Click here to go to the next issue.

Andrew:

always when
universal Me
in me
and
me in Me
is presently
aware
the human
condition
is freedom.


Harsha responds:

Beautiful Andrew.

Upon seeing Me
I got lost
Now the Me
peeks through me
but where am I?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Dan:
After hearing many varied responses given to the question about ego:

What is ego?
1) A word that elicits at least 20 different conceptual opinions from
people whose understanding is that their understanding is beyond concepts
2) A word that elicits definitive clarifications of definitive clarifications
of original ambiguous definitions
3) Something that, apparently, those defining themselves as "nondualists"
do not want to have, although they also want to be beyond wanting and not
wanting
4) Something that the average person would benefit from having more
stability
and balance "in" and "of" (although there are none of these average
people here)
5) Something which is unreal, but about which it is worth spending many
words of explanation to clarify why it's unreal, what it would be if it were
real, and why poor "deluded" people like to think it's real
6) Something undefinable which some think should be done away with (as
opposed to other undefinable things of which some think we need more -
e.g., beauty, love, truth)

Purely, randomly, egomaniacally,
Dan

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Petros:
Okay, let's try these to see if we can get a handle on this ego thing. You
have to get a real picture (mental image) in each case. Run each question
over and over until there is no time lag between the asking and the image,
i.e. until there is a certainty response. Goal: reality on ego concept.

"What do you SEE when you think of ego?"

"What could someone SEE when thinking of ego?"

"What do you SEE when thinking of non-ego?"

"What could someone SEE when thinking of non-ego?"

"What lies can you tell about ego?" (be as exaggerated as you like)

"What lies could someone else tell about ego?"

"Who are you?"

"Who is your ego?"

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Dan:
Who is this "I" who can move from one state to the other?
In what way has this "I" become "captured" by ego in one state and
qualitatively different in the other state? Are we talking about two
different "I"'s, one and the same "I", or perhaps no "I" at all?


Marcia:

I was just having a conversation with my son about this
very same thing. He was having problems and was
bemoaning the fact that one day at work he is happy and
the next day he notices he hates the place. He was trying
to understand how this could be.

I said to him that there is a subtle but important distinction
that takes years to understand. Consensus reality blah, blah,
blah informs us that we are a single I that is experiencing
different moods, sensations, thoughts and so forth. That this
comes primarily from the fact that we live in a material body.
I said the truth of the matter is that each thought, each sensation,
each feeling is an I all its own. It thinks it is unified and having
moods and so forth. It is buffered from seeing that it leaves the
stage and another I comes on and thinks the same thing. So
all the while the consciousness thinks it is unified.

When consciousness moves interior to this, the "sense of self"
is quite different. All the above is seen as "nothing" i.e. having no
real substance. Process in time.

My son said thank you. He said to me quite astonished that
he had been asleep for two weeks.

The I doesn't move from one state to another. It is identification
as a process which makes of a state an I. As for qualitative
difference some I's are closer to the center and are relatively
more awake than others that are more to the periphery.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Xan:

Standing at the precipice
of no preferences,
noticing fear.

With no favorites or
aversions
who am I?

So our desires define us?

Without definition
who am I?

Free fall

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Ivan:

I think that the definition of ego by modern psichology is not
good. Psichology deals with the limited area of brain/mind. That is the
reason I prefer to use center, or inner entity, or observer. Ego is defined
by psichology is a set of behaviour patterns, or a set of qualities, that
lives
out the main caracteristic of it -- the observer. Psichology, maybe some
exeptions that I don't know of, has not much to do with nonduality -- although
some individual psichiatrists may be *in it*.

The understanding of the origin of that gap is a realy interesting
matter -- and I am not sure about it. How, or when, or in wich situation
that inner observer first apeared? May be discussed. But I feel that
more important in thie respect is the seeing of this fact: The gap
observer/observed if filled with something....thought, or more exactly
the thinker. How amazing is this. Either there is not the gap, or there is
the apearence of the observer, the thinker, identified thought, the Me,
duality.

I am not the first to say it: the Me dies to give rise to unicity.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Dan:
Who is this "I" who can move from one state to the other?
In what way has this "I" become "captured" by ego in one state and
qualitatively different in the other state? Are we talking about two
different "I"'s, one and the same "I", or perhaps no "I" at all?


Marcia:

I said the truth of the matter is that each thought, each sensation,
each feeling is an I all its own. It thinks it is unified and having
moods and so forth. It is buffered from seeing that it leaves the
stage and another I comes on and thinks the same thing. So
all the while the consciousness thinks it is unified.

When consciousness moves interior to this, the "sense of self"
is quite different. All the above is seen as "nothing" i.e. having no
real substance. Process in time.

As for qualitative difference some I's are closer to the center and
are relatively more awake than others that are more to the periphery.


Xan:

These various "I's" can be called Parts. Each part
of the mind is a programmed unit of memories,
beliefs and expectations. There is a sense of
cohesiveness in the fact that my memories
and programs are not exactly like anyone else's,
and the images are all seen through my eyes.
What it is that divides consciousness into individuals
and then into partitioned aspects of individuals is a
mystery to me.

The constant is consciousness itself,
in which all fragments are known.

We have parts 'more awake', or
aware within awareness, and others
'less awake' which still take their
mini-universe as entire reality.

None of the parts has an inkling
of no-mind, however.


Marcia:

Some of the parts can have what Gurdjieff calls magnetic
center which means that they are drawn towards the
unseen. People with no magnetic center are totally
sense based and it can be said of them to let the dead
bury the dead.

Magnetic center has to do with ..."to him who has shall
be given........"

or needing to already have a little gold in order to make
gold.

or "for those who have ears to hear"

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Andrew:

Consciousness is all that is.
Indivisible, the very state of existence.
'I and i' am. (consciousness)
Everyone senses this.
I don't know why people
are unaware that they sense this.
A confusion that arises with language and logic?
People distrust their senses,
preferring to believe what authority tells them.
People accept the "thousands of years of
spiritual expoundings", out of respect, as received
wisdom, Gospel Truth, instead of testing them
against experience, tearing them apart and
building them up again.
Does it matter why, or can that question
be put aside?
I only know that I hear feel smell
touch taste and otherwise sense
one constant loving unity.
I can't explain it.
Things and people and thoughts
and words and beliefs come and go,
but reality persists,
and is directly sensually available
to the human being I presently believe myself to be.
But don't take my word for it.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Nora:

To keep it simple, isn't ego
that which is convinced this bodymind is separate?
and True Self that which knows otherwise?
probably too simple, eh?

top of page