Turq, Would you agree that, for you, the word "identification" has the same definition as "attachment?" That's my stance.
The ego cannot be "ended," (since it doesn't exist,) but the "choosing process" of identifying it as the "I" CAN be ended, and once this inordinate attentioning on one small aspect of amness stops, then the ego can be as wonderfully appropriate -- in that, now, the ego is not puffed, hogging the spotlight, and elbowing out all the other aspects of manifestation, but is instead, a boon traveling companion, a biographer of the body/mind. To me it is always about "what is awareness awaring?" That's a spotlighting process, point value thingy, and whatever is going through one's mind is being identified with as much as a dog does when sniffing his fresh pee and, for my money, is thinking, "Ha, now that's an ablution of the previous hound's objectionable scent!" (I'm imagining myself as the dog, so he had to be a good writer!) To me, enlightenment is "not identifying." Period. The least identification is having both feet on the slippery slope. Even pure being, amness, is a primal identification, and sure enough, that slightest of all stains is all that's needed for the sin of manifestation to occur when ego starts saying, "I'm that. I'm that. I'm that." Instead of, you know, neti, neti, neti. I think that I hear you loud and clear. I love the bon vivant you are and support your right to identify with the wondrousness that passes through your mind, but what about this "sin" I've mentioned? Do you see that if one is attending to anything, then one is not conscious of the "ALL THING," the Self -- except that any THING must be a partial "ray" of the Self and thus, yeah, all things can only be SELF, but you know what I mean. I think you've been saying that the "200% fullness" concept is part of your dogma -- that the game of enlightenment MUST allow for enjoyment in the relative without it being "bad for evolution." You refuse to see yourself as a sinner in any "eternal" sense, so it seems you've got a very strongly held stance, which, to me, means that probably you've looked at this identification concept deeply. Have you? Have you pushed life through such a filter and seen if it is really all about ending identification -- not ending or starting any action? Which "tion" does ya choose? I mean, if you had a gun to your head, say maybe Judy had the gun, THEN which would you choose. I'm betting you resent the idea of having to choose though, eh? Hee hee. Edg PS See my posts, #140009 and 140633, for more about this. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "do.rflex" <do.rflex@> wrote: > > > > What's interesting about this post is that Barry appears, > > out of all the main posters on this forum, to have the > > biggest ego of all of them. He celebrates his ego [self] > > in his posts - and appears to have all of the skills > > required to hide the terrors of non-existence he describes. > > The bigger they are, the harder they fall. > > I'll answer this, even though it's a bit of a slam, > because it opens the possibility for a discussion > that I don't think I've seen here before. > > It's related to comments I made about love vs. lust > recently. It's clearly possible to be as *attached* > to love as it is to lust. And in many spiritual > traditions, it's the *attachment* that's the boogey- > man in the equation, not the activity itself. > > So is it the *having* an ego that's the boogeyman > in the realization-of-Self game, or is it the > *attachment* to one's ego that is the boogeyman? > > I'm kinda of the opinion that it's the latter. > > Do I have a big ego? You betcha. Do I *revel* in > having a big ego? You betcha. Am I particularly > *attached* to that ego? I don't think so, because > I've had so *many* of them. I've watched them come > and go for years now, ever since I met the Rama > dude and sat with him in the desert and had my > ego-at-the-time blown out of its socks and watched > it die. > > This is a rap that is *not* gonna resonate with > a lot of people here. Unless you have been in a > situation in which your ego -- your small s self -- > gets blown away and replaced with a *new* ego > on a regular basis, what's to identify with? > > But that's been my experience. So shoot me. :-) > > We'd go out into the desert with Rama as one ego, > and come back for a few days blown out of our > socks, egoless. It would take a day or two for > a new one to take hold. The same thing would > happen at the weekly meetings; it was to a large > extent what we were there for...those periods of > "between-ness" in which the old ego has been blown > away and a new one hasn't yet taken root. > > For those of you who can admit to having dropped > acid, and assuming you actually did *good* acid, > try to remember back to that experience. There > was a *reason* that Tiny Tim stole the basis for > his book "The Psychedelic Experience" from the > "Tibetan Book of the Dead." A good hit of pure > Sandoz was literally like traversing the Bardo. > You entered into the experience with a self, and > the experience pointed out to you in no uncertain > terms that you didn't really have one, and that > Self was all there was. And for a few hours after > the LSD experience, you remained in this "between- > ness" state, with the old self blown away, but > without having a new one (or, horrors, what you > considered the "old" one) taking root again. > > That's very similar to what I'm talking about, > but without the reliance on chemicals. > > I got *used* to this process of having one's ego > blown out of its socks and, a day or so later, > having a new one replace it. It happened on pretty > much a weekly basis -- if not more often -- for > fourteen years. > > THAT is to some extent where I'm "coming from" > when I celebrate the latest and greatest ego or > self I'm wearing. I don't *resent* the small s > selves that play across my Self. I don't confuse > them *with* Self. They are what they are, mere > masks, costumes that Self has chosen to put on for > some reason that probably even it doesn't understand, > long enough to make a nice entrance at some costume > ball. After the ball is over, the costume goes into > the trash bin and the Self "puts on" another self. > > The new one is no more important than the old one. > It has no more, and no less "going for it" than the > last self did. It's Just Another self. > > So do I have an ego, a small s self? You betcha. > But, unlike many here, do I *resent* that small > s self and view it as some kind of barrier to Self, > something that I have to "overcome" or "get past?" > No I do not. My personal experience has taught me > that that's going to happen pretty soon without > my having to do much to "make" it happen. > > You guys are free to interpret all of this however > you want. What you think about this rap, or my > raps on this forum in general, doesn't really affect > me that much. I've only met one person here in real > life; the rest of you are just dots of phosphor. > > I live my life the way I live it. End of story. > Part of the way I have chosen to live it is to *not* > fall into the rut (as I perceive it) of resenting > the self or believing that it's a terrible obstacle > to Self. I have had enough extended experiences of > Self to know that that's not true. So I choose to > have *fun* with the ego, rather than resenting it > or pretending not to have one. OF COURSE I have > one; so do you. And, in my opinion, having exper- > ienced enlightenment for short periods of time, so > do the enlightened. Having an ego during those > periods of enlightenment did *not* prevent my > realization of enlightenment. > > I'm *comfortable* with my ego. I'm comfortable cele- > brating it, and even more comfortable laughing at its > silliness. If you knew me personally, you'd have more > of a feeling for the full *extent* of that silliness. > I can laugh at each silly ego because I know it's not > going to be around that long. Tomorrow morning I'm > likely to wake up and have a whole new ego to laugh > at, and with. What is not to like about all that? >
