Ego reactions on discussion boards

They're what makes EVERYTHING interesting. The only thing worse than someone who has all manner of irrational prejudices and hates you is someone who thinks they have no prejudices and tells you they "have love for you" when they think you're wrong and can't be bothered to explain why The kind of enlightenment that people talk about experiencing ad nauseam is fucking horrible and basically disqualifies the person from talking about the human condition, on the grounds that they have no idea what humanity is.

 

I'd say definitely we have to have experience of all aspects of our being.

 

couldn't of said it better myself:cheers2:

 

Yeah, but one of the things that makes the human being special is our capacity for boredom. I don't know that many people would consider boredom an extreme, but it's got to be worth a look. I think it's a great idea to experience the full scope of your being, but I think it's a mistake to think that you get any idea of who you are just from looking at extremes.

 

The body has its own ego. The cellular being is aware of itself as existing in a relative separativity from other such beings.

The enlightened masters could not actually be defined unless they are seen as beings separate from other beings.

It's clear enough that the masters who wrote for instance, were aware of their existence as entities distinct from others, otherwise, to whom were their words addressed?

Personally, I don't think the goal is for all to awaken and then we'll no longer need bodies. I see rather a transformation of our life here in the body as a more plausible and less nihilistic scenario.
All this is God's Lila - His play. I see no reason at all to assume He intends an end to it in the forseeable future.

 

Yes, you have to look at everything - all the boring stuff too, and after some time and a lot of varied experiences of different aspects of life, perhaps you can start to arrive at some definite kind of balance.

Actually, I think what I meant really to convey in my other post was that we have to see both heaven and hell - but of course, all the stuff in between as well.

 

Ego finds ego interesting. Egos are attracted to drama, to chaos, to disruption, to horror movies, to gossip, to misery, to pain and suffering, to anything that evokes a reaction and disturbance. WE think we like this as long as we are unconsciously identified with the ego. We go through life seeking one form of "stimulation" after another, anything to feed this reactionary principle (ego) in order that it continues to maintain itself, and we don't realize we're doing it.

The idea of peace... and especially being at peace or in the presence of it, is intensely uncomfortable and unpleasant for the ego (and in turn for those identified with it.) It finds this way of being... BORING. Whereas the Self knows this as its natural home, its natural essence.

 

These words extended as a result of my own personal experience. No doubt, for someone who hasn't experienced this in their own lives this may appear as fluff. So if this seems fluffy to you then you will surely disregard it.

I find that some people often think they've "proved" something when in fact they've simply reinforced their own judgments. And they will interpret other people and events accordingly.

Oh, we can have all the opinions we want. And yes, what we see will depend on the clarity of the one looking. It's not for anyone to try to change the opinions of others. We can share things, and others may or may not benefit according to their level of readiness and openness. At some point it becomes evident that there's nothing more to say.

 

The enlightened masters were not identified with their form identity. This realization was at the heart of their teachings for the rest of us. What they pointed to was beyond the form, a recognition of the Essence, in which we are all connected, united... in which we recognize one another as the same essential Self.

 

Now i totally agree with this.

 

Ah. So when it's yours, it's not called "ego", right? It's just "speaking from personal experience", right?

Yep, just like some people often think they've not been proved wrong because they've vested a lot of their self-esteem in appearing wise and enlightened, so they'll butcher and cobble together a Frankenstein of psychology, philosophy and metaphysics to "prove" that nothing can be proved and act like saying someone is projecting is so much less offensive than calling them a liar.

Some people are funny like that.

Why is it "not for anyone to try to change the opinions of others"? Doesn't the statement - sharing? - of opinions without any attempt of one party to persuade the other lead to a rather bland discourse, never developing?

Imagine, if you will, a discussion of physics. One person involved in the discussion does not believe in gravity. We don't know why, he just doesn't. Should their opinion be respected? Should they be granted the same standing as everyone else? Because if it is unreasonable for the others involved to attempt to change that person's mind, they are forced to have a discussion on a subject while having to accept that everything they're talking about might be complete nonsense. What's the point? Why discuss Christian theology with someone who simply states over and over again "yeah, but the Bible's all bollocks, isn't it"?

There may be "stalemates" in debates, or moments when everything has been said. But they would be few and far between, and far outnumbered by occasions where one person decides that there is nothing more to say simply because he either ran out of things to see or was unequivocally shown to be wrong. The accusations of "projection" in one forum in particular tend to come not after long exhaustive discussion, but when the user in question is challenged on factual knowledge upon which he bases arguments. There is plenty more for him to say, like "I am wrong", but he instead accuses others of needing to be right to satisfy some insecurity. Or he will respond to a direct question with poetry; when quizzed further, he accuses others of trying to crush his dreams. Again, there is plenty left to say, he simply won't say it.

Do you understand? It may satisfy a desire for irony in an orderless world to imagine that one only sees faults in others because they possess those faults themselves. But it also seems rather paradoxical - if we accept that others may project their faults onto us, why assume that they do, when clearly it is at least as possible that we possess exactly those faults, and that the person is not projection but merely perceptive?

This is my point. Projection, ego, whatever. They're just diversionary tactics. Just cool ways of trying to give "I know you are but what am I?" some kind of pseudoscientific basis so we don't look like kids in the playground. Anyone with the knowledge will tell you that an ego under control is a healthy thing. I'd say it's a damn sight healthier and a damn sight more conducive to a conversation than someone who's convinced he has no ego and attempts to politely, unegotistically condemn those who do.

But then, it is not for me to try to change your opinions, is it?

 

And, more importantly, it's something we ourselves can help bring about, without some godlike science to help us. It's a practical goal, rather than a fantastical possibility.

 

Well then they were forms pointing to something beyond form, if indeed that is what the enlightened masters were pointing to.
To recognize the essence doesn't remove the form. It gives a truer knowledge of forms - of what they are in their unique individual essence, which of course is one expression, one manifestation of the essence of everything.

 

Seems like deciding form doesn't matter is a bit of a cop-out.

 

I'd say so.

 

The ego likes to play clever games. It likes to engage a reaction... it desperately wants to engage a reaction. On discussion boards especially... it revels in sarcasm and wittiness, finger pointing, questioning, undermining, picking apart and dissecting. And it will always be able to succeed in picking something apart.... because it's looking through the filter of SEPARATION. It misses the point entirely but doesn't realize this. It's looking for winners and losers. And it HAS to win. Or it HAS to be the most pitiful loser ever (an upside-down winner). Either way... whatever will inflate it will work, no matter what it is.

Internet discussions are highly prone to ego interaction. Because of this their level of helpfulness is very limited. But if able to walk the fine line, some things are helpful to witness in oneself.

A reaction comes. It's hot, unpleasant, sometimes even painful. We hold it for a moment. So tempting to throw it away to someone. So tempting to react as well. If we look very carefully we can spot the pattern of identification there.... these are "my" thoughts to defend, "my" point of view that's being attacked. Beneath the thoughts and point of view is the IDENTITY. So in the ownership and declaration of "my" is the sense of Self. Which becomes translated to I AM ATTACKED.

How unpleasant that is to witness.... the thoughts, fears, emotions, anger. There's seeing the other as separate from me: my attacker.

But we continue to hold it.... this thing, this reaction. We hold it despite every urge to be rid of it. And in the holding we notice... there's this emotion there. There it is. There are thoughts as well. We notice the breathing, perhaps rapid at first. We sense the body and where these emotions are felt in the body.

We say yes to this. An internal yes. Non-resistance. Non-attachment. Non-reaction.

And then we notice calmness. Yes we can hold it and it's OK. We're still alive, we're breathing. We perhaps notice our environment throught the senses. The stillness in the room.

At some point we notice that the reaction doesn't seem to be so strong now. A few moments of holding it and it slowed down its frantic spinning motion considerably. Hmmmmm.... It's starting to feel light now.

Then we realize.... where is this sense of "me" and "mine" now? Where is the need for defense, for explanation, for reaction?

That one that was once seen as the attacker is now recognized as a messenger, a friend to show us our own propensity for reaction. Without that one we never would have been alerted to it.

In gratitude we acknowledge that one, perhaps silently. That one may not know he is a friend. And for this we feel compassion.

Let the cycle stop here.

 

That's the most petulant self-satisfied self-aggrandising piece of butthurt I've ever read.

 

Why do you want everything to stop? It's all taken billions of years to evolve to this point! The order of the universe is exquisite, if only we can see it.

If you can find a calm inner space of quietude, that is certainly a good thing. But you can't simply remain immersed in that. Just to maintain the body, action is necessary, and interaction with others.

It's not a question of trying to win anything so far as I'm concerned. Like everything else in our universe, my own take on reality has evolved over time in its own specific ways. I'm only just stating my own view as prompted to do so by reading what others post. If I have some particular thing to say, I can start a thread.
If someone says 'this is the way I see it' thats fine, but I might say yes, but you can also see it like that. Thats all.

Let's say here's a conglomeration of cells we call BBB. Within the subtle energy fields associated with this conglomerate, certain knowledge and realizations have become crystallized over time. It is evident to the self aware function of BBB that this knowledge and these realizations are not the common property of all similar cellular conglomerates in the surrounding environments.
So - is it egotism if BBB represents a view which may seem counter to what we can call a certain generally accepted level of 'wisdom'?
The BBB conglom. does not regard any of his wisdom as aquired because of any particular or outstanding virtue intrinsic to him which is not present in every human being. In fact, he considers it a miracle that he has even survived for five decades on the earth. Everything is a divine grace - a gift of the universe if you prefer.

So - as one cycle ends, another commences. That's what the ancient Taoist wisdom says, and I think it's definitely true.

 

^^ I think that description of ego is extreme and steriotyped... a particularly nasty case ... psychotic even. Certainly not your normal common or garden ego.

 

...and this was just not needed.