' label/garb.

I agree that we have to 'master' our 'egos' to be positively creative 'adepts', but, the way I see it, your notion and assertion that we have to overcome our egos reveals a dualistic (unbalanced IMO) aversion to its very presence, though you give 'lip-service' to its utility in the [assage you wrote. Hence the idea of 'annihilation' of the 'ego' gaining credence as being a 'good', i.e. desirable, thing in so many self-proclaimingly 'wise', but in my view self-deluding , spiritual philosophies.

I have not reviewed this because of time constraints. Please 'see through' any 'errors' contained herein. Thank you.

[Gem]

Originally Posted by Jyotir

Very nice and clear exposition on the subtopic of ego Gem.

A bang-up job of elaboration, and too bad a superficial and reactively dismissive reading makes it easy to misconstrue the bit about delusion to be referring to life itself from which dissociation is a result - not what you were saying (imo)

No I didn't say anything like that. It's solely about what we call 'ego'.

- but that any experience or phenomenon perceived in and through ego sense is delusive as seen falsely because the ego sense/mind/cognition necessarily excludes the real and essential by its nature; it is a limitation not capable of authentic perception and is ALREADY dissociative. This is what yoga/spiritual practice mitigates and transforms - otherwise agreed that the issue of healthy or unhealthy is irrelevant. Both are turning on the wheel of samsara. Which is why it is so interesting that this topic comes up in a thread about discernment, precisely why it’s hard to get off that wheel…

Yes, that's a good idea I had never thought of, but the way I read it is there is the immediacy of now, and that's where life really is. It can't be dismissed.

Ego is in the aftermath of the living moment, where a separate thing arises as the subject of the experience. Hence from the ego perspective life is already dead because it's 're-constructed' - an echo of what really lives. Then it seems that things have endurance and we travel through time from the past (our self memory) to the future (our imagined self), and we may take ourselves to really be this enduring subject.

It in no way discounts personality, it just means the image is seen as an image, the self-rhetoric seen as rhetoric, and a clear distinction is between the living mind/body and what we think about it. It is quite subtle as all the thought manifests in the body vibration, so even self-imagining is actualised in real an perceivable sensation, making it extraordinarily convincing.

Thus negative thought reverberates in unhealthy ways that really affects the whole lifeform, so the concept of healthy and unhealthy self-perception is no less important, even though it references nothing that is fundamentally existent. I think the importance is even more stark when we realise the mirage like nature of self-conceptions - persistent as they may be - and operating as they may in the subtle layers that are beyond our own ability of conscious perception.

[blossomingtree]

Originally Posted by Molearner

It seems difficult in spiritual talk, especially on a forum of Non-Duality, to espouse something called a healthy ego. After all, ego nearly always seems to characterize that which separates us from one another. Separation of any sort cannot seem to be a marker of non duality. In most people's minds there is a rather negative connotation of 'healthy ego'. It commonly is understood to indicate a being who is overly full of themselves. Normally we would tend to admire someone who exhibits the reverse.....a subdued ego.

Ego has its place in the material world......the world of life and death, right and wrong, good vs. bad, etc. It is employed as a mechanism for survival, advancement, self-promotion etc. ultimately at the expense and/or degradation of others. We use it to navigate in the world of duality and it serves our self-preservation. In my mind, for spiritual progress we must seek to overcome this instinctual force to open ourselves to the spiritual world. Perhaps the ego can serve a purpose, if in an attempt to better ourselves we discover that overcoming and/or subduing the ego can aid us in reaching a higher goal..........." When I was a child, I spoke as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child; but when I became a man, I put away childish things. "

Thanks. .....

[blossomingtree]

Originally Posted by Jyotir

Hi blossomingtree,

“…thanks for the information.”

No problem, and glad to offer something useful.
In that regard, here are some web links to brief pages on the same topic, chosen for relevance to recent discussion in the last few pages of the thread.

https://sriaurobindostudies.wordpres...al-standpoint/
Difference between the ego pov and the universal pov.

https://auromere.wordpress.com/2012/...d-tamasic-ego/
Parses the nuances of difference between the sattwic, rajasic, and tamasic ego.

If you have further interest in this topic or other related, I would encourage you to please take a look at Sri Aurobindo’s “The Synthesis of Yoga”, a wonderful text for practical understanding for any spiritual seeker within any tradition.

Although there are 2 chapters in it specifically about ego:

‘Equality and the Annihilation of Ego’

‘The Release from the Ego’

a quick search reveals that the broader text has almost 600 references to this topic, so it must be an important issue, certainly one that is clearly often misunderstood - as both a generic human life-condition, and as a specific knotty confusion within the attempt to understand the phenomenon by spiritual aspirants everywhere, in every age.



~ J

Thank you for this, Jyotir. I will peruse Sri Aurobindo's references.

Greatly appreciate your posts and contributions - they are exceedingly well thought out and accurate and descriptive.

Best wishes to you and your kin -

BT

[markings]

Originally Posted by Molearner

It seems difficult in spiritual talk, especially on a forum of Non-Duality, to espouse something called a healthy ego. After all, ego nearly always seems to characterize that which separates us from one another. Separation of any sort cannot seem to be a marker of non duality. In most people's minds there is a rather negative connotation of 'healthy ego'. It commonly is understood to indicate a being who is overly full of themselves. Normally we would tend to admire someone who exhibits the reverse.....a subdued ego.

As long as ego means some form of an 'essence' with which we more or less identify there can be no 'healthy ego', only more or less sick ones.

Health is acquired by transforming the ego, by stripping it of its identification and turning it into a 'function' which locates things in space and time.
Stripping the ego of its self-referential, self-identifying attributes is the 'death of the ego (as we know it)' and is the meaning of getting rid of ego.
As a step along the way it mean the abandoning of the mental and spiritual self and advance to a body-self. When we are born we only have a body-self and to return to it is an advance because we do not discard our mental faculties and abilities, we only discard their inappropriate use.

This is the goal of all spiritual practices I know of. I consider it the hallmark of
whether such a practice is worth pursuing or not.

Originally Posted by davidsun

Ego has been given a 'bad' rap, a 'bad' name, reputation by peeps who have only 'seen' or only chosen to 'see' its 'negative' applications.

The spirituality (the philosophies, schools etc of 'spirituality) that you speak of are 'tainted' by such 'vilifying' (unbalanced-view) reactivity, IMO Mo. True non-duality implies a balanced yin-yang - something is potentially both 'good' and 'bad' - understanding of 'power' and its uses, I think.


If you can't or don't 'see' the wisdom in what I am saying, then I would suggest (because this is how it appears to me) that you are still a 'child' who thinks (asserts) he is an 'adult' and thinks and asserts that someone else is (still) a 'child' by mis-using "When I was a child, I spoke as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child; but when I became a man, I put away childish things." in a condescending way to suit and reinforce his positionality as being more 'adult' than mine in what I consider and have been arguing is a self-serving/other-deprecating way.

I am saying there is validity and so potentially positive usefulness in the view/philosophy of non-dualism (we, including our egos, are all part of the same One creation) that I present which represents my understanding of the all-encompassing truth.

Sheesh - whetehr you agree with my 'assessment' in this regard or not, can't you at least see and publicly acknowledge that you see how somone intelligent can 'see' a view of 'ego' which regards it as being inherently fault-prone is a just an 'Eastern' version of (supposedly monotheistic) Western beliefs about 'Satan'?

The way I 'see' it, such 'vilification' clealry is just dualism posing as non-dualism by way of 'wearing' it as a 'holy' label/garb.

I agree that we have to 'master' our 'egos' to be positively creative 'adepts', but, the way I see it, your notion and assertion that we have to overcome our egos reveals a dualistic (unbalanced IMO) aversion to its very presence, though you give 'lip-service' to its utility in the [assage you wrote. Hence the idea of 'annihilation' of the 'ego' gaining credence as being a 'good', i.e. desirable, thing in so many self-proclaimingly 'wise', but in my view self-deluding , spiritual philosophies.

.

davidsun,

When individuals become able to have some mastery of their egos then it no longer seems necessary to employ verbal assaults on others. The realization comes that basically all truths are basically subjective. That is subjective to individual points of view. In other words, at this point in time, I will continue to believe in the danger of subscribing to the efficacy and desirability of ego enhancement. I acknowledged the necessity and the reality of the role of the ego in this material world but remain convinced of the dangers of the programs of the ego. IMO it is of little importance to convince others of the validity of my personal beliefs. Everyone arrives at the truths they embrace by their own journeys.

[davidsun]

Originally Posted by Gem

I didn't really think it out. Just said it.

I didn't say that I thought that you thought it 'out'. ToughI certainly also didn't think there was a 'monkey' 'inside' you that came up with such a good composition for no 'reason' just by itself. Or are you implying that some one else who it not (i.e. neti! lol) you just used your brain and fingers to write it - and that you really are just an 'air'-head in realtion to that?

Originally Posted by Gem

I never said anything about neti-ing life away.

Someone (I can't presently recall who) in this thread lauded (maybe I just projected it to be a laudation) 'neti-neti' a s philosophical basis for living an 'enlightened' life and hed up Ramana as a 'model' thereof. Yes, I agree neitehr you nor your typing fingers 'said' anything about "neti-net-in life away. I was the one who said something about that and offered an opinion in said regard.

Originally Posted by Gem

I tried, but the frequent underlining, bolding and other unnecessary emphasis makes it more difficult for me to read. If you could refrain from such emphasis when addressing me, I'd appreciate that and be able to listen much better.

I get that a lot, Gem. Let me try to explain my 'position' on that score.

I am not a 'mothering' type. I am here (in this forum) as part of an effort/intention to address humanity's current global emerency/crisis, which I 'see' as being the result of and its ills compounded by 'sloppy' self-indulgent philosophical formulations and derivative thinking and self-indulgent happiness-seeking, and to use it to 'seed' and 'set the stage' for future hopefully environmentally and socially more response-able civilizations.

I have no time for dilettants and dawdlers. (If you want to know more about me and what I am (or the 'God' in 'me' is) about, read the About the Author and Preface pages, 3 in all, of my book, available as free download from the Books page on my website.)

The short version of that is: I am not here (on the planet) to spoon-feed 'babies' or spar with "I will only eat what I like" recalcitrants. If you (anyone) have (has) what it takes to chew on and digest 'hard' stuff you (anyone) will find tackling my output worthwhile. If not I suggest you stay with eating mush.

I appreciate the degree to which you have engaged and (fair-mindedly IMO) wrestled with my stuff so far, BTW. And I would very much like to find out what kind of 'Gem' you really are. So, just in case you truly wish to engage with me and my views and values further, I invite you to do 'the work' necessary to thoughtfully engage with what's presented in the video linked to in the OP (not just thoughtlessly regurgitate 'standardized' rationalizations, however brilliantly) and then openly and articulately declare exactly what you 'discern' (from what he said) about the character of the fella who made the video, and what your 'assessment' of how he resolved (chose?) to regard said the two ladies he spoke about - the one he accompanies to the temple and the one he referred to as his (now ex) girlfriend. This after reading and taking into account what I said about his way of viewing (it was actually not, i.e. 'neti', relating IMO) to said women - which I eventually presented in this context of the ongoing conversation in this thread.

IOW, let's get down to the 'nitty-gritty' of the issues on the table in front of us and not waste any more time indulging in bandying about ideas which are merely just 'window-dressing' as as the Reality of Life is concerned.

Or not. Please be advised that I will probably treat any meaning ball(s) you throw in my direction as opportunities to (try to) hit 'home' runs ('home' meaning BIG PICTURE, as I see it, presentations. I expect the same from you. If this is not a game you would like to play in, then don't.

[davidsun]

Originally Posted by Molearner

davidsun,

When individuals become able to have some mastery of their egos then it no longer seems necessary to employ verbal assaults on others. The realization comes that basically all truths are basically subjective. That is subjective to individual points of view. In other words, at this point in time, I will continue to believe in the danger of subscribing to the efficacy and desirability of ego enhancement. I acknowledged the necessity and the reality of the role of the ego in this material world but remain convinced of the dangers of the programs of the ego. IMO it is of little importance to convince others of the validity of my personal beliefs. Everyone arrives at the truths they embrace by their own journeys.

Agreed except with the idea of my being 'assaultive', Mo - the princesss and the pea story I think is pertinent here.

I hope my just posted response to Gem clarifies issues in this regard. The fact is that I think it is 'important' to try to convince others that what one thinks is 'important' is 'important' for the reasons that one thinks and feels that it is 'important' - that is if one really thinks and feels it is 'important', just as you 'tried' to 'convince' me what what I consider to be important is really of 'little' importance by way of what you said in your post which I quoted above.

Oh, I hope you don't take that biggrin as an 'assault' - I am just playing witchoo, albeit a tad 'roughly'! I don't 'do' nice-nice-girl stuff well at all! What I just 'gave' (as a 'gift') to you was a 'fond' 'male' 'punch', Bro. I hope, even though I doubt you can do so presently, you eventually come to appreciate such way of tough-love relating.

[davidsun]

Oh, and speaking of the 'weirdness' (that is, in my view and value system it is weird!) of adopting 'Neti-Neti' as a basic philosophical premise/principle, I wonder if anyone else here thinks that calling Oneness "Non-Duality" is a bit cooky?

That strikes me as elevating "Neti-Neti" to 'the top' of one's perceptual, hence value, system, wherein nothing phenomenal (because everything derives from Source) is 'seen' as really being real and that which is referenced as Source is considered to be the only thing that is really real.

I myself prefer and so dance-groove with and enjoy "Yeti-Yeti", wherein everything is 'honored' as being real and Reality itself is seen as having multiple (cascading) levels of causality and degrees of (relative) permanence - including everything in the world of image-in-nation - by connotation, the 'phenomenon' referenced as 'the Abominable Snowman' (the Yeti!) as well!

It is easy (hence a seductive 'temptation') to 'negate' the significance of anything one doesn't like or finds problematic in the context of a "Neti-Neti" world-view, I think. But one has to grant everything in 'the world' validity in is own right (at some 'level' at least) and thoughtfully emotionally engage with it. "Get away from me, you whoever you are!" 'divorce' is sooo much 'simpler'! LOL

IMO Yeti-Yeti results in a 'richer' (is sometimes more problem-to-be-solved-atic) experience of Life and opens the door to many more ultimately positive 'navigational' options/possibilities. Neti-Neti on the other hand tends to 'lead' people to basically just 'renounce' earthly existence/experience (all potential problems, of course, included) which, IMO just defeats the creative-mastery-learning purpose - which requires that problematic 'puzzles, etc, be 'solved' - for which Souls incarnate in the first place.

If my analysis is right, and who knows if it is (or isn't)? - one can just decide to 'go' on the basis of whether it 'makes sense' or not. Since I think it make sense, my projection is that all Neti-Neti earthly-life-meaning renouncers will just have to incarnate again to learn and master the 'lessons' they 'skipped'.

It doesn't make sense to me that souls would incarnate just to 'master' the 'task' (art?) of disengaging and getting 'out' of here?

That's what I'm guessing and so betting is the truth and so aiming to live my life in accordance with, at least.

I am real, you are real, our experiences are real, even our delusions are real (real delusions, that is ). Nothing should be 'swept under the rug' and mindlessly (or mindfully as the case may be) just 'skipped over'. Everything, even the most fleeting of phenomena, is soul-spirit-nutritious 'grist for the mill' IMO, IOW!

What a wonder-full gas-blast Life on Earth is! - WOOHOOO!!