Elimination of ego

Originally posted by KellyJay
There are people in our world that feel the world owes them! This
entitlement distorts their views of reality, anything where we leave
truth is just that, when we think the universe revolves around us, it
is we who are puffing up ourselves into something we are not.
Kelly

Sorry, but I don't see how this really applies to our exchange of posts. Can you clarify?

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Yet another post with example of the distorted view that remains with one whose belief system has left the ego intact. You seem so prideful and it evidently gets the better of you.

First you back off your original dishonest assertion saying:
"[If] not statisics then off the cuff generalities."

Then come back the [b]very next sentence and n't bother. I wouldn't see much point in responding.[/b]

=========================
Yet another post with example of the distorted view that remains with one whose belief system has left the ego intact. You seem so prideful and it evidently gets the better of you.
===================================

You fail to disquise your lack of experience and superficial understanding by forcing the issue into one of personal character traits.


=====================================
First you back off your original dishonest assertion saying:
"[If] not statisics then off the cuff generalities."
====================================

Yep, that's what I wrote and stand by, your off the cuff generalities.


You can analayze typos too, and indentations, sentence structure. Give us a good English lesson if you like.

Doesn't do anything for your ignorance of John. You probably think "eternal life" is only a matter for the future or another world. So talk of its enjoyment now goes over your head. Or maybe your hangup is that God and enjoyment just don't go together.

Obviously the passages spoke of present enjoyment of life and not simply something postponed to the future.

=========================
Then come back the very next sentence and reassert what you backed away from:
"To put out your opinion as loose statistical generalities is bias and less than honest on your part.
=============================

That's right. No way to rescue your loose statistical generalities which are you lies of preference, your warped bias.


===========================
Then later you responded to the following:
In the passage you cite, no where is it stated that "eternal life is a matter of enjoying God." The passage shows nothing of the sort. Jesus says absolutely nothing of "enjoyment".
======================================

Nothing of the sort?

Seems that you're blind and growing more blind.

Its depressing seeing you grope around. Why bother repeating the evidence of enjoyment seen in the thirst quenching of life? It is amazing how in both passages you cannot grasp the matter of enjoyment.


I suppose lack of experience colors your reading of the Bible.

Go learn what this means "Taste and see that the Lord is good."

Think of writes:

=============================
Granted, many don't seem to be so ego fulfilling as "God accepts me the way I am", but still all I can think of seem to advocate a sense of well-being if not bliss or joy as at least part of the ultimate goal.
=======================================

Anybody have an idea what that's suppose to mean ??

I guess you first have to be adept to whatever he means by "God accepts me the way I am" theology.

It seems to reflect some pet peeve that only he holds. No explanation is given.

Originally posted by jaywill
[b]=========================
Yet another post with example of the distorted view that remains with one whose belief system has left the ego intact. You seem so prideful and it evidently gets the better of you.
===================================

You fail to disquise your lack of experience and superficial understanding by forcing the issue ...[text shortened]...

Go learn what this means "Taste and see that the Lord is good."[/b]

Sorry Jaywill, but your posts seem to have grown progressively incoherent. For instance, it's one thing to make two incongruous statements, but now you're asserting that you fully stand behind both of them. Most of the rest seems to be an incoherent rant. You're just lashing out to lash out.

Hopefully someday you will be free of ego and delusion. But first you need to recognize that you have a problem.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Sorry Jaywill, but your posts seem to have grown progressively incoherent. For instance, it's one thing to make two incongruous statements, but now you're asserting that you fully stand behind both of them. Most of the rest seems to be an incoherent rant. You're just lashing out to lash out.

Hopefully someday you will be free of ego and delusion. But first you need to recognize that you have a problem.

Same old games eh? Still fascinated in the "ego's" of others whilst revealing next to nothing of yourself. At least we can rely on you. Care to respond to my post? Or is it too challenging for you? I notice how you avoid me like the plague these days , I guess you must realise by now I have seen right through you.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Sorry Jaywill, but your posts seem to have grown progressively incoherent. For instance, it's one thing to make two incongruous statements, but now you're asserting that you fully stand behind both of them. Most of the rest seems to be an incoherent rant. You're just lashing out to lash out.

Hopefully someday you will be free of ego and delusion. But first you need to recognize that you have a problem.

=================================
Hopefully someday you will be free of ego and delusion. But first you need to recognize that you have a problem.
=====================================


I am getting over the delusion that you can be trusted to explain anything in the Gospels without your customary twistings.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
The ego seeks a sense of well-being if not to 'feel good' which leaves the individual with a distorted view of themselves and the world, i.e. reality.

Are there any systems of belief that don't ultimately fulfill the ego?

Granted, many don't seem to be so ego fulfilling as "God accepts me the way I am", but still all I can think of seem to advocate a sense of well-being if not bliss or joy as at least part of the ultimate goal.

Are there any systems of belief that don't ultimately fulfill the ego?

I thought about this some more. This question in a way seems to deconstruct itself, doesn’t it? The ego-self-construct is essentially a system of beliefs.

People may not realize that because they are so deeply ingrained. They include not only what we think about ourselves (our self-concepts), but also how we have learned to think about ourselves—how we have learned to form those acquired self-concepts.

This is often (most often?) rooted in a whole cultural context—a larger system of beliefs (social, religious, philosophical) that inform that how. Any challenge to such beliefs is likely to be ego-threatening.

Sometimes, people seem to go through a radical change in their acquired belief system (including their self-beliefs), and in the process simply exchange one ego-construct for another—without seeing through the nature of all such ego-self-constructs.

________________________________________________

In this way and that I have tried to save
the old pail
Since the bamboo strip was weakening and
about to break
Until at last the bottom fell out.
No more water in the pail!
No more moon in the water!

—Chiyono (satori poem)

Originally posted by vistesd
[b]Are there any systems of belief that don't ultimately fulfill the ego?

I thought about this some more. This question in a way seems to deconstruct itself, doesn’t it? The ego-self-construct is essentially a system of beliefs.

People may not realize that because they are so deeply ingrained. They include not only what we think ...[text shortened]... ut.
No more water in the pail!
No more moon in the water!

—Chiyono (satori poem)[/b]

in the Lake
the reflection
of a wanderer😵

Originally posted by black beetle
in the Lake
the reflection
of a wanderer😵

Nets of sunlight
cast in the creekwater:

seductive rippling
beautiful and bright,
but neither fish
nor kingfisher
are frightened,

and the nets catch
nothing,
and do not even
get wet.



(clear-light-mind)

Originally posted by vistesd
Nets of sunlight
cast in the creekwater:

seductive rippling
beautiful and bright,
but neither fish
nor kingfisher
are frightened,

and the nets catch
nothing,
and do not even
get wet.



(clear-light-mind)

Oh this is the footprint of Sansho's Net!


Me wanna dance😵

Originally posted by vistesd
[b]Are there any systems of belief that don't ultimately fulfill the ego?

I thought about this some more. This question in a way seems to deconstruct itself, doesn’t it? The ego-self-construct is essentially a system of beliefs.

People may not realize that because they are so deeply ingrained. They include not only what we think ...[text shortened]... ut.
No more water in the pail!
No more moon in the water!

—Chiyono (satori poem)[/b]

Actually I was looking for formal systems.

Seems problematic to think of ego as a "system of beliefs" rather than something more foundational which has the role of seeking well being if not to "feel good". Many of the desires that spring from the ego are in direct conflict with an individual's system of beliefs.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Actually I was looking for formal systems.

Seems problematic to think of ego as a "system of beliefs" rather than something more foundational which has the role of seeking well being if not to "feel good". Many of the desires that spring from the ego are in direct conflict with an individual's system of beliefs.

Actually I was looking for formal systems.

Gotcha. I will add the word “formal” to the statement I made above, viz:

“This [the ego-self-construct] is often (most often?) rooted in a whole cultural context—a larger system of ‘formal’ beliefs (social, religious, philosophical) that inform that how. Any challenge to such beliefs is likely to be ego-threatening.”

Seems problematic to think of ego as a "system of beliefs" rather than something more foundational which has the role of seeking well being if not to "feel good". Many of the desires that spring from the ego are in direct conflict with an individual's system of beliefs.

The urge toward well-being is not even limited to sentient beings, let alone ego-reflective beings such as ourselves. The ego system of self-concept(s) includes acquired beliefs about how to secure well-being and also “feeling good”. These beliefs might be erroneous. They might also be in conflict with other acquired beliefs—cognitive dissonance.

I don’t think any of this undermines your point. I just think that you’re defining “ego” too narrowly.

Nevertheless, I might be as well—the ego-construct likely also includes a complex of acquired, habitual emotional reactions, for example, unexamined reactive tendencies and urges (compulsions) generally. Any attempt to bring these to consciousness to examine them can also be ego-threatening. So, I’ll expand my own definition to include those.

Originally posted by vistesd
[b]Actually I was looking for formal systems.

Gotcha. I will add the word “formal” to the statement I made above, viz:

“This [the ego-self-construct] is often (most often?) rooted in a whole cultural context—a larger system of ‘formal’ beliefs (social, religious, philosophical) that inform that how. Any challenge to such beliefs is likely ...[text shortened]... mine them can also be ego-threatening. So, I’ll expand my own definition to include those.[/b]

I guess one can carve things up any number of ways. I don't know if we can meaningfully discuss any given part of a conceptual model without first speaking of each conceptual model as a whole, which I suspect may be happening here.

Try this thought experiment. Image there being two wellsprings of desire. One wellspring is for truth, i.e. reality, where truth is absolute, eternal and unifying. Call this the "soul". The other wellspring is for a sense of well-being if not to "feel good". Call this the "ego". The two wellsprings compete in shaping an individual's belief system. Using the individual's belief system, memories, external sensory data, etc. as input, the soul and ego compete in governing an individual's actions (thoughts and behavior) as well as reshaping the individual's belief system. What might be the implications of diminishing and/or eliminating the soul? What might be the implications of diminishing and/or eliminating the ego?

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
I guess one can carve things up any number of ways. I don't know if we can meaningfully discuss any given part of a conceptual model without first speaking of each conceptual model as a whole, which I suspect may be happening here.

Try this thought experiment. Image there being two wellsprings of desire. One wellspring is for truth, i.e. reality, whe ...[text shortened]... g the soul? What might be the implications of diminishing and/or eliminating the ego?

I don't know if we can meaningfully discuss any given part of a conceptual model without first speaking of each conceptual model as a whole, which I suspect may be happening here.

I think the questions you raised in your OP are meaningful. That’s why I realized I had to expand my own definition of the ego-construct.

The reason I brought the whole “conceptual model” in was because I think that one has to realize the nature of the ego-construct, for the whole construct to deconstruct—rather than simply detaching from one ego-construct, and substituting another.

Try this thought experiment…

As I noted, the natural urge toward well-being (and, at least for sentient beings, “feeling good” ) pertains to the whole organism. It is the ego-construct that can give rise to a false sense of well-being, and erroneous means for achieving that. In other words, the entrenched ego-construct may seek its own sense of well-being (and security) even if that (unreasonably) negatively affects the well-being of the whole individual.

I would take “truth” in this context to mean nothing more than “an accurate discernment and understanding of reality”. That is a natural aspect of our consciousness as it develops, without which we likely would not have survived as a species. And if that is eliminated, the organism will not survive (let alone thrive), except perhaps in an environment of continual physical care. And yes, that survival (and thriving) is threatened when the “ego” creates conflict; that conflict generates incoherency, while reality is coherent (if it were not, we would not be here either). And, yes again, “competition” is a good word to describe it.

In a sense, one does not need to “seek” the truth—one simply needs to quit making things up and taking them for reality, and to see through the illusion of what has already been made up. This is the meaning behind Zen master Seng Ts’an’s saying: “Don’t seek the truth; just let go of your opinions.” The truth-as-reality is simply here, staring you in the face, in all its just-so-suchness.


The ego does not really need to be “eliminated” (except as just a way of speaking)—it needs to be seen through, and it begins to deconstruct as one becomes less and less attached to that as one’s identity. If it is consistently seen through, it will deconstruct (at least unless it’s so firmly entrenched that it can cause mental derangement first—I have never said that so-called “enlightenment” cannot be a dangerous affair).

The ego-construct is a bit like a pair of sunglasses. If you wear blue one’s, they tell you that the world appears in blue tones. If you have had sunglasses put on you from a young age, taught to wear them always, and never looked in the mirror without them on—you might come to believe that they are your actual eyes. Sometimes people undergo some spiritual or psychological crisis, and decide that their “eyes” ought to be red sunglasses. They have just exchanged one construct for another. And when they run into someone who insists that “eyes” are by nature amber sunglasses—watch out! 😉

But once one has lost the notion that the sunglasses are one’s real eyes, one can look at the world without them. One can also wear sunglasses if they are helpful in a given situation, and can choose this or that color, and take them off again freely.

One does not need to get attached to seeking some concept of “egolessness” either (that can be another subtle ego-game): If one’s mind is clear without making anything (thoughts, concepts, imagined images), there is no “ego” to be found. When it dawns on one what has happened, the ego-construct has been seen through. The more one stays in that clear-mind, the more the hold of the ego-construct diminishes. One can even observe one’s own thoughts and other mind-making without becoming attached to them or identifying as any of them.

______________________________________________

I apologize if I have hijacked your thread with all of this extended commentary on a point about which I think we are in fundamental agreement. Taking the ego-construct as real identity is the illusion that maintains all the other illusions.

Originally posted by vistesd
[b]I don't know if we can meaningfully discuss any given part of a conceptual model without first speaking of each conceptual model as a whole, which I suspect may be happening here.

I think the questions you raised in your OP are meaningful. That’s why I realized I had to expand my own definition of the ego-construct.

The reason I brought the who ...[text shortened]... king the ego-construct as real identity is the illusion that maintains all the other illusions.[/b]

Hmmm...I was looking for something else entirely.

I'm not sure, but it seems that instead of solely using the conceptual model presented in my 'thought experiment', you projected some of the concepts in your conceptual model onto the one presented and answered from there.

No problem with 'hijacking' my thread. It was pretty much a non-starter.