Spiritual Suicide

Originally posted by vistesd
On re-reading, I think I might've misunderstood your first post.

What is the first delusion? What is the second delusion?

I view an egocentric worldview as delusional.

Since the overwhelming majority have an egocentric worldview, most likely the depression stems from a preoccupation of what the ego does not or might not have. It seems that the result of this 'thought experiment' would be to leave the egocentric worldview intact with a shift to an appreciation of what the ego does or might have due to the illusion of 'living on borrowed time'.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
I view an egocentric worldview as delusional.

What is the ego?

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
What is the ego?

How come I sense you might be seeking a semantic battle here?

I meant it in the sense of 'desire to please oneself'. If you have a more appropriate word, feel free to substitute it.

I don't mean it in the Freudian sense.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
How come I sense you might be seeking a semantic battle here?

I meant it in the sense of 'desire to please oneself'. If you have a more appropriate word, feel free to substitute it.

Not seeking a battle, merely clarification.

I understand "ego" to mean something like a sense of self that falsely excludes a more expansive perspective in which the place of the "I" is problematic.

To conflate popular psychology with classical magical theory, the ego's task is to achieve knowledge of and conversation with its Holy Guardian Angel, at which point the ego's desires become subordinate to the individual's true will--but does the individual self fall away at this moment?

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
Not seeking a battle, merely clarification.

I understand "ego" to mean something like a sense of self that falsely excludes a more expansive perspective in which the place of the "I" is problematic.

To conflate popular psychology with classical magical theory, the ego's task is to achieve knowledge of and conversation with its Holy Guardian Angel ...[text shortened]... ate to the individual's true will--but does the individual self fall away at this moment?

I guess the problem is that there are many different models that use the same or similar terminology in different ways.

Evidently we're operating under different models. Unfortunately we'd probably have to hash out the meanings of all your teminology for me to be able to answer your question in a thoughtful way.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Evidently we're operating under different models. Unfortunately we'd probably have to hash out the meanings of all your teminology for me to be able to answer your question in a thoughtful way.

I can adapt to your definition of egotism as self-gratification.

How, practically, would one go about acting in a selfless manner? It is easy enough to yoke oneself to some cause or other, but I find that form of abdication problematic, in that it entails more often than not deference to some super-ego...a leader.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
I can adapt to your definition of egotism as self-gratification.

How, practically, would one go about acting in a selfless manner? It is easy enough to yoke oneself to some cause or other, but I find that form of abdication problematic, in that it entails more often than not deference to some super-ego...a leader.

I don't know how 'practical' you'll find this, but consider the following:

We all come into this world with at most five senses as windows to the world around us. As such, we have a strong tendency to see things from one point of view - our own. We also have a strong tendency to desire what pleases ourselves - even if it is to the detriment of others. These tendencies lead us to 'desires of the self' (pride, greed, lust, seeking sensory experiences, etc.). We also have a 'desire for Truth' that leads us to love, compassion, justice, etc. One can look at these as being inversely proportional. So the bigger the 'desires of the self', the smaller the 'desire for Truth'. The goal is to attain maturity. One can measure maturity as the ratio of the 'desire for Truth' to 'the desires of the self'. The goal is to reach infinity.

Feel any closer to 'enlightenment' yet ? 🙂

I tend to treat the ego as the somebody-self construct that we all learn to “become.” The illusion is that this construct sees itself as separable from the whole, the ground of its being, and other existents within that ground. This imagining of the “wave” that it is separate from the “ocean” from which it arises, and in which and of which it is, is illusion—maya.

I see Percy’s thought experiment—which is prominent as a meditation, especially in the east—as a way of loosening the hold of that illusory viewpoint. Therefore, I do not see it as necessarily leading to the second “delusion” of which ToO speaks.

Originally posted by vistesd
I tend to treat the ego as the somebody-self construct that we all learn to “become.” The illusion is that this construct sees itself as separable from the whole, the ground of its being, and other existents within that ground. This imagining of the “wave” that it is separate from the “ocean” from which it arises, and i ...[text shortened]... I do not see it as necessarily leading to the second “delusion” of which ToO speaks.

This is interesting. Can you be more specific on what this "ocean" is? Can you also be more specific on what you see going on with the "loosening the hold of that illusory viewpoint"?

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
This is interesting. Can you be more specific on what this "ocean" is? Can you also be more specific on what you see going on with the "loosening the hold of that illusory viewpoint"?

Can you be more specific on what this "ocean" is?

The One without a second, the totality that has no edge, the All without another—Brahman, Tao, Ein Sof, YHVH, theos (God)... Ground-of-being, power-of-being, and being-itself (being-manifest)—of which/whom we are.

Can you also be more specific on what you see going on with the "loosening the hold of that illusory viewpoint"?

Realization that the “figure”—here the “I” that reflects on itself—is never separable from the “ground.” Atman is Brahman. Tat tvam asi.

What else could you possibly be? Where else could you possibly “go”?

Behind the makings of the mind,
before all concepts, emotions, thoughts or words—
Can you find—not posit, but find—an “I”
that is not another concept, emotion, thought or word,
another making of the mind?

If so—what can you say of “it”?

Originally posted by vistesd
[b]Can you be more specific on what this "ocean" is?

The One without a second, the totality that has no edge, the All without another—Brahman, Tao, Ein Sof, YHVH, theos (God)... Ground-of-being, power-of-being, and being-itself (being-manifest)—of which/whom we are.

Can you also be more specific on what you see going o t or word,
another making of the mind?

If so—what can you say of “it”?

[/b]
I'm still having trouble trying to visualize what might be happening from the time of becoming an ex-suicide thru ""loosening the hold of that illusory viewpoint." I see becoming an ex-suicide as likely creating the illusion of 'living on borrowed time', yet I suspect that you see something else happening there. It's been my experience that the 'somebody-self construct' is remarkably strong and resilient - even ridiculously so. The rationalizations that some create to protect it are truly dumbfounding. I find it difficult to imagine that it would collapse under such a scenario. Aside from all that, from reading Percy's description, I don't get the impression that such a collapse is what he had in mind. Can you help me reconcile all this?

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne

I'm still having trouble trying to visualize what might be happening from the time of becoming an ex-suicide thru ""loosening the hold of that illusory viewpoint." I see becoming an ex-suicide as likely creating the illusion of 'living on borrowed time', yet I suspect that you see something else happening there. It's been my experience that the 'som ...[text shortened]... sion that such a collapse is what he had in mind. Can you help me reconcile all this?[/b]

The ego-self-construct is a “making of the mind.” It is a useful process—like thinking. As long as one does not come to believe (as most of us do) that “it” is a “thing-in-itself”—especially a non-transient thing—and that it is truly separate from the ground of its being. That is where the illusion comes in.

It can be a dangerous thing to try to destroy the ego-self-construct. (Keep in mind that Percy uses the terms “non-suicide” and “ex-suicide”—but not “suicide”.) And it is unnecessary.

The “ex-suicide” has realized that the ego-self is transient; and in fact, one could choose to end the whole thing. S/he can function from the ego-self as it is useful, but is not hung up on it. One who clings to the ego-self becomes “a little traveling suck of care”—after all, s/he thinks s/he is that ego-self; it must be defended and protected at all costs; it is what other people see (from their ego-selves) and judge; etc., etc.

Look—either the parable, and the exercise it offers—help you to see (either finally, or at least provisionally) through the illusion, or not. That is it’s aim—or, at least that was my aim in posting it. Whether or not that is what Percy intended, I still see it as “useful means.”

Not every koan, parable, practice works for everyone. And only the last one is the last one. You know the parable of gradual enlightenment and sudden enlightenment?—

A person was walking a long time through a heavy mist—all of a sudden he realized he was soaking wet!

It's been my experience that the 'somebody-self construct' is remarkably strong and resilient - even ridiculously so.

Yes, the somebody-self is clever as well as stubborn: “it” has all sorts of tricks (distraction, habit, self-hypnotic suggestions that we don’t even know we’re “hearing,” etc.) to make us forget. So it’s good to keep checking, and to allow the realization to deepen. That is why even Zen masters still do zazen, still engage koans...

One should not “over-spiritualize” all this. I read once that some students left Yasutani Hakuun roshi because they thought he liked ice-cream too much, which indicated to them that he was still stuck in the “small i.”

We are living on “borrowed time,” from the beginning. Just like the wave of the ocean.

_________________________________

If Percy is unhelpful, drop it. The “answer” is not in concepts or the language or the images—they are just fingers pointing at the moon: don’t get hung up on the finger.

Here is a traditional Zen koan:

Once upon a time a man kept a small goose in a large bottle. The goose could freely travel in and out of the bottle as it wished. But one day, the goose had grown too large, and got stuck in the bottle. The man did not wish to hurt the goose, nor did he wish to destroy the bottle.

How will you let the goose out of the bottle?

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
I view an egocentric worldview as delusional.

Since the overwhelming majority have an egocentric worldview, most likely the depression stems from a preoccupation of what the ego does not or might not have. It seems that the result of this 'thought experiment' would be to leave the egocentric worldview intact with a shift to an appreciation of what the ego does or might have due to the illusion of 'living on borrowed time'.

I view an egocentric worldview as delusional.
"I AM."
I'd say that's about as far from delusional as it gets, since He is the one that created reality in the first place.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
[b]I view an egocentric worldview as delusional.
"I AM."
I'd say that's about as far from delusional as it gets, since He is the one that created reality in the first place.[/b]

I'm not positive about the point you're trying to make, but I was speaking of man, not God.

Originally posted by vistesd
The ego-self-construct is a “making of the mind.” It is a useful process—like thinking. As long as one does not come to believe (as most of us do) that “it” is a “thing-in-itself”—especially a non-transient thing—and that it is truly separate from the ground of its being. That is where the illusion com id he wish to destroy the bottle.

How will [b]you let the goose out of the bottle?[/i][/b]

What do you see as the danger of destroying the ego-self-construct?

Is there not a danger in the ego-self-construct tricking the "wave" that it has joined the "ocean" when it in fact it has not? How would one know the difference?