Ego is a good thing

Originally Posted by ketzer

Maybe, but I think you are making some assumptions that though reasonable, are still assumptions. I don't particularly see why all past lives would need to be remembered. The loss of self does not necessarily imply the knowledge of the all. Perhaps a necessary ingredient, but not sufficient.

The fact is whoever conveys the experience to another is going to be doing so from the individual first person point of view at the time they convey it, as well as looking back upon it as something that happened to them (a self), which is again a first person point of view. Now they will say it was not like that, that they felt they were the entire scene, or one with everything and there was no self that was not part of the all, but unless one experienced what it was they experienced, one cannot say what it was, or know whether to believe them. There is an ineffability/unthinkability quality to the no-self experience when reflecting back upon it from the first person/ self POV.

Their memory of the experience may indeed indicate there was a self there, but not necessarily so. One can even have memories of things that never took place, it is the nature of memory. All we know is there is an impression after the experience that it happened to me, yet paradoxically they felt they were not a differentiated me at the time. But the memory is what is now be experienced, not the actual event, and the memory is generated in a state of mind when a "me" or "self" is definitely present. Memories are not records of events, but stories generated by the mind in the present moment, a mind that in this case is once again focused on ego and back in a "self" state as it generates the memory.

I think a limitation comes into play whenever two individuals, attached to egos, try to communicate about an event that when it comes right down to it, is said not to really involve either....or anyone for that matter. One who hears about the event may try to imagine what such an experience would be like, but from an ego based / self (I) view point, it would of course not be truly possible either. Maybe it is real, maybe they are just imagining it, or maybe they are nuts. I can't know for sure about them, nor even how much I can trust my own impressions of such events. The "I" POV is a necessarily limited one.

Anyway, I suppose this is several paragraphs that don't really get either of us closer to understanding the phenomenon. I expect this is why many will eventually stop trying and leave it in the mystical realm to be experienced (or not) but not explained nor even accounted. One tends to ramble on then just get frustrated and give up..... like I am going to do now. It really is a wonderful state of mind...state of being... whatever it is.

If there's somethin' strange in your reality
Who ya gonna call?
(Vedanta!)

LOL! But they are the consciousness experts going back thousands of years.

02:02​ - What is the role of the mind in self-realization? https://youtu.be/Bf45_kW2yI4?t=122

41:03​ - How can deep sleep be an experience? https://youtu.be/Bf45_kW2yI4?t=2463

I know many aren't interested in these long-winded explanations, however my dad always told me when I'm out of my depth hire or at least consult an expert. I can't hire an expert to have my experience but I can pay close attention to what the experts have to say about experience and then closely examine my experience in that light.

I'd be interested on your take as to what Swami has to say in these two segments in relation to your quoted post.

Originally Posted by JustASimpleGuy

If there's somethin' strange in your reality
Who ya gonna call?
(Vedanta!)

LOL! But they are the consciousness experts going back thousands of years.

02:02​ - What is the role of the mind in self-realization? https://youtu.be/Bf45_kW2yI4?t=122

41:03​ - How can deep sleep be an experience? https://youtu.be/Bf45_kW2yI4?t=2463

I know many aren't interested in these long-winded explanations, however my dad always told me when I'm out of my depth hire or at least consult an expert. I can't hire an expert to have my experience but I can pay close attention to what the experts have to say about experience and then closely examine my experience in that light.

I'd be interested on your take as to what Swami has to say in these two segments in relation to your quoted post.

Don’t complain, you made be listen to a long winded info, now your turn to feel the breeze.

Over all I liked the Vid. There are any number of points to dive into further or cross reference with other similar models.

The first point is similar to one I discerned from the Tao Te Ching.

Tao Te Ching - Lao Tzu - chapter 1
The Tao that can be told is not the eternal Tao.
The name that can be named is not the eternal name.
The nameless is the beginning of heaven and earth.
The named is the mother of ten thousand things.
Ever desireless, one can see the mystery.
Ever desiring, one can see the manifestations.
These two spring from the same source but differ in name;
this appears as darkness.
Darkness within darkness.
The gate to all mystery.

The Tao itself is a mystery and cannot be grasped by the mind. The manifestations however can be grasped by the mind. Through the experience of the manifestations, one can come to not necessarily understand the mystery, but can come to know it.

The part about deep sleep was a bit more abstract, I took something away from it, but I am not sure if it was something I brought in the first place, what he presented, or both were the same. A thought did occur as I listened that reminded me that the flow of time is illusory as all moments are in fact the present moment. The experience of deep sleep, that memory of it, is being generated in the present moment as a story is created in the mind of being there before sleep, suddenly being there after sleep, and feeling a rested body. From the story the memory of having experienced a good night of sleep is created and claimed by the I. But it is still a story created in the present moment, before, after, and during, are all actually present moment created experiences. The “I” was not really “there”, “then”, as there is only ever here and now. As he says in the vid, the ego did not experience sleep, it was not there. It is aware of two different mind states in the present moment, and is inferring the experience from them.

BTW: The ego mind does this same sort of false “I did this”, or “I experienced that”, when the mind is wide awake as well. It will tell you why it did something that happened way too fast for it to have been aware of the event until after it was over. It can’t account for what happened between two mind states (it can’t claim something for the I ?) and so it makes up something it deems plausible to fill in the gap and claims that “memory” for the “I” instead. None of this is too surprising in the context of how the mind / brain works in general. It is technically doing this all the time, it is only under certain circumstances we can catch it in the act because we know it did no such thing, but it itself doesn’t know it, it buys its own story.

Many thought provoking moments as I listened though. I had the consistent feeling that I was looking at many things familiar, but from different angles. When one listens, and is nodding their head the whole time (so to speak), yet continuously bringing to mind other things, and seeing how the two different models are in parallel and pointing in the same direction, one realizes that perhaps they are all just different fingers on different hands all pointing to the moon. Which makes one feel like what one turns and sees is in fact the moon. Even though that moon is still a mystery that cannot be described in though or words.

Originally Posted by ketzer

Don’t complain, you made be listen to a long winded info, now your turn to feel the breeze.

Over all I liked the Vid. There are any number of points to dive into further or cross reference with other similar models.

The first point is similar to one I discerned from the Tao Te Ching.

Tao Te Ching - Lao Tzu - chapter 1
The Tao that can be told is not the eternal Tao.
The name that can be named is not the eternal name.
The nameless is the beginning of heaven and earth.
The named is the mother of ten thousand things.
Ever desireless, one can see the mystery.
Ever desiring, one can see the manifestations.
These two spring from the same source but differ in name;
this appears as darkness.
Darkness within darkness.
The gate to all mystery.

The Tao itself is a mystery and cannot be grasped by the mind. The manifestations however can be grasped by the mind. Through the experience of the manifestations, one can come to not necessarily understand the mystery, but can come to know it.

The part about deep sleep was a bit more abstract, I took something away from it, but I am not sure if it was something I brought in the first place, what he presented, or both were the same. A thought did occur as I listened that reminded me that the flow of time is illusory as all moments are in fact the present moment. The experience of deep sleep, that memory of it, is being generated in the present moment as a story is created in the mind of being there before sleep, suddenly being there after sleep, and feeling a rested body. From the story the memory of having experienced a good night of sleep is created and claimed by the I. But it is still a story created in the present moment, before, after, and during, are all actually present moment created experiences. The “I” was not really “there”, “then”, as there is only ever here and now. As he says in the vid, the ego did not experience sleep, it was not there. It is aware of two different mind states in the present moment, and is inferring the experience from them.

BTW: The ego mind does this same sort of false “I did this”, or “I experienced that”, when the mind is wide awake as well. It will tell you why it did something that happened way too fast for it to have been aware of the event until after it was over. It can’t account for what happened between two mind states (it can’t claim something for the I ?) and so it makes up something it deems plausible to fill in the gap and claims that “memory” for the “I” instead. None of this is too surprising in the context of how the mind / brain works in general. It is technically doing this all the time, it is only under certain circumstances we can catch it in the act because we know it did no such thing, but it itself doesn’t know it, it buys its own story.

Many thought provoking moments as I listened though. I had the consistent feeling that I was looking at many things familiar, but from different angles. When one listens, and is nodding their head the whole time (so to speak), yet continuously bringing to mind other things, and seeing how the two different models are in parallel and pointing in the same direction, one realizes that perhaps they are all just different fingers on different hands all pointing to the moon. Which makes one feel like what one turns and sees is in fact the moon. Even though that moon is still a mystery that cannot be described in though or words.

Yup, I pretty much agree with your post, however one comment on deep dreamless sleep or any other instance where consciousness is apparently absent (from my perspective it's not consciousness but mind that's absent), and the best model that comes to mind is general anesthesia. I've been under the knife three times and it's not an experience of blinking one's eyes. Right away from the moment I open my eyes in the recovery room there's an immediate sense time has passed and I just cannot for the life of me remember what transpired, but the sense is there.

What I find particularly interesting and useful about Vedanta is it doesn't say "this is how it is, take it on faith and just believe it" but it says "this is what experience informs us about reality and consciousness and use it as a guide, explore your own experience and see where it takes you using the teachings as a guide". As you rightly said "The Tao that can be told is not the eternal Tao" but the Tao that reveals Itself to us is It, and after the revelation when the mind realizes It, It cannot be truly cognized nor verbalized, only "known" as It revealed Itself and It is Ineffable but unmistakable.

Looking from different angles and all seemingly pointing at the same thing... Yup! The difficult part about intellectually knowing or verbalizing It is It isn't something and isn't even nothing. It's no thing and absolutely beyond the limits of abstraction, forget about concrete thinking.

[MikeS80]

Originally Posted by ketzer

Maybe, but I think you are making some assumptions that though reasonable, are still assumptions. I don't particularly see why all past lives would need to be remembered. The loss of self does not necessarily imply the knowledge of the all. Perhaps a necessary ingredient, but not sufficient.

The fact is whoever conveys the experience to another is going to be doing so from the individual first person point of view at the time they convey it, as well as looking back upon it as something that happened to them (a self), which is again a first person point of view. Now they will say it was not like that, that they felt they were the entire scene, or one with everything and there was no self that was not part of the all, but unless one experienced what it was they experienced, one cannot say what it was, or know whether to believe them. There is an ineffability/unthinkability quality to the no-self experience when reflecting back upon it from the first person/ self POV.

Their memory of the experience may indeed indicate there was a self there, but not necessarily so. One can even have memories of things that never took place, it is the nature of memory. All we know is there is an impression after the experience that it happened to me, yet paradoxically they felt they were not a differentiated me at the time. But the memory is what is now be experienced, not the actual event, and the memory is generated in a state of mind when a "me" or "self" is definitely present. Memories are not records of events, but stories generated by the mind in the present moment, a mind that in this case is once again focused on ego and back in a "self" state as it generates the memory.

I think a limitation comes into play whenever two individuals, attached to egos, try to communicate about an event that when it comes right down to it, is said not to really involve either....or anyone for that matter. One who hears about the event may try to imagine what such an experience would be like, but from an ego based / self (I) view point, it would of course not be truly possible either. Maybe it is real, maybe they are just imagining it, or maybe they are nuts. I can't know for sure about them, nor even how much I can trust my own impressions of such events. The "I" POV is a necessarily limited one.

Anyway, I suppose this is several paragraphs that don't really get either of us closer to understanding the phenomenon. I expect this is why many will eventually stop trying and leave it in the mystical realm to be experienced (or not) but not explained nor even accounted. One tends to ramble on then just get frustrated and give up..... like I am going to do now. It really is a wonderful state of mind...state of being... whatever it is.

I agree that we can't really know for sure because there are so many factors involved that an outsider does not and can not know.

One such factor is one's personal spiritual or religious beliefs, and faith which may include one believing in a collective or cosmic consciousness and/or believes brahman, god, or the eternal tao is the collective/cosmic consciousness.

Just to be clear, I only see/observe a problem/contradiction with out of body experiences when a person says or claims consciousness is not of the body/mind, yet when they say they experienced an out of body experience (to try to prove they experienced something spiritual, This could be what it is all about) they identify with and perceive their physical body while out of body when consciousness is supposedly not of mind/body. If consciousness is not of mind and body like these people think, these people would have experienced ultimate/absolute reality, heaven, nirvana or what have you, instead of their physical body, which they say and claim consciousness is not.

A little common sense, reason and intellect (intelligence) goes a long way to myth bust obvious contradictions and beliefs that are not true. This could be one of the reasons why some spiritual people do not want to use their brains, intellect and "ego" that "god" gave them. Ignorance really is bliss to them.

Originally Posted by JustASimpleGuy

Yup, I pretty much agree with your post, however one comment on deep dreamless sleep or any other instance where consciousness is apparently absent (from my perspective it's not consciousness but mind that's absent), and the best model that comes to mind is general anesthesia. I've been under the knife three times and it's not an experience of blinking one's eyes. Right away from the moment I open my eyes in the recovery room there's an immediate sense time has passed and I just cannot for the life of me remember what transpired, but the sense is there.

What I find particularly interesting and useful about Vedanta is it doesn't say "this is how it is, take it on faith and just believe it" but it says "this is what experience informs us about reality and consciousness and use it as a guide, explore your own experience and see where it takes you using the teachings as a guide". As you rightly said "The Tao that can be told is not the eternal Tao" but the Tao that reveals Itself to us is It, and after the revelation when the mind realizes It, It cannot be truly cognized nor verbalized, only "known" as It revealed Itself and It is Ineffable but unmistakable.

Looking from different angles and all seemingly pointing at the same thing... Yup! The difficult part about intellectually knowing or verbalizing It is It isn't something and isn't even nothing. It's no thing and absolutely beyond the limits of abstraction, forget about concrete thinking.

Yes, I know what you mean about being anesthetized (hehe.... some people think mine never wore completely off..., sometimes I think they are right...., if so, sometimes I think I am all the better off for it anyway…;) .
That and experiences of absence of self while still being conscious of form in general, both point to the container that defines the space in which the contents are held. One as the empty space within the container, another with the myriad forms within.

Much jumped out at me as he described epistemology from the Vedantic perspective. But what pleased me the most was at the end when he said that is how the model works. Toa, Vedanta, Dharma, General Relativity, Heaven and Hell, Newtonian Mechanics, Quantum Mechanics, Maxwell's Equations, the Rutherford atomic model, and on and on ....and on to eventually include all conceptions. These are all models of the underlying, ineffable, inconceivable, mystery. All true in, but also limited in, scope. Against the backdrop of that which is not limited in scope, and therefore can never be contained within that which is limited in scope. The mind is limited in scope, at least by the luminosity of the moon light, and by the peripheral vision of its attention, if not by other things as well. To know the experience of the mystery, of Tao, of Brahman, one must close the eyes and remove the walls of the container. All forms are seen as just part of the nothingness from which they arise, form and formlessness are really one and the same, all going on for infinity and eternity. Ineffable, inconceivable, yet in experience, still knowable.

"this is what experience informs us about reality and consciousness and use it as a guide, explore your own experience and see where it takes you using the teachings as a guide".

Yes, exactly, consciousness creates the forms within itself and experiences them and their relationships through action, cause, effect, and consequence. It probes its created models of reality, becoming its own teacher and guide as it explores the mystery of the fromless Tao, of Brahman.

Originally Posted by ketzer

Yes, I know what you mean about being anesthetized (hehe.... some people think mine never wore completely off..., sometimes I think they are right...., if so, sometimes I think I am all the better off for it anyway…;) .
That and experiences of absence of self while still being conscious of form in general, both point to the container that defines the space in which the contents are held. One as the empty space within the container, another with the myriad forms within.

Much jumped out at me as he described epistemology from the Vedantic perspective. But what pleased me the most was at the end when he said that is how the model works. Toa, Vedanta, Dharma, General Relativity, Heaven and Hell, Newtonian Mechanics, Quantum Mechanics, Maxwell's Equations, the Rutherford atomic model, and on and on ....and on to eventually include all conceptions. These are all models of the underlying, ineffable, inconceivable, mystery. All true in, but also limited in, scope. Against the backdrop of that which is not limited in scope, and therefore can never be contained within that which is limited in scope. The mind is limited in scope, at least by the luminosity of the moon light, and by the peripheral vision of its attention, if not by other things as well. To know the experience of the mystery, of Tao, of Brahman, one must close the eyes and remove the walls of the container. All forms are seen as just part of the nothingness from which they arise, form and formlessness are really one and the same, all going on for infinity and eternity. Ineffable, inconceivable, yet in experience, still knowable.

"this is what experience informs us about reality and consciousness and use it as a guide, explore your own experience and see where it takes you using the teachings as a guide".

Yes, exactly, consciousness creates the forms within itself and experiences them and their relationships through action, cause, effect, and consequence. It probes its created models of reality, becoming its own teacher and guide as it explores the mystery of the fromless Tao, of Brahman.

My first was an arthroscopy in '86 for a lateral meniscus tear I suffered in '82 while playing left field for the squadron softball team. I kept putting it off and what really aggravated it was playing some hard-nosed pickup games of fast-pitch hardball after I got out of the Air Force in '84 until it locked up to the point I had to drive my Fiero back from CT using only my left foot to operate gas, brake and clutch. It was an interesting drive down Interstate 95 from Norwalk, CT to Long Island and even moreso when I got off the Cross Island Parkway and onto the local streets. LOL!

The orthopedic surgeon's name was Dr. Jupiter and the last thing he said to me as the anesthesiologist plied his trade was "Say good night Gracie" and I tried but I don't think I got past "Good". Hehehe. I remember waking up in recovery and I was famished! It was about noon and a nurse walked by with two boxes of pizza and I asked if that was for us? Another nurse told me in no uncertain terms "No" and proceeded to bring me orange juice, toast and orange marmalade and I had more than my fill. I almost felt a little guilty because there was some poor slob in recovery who was having a reaction to the anesthesia, dry-heaving to no end.

That was also the year the NY Mets made it into the World Series. Me and a friend were secreted into Shea by a parking attendant for $20 each. He gave us company hats and walked us by security, saying we all needed to use the bathroom. He instructed us to hide there until the gates opened and then mingle into the crowd.

I had my surgery the next day and the day after that I hobbled on crutches for several blocks from my parent's house to the The Den, the local watering hole, where me and my friends watched the Mets take on the Sox.

Good times, good memories.

Originally Posted by MikeS80

I agree that we can't really know for sure because there are so many factors involved that an outsider does not and can not know.

One such factor is one's personal spiritual or religious beliefs, and faith which may include one believing in a collective or cosmic consciousness and/or believes brahman, god, or the eternal tao is the collective/cosmic consciousness.

Just to be clear, I only see/observe a problem/contradiction with out of body experiences when a person says or claims consciousness is not of the body/mind, yet when they say they experienced an out of body experience (to try to prove they experienced something spiritual, This could be what it is all about) they identify with and perceive their physical body while out of body when consciousness is supposedly not of mind/body. If consciousness is not of mind and body like these people think, these people would have experienced ultimate/absolute reality, heaven, nirvana or what have you, instead of their physical body, which they say and claim consciousness is not.

A little common sense, reason and intellect (intelligence) goes a long way to myth bust obvious contradictions and beliefs that are not true. This could be one of the reasons why some spiritual people do not want to use their brains, intellect and "ego" that "god" gave them. Ignorance really is bliss to them.

Sorry if it seems my response is long. As I have said elsewhere, all my posts are really just about me rambling about in my own mind, talking to myself, creating a travelogue to read later. I generally don’t mind the time spent getting lost in there. Do not feel you need to read all or any, I won’t be offended if ignored.

Yes, that is so, from the first person “I” state of mind, we are always outsiders to each other's minds. To be an “I”, I must be a self, and you must be other. How it is if “I” is not there, I cannot say as “I” was not there. Yet if the “I” returns, and tries to form an impression of how it was, it must now do so from the perspective of self vs that which self experienced (other), subject and object, even if the two were actually one in the experience at the time. Or maybe “I” is just making up **** to explain something it does not understand…..it does that sort of thing all the time anyway you know. Who can even say, much less convince, another “I”, what is true for both? Some seem quite proud that they remember the day they were born. But it leaves me perplexed how the proud ego speaking to me can remember something that occurred before it came to exist… IDK, perhaps somehow, maybe the same way the OBE is remembered.

I do not see that having an OBE would necessarily equate to experiencing nirvana (however one might envision that). Just as letting go of one’s thinking mind for a spell, quieting the thoughts if one can, or even focusing them so entirely on one thing that there is no longer any room for the thought of “self”, and then allowing the mind to drift about in the mystery that remains, conscious of all that is perceives at once, or maybe not conscious of any thing at all, means that one has held the entirety of that mystery within oneself. One can float in the ocean until it feels as if the ocean and they become as one and the ocean floats within them as well. Yet that is not the same as saying the entirety of the ocean was floating within the boundaries of one’s skin.

The thing about intellect as it utilizes common sense to explore truth, is it is always limited. Limited in its inherent horsepower to do so, limited in the scope of the knowledge that is held in common as sensible. It may come across contradictions and feel it must toss out one or another fact, yet if it looks further, for knowledge that is not quit as common, if it does not see the two connected to an underlying uncommonly held fact to resolve the contradiction, it may at least lose confidence in its ability to determine which of the two to toss out, and decided to hold them both for a bit, which may be for the best for a time anyway. It may be, as many a celebrated thinker has thought, that two opposing truths can both in fact be truth….IDK, it is a hard concept to grasp with thoughts.

The intellect can be a four wheel drive vehicle to go exploring with. Those who reject it completely, do so at their own loss. They can enjoy nature through an ambling hike, but perhaps cannot reach the top of the mountain to see the view, or discover the alpine lake in the next valley, in the time available. Yet those who drive, will not have the same immersive and communal experience in nature as the hiker might. Both ways of exploring in nature have their value, IMO. It can be a good thing to be doing things with a focus and purpose in mind. Other times one can find they discover the most when doing nothing, one of my favorite things to do and often very productive.

Again, when trying to write about such experiences, one becomes acutely aware of the "I" trying to explain something it thinks it can explain. Yet logically it cannot possible even comprehend it, as it is an "I", and as such, it is limited to that point of view.

[Godspark]

Originally Posted by MikeS80

Did they hold onto their egos? Or did they simply not ignore and/or dismiss their egos?

I would say they held onto their ego, or rather held onto their sense of self, individuality, and personality. Just look at some of the greek gods, they had actual lives, events that happened and control over certain things. Eg. Morpheus is greek god of sleep and dreams

How could it be any other way, if he can control sleep and dreams, then he has so much knowledge and wisdom on the subject which might be what allows him the control over it. Being able to remember what he learnt, and using that control implies he still has ego.

I think closer they get to source/creator/god, as they get closer they become godlike, and the opportunity is there to merge and become unified with God but they have chosen to remain close but not merged into unity, they could probably merge at any time they want but in doing so lose complete sense of individuality as you can't be a drop of water when you are part of the ocean, you are then just water and not an individual drop. You can't have individualized thought inside a unified field as it disrupts the unity, you would get disconnected from the unity having a thought of your own that isn't in unison with the greater collective.

Originally Posted by JustASimpleGuy

My first was an arthroscopy in '86 for a lateral meniscus tear I suffered in '82 while playing left field for the squadron softball team. I kept putting it off and what really aggravated it was playing some hard-nosed pickup games of fast-pitch hardball after I got out of the Air Force in '84 until it locked up to the point I had to drive my Fiero back from CT using only my left foot to operate gas, brake and clutch. It was an interesting drive down Interstate 95 from Norwalk, CT to Long Island and even moreso when I got off the Cross Island Parkway and onto the local streets. LOL!

The orthopedic surgeon's name was Dr. Jupiter and the last thing he said to me as the anesthesiologist plied his trade was "Say good night Gracie" and I tried but I don't think I got past "Good". Hehehe. I remember waking up in recovery and I was famished! It was about noon and a nurse walked by with two boxes of pizza and I asked if that was for us? Another nurse told me in no uncertain terms "No" and proceeded to bring me orange juice, toast and orange marmalade and I had more than my fill. I almost felt a little guilty because there was some poor slob in recovery who was having a reaction to the anesthesia, dry-heaving to no end.

That was also the year the NY Mets made it into the World Series. Me and a friend were secreted into Shea by a parking attendant for $20 each. He gave us company hats and walked us by security, saying we all needed to use the bathroom. He instructed us to hide there until the gates opened and then mingle into the crowd.

I had my surgery the next day and the day after that I hobbled on crutches for several blocks from my parent's house to the The Den, the local watering hole, where me and my friends watched the Mets take on the Sox.

Good times, good memories.

Well now, you sound like a true baseball fan. Personally, I love tailgating, but could just as well skip the game. Especially now that they so often play on artificial turf and the option of watching the grass grow is no longer available. I suppose the midweek games when they may be painting part of the stands and one can watch it dry could still be entertaining. But hey, for some a cold beer and hotdog (or better yet a brat) during the ball game is close to nirvana, so who am I to judge their yogic path.

I have been anesthetized a number of times for various procedures and surgeries, the vast majority of which are decades in the mirror during my cancer treatment. I recall when they would take marrow biopsies they didn’t want to knock me out so they would use midazolam. I called it razzeldasalam as I would feel like my vision would sparkle a bit before the lights went out. They told me I was not really “out” or “asleep”, but that I would not form any memory of the event and therefore not dread it so much the next time they had to do it. I would razzledazzle out of awareness and then slowly come back a bit later with a sore hip with no memory of what happened, just a gap in time and a feeling something took place. They say it is a very painful procedure, I suppose digging through the hip bone with a tree coring type device would be, but I couldn’t tell you for sure as I was not there as far as I can remember.

Funny you should mention dry heaves. When I first checked into the hospital to begin treatment they had one of my favorite treats on the menu, so I chowed down as it was to be my last meal until after the chemo regimen. The next day they hung the IVs, razzeldazzled me out, and I don’t remember much until 24 hours later, when I remember a feeling of being awake but exhausted and drained. I was told I heaved 20 something times over the course of one nurses shift (which I suppose is why they couldn't knock me out completely), but I don’t remember it. I woke up for one short time in a daze and asked when it would stop, I vaguely recall an answer but can’t recall what it was, then I drifted back off until it was all over. It’s not a memory of being sick, just of asking that question, and then getting an answer, but drifting off again before I could understand or remember what it was.

For 15 plus years after that, if I even thought a thought of that favorite treat I mentioned earlier, my mouth would begin to water, not from hunger, but as a prelude to becoming violently ill, and I would have to desperately chase the thought away to avoid throwing up. It took me some time to realize that because the poison that got me so sick came directly into my veins, my mind did not connect getting sick with the chemo and instead decided it must have been that last meal I ate, and formed a violent nauseated reaction to even the thought of it. It was probably a good 25 years before I could have a little again. These days they warn people not to eat their favorite foods before chemo and/or radiation.

The two stories are interesting because it was the same drug in both, but in the first my mind never really formed a memory or dread of the biopsy procedure. In the second, despite only one very short memory, that didn’t actually involve me being violently ill, unbeknownst to my conscious mind, my subconscious mind formed a very strong memory of what I had eaten prior to it and triggered a reflexive reaction to even the thought of it for years after.

[MikeS80]

Originally Posted by Godspark

I would say they held onto their ego, or rather held onto their sense of self, individuality, and personality. Just look at some of the greek gods, they had actual lives, events that happened and control over certain things. Eg. Morpheus is greek god of sleep and dreams

How could it be any other way, if he can control sleep and dreams, then he has so much knowledge and wisdom on the subject which might be what allows him the control over it. Being able to remember what he learnt, and using that control implies he still has ego.

I think closer they get to source/creator/god, as they get closer they become godlike, and the opportunity is there to merge and become unified with God but they have chosen to remain close but not merged into unity, they could probably merge at any time they want but in doing so lose complete sense of individuality as you can't be a drop of water when you are part of the ocean, you are then just water and not an individual drop. You can't have individualized thought inside a unified field as it disrupts the unity, you would get disconnected from the unity having a thought of your own that isn't in unison with the greater collective.

It sounds fair and reasonable enough to me.