|
Ego
Dec 2, 2011 4:16:54 GMT
Post by gurthbruins on Dec 2, 2011 4:16:54 GMT
re Osho: ( a new name for me)
I have quoted the essential parts. That is all; that is enough. Notice that the word ego does not appear here at all: but the word "I" does, in its true meaning which cannot be dispensed with.
So Osho's concept of the ego is not needed. It is not wise to usurp this term for what is not really the ego at all, but merely the part of it under attack. Such misapplication of terminology can only serve to confuse a simple issue.
That relates also to the fashionable use of the term "non-you" (advaita). The you is real, it exists and must exist: all that is meant in "there is no you" should be expressed as "there is no you apart from God." Note also especially the usefulness of my words should and must: the present-day disfavour for these words is just a pretentious fad.
|
|
|
Ego
Dec 2, 2011 12:36:53 GMT
Post by withinsilence on Dec 2, 2011 12:36:53 GMT
The word "should" denotes non-acceptance and also a concept of time i.e. should have=past and I should do this or that=future. The word "must" also denotes non-acceptance with strong beliefs which are also a result of non-acceptance as "believing" something must be this way or that shows one accepts not the way it actually is at the present moment. One would need an in-depth study of Osho's work to fully understand why he says what he says as he knows that everybody is at different levels of understanding thus, the way he explains the ego here is for those at this level of understanding. If you study him long enough you begin to see he may say the same thing in many varying interpretations or explanations. For example; he knows the word ego is not needed and that in reality it is not even real, but here he is explaining it in such a way that those who "believe" its real can eventually see that its not. Does this help? This is how I understand this man and at first it was not easy for me as he is extremely contradictory, but its for a reason, a purpose. If one looks very deeply into the essence of his message they begin to see why he says what he says, its not always in the literal meaning of how it reads.
|
|
|
Ego
Dec 2, 2011 13:23:29 GMT
Post by gurthbruins on Dec 2, 2011 13:23:29 GMT
What is real? When I look into this word I see it means nothing. (Literally real means royal). Everything is equally real or unreal, this duality is in fact unreal, unlike most of the other dualities. Forget about squaring what I say with Osho. It doesn't have to. Just try to understand what I am trying to convey. It is impossible to do without the concept of time : the idea of doing so is a flowery metaphor. We constantly have to refer to events in the past. Everything you do or think is based on the past. If you had not been born in the past, you would not exist. So why pretend the past time does not exist? Are you not usurping another word with a very common meaning, very well understood by children even, and giving it complicated and narrow meaning? Rather coin a new term for what you are talking about, if you want to deny its reality. I am a great protector of the traditional meanings of words!
|
|
|
Ego
Dec 2, 2011 16:04:51 GMT
Post by withinsilence on Dec 2, 2011 16:04:51 GMT
Everything I write and put on these boards is done with intention as you know better than anyone my astrological makeup and the areas that are extremely clear to me psychologically speaking. I understand what your conveying and understand its intention, thus my response was not intended for you per se but to show how certain words can keep the mind locked in its own cycle of suffering when all one "thinks" of is what is should have not or should have done or should be doing as when one is caught up in this cycle of thought it starts to believe in its validity and comes not to realization of the present moment. I fully understand we learn from this also and was not discounting your thoughtfulness of why you chose to use the words must and should but was trying to show both sides of the power of words. There is always a reason, an intention behind everything I write including the very words I choose and the way they're utilized within the sentence I choose to write. I have no ill intent but only try to help and yes I know that this also can cause myself trouble but in the long run it turns out to be a lesson I also needed. So thank you for the lesson.
|
|
|
Ego
Dec 2, 2011 17:21:12 GMT
Post by gurthbruins on Dec 2, 2011 17:21:12 GMT
I know where you are going, WS, don't take me too seriously, I like to show some of my weaknesses occasionally, one doesn't want to feel too constrained, so I let myself go a bit.
But I know back at the ranch I am talking sh*t. (one of my mottos is: "It's all balls.")
We are limited to words here, but really, really, they are very limited. The presence of a person can indeed say much more, as someone suggested here. But we might as well have some fun with words, even if it is just letting off a bit of steam. I hope I haven't said anything too hurtful.
======================
Having said all that, my thoughts turn to this: do we need such a long story? As FreeThinker says, I too don't have much time for long, confusing if not confused arguments.
So I ask, is one word enough to tell the whole story, or isn't it? (I am holding my own opinion back here.) Is 'ego' a useful word in such a scheme? I put forward as candidate a word that has already gained a lot of support as the prime key to everything: acceptance. Is that word enough? If not, what extra words need to be added? not sentences; let's try to be brief for a moment, to limit ourselves to the really essential.
|
|
|
Ego
Dec 2, 2011 18:13:18 GMT
Post by withinsilence on Dec 2, 2011 18:13:18 GMT
Dag gum dude, that was impressive. Osho, of course. I never really looked into his work, some blockages relating to Rolls Royces and such. But that was da bomb, as they say. And frankly, nothing more needs to be said. Just reside in that, and fork the rest. And ... its not like its hard .. residing in the present moment, but leaving there can be so sudden, and so subtle, its easy to miss. And the next thing you know, you're off on some tangent, thinking about stuff, which doesn't amount to a hill of beans. DO you see popee's comment. This is why I put in on there as sometimes a long explination helps to see clearly.
|
|
|
Ego
Dec 2, 2011 18:16:45 GMT
Post by withinsilence on Dec 2, 2011 18:16:45 GMT
I see no use for the term, personally. I support maximum self-love, without it there is no other love. And maximum self-knowledge: without it there is no knowledge. Just as Tat said; Brilliant. and it is but for some they aren't here yet. In other words this statement you made here is nothing but the truth but it doesn't explain the "how" to get to maximum self love and maximum self knowledge. I try to show the how, and the why, sometimes to a fault.
|
|
|
Ego
Dec 2, 2011 19:12:31 GMT
Post by freethinker on Dec 2, 2011 19:12:31 GMT
Having said all that, my thoughts turn to this: do we need such a long story? As FreeThinker says, I too don't have much time for long, confusing if not confused arguments. So I ask, is one word enough to tell the whole story, or isn't it? (I am holding my own opinion back here.) Is 'ego' a useful word in such a scheme? I put forward as candidate a word that has already gained a lot of support as the prime key to everything: acceptance. Is that word enough? If not, what extra words need to be added? not sentences; let's try to be brief for a moment, to limit ourselves to the really essential. I refuse to accept 'acceptance' as the final word. IMO life is a struggle. Occasionally a battle, but always a struggle. Even if things are going well in the external world (one doesn't have to extend one's vision very far to see that they are not), things in my internal world could always be better. To accept things as they are is the internal equivalent of self-satisfaction. Self satisfaction is a null-state equivalent to non-existence. I could go on for awhile, but I have probably lost my 'readership' already.
|
|
|
Ego
Dec 2, 2011 21:30:44 GMT
Post by popee on Dec 2, 2011 21:30:44 GMT
I could go on for awhile, but I have probably lost my 'readership' already. nah, you are the only normal one here of course, we're back to defining words again
|
|
|
Ego
Dec 2, 2011 22:18:54 GMT
Post by withinsilence on Dec 2, 2011 22:18:54 GMT
Having said all that, my thoughts turn to this: do we need such a long story? As FreeThinker says, I too don't have much time for long, confusing if not confused arguments. So I ask, is one word enough to tell the whole story, or isn't it? (I am holding my own opinion back here.) Is 'ego' a useful word in such a scheme? I put forward as candidate a word that has already gained a lot of support as the prime key to everything: acceptance. Is that word enough? If not, what extra words need to be added? not sentences; let's try to be brief for a moment, to limit ourselves to the really essential. I refuse to accept 'acceptance' as the final word. IMO life is a struggle. Occasionally a battle, but always a struggle. Even if things are going well in the external world (one doesn't have to extend one's vision very far to see that they are not), things in my internal world could always be better. To accept things as they are is the internal equivalent of self-satisfaction. Self satisfaction is a null-state equivalent to non-existence. I could go on for awhile, but I have probably lost my 'readership' already. Freethinker, the only reason life is a struggle is due to nonacceptance as if you accepted everything and I mean everything in life including everything we label as bad and good and including yourself then there IS be no struggle because your totally in the now and not in thoughts. The goal is not to understand the word acceptance but to DO IT! And being in this state of total acceptance is not the same as self satisfaction and being totally accepting is an inner state of contentment, peace and bliss.
|
|
|
Ego
Dec 2, 2011 22:33:31 GMT
Post by withinsilence on Dec 2, 2011 22:33:31 GMT
I could go on for awhile, but I have probably lost my 'readership' already. nah, you are the only normal one here of course, we're back to defining words again Your right, all words, every one of them is an abstraction of reality so go sit in silence and listen to the only truth your ever going to hear...no-thing! And watch all your struggles in life dissolve as you stop attaching an identity to your thoughts. Don't try to stop the mind, don't repress it, allow it to do what it wills but just watch it, don't think on the thoughts your seeing pass by in your minds eye just watch it...watch it...watch it....slowly dissolve...into...nothing.....nothing...nothing.....just be. You will see all the problems, struggles and suffering your "thinking" into your own reality are if fact nothing but thoughts, words, ideas, concepts, projection, assumption, beliefs etc. etc. etc.
|
|
|
Ego
Dec 2, 2011 22:49:05 GMT
Post by withinsilence on Dec 2, 2011 22:49:05 GMT
I know where you are going, WS, don't take me too seriously, I like to show some of my weaknesses occasionally, one doesn't want to feel too constrained, so I let myself go a bit. But I know back at the ranch I am talking sh*t. (one of my mottos is: "It's all balls.") We are limited to words here, but really, really, they are very limited. The presence of a person can indeed say much more, as someone suggested here. But we might as well have some fun with words, even if it is just letting off a bit of steam. I hope I haven't said anything too hurtful. ====================== Having said all that, my thoughts turn to this: do we need such a long story? As FreeThinker says, I too don't have much time for long, confusing if not confused arguments. So I ask, is one word enough to tell the whole story, or isn't it? (I am holding my own opinion back here.) Is 'ego' a useful word in such a scheme? I put forward as candidate a word that has already gained a lot of support as the prime key to everything: acceptance. Is that word enough? If not, what extra words need to be added? not sentences; let's try to be brief for a moment, to limit ourselves to the really essential. EGO= Edging=removing or denying God=everything=all Out=not accepted within
|
|
|
Ego
Dec 2, 2011 23:38:58 GMT
Post by freethinker on Dec 2, 2011 23:38:58 GMT
I could go on for awhile, but I have probably lost my 'readership' already. nah, you are the only normal one here of course, we're back to defining words again ;D Yeah, and 'normal' is easy enough to define as a word, but not at all easy to define as a concept. Matter of fact, if the folks I interact with every day are 'normal' (questionable in itself), I am not normal. Not the average guy, not the 'mean' individual... hey, there are a lot of conceptual people out there who don't actually exist. Hmm, I wonder where within can take that notion.
|
|
|
Ego
Dec 3, 2011 1:09:46 GMT
Post by popee on Dec 3, 2011 1:09:46 GMT
yeah, good luck defining normal it's more like ... picking a group .. and fitting in
and there's plenty of groups one could join
strength in numbers, and all that
mostly, people are scared, or arrogant giving, or seeking, confirmation of something or another
and nobody knows shit
lol
|
|
|
Ego
Dec 3, 2011 2:15:55 GMT
Post by withinsilence on Dec 3, 2011 2:15:55 GMT
nah, you are the only normal one here of course, we're back to defining words again ;D Yeah, and 'normal' is easy enough to define as a word, but not at all easy to define as a concept. Matter of fact, if the folks I interact with every day are 'normal' (questionable in itself), I am not normal. Not the average guy, not the 'mean' individual... hey, there are a lot of conceptual people out there who don't actually exist. Hmm, I wonder where within can take that notion. This is why Buddha refused to get involved in metaphysical discussions as all speculation leads to suffering. I will accept and try to practice his advice.
|
|