Doing and Happening

Originally Posted by MikeS80

does an infant cry after he/she senses he/she is wet or soiled by pee'ing or pooping in his/her diaper?

Your point?

[MikeS80]

Originally Posted by ketzer

Your point?

My point is an infant senses him/her self by feeling such as wetting/soiling him/her self, not by thinking.

The self is connected to the body as well as to the mind, hence the mind body connection.

[MikeS80]

Originally Posted by ketzer

Your point?

Besides, the ego is the fear conditioned/programmed and manipulated self. This is why there is all this negative talk about the ego in spiritual circles, and this is the same spiritual cirlces that do not get it thus misunderstand it.

An infant does not have an ego or sense of self that has been conditioned/programmed and manipulated with fear.

[MikeS80]

Originally Posted by ketzer

Yes, life can be taken as actual, as it is actual as life, as it is. It is a common thing for many to deny life as an illusion and start looking deeper for the 'actual reality' that underpins it. I have given up such a search as I no longer believe in this holy grail. No things are more real than another, it is a matter of ones perception from the point of view they are looking from. Yes, from ketzer's point of view, somethings seem real and some don't, but one can imagine a different point of view and from it see that from that point of view, what was real may now seem false and vice versa.

Perhaps it is a rhetorical question, but how does one start at I am and then go down the path of 'non existent' and end up getting anywhere. One must give up the I am to experience this non existence, and then who is left to do the experiencing. It seems to me like one intends to go on a drive but then burns their car and just pretends they have gone somewhere. Or perhaps they get in the car and go for a drive, and then when they get pulled over for speeding, they try to convince the cop that they didn't speed because there is no car. It all sounds very profound and mystical, but as something to convey to another, it is just something profound and mystical sounding.

The retort generally ends up being that unless one has experienced it they won't get it. Which makes them sound very profound and mystical. Perhaps they are or perhaps they are just navel gazing. I suppose it is up to all as to whether they wish to walk away or sit down and navel gaze themselves hoping it will lead to something. Yes I get the concept of what they are talking about, but that is just it, it is "I" who is getting the concept.

I have gone down innumerable paths that are said to or seemed to lead to non-existence, yet every time I turn around, there "I" am. I am a very persistent pest to try to get rid of.

.

It has to do more with your beliefs, and feelings as your beliefs and feelings shape your experiences.

Originally Posted by MikeS80

Besides, the ego is the fear conditioned/programmed and manipulated self. This is why there is all this negative talk about the ego in spiritual circles, and this is the same spiritual cirlces that do not get it thus misunderstand it.

An infant does not have an ego or sense of self that has been conditioned/programmed and manipulated with fear.

It would seem we are using two different definitions/conceptions of what the ego is and how it comes to be.

Originally Posted by MikeS80

It has to do more with your beliefs, and feelings as your beliefs and feelings shape your experiences.

Yes, that I can agree with, our beliefs and feelings do shape and color our experiences.

[MikeS80]

Originally Posted by ketzer

It would seem we are using two different definitions/conceptions of what the ego is and how it comes to be.

What is your definition of the ego?

Originally Posted by MikeS80

My point is an infant senses him/her self by feeling such as wetting/soiling him/her self, not by thinking.

The self is connected to the body as well as to the mind, hence the mind body connection.

I don't think we can say the infant senses self, only that biological processes and instinctual reactions are going on. All living creatures will respond to stimuli in one way are another, but whether they have a sense of self and particularly a model of self in the form of an ego is a different question. That is to say the infant may notice things happening but not be aware that it is the one doing them, not for some time anyway. A full diaper or empty stomach are stimuli that trigger crying, but there is no awareness of "I" have a full diaper, or "I" am hungry.

Yes there is a mind body connection, but when one first even becomes aware of their own body, as their own as distinct from mom's is a different matter. But again, at least according to the conceptualization of ego I am using here, the ego is not there in the newborn infant and only slowly develops over time. The mind may be there yes, but the ego is a construct of the mind built by it as it goes through life (childhood in particular).

[MikeS80]

Originally Posted by ketzer

I don't think we can say the infant senses self, only that biological processes and instinctual reactions are going on. All living creatures will respond to stimuli in one way are another, but whether they have a sense of self and particularly a model of self in the form of an ego is a different question. That is to say the infant may notice things happening but not be aware that it is the one doing them, not for some time anyway. A full diaper or empty stomach are stimuli that trigger crying, but there is no awareness of "I" have a full diaper, or "I" am hungry.

Yes there is a mind body connection, but when one first even becomes aware of their own body, as their own as distinct from mom's is a different matter. But again, at least according to the conceptualization of ego I am using here, the ego is not there in the newborn infant and only slowly develops over time. The mind may be there yes, but the ego is a construct of the mind built by it as it goes through life (childhood in particular).

So you think the ego is only the individuality of the mind? What about physical abuse, and neglect?

I am sure an infant is aware/conscious of his/her individual physical body is wet, soiled, cold and hungry. And an infant believes everything his/her parents say as truth. The individual body is the self/SELF as much as the mental sense of I/self/SELF is, hence the mind-body connection.

Edit: the sense of self/SELF, conditioned or tainted with fear or not is the individual, both physically and mentally.

[God-Like]

Originally Posted by ketzer

Perhaps it is a rhetorical question, but how does one start at I am and then go down the path of 'non existent' and end up getting anywhere. One must give up the I am to experience this non existence, and then who is left to do the experiencing.

.

Again lots to your post in entirety but if I address this aspect it may shed some light on the rest --

What happens in regards to the start of non existence is through realising (or being) what you are that is beyond I AM .

I AM only exists when there is awareness of I AM . That's stands to reason doesn't it . Of the mind one is always aware of I AM .

What peeps do is they realise what they are that is beyond I AM and automatically conclude that I AM must be illusory or non existent so to speak .

This is the mistake as I see it .

To pass I AM off as an illusion because it alludes to separation is incorrect .

One cannot give up I AM and then continue to experience as no one lol .

There would be no experience if I AM was absent .

This is why when the world ceases to be I AM ceases to be .

This is beyond the sense of oneself, it is beyond awareness of oneself, it is beyond mind and beyond ego .

It becomes twisted and distorted and misunderstood when peeps start to deny their very own sense of self awareness ..

There is either I AM presence or not . To have such a presence and deny it, is as silly as a silly sausage can be .



x daz x