|
Post by nani on Nov 13, 2006 11:21:35 GMT -5
what your EGO is?
joy, Nani
|
|
|
Post by crazycat on Nov 14, 2006 4:06:49 GMT -5
That is a hard question Nani, one I have been thinking much about all year because that is truly what the Gnosticweb course is about that I have been involved with this year.
I know that our ego is false self created by society. It is a self that we are not born with, but which soon begains to be develop by what those outside of us precieves us to be. Even thought the ego self is a fake self, it is a necessary self that we need to eventually come to know our real self. With out it we would be an animal experiencing life through instincts only. I guess you could look at it as an inbetween self of the intinctual self and the divine self. The ego self keeps us divided from one another and from our true self.
When our ego self becomes fixed so to speak we become controlled by it and we also control others by it. At some point in life, one has to come to a realization of what our ego is and how it controls and to become enlightened..to setting our real essences free, we have to come to terms with this ego self which in it's mature state has become the beast within. The more this ego is conquered and eliminate it's control, the more conscious/enlightened one becomes.
|
|
|
Post by nani on Nov 14, 2006 13:45:03 GMT -5
Hi Linda-Crazycat :-) I think that is very well said and expressed and I guess that everybody would understand and agree to that. But where Im trying to reach out to is something like.. Isnt the term ego just an invention? a certain kind of summery? cause I can finally not see or speak to an ego, cause it seems that egos do change, never be the same. Isnt it rather that that what we call Ego just is a fantsy-created instance, which just tries to describe our thoughts and feeling? But this thoughts and feeling are never the same, they change over and over. Sure you can put it like there are certian mechanisms which do re-occur, but all those thoughts and feelings are just changing- according to any old or new situations. So this what we call ego is not stable at all. Some even say it doesnt exist. Most believe that it exists but disappears when we die or become enlightened. Still for me same question: Dont you agree that Ego just means and represents: a summery of our thoughts and feelings??? joy&peace, Nani
|
|
|
Post by crazycat on Nov 15, 2006 2:11:17 GMT -5
Yes Nani, I do think it is a very fluid thing that changes this way and that and these changes depend a lot on the one who we are with at the moment and we act out what of and show whatever emotion that the person we are with is expecting. Take for instant, when you meet up with some one you know in a store or somewhere and most of the time they will ask you how you are and you will anwer fine most of the time even though inside you may be having a very horrible day. And the person doesn't really want to hear how you are feeling. With the ego emotions we react to things roboticly with what is expected by society or the different ones around you rather than what one is really feeling. Those who are not enlightened react roboticly, controlled by their egos.
Gnosticweb course teaches that we are controlled by many, many egos/demons and that they all have their roots in what the bible says is the 7 deadly sins which are pride, lust, greed, envy, anger, laziness and gluttony. From each of these, many sub emotions and states of being branches off.
Before the fall, man did not have an ego self. It was created as a neccessary thing to experience duality. Before the fall, we did not have a subcounscious. The creating of the ego self caused our consciousness to become split. ;D It wasn't an 'even' split though, for we mostly, especially the unelightened only use about 3% of their conscious true essense. Most people are under the control of their egos which is controlled by the 7 deadly sins, egos/demons/beast within or what ever one wants to call them.
The ego doesn't just effect our emotions and thoughts. They operate through all five centers. The five centers are the intellect, emotion, motor(movement), sexual and intinct. That is why it is so important to become more aware of these working through all our centers. By becoming more aware of how these work in all our centers we can then take back control and release more and more of our conscious essense/our divine self and all it's abilities.
|
|
|
Post by existenceisadream on Nov 15, 2006 8:40:51 GMT -5
Nani and Crazycat, very good posts. What you're describing the ego to be is much how I feel it to be. You both expressed it well. I was especially interested in your second post CC...
I feel the ego has many different intents all battling each other. This quote I feel represents this very well.
I feel dreams could be the ego battling over it's many different intents as well
I just wrote a paper for my yoga class sort of dealing with this in sort of a different aspect. Basically it dealt with ridding ourselves of the illusion of things being separate and realize that everything is one, pure energy. I feel the ego helps to uphold this deception of separateness.
|
|
|
Post by crazycat on Nov 15, 2006 17:29:51 GMT -5
I just wrote a paper for my yoga class sort of dealing with this in sort of a different aspect. Basically it dealt with ridding ourselves of the illusion of things being separate and realize that everything is one, pure energy. I feel the ego helps to uphold this deception of separateness. That makes sense to me since the illusion of duality became our experience after we were removed from the Garden of Eden, which I see as the higher realms where we were experiencing at-oneness with the creator. In a sense you could look at the ego as the veil that keeps us separated. In Christianity, when it is said we are to put the old man/sin nature to death under the cross/blood of Christ that means we are putting to death the ego and it's will and being born again, submitting our will to the Christ spirit within, our divine self. From what I've learned, I really don't see that christianity is any different than the buddhist and other ways to enlightenment . Just different terminologies are used which really mean the same thing. Just a matter of letting go of the illusionary ego self and allowing the christ spirit free total reign. I say 'just a matter of', but it certianly isn't an easy thing to do. It is very worthwhile to study one's self and how these ego selves operate, for upon awarness , you are able to eliminate them which is very librating. The truth/christ spirit sets you free to experience your true essence.
|
|
|
Post by nani on Nov 15, 2006 19:48:03 GMT -5
Hi friends, for now I`ll just refere to this thing to start with: Linda: "I really don't see that christianity is any different than the buddhist and other ways to enlightenment . Just different terminologies are used which really mean the same thing. Just a matter of letting go of the illusionary ego self and allowing the christ spirit free total reign." First thats the point for me, generally yes all religions or spiritual systems give hints how to overcome certain let me name it now "shadow aspects" of our being. But in a certain sense I just do not agree to both of this religions, cause when you talk about an Ego (like a fixed instance) then it is exactly this thinking and fixinbg which brings duality to life, you/we so to say do encourage a certain seperation, like here is our (higher or better) self and there is our (bad or undevelopped) ego. So this seperation for my opinion directly could lead to exactly that what we`re trying to overcome, which is seperation. So most religious systems do work like this, but there are very few (like Advaita Vedanta) which do offer the possibility and help to just only identify with the free-part, or not part, but the free-self within us. Simultaneously it is recommended to skip any judgement of `thoughts and feelings" cause those are detected or claimed as The source of false identification. Though I`ve choosed to go some steps along the buddhism-path now, because some of their techniques and heart-outline does attract me and seems convenient and positive for my inner peace and developpement. But what I just can not accept, either in christianity as also not in buddhism is that sort of structuring and dividing all into good and bad, into friend and enemy (insidely), thats a kind of contradiction for me or for my inner-truth-comprehension. What I agree to is to watch over all whats going on insidely, if thoughts or feelings, and be and become more and more aware of when those "creations" are made by us. But I only see it as a chance to work with it in the moment, in the present moment of occurence, I dont see it as a good conceptual outlook or destination. Im not sure if I can express well what I mean.. Try again in short and more basic way to express my current opinion: (by the way this can change lol) An Ego (like an independant instance) doesnt exist, but there are thoughts and feelings which do create certain "karma" in the sense of the `law of cause and effect". Means things like hate, jealeousy etc. do create and bring back similar "fruits" to us. So it would be fortunate if we could grap those seeds in the moment we do spread them. One after the other. And that does need a lot of awareness, of course. But further I believe, there is nothing to do, and nothing big deal to think about, cause I believe anymore else thought about that does create exactly that what we finally dont wonna be deluded by anymore: duality. Not that I do not want you to thing and speak further now LOL, please dont get me wrong, but again I would like to know what you are thinking about these thoughts of mine. And I should add to say, that I of course in general do agree to what you`ve said and described, its just now more that Im in a process of treating things differently, maybe.. ;-)) lovejoypeace&exchange, Nani
|
|
|
Post by BenHangen on Nov 15, 2006 23:02:06 GMT -5
Ego is the I myself, the consciousness of mind. The word ego is taken directly from Latin where it is the nominative of the first person singular personal pronoun and is translated as "I myself" to express emphasis. Ego is the English translation for Freud's German term "Ich."
The ego should be fluid and ever changing, learning, determining what is and is not. When it comes to dualism the ego is the mediator of what it is and what to do. When you think of fire the concept of dualism is immediate, the super ego or higher self realizes all the possibilities of the use of fire, and the ID feels the need, warmth, power, destruction, or whatever desires you may crave. But the ego, the self-consciousness decides what is needed at that moment. As we move to different moments in time the needs differ so the ego or self must learn to adapt to different situations.
Whenever I hear that some say we must get rid of the ego to evolve it is like telling me I have to stop being me and let them decide what I am. I have struggled from the beginning of time to be able to say I am. Now if I only knew what that was I could tell you what ego is.
|
|
|
Post by crazycat on Nov 16, 2006 2:52:58 GMT -5
Hi Ben, you are right, too, the ego would be like a mediator and that it can't really cease to exist, at least not while we are here experiencing duality. What I meant when I say a person puts their ego to death, say under the cross of Christ, what that is meaning is that it is symbolic of saying one takes the authority/will of the ego self and submit it to the authority/will of the Christ self which is the I Am that I Am ( spark of God within) our true essences. It's a matter of do you want your fluid ever changing unstable shadow ego self to rule or do you want to have the higher Christ/son of God/spark of god self to be the one in authority. What the people over on Gnosticweb is teaching about the ego is good in a way, for if we become aware moment to moment of how our shadow fluid shadow operates the more we can stop them from fruitation as Nani put it. Putting the ego under the cross is not just a 'one moment' thing. It is an on going moment to moment thing for the rest of your life. The bible says we have to die daily to the selfish egotistical shadow self. It isn't something that is going to go away as long as we are in these flesh bodies. The kids over on Gnosticweb seem to think they can get rid of it completely, and in a sense they are, because as one becomes more aware of how the ego operates the more they will be able to not just robotically react or allow it to rule over their true self with no retraints. The ego is the mediator or as I said in my first post, the go between of the instinctual self and the God/Divine self. If we only had the instinctual self we would still have the I Am that I Am, but supposely without the ego we would not have the means of knowing or of being 'conscious' of a separate indiviual self. I guess that comes from the concept of not being able to know good without there being evil and so forth. To tell you the truth, I still have a hard time of understanding the concept that there has to be evil to know good and dark to know light, etc. It's just hard for me to except that as a truth. Before the fall, Adam walked and communed with Creator God daily and there was no darkness(ignorance) or evil or ego self at that time. Of course they did not have knowledge or more likely did not know shame of being naked before, but God had already blessed them and told them to go forth and mutiply, so from that I would think that they knew about sex. That's why I don't think sex was what the fall was about. It's just that coming to know good and evil caused the sexual center to become corrupt by this ego self that was created at that time. On Gnosticweb they teach that all sex is evil /wrong except tantra sex (no orgasm or spilling of semen) for the purpose of rising the kundalini. I don't know how they think they are suppose to obey the command to go forth and mutiply...hehe. The way I understand them, they believe they will have an immaculate conception if it is meant for them to have child. Nani, you just may be right that thinking upon the ego and bringing them to our awareness constantly could just cause them to increase all the more. All these positive thinking concepts state that we draw to fruitation that which we think upon the most. Most people think about what they don't want more so that what they do want. For example: if one gets in debt and all they think about is what they owe and wonder constantly how are they going to be able to pay, it will just draw more debts into their life. Or if one is sick, it's hard not to think about how god awful they feel, especially if one is so sick all one can do is lie there in bed, not able to do anything but think about it. But if you are able to force yourself to think and believe that you have all your needs met and you are in a complete healthy state, then healing and abundance will to be your experience. But then again, if one does not have forgivness of wrongs done and have much karma to pay, would positive thinking be able to work in that instant? You must admit that the enlightened ones do not seem to have a problem with the 7 deadly sins: pride, envy, greed, anger, lust, sloth or gluttony, which are the emotions that the ego operates through. Even sometime when it seems like a person's ego is displaying good, it is really only greed, pride, or some other ego demon in disguise. So do these enlighten ones no longer have an ego or has their higher self just gained complete control over it to where it appears they no longer have one? Or do they not have one by just believing they don't? Can just believing it is just a shadow/illusion make it not have any control over you? What about this thought? Some believe these egos are archons/aliens/ inorganic beings controlling us. Is these what is thought of as demons? Negative energy beings that have and agenda against us, maybe? Or did we create these negative inorganic beings by believing them into existance? If it takes a negative to have a positive, would only thinking positive cause negative to stop existing? If negative stopped existing would there still be a positive?
|
|
|
Post by nani on Nov 16, 2006 11:32:17 GMT -5
wow you guys are on an intensive road, great statement Ben, I would agree without exception, and Linda that is a very multilateral post whooo.. hey where to start how..lol.. actually I could and would feel inspired to refere to almost each sentence, cause there are so many side-branches which arise, but I better should reduce my statements to just some of my thoughts and mostpart I anyhow do agree. Imagine "IMHO" to all what Im saying please.
"...would positive thinking be able to work in that instant?"
I believe we are not talking about positive thinking, but a deep comprehension about the own karma, or cause and effect and foremost the Chance to learn something by suffering too. But surely you are right in saying that we never know how we would react as long as we are not in a certain situation ourself. But what surely does happen is that we try to understand whats happening to us, this will ease the pain a lot. Because it mainly is the thoughts which do burden things in keep self-pity, blaming and refusal.
"You must admit that the enlightened ones do not seem to have a problem with the 7 deadly sins: pride,.."
no I wouldnt agree that much. I believe I`ve met some enlightened or better said freed ones, and those all still do have little appearences of all that 7- 84ooo "sins", but fact is that they`ve learned to treat them different, to not give power to these Thoughts or Feelings, cause they are just `a come and a go`, they need to be feeded if they want to grow, and with a cleared spirit we just can watch them and let them pass by - ähmm cough.. if we are able to.. lol. But I myself have already got great results with this way of treating such T&F, in not treating this like enemies, but rather like some clouds, which are created by our creative brain. And this brain just is made for to be creative, all the time, if in pleasent or un-pleasent sense that doesnt matter to the brain, its a kind of mechanism. Mainly thats the point why I dont see a kind of being or personality like an ego behind all that mechanisms, which are just - okay sorry I repeat myself - Neutral if we dont feed or misdirect them with Thoughts or Feelings. I found out that now at this point but can arise another problem: the thinking that this way seeing all as Neutral we could loose i.e things like Joy and Happyness too.. but I also found out that this is not true, thats just another creation of fear, cause finally this cosmos and the source itself only consists of love, light and peace.
"Some believe these egos are archons/aliens/ inorganic beings controlling us."
You may remeber that my main prob with CC was exactly this, cause this for me just is a further and even much more dangerous split. Surely in the Obe-world there are independent beings, but what really could they do if they wouldnt find an anchor (of fear) within me? I have never heard a (supposed to be) freed person say anything about an entity attacking.
"If it takes a negative to have a positive, would only thinking positive cause negative to stop existing?"
First I dont believe that it takes a negative to have a positive, cause then we couldnt be freed at all. And then again I dont think that "to think positive" is a help or guidance. I guess there is no other way than just go through it, step by step, fill this states of negativity with experience and results, with the Experience that if we a kind of "sit through" (thats german lol, means just let it pass without acting theoretically or practically, rather watch a movie or do some heavy gymnastics lol before giving it power) those Thoughts and Feelings just will pass by, but of course we also can consciously put some sort of counter-thoughts towards it which surely is helpful. So finally I really dont think that those "bad" impulses by themselves are bad, just the respon-sibility does start when we start to react in this or that way to them. Holy christ, I do sound like a holy, Im not, no way LOL, have lots to do and "work" on, need to generate awareness over and over again and again, otherwiese those small impulses do get fat within me before Im really conscious about it, thats then when the mess starts, I often enough was in and surely will find myself in the middle of that again heyo. So lets welcome all those "hecks and hells" lol, they are supposed to be our great masters of growth, isnt it. Okay for now, some statements. Hey I do enjoy that talking with all of you a very Lot !!! lovejoypeace&insights, Nani
|
|
|
Post by crazycat on Nov 16, 2006 20:47:33 GMT -5
Heyho Nani, Your last post sounded just like those Gnosticweb folks...hehe! So to break it down short, when those nasty little or big life happenings occur one needs only to pull themsleves up by the boot strap and try hard not to react so as not to feed those nasty little rascals. In that way one stays in control over their shadow self and are not bothered by the neg beings. In other words we are to guard our thinking and not let our emotions be moved by every wind that blows our way. It sounds easy on paper ...hmmm the computer screen. LOL! I really don't know personally very many enlightened ones. My ideal of a truly enlightened person would be people like Mother Teresa or Gandhi or some buddhist monk maybe. Those who protray a lot of the characteristics of Christ. It doesn't seem like such as these are still having to battle with those deadly 7 or 84ooo others sins. You just don't see that in them. One just sees them as having it all together and being maybe tempted now and again but never actually indulging. Not like us common folk who have to battle with the temptations on a daily basis or even hourly in some instances. It's a lot easier to deal with such if you hermit yourself away and not deal with other people's little quirks very often. ;D When a person is trying hard not to react on what their ego is thinking or feeling, wouldn't that really be a form of just repressing or denying them? Nani, I am so glad your brought this subject up because I have been wanting to discuss it with some one rather than those ones on Gnosticweb. To me it seems they are very robotic in their answers and only say what the course has programed into them to believe. I am kind of confused about all this. They say by acting on the emotions one is being robotic. To me a robot is a machine that does not have emotions or the ability to reason and think for itself, but is only a computer that is programed to be this or that way. In a sense though we are like a computer, since we are programed by society to be this way or that. When a little baby just starts out, it only reacts with it's emotions when it is hungry or uncomfortable or needs holding. Then as it grows it is taught to react this way or that until by the time it is school age it has it's little full grown ego fixed and in place. Which I see as a necessary thing for one to be able to intermingle properly with others. There has to be rules set up to keep chaos from happening. I can understand it as being robotic if the same problem occurs over and over and the person reacts to it every single time in the same manner with out applying thinking or reasoning to the situation to resolve the problem. I've been setting here for the longest trying to think how to say what I want, but I can't figure out how unless I just use my personal life as an example. So here goes: When my husband and I first began living together we learned quick which buttons of each other we could push to get the other to do what was being desired. There was this push tug controlling thing going on pretty much constantly. This usually takes place after the honeymoon days wear off and the couple gets down to real life with the children coming into the picture and all. Hubby could put me into a blubbering mess in a heartbeat and then get angry as hell because I fell apart. This happened over and over and over, many times, HEHE!! ;D It wasn't funny back then, but it really is now to look back on those days and how silly we were. Anyways, through the years I learned or managed to get a grip on my emotions and not react to all his little quirky ways, but this was taken as a lack of not caring or being non loving. I don't know, but maybe the caring and loving did decrease, was the reason I was able to get a grip and manage my emotions better. The less I reacted the more he did to try and get me to react. To me it seemed he was trying hard to make me into what he didn't like. I'm leaving all the detail bad stuff out here, it wasn't just minor things that took place. It was during those years that we took up smoking pot, which really didn't help, except to postpone. After several year of that, the girls were getting on up in age and it was getting harder to keep our smoking pot from them and I was tired of it being a crutch and felt it was making things worse, so I ended that eventually. Anyways, it got to a point one day where I felt totally emontionless, like I was just going through the motions of life and was really, really dead inside. I felt like I was a robot at that point. That day was a turning point for me. I knew I had to do something or I might as well be as dead on the outside as I was on the inside. The thing that happened is I had a spiritual experience and after that was how I ended up involved with the Christian religion. It saved my life really. Through that, I learned a better way of dealing with my emotions than just repressing them. Learning to forgive and let go brought a semblance of peace to the situation and I concentrated most of my time and effort on the kids, doing my best to make their life better. I didn't figure my marriage would last after the kids were up and gone, but it is still rolling along even after the big 'to do' last year. I took up meditation and concentrated mostly on improving myself spiritually about 5 or 6 years ago. I know this deal with the emotions is what is causing me physical pain and sickness. I have been studying my ego's like a hawk this year, wanting to make things better. They are real sneaky little buggers, I can tell your that for sure. I had taken up observing them with the Centerpointe program I've been doing now for about 5 years, but it was more a half heartily prosess. With the Gnosticweb course I've gone more in depth with understanding how the ego keeps us in an unawaken sleep state. Just becoming more aware of how they work gives you more power and control and consciousness. LOL! I have become an expert observer of them in me and in everyone I come in contact with...hehe. I see egos at work out the kaazoo. Even in the replies from the teachers on Gnosticweb, their egos too, stick out like a sore thumb. I don't really see any egos disappearing over there. Going by Gnosticweb, observing is just half the prosess, the other half is putting them to death. I think I missed something along the way though, because I don't know how one is suppose to go about doing that. The only thing I could figure is once you observe an ego at work, one is suppose to stop and ask their divine mother (which I take as another term for one's higher self) to a apply death to it. So this is just a mental prosess/game where one puts their faith in an ability of their higher self. To me, I see that as just a pretty way of dressing up the repressing prosess. Am I seeing/understanding that wrong? I really don't think our egos can be done away with, like Ben said. I 'can' see though, that they can be managed and even reprogram them to react in a different way, more to our liking. What do you think? Or should one practice not reacting at all to things around us? The 7 deadly + 84ooo others are the negative reactions of an ego. Do the ego react with positive actions too or do the positive actions/reactions come from only the higher self? What is your thoughts on that? So if the higher self is the positive self and the ego is the negative self then one should be able to do away with their ego self if it is possible to have a positive without having a negative self and still be conscious. What do you think?
|
|
|
Post by existenceisadream on Nov 17, 2006 1:29:36 GMT -5
Wow this thread sure is growing. Too many concepts to keep up with. I've been debating with my ego's (lol) and they've decided that they don't exist. They told me that it's another human created name and label. So I asked them what they would rather prefer me calling them. They haven't decided yet because they told me whatever they come up with would just be another name and label. Plus they told me that since they don't exist they don't have the ability to come up with a new name. I asked them how could they not exist if I'm having a conversation with them. They told me that's because I'm creating them but assured me they're not real. I insisted that they could come up with a new name since they're conversing with me. So I asked them what is real. You wouldn't believe what they replied. They said... Oh what's that. Sorry they just told me not to reveal what they said. Something having to do with... Huh sorry again they don't want me revealing the info. Hmm maybe they'll change their minds but I'm not sure how they will since they keep insisting they're not real. I guess I'll just have to let you all in on it later...
|
|
|
Post by crazycat on Nov 17, 2006 1:43:30 GMT -5
LOL! ;D Existenceisadream. Excellent answer.
|
|
|
Post by nani on Nov 17, 2006 11:16:27 GMT -5
I second Linda! LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL Existenceisadream, excellent answer ! and truly very inspirational ! Though Linda Too: absolutely excellent questions, answers and description ! hey thanx, and I like the connection with reality, with real-things, occurences and situations, cause one side is the theory and the other is the practical "real" side, which are the chances and gifts we get to grow, very right!!
One thing I very sure do agree and that is, there are much more POPES, means spiritual popes, means people who just do as if they would be enlightened than there are in real, and I also have a kind of an inner "detector" lol to sense such deluding quite fast, in fact that was the reason I did leave most groups and spiritual leaders/masters/mastresses. Though there were some I can say that they have found truth and inner peace - but now comes: ONLY for themselves, which doesnt mean neccessarily that this is the true and most effectiv way for me myself. Maybe for a certain period, maybe for a certain issue or knot, but till now I didnt find any philosphy or technique which covers all within me. I think its important not to mix up some points. One basic thing is to generate awareness all over, thats what we all are working on anyways. The point where opinions seem to differentiate is about that reacting or not-reacting to that thoughts+emotions-or-ego-thingy. I never would say that there is only One recip for millions of people and I would see it as an importance to get into a good equilibruum between those two ways of treating this. Otherwise we really could become like robots, especially if we anyhow tend to put force on ourselves, like some people just like it. For me that path is absolutely closed, cause onto enforcement I just always do react with a kind of inner-counter-enforcement, so luckily thats no path for me. I only can make progress and continuously see a sense in what Im doing when I do things by freedom, research, real inner research, though also outer research, prove what others say and if they live what they`re stating - and then only time counts, or better said by going forward these questions and problems will be solved by results and experiences. (and when we`re old and grey and short breathed then we can pluck those fruits I guess LOL. No no Im kidding, each nano-second enlightenment can happen, actually does happen.)
so when you say: "...The only thing I could figure is once you observe an ego at work, one is suppose to stop and ask their divine mother (which I take as another term for one's higher self) to a apply death to it......" I only can say that I absolutely do agree. Whatever other names than mother are used too for that. The point to plead for death (of that certain thingy) though I would mean a tiny little bit different, in that "death" is a big word with a big meaning" which could be understood (by our sub at least) quite wrong. So to make it short, I rather would add: "for the moment, just for now". I have to explain why I find this important: all what we wonna do forever, for tomorrow, for yesterday, meaning not for Now - does not have lots of power. Or even worse: it rather doesnt work at all. Cause most of the, lets say now instincts, even the socalled negative ones, do have a certain sense and if only in other circumstances, I will say they are not entirely needless. So if we plead or give a command to wipe them out for ever and in the future then we somehow act contradictorily to our inner nature, imho. So this practise to decide again and again over and over and always new will Never stop, even not after death for a while, okay thats what I do believe and what I do accept. Thats the "game".
Besides that reasoning to stay awake and aware, to become awoken more and more, I never gone become a robot, cause if I do see someone who is beating up someone else who is weaker I personally never would "offer the other cheek" but just kick the aggressors head off, lol, thats my right and that would be my purpose, and already was (okay I did put the head back afterwards I admit). So better none doesnt try to get out any advantage of a basically-peaceful-inner-attitude LOL. I guess that flexibility and self-confidence is needed most, not any artificial programm or strict rules told by people who got dependent on being an authority. Truth is unboastful and simple, imho.
Linda I did not quote many of yours and it could look like I was talking a monolog lol, but actually I did read attentively your post, comprehend it quite well and this now just feels like my respond, but if you feel that I did overlook some important points or misunderstood it, then please name it again.
I slowly do get a btter picture about who thinks and believes what and why. That was my first intention and that is very interesting for me and feels great.
have-a-wonderful-weekend-all-lovejoypeace&brainstorming heylol, Nani
|
|
|
Post by Dancing Bear on Nov 17, 2006 17:52:56 GMT -5
I agree with the concept of Ego being "I Myself" We can display too little or too much.. I think the too much is what gave The word Ego a bad name LOL !! I think i have too much most of the time LOL!! But hey it is "I Myself " warts and all !
|
|
|
Post by nani on Nov 20, 2006 11:19:12 GMT -5
hey just wonna add a little thing, Dancing Bear that was very well and reasonable said. There is one funny thing about that "too much". (I mean "too little" also just only means too much of another thing lol)
In german old language, or was it latin.. hmm.. anyways.. there is this old word "tuivil" which in later years got TEUFEL which means (german) DEVIL. Now, this "tui vil" just means the same as (the nowadays german word) "zu viel", which translated into english just means "too much"..... thats funny, isnt it.. So, seems that the importance of an equilibrated way of being already in ancient days was recognized. Unfortunately then afterwards the meaning of this wise Hint got estranged. lovejoy&balance, Nani
|
|