I'm a creation of change, a sum of my experiences,

I am a different person than when I was 10, and even a little bit different than I was just a moment ago.

But even when I was small, I still felt like me. Right now I still feel like me. Amongst the ever-changing experiences that make me who I am there is a constant. I believe that when I'm 60 years old I will still feel like me.

So what is that inaccessable abstract constant of me that goes unchanged while everything else morphs around?

I am able to step back and look at my ego from complete 3rd person perspective. Sometimes if feels strange, I'll will be contemplating something when suddenly it feels like I have disconnected from myself, and every thought of mine will go under scrutiny instead of acting instinctually. But even in those times I still feel like me.

Stepping away from my ego, my individuality still has exist. If there is no ego, where does my individuality go? Does it go to this concept of
Me that seems to only exist in the present moment?

If I base hapiness on something that changes - like materials, love, excitement, than Iwill never be satisfied. If I base hapiness on a constant, than I will always be in bliss. This concept of me seems to be the only concrete aspect of life.

Anyone know what I'm talking about? Have any thoughts?

So what is that inaccessable abstract constant of me that goes unchanged while everything else morphs around?
An idea, memory.

EDIT
reason: to edit

An idea, memory.

do you believe a human without memory is a blank slate?

Or do you believe identity lives outside memory in its own location?

If it's just an idea, when was it created? As soon as I gained consciousness sometime between inside the womb and when I recognized myself in the mirror?

I don't think identity can be pegged down to one thing. I think it's a combination of awareness and memory. Identity itself can also defy a single definition. We may think of ourselves as one identity, to others we are something else, and both tags are valid. Do you think that you and your mother have the same concept of who she is? Or does she possess at least two identities, the one that she knows intimately, the one that doesn't change, while you have another concept altogether as (hopefully) a nurturer and provider, which can also change to unbending dictator or good friend? Her friends may see her as something else altogether.

Think about how we identify Adolph Hitler. For the most part, we're pretty united in our identification of him as a murdering megalomaniac. Did his own mother see him as something else? Eva saw something in him, and his dog must have thought he was the greatest thing in the world. How did he see himself? What was his identity? If his own identity was not that of a murdering megalomaniac, then are we wrong to identify him thusly?

You'd think that a person would know their own identity better than anyone else, but apparently there's quite a bit more to it than that. Maybe it's the duality of nature that our own inner identity never changes, but the outer part, the part influenced by the outside world does, and yet they're part of the same thing, that cluster of facets we call our identity.

I guess another way to look at it is like a TV set. If you watch the outside while it's on, the image is constantly changing, perpetually altering it's projection to the outside world. If you take off the back and watch the insides, they don't change at any level that we can readily see. The contrast levels, brightness, tuning, etc., are stored in memory and have an effect on the outward projection, but are not the outward projection itself. So while the inside stays the same, the antenna (or satellite reciever or cable) that draws things in can change, as can the filters that send things out.

Egad, I hope that makes some degree of sense. I'm on meds right now.

There must be an individual to a certain extent. Although there is no "mine" or "yours" or "I", there is still some type of individual....otherwise who achieves liberation? Who experiences happiness? Who does anything?

The Buddha says "although there is a blowing of the air, there is no wind doing the blowing" so in other words, you, yourself do nothing at all, material nature does everything, but there is still an individual, otherwise The Buddha wouldn't have told people to achieve Buddhahood because who would be achieving Buddhahood if there was no individual? What point would there be in doing good deeds?

"I" is because you think you"re different from Brahm pure and simple.


Thanks

"I" is because you think you"re different from Brahm pure and simple.


Thanks
But you just contradicted yourself, you're saying there is an "I" because "you" think you're different from Brahm, so there's no "I", but there's a "you"?

linguistically i admit that my language couldnt paint the entire picture. But i was merely referring to the person who asked the question. Infact vital one i remember a quote from Lord Krishna where he is asked by Uddhav as to what krishnas roots were, and he said if i say who am i i"ll be contradicting that i am brahm or something in those lines (i dont recall exactly what he spoke).. but yes, i agree with that contradiction ...

But i suppose you got the picture i tried to potray ... :D

dammit, i need that name changed, its been years since Matrix was released ... i mean ... man...

oh and btw to clarify. you, i , it are all gross summations of your thoughts tied to center of belief system that "one" is separate from self (or brahm).

since "one" believes that, anything that "ones" physical self percieves has to be based on that belief, therefore everything that is percieved exists separate from each other. Once that belief of false ego is gone "one" enters turiya state(state of OM, in which all three states viz. Deep Sleep (pragya/ prajna, Dream State, Waking state) become one...or a state where there are no thoughts, since everything thought is only connected to false ego)

Regards
Ricky

linguistically i admit that my language couldnt paint the entire picture. But i was merely referring to the person who asked the question. Infact vital one i remember a quote from Lord Krishna where he is asked by Uddhav as to what krishnas roots were, and he said if i say who am i i"ll be contradicting that i am brahm or something in those lines (i dont recall exactly what he spoke).. but yes, i agree with that contradiction ...

But i suppose you got the picture i tried to potray ... :D

dammit, i need that name changed, its been years since Matrix was released ... i mean ... man...
I think I know what you're talking about, its the Hamsa-avatara speaking to the sages:

"Lord Brahma desired to attain the answer to the question that was puzzling him, and thus he fixed his mind on Me, the Supreme Lord. At that time, in My form of Hamsa, I became visible to Lord Brahma.
Thus seeing Me, the sages, placing Brahma in the lead, came forward and worshiped My lotus feet.
Then they frankly asked Me, “Who are You?”
My dear Uddhava, the sages, being eager to understand the ultimate truth of the yoga system, thus inquired from Me. Now please hear as I explain that which I spoke unto the sages.
My dear brahmanas, if, when asking Me who I am, you believe that I am also a jiva soul and that there is no ultimate difference between us—since all souls are ultimately one without individuality—then how is your question possible or appropriate? Ultimately, what is the real situation or resting place both of yourselves and of Me?
If by asking Me “Who are You?” you were referring to the material body, then I must point out that all material bodies are constituted of five elements, namely earth, water, fire, air and ether. Thus, you should have asked, “Who are you five?” If you consider that all material bodies are ultimately one, being constituted essentially of the same elements, then your question is still meaningless, since there would be no deep purpose in distinguishing one body from another. Thus, it appears that in asking My identity, you are merely speaking words, without any real meaning or purpose.
Within this world, whatever is perceived by the mind, speech, eyes or other senses is Me alone and nothing besides Me. All of you please understand this by a straightforward analysis of the facts" - (SB 11.13.19-24)

oh and btw to clarify. you, i , it are all gross summations of your thoughts tied to center of belief system that "one" is separate from self (or brahm).

since "one" believes that, anything that "ones" physical self percieves has to be based on that belief, therefore everything that is percieved exists separate from each other. Once that belief of false ego is gone "one" enters turiya state(state of OM, in which all three states viz. Deep Sleep (pragya/ prajna, Dream State, Waking state) become one...or a state where there are no thoughts, since everything thought is only connected to false ego)

Regards
Ricky
I still believe there must be a subtle difference between each individual. For instance a liberated person is not the same as normal person. Gautama-Buddha spoke of many other Buddhas besides himself, but did not say they were him, he was still different in some way. There must be some type of individual....

Your ego is the illusion of individuality that your body/brain creates for the means of your (as an organism) sole survival. In reality, you are not seperate from all that is around you--that is what you are feeling when you "step back" and become disassociative/more objective. Being a human being of limited input, we only are able to sense ourselves. All that we percieve from the 'outside' is simply the 'outside's' effect on our body. But in those short-lived moments of clarity, our awareness begins to creep out of the limits of our body through a bridge made upon the realizations of relationships between the things we experience.

Your ego is the illusion of individuality that your body/brain creates for the means of your (as an organism) sole survival. In reality, you are not seperate from all that is around you--that is what you are feeling when you "step back" and become disassociative/more objective. Being a human being of limited input, we only are able to sense ourselves. All that we percieve from the 'outside' is simply the 'outside's' effect on our body. But in those short-lived moments of clarity, our awareness begins to creep out of the limits of our body through a bridge made upon the realizations of relationships between the things we experience.

I understand that, for instance when I act, I am not really acting, nature is acting. However, me, my actual self, is the witness or observer over all things, I myself really do nothing. When I become angry, I am not really angry, anger is simply an impulse. However, even though I understand all this, there's still a me, the witness over all things, who does nothing at all, just watching and observing, it is from this witness, from this self, that I am able to control things and have free-will

I understand that, for instance when I act, I am not really acting, nature is acting. However, me, my actual self, is the witness or observer over all things, I myself really do nothing. When I become angry, I am not really angry, anger is simply an impulse. However, even though I understand all this, there's still a me, the witness over all things, who does nothing at all, just watching and observing, it is from this witness, from this self, that I am able to control things and have free-will

Not neccessarily. I once thought this way, but since I have realized that there is still some direction from your actual being. But this direction is a probability based on the momentary makeup of your being. It is this little bit of purely unpredictable action that gives us our free choice. But this only acts on miniscule scales, like a single stroke of a brush on a massive mural. For the most part, we are the direct result of time through our environment.

But it is not that we are a witness, or mere observer in the game of life. We are more like a puppet. We are the ones in the spotlight, seemingly making the decisions, but really we are forced into these decisions that make us who we are. We are simply an equation through which the effects of the environment pass through to create our actions.

Not neccessarily. I once thought this way, but since I have realized that there is still some direction from your actual being. But this direction is a probability based on the momentary makeup of your being. It is this little bit of purely unpredictable action that gives us our free choice. But this only acts on miniscule scales, like a single stroke of a brush on a massive mural. For the most part, we are the direct result of time through our environment.

But it is not that we are a witness, or mere observer in the game of life. We are more like a puppet. We are the ones in the spotlight, seemingly making the decisions, but really we are forced into these decisions that make us who we are. We are simply an equation through which the effects of the environment pass through to create our actions.
But it must be so neccessarily. I use to believe there was no individual, I was ultimately brahm and nothing else but it cannot be so. You yourself, does nothing, never acts, never has any karma, no decisions, no mind, you are just as it is. The reason we have free will is because we, our true self is the observer over all things. I, the observer, am able to see that everything occuring is simply a result of an impulse, I am able to control these impulses. You are like God, isvara, the supreme controller, this is who you really are.

But it must be so neccessarily. I use to believe there was no individual, I was ultimately brahm and nothing else but it cannot be so. You yourself, does nothing, never acts, never has any karma, no decisions, no mind, you are just as it is. The reason we have free will is because we, our true self is the observer over all things. I, the observer, am able to see that everything occuring is simply a result of an impulse, I am able to control these impulses. You are like God, isvara, the supreme controller, this is who you really are.

But if this were true, then would we not be able to observe other aspects of the words around us, instead of just what occurs in our own body? I would rather say that you are an observer, yes, but you are also the force which flows through the vessel of your body. You observe, but your observation is limited to the senses of your body--which therefore creates the illusion of self.

The observer is actually mere energy, though energy thrust into a structure. The observer is part of the One, but appears an individual because of its limitations. You are a limited part of the one, as everyone is. But everyone is a different part.

But if this were true, then would we not be able to observe other aspects of the words around us, instead of just what occurs in our own body? I would rather say that you are an observer, yes, but you are also the force which flows through the vessel of your body. You observe, but your observation is limited to the senses of your body--which therefore creates the illusion of self.

The observer is actually mere energy, though energy thrust into a structure. The observer is part of the One, but appears an individual because of its limitations. You are a limited part of the one, as everyone is. But everyone is a different part.

But you would be able to see everything, if you reached the level of an ishvara. For instance Jesus could walk on water, heal others, raise the dead, etc....because he become an isvara, a lord of all, the supreme controller. The Buddha, Krishna, and others were also known to have powers beyond normal humans, because they were ishvaras.

The observer is not energy, the observer is the origin of energy, the origin of forces, the origin of all, you cannot say that it is this, nor that it is that, hence why it is called "neti neti" (not this, not this), it is indefiniable, the basis of reality, eternal, unchanging, attributeless, its not really anything...

The energy you speak of is thought-energy the cause of consciousness (cittam), which is also prana. Later on this energy will be known as factually existing in science, I say around the 2400s. Soon the many-worlds theory will be proven to be definitely true, then the many-minds interpretation will also known to be true to a certain degree.

The next time you become angry, upset, etc...you can kind of feel that this isn't really you, your actual self is just watching this all happen.

But you would be able to see everything, if you reached the level of an ishvara. For instance Jesus could walk on water, heal others, raise the dead, etc....because he become an isvara, a lord of all, the supreme controller. The Buddha, Krishna, and others were also known to have powers beyond normal humans, because they were ishvaras.

The observer is not energy, the observer is the origin of energy, the origin of forces, the origin of all, you cannot say that it is this, nor that it is that, hence why it is called "neti neti" (not this, not this), it is indefiniable, the basis of reality, eternal, unchanging, attributeless, its not really anything...

The energy you speak of is thought-energy the cause of consciousness (cittam), which is also prana. Later on this energy will be known as factually existing in science, I say around the 2400s. Soon the many-worlds theory will be proven to be definitely true, then the many-minds interpretation will also known to be true to a certain degree.

The next time you become angry, upset, etc...you can kind of feel that this isn't really you, your actual self is just watching this all happen.

I know what you are speaking of, and I feel that we are talking about the same thing. Our only conflict here is that we are using different words and ideals to speak through.

When I speak of energy, I speak of what you call "neti neti"--the fundamental substance of everything. Energy is described as the capacity to do work. I imagine that the fundamental substance of the universe would have the same definition. It is pure motivation.

I know what you are speaking of, and I feel that we are talking about the same thing. Our only conflict here is that we are using different words and ideals to speak through.

When I speak of energy, I speak of what you call "neti neti"--the fundamental substance of everything. Energy is described as the capacity to do work. I imagine that the fundamental substance of the universe would have the same definition. It is pure motivation.
But you speak of it as if it is something, a substance, but it cannot be a substance since substance has some type of tangible existence, where as the basis of reality has no tangible existence, it is the origin of substances, the origin of reality, the origin of all things, it cannot do anything nor has it done anything, before the material universe existed it existed just the same, and after the universe ends it will exist just the same, it is the absolute truth, reality itself could not exist, it is the unmade, the unborn, the eternal, imperishable, inexhaustible, it is who you really are.

But you speak of it as if it is something, a substance, but it cannot be a substance since substance has some type of tangible existence, where as the basis of reality has no tangible existence, it is the origin of substances, the origin of reality, the origin of all things, it cannot do anything nor has it done anything, before the material universe existed it existed just the same, and after the universe ends it will exist just the same, it is the absolute truth, reality itself could not exist, it is the unmade, the unborn, the eternal, imperishable, inexhaustible, it is who you really are.

All things are either of substance, or a relation among substances. But we should not try to argue on point such as these, because I know that we are defining them slightly different. But I'm pretty sure we are talking about the same thing.

Forget tangible and intangible existence. Somewhere, everything in or out of the universe has a tangible effect. The basis of reality is the ultimate tangible effect because it is felt in infinite amounts of ways.

You have to get past decifering the effects through your senses. Tangible and non-tangible do not exist. They are human terms. In essence, all things are pure energy, or pure motivation, or pure ______. Perhaps we can define it as Purity. It is the one, undivided.

The material universe was never created, at one level far above us it appears to blink into and out of existence between a period of no duration, but ultimately, it is only a piece of the whole that is always existing, has always existed. Our universe is the refraction of light through one facet upon a infinitely-faced crystal. The crystal is whole, but we consciously percieve only one part of it. Yet at the same time, the light that shines through is affected by the entire thing.

It is hard to explain.

All things are either of substance, or a relation among substances. But we should not try to argue on point such as these, because I know that we are defining them slightly different. But I'm pretty sure we are talking about the same thing.

Forget tangible and intangible existence. Somewhere, everything in or out of the universe has a tangible effect. The basis of reality is the ultimate tangible effect because it is felt in infinite amounts of ways.

You have to get past decifering the effects through your senses. Tangible and non-tangible do not exist. They are human terms. In essence, all things are pure energy, or pure motivation, or pure ______. Perhaps we can define it as Purity. It is the one, undivided.

The material universe was never created, at one level far above us it appears to blink into and out of existence between a period of no duration, but ultimately, it is only a piece of the whole that is always existing, has always existed. Our universe is the refraction of light through one facet upon a infinitely-faced crystal. The crystal is whole, but we consciously percieve only one part of it. Yet at the same time, the light that shines through is affected by the entire thing.

It is hard to explain.

I will have to disagree , the origin of all cannot be defined nor described, it is like infinity, undefined, because it is the origin of all forms, all substances, etc...

Also there must be an individual to a certain extent because who realizes the absolute truth? Who realizes that there is no "I" or "mine"?

In my dream last night my first person perspective shifted into every cell of my body simultaneously, it was awesome i was litterally a society of mind.
Then i tried to shag this porn star which didnt work, then i locked myself in the cupboard (in the dream not in real life).

I will have to disagree , the origin of all cannot be defined nor described, it is like infinity, undefined, because it is the origin of all forms, all substances, etc...
I don't see how this contradicts what I am saying.

Also there must be an individual to a certain extent because who realizes the absolute truth? Who realizes that there is no "I" or "mine"?
The individual is the one encompassing all. When you realize something, truly realize to the extent that you no longer have to think about it--you just know--that is when you tap into the pure essense of existence from your limited perspective. It is not 'you' realizing this, it is a part of the universe recognizing another part in a more direct way.

I don't see how this contradicts what I am saying.


The individual is the one encompassing all. When you realize something, truly realize to the extent that you no longer have to think about it--you just know--that is when you tap into the pure essense of existence from your limited perspective. It is not 'you' realizing this, it is a part of the universe recognizing another part in a more direct way.

This cannot be, and you know it. The universe is not the individual, it is not who realizes the absolute truth, it is you the unborn, eternal, unchanging witness that is the individual, there IS free will...however it is true in a way...nature is the only doer, however, you yourself is the watcher, the witness, the observer...

This cannot be, and you know it. The universe is not the individual, it is not who realizes the absolute truth, it is you the unborn, eternal, unchanging witness that is the individual, there IS free will...however it is true in a way...nature is the only doer, however, you yourself is the watcher, the witness, the observer...

I don't think you quite understand what I mean. The universe itself is not the individual, yes. But the individual is a part of the universe--a piece of the fractal that cannot be distinguished except for through the eyes of another piece like it. The individual is not destroyed or created, but is made of parts that are only temporarily acting in syncronization. This syncronization is life--you. The absolute truth is inherent in the universe, of which you are a piece. To realize a part of that truth (as a human you can only realize a tiny part) you are syncronizing with other parts of the universe. The free will you experience is inherent in every miniscule piece of the universe. It is not inherent in the universe as a whole, though. As a small, limited beings such as a human, we can experience this free-will remotely, but the larger and more powerful you become, the less free will you have.

You as an individual cannot be simply the watcher, for every observation is an observation of your relation of cause and effect with your surroundings. Nature as individuals--the rabbit, the plant, the bacteria--are inherent "doers". But nature as a whole is the ultimate "watcher". Nature cannot act, it merely is what it is. The smaller parts that make up the whole can act, but the whole cannot. Just as your cells decide your own actions, and the individuals decide the actions of a community. The community doesn't act, individuals do.

Try to find the bliss until you realize that it cannot be found,
then you might find it so funny that it cannot even be lost.

Roy,

certain corrections from a purist perspective. Lets be very clear, you have used the absolute truth is inherent in the universe of which you are a piece sentence. If we are talking from a brahm perspective, that is incorrect viewpoint, simply because this universe only exists as a result of your ours or whoever you think universe is made up of. As i have said and stressed time and again, it is the false ego or "self" that allows humans / whoeever is tied to this cause and effect world, to think that since they exist separate from brahm, therefore everyone else must, so our senses percieve only our false egos belief.

Another important point in that is that all forms of knowledge, true , false are only part of this maya or false world. True knowledge is the knowledge you observer, realize or think you have realized which can often result in blissful feelings (Source : Patanjali Yogsutram).On the other hand being tied too much to this world, you get tied up in cause and effect, therefore this gives rise to wrong / bad / untrue / false knowledge. but understand that both forms are only manifestations of the unchanging self.

I am stressing this point, because people often make the mistake of thinking that they are brahm, or brahm is sum total of everything. The most important point to realize is that brahm is all pervading, non changing self that we have given up as our identity and due to our false egos assumed shapes, sizes. rest everything is a result of that false egos doings. when that false ego, or the sense of false ego goes, all thoughts diminish, everything dissolves into Unity.

Thanks.

I think having an ego is really important. I didn't think so until I realized how important it is for me to have an ego- how it's important to have a sense of self.

The whole "You are me and I am you" doesn't work for me. I mean I realize that I could be you an you could be me, but the thing is, you aren't me and I am not you. Further more I just want to be myself with my own individuality.

But when you realize that this is not you, there is no 'I', etc... and become egoless you still have an individual self...I mean you are different from other people still......who is it that realizes there is no 'I' or 'mine'?

I think having an ego is really important. I didn't think so until I realized how important it is for me to have an ego- how it's important to have a sense of self.

The whole "You are me and I am you" doesn't work for me. I mean I realize that I could be you an you could be me, but the thing is, you aren't me and I am not you. Further more I just want to be myself with my own individuality.

I agree. If you feel into the issue carefully, you can tell that when people are telling you (me, us) to become egoless, they are actually judging feelings and needs and desires we have. They make it sound loving and non-judgemental, but it ends up as a kind of attack.

Roy,

certain corrections from a purist perspective. Lets be very clear, you have used the absolute truth is inherent in the universe of which you are a piece sentence. If we are talking from a brahm perspective, that is incorrect viewpoint, simply because this universe only exists as a result of your ours or whoever you think universe is made up of. As i have said and stressed time and again, it is the false ego or "self" that allows humans / whoeever is tied to this cause and effect world, to think that since they exist separate from brahm, therefore everyone else must, so our senses percieve only our false egos belief.
This could only be true if the human mind was the only thing that 'observed' and therefore changed the nature of the universe. I do not believe this is so. I believe that observation is merely another word for reaction. In this way, every tiny bit of organized energy is able to 'observe' and change the universe. Therefore, we all are able to change the universe, but also be changed by it--that our changes in the universe occur because of changes the universe has made in us. It is because of this that I think that absolute truth can be inherent in the universe. Because that absolute truth is the universe and nothing less. If there was no absolute truth, then nothing would interact.

Another important point in that is that all forms of knowledge, true , false are only part of this maya or false world. True knowledge is the knowledge you observer, realize or think you have realized which can often result in blissful feelings (Source : Patanjali Yogsutram).On the other hand being tied too much to this world, you get tied up in cause and effect, therefore this gives rise to wrong / bad / untrue / false knowledge. but understand that both forms are only manifestations of the unchanging self.
But the self does change, as anyone can witness. Yes, all forms of knowledge exist, but there are certain forms of them that relate--depending on their interpretation by the human mind--directly to existing processes, processes that are 'observed' by many many other processes. The only true way to know the world around you is to truthfully (to yourself) know your own chain of cause and effect.

I am stressing this point, because people often make the mistake of thinking that they are brahm, or brahm is sum total of everything. The most important point to realize is that brahm is all pervading, non changing self that we have given up as our identity and due to our false egos assumed shapes, sizes. rest everything is a result of that false egos doings. when that false ego, or the sense of false ego goes, all thoughts diminish, everything dissolves into Unity.

Thanks.

I agree with you here. We believe we are a certain thing, but this certain thing only exists within our minds. Because it only exists within our minds, and we believe we exist this way in reality, then we create conflict, or destruction. Thought is merely trying to fit something outside to your own perceptions, like fitting a square peg in a round hole.

But when you realize that this is not you, there is no 'I', etc... and become egoless you still have an individual self...I mean you are different from other people still......who is it that realizes there is no 'I' or 'mine'?

I can see why being egoless might be good. It would not arise conflicts so much if we were all the same. WE would see eye to eye on everything...no we actually wouldn't even have to agree or disagree. We wouldn't have thoughts because thinking is being an individual and that can not be when you are egoless.

I could not be happy without having my own mind. We would all be nothing but empty shells...No motives, no love really. We would be equal and everyone would be the same to you.

I can see why being egoless might be good. It would not arise conflicts so much if we were all the same. WE would see eye to eye on everything...no we actually wouldn't even have to agree or disagree. We wouldn't have thoughts because thinking is being an individual and that can not be when you are egoless.

I could not be happy without having my own mind. We would all be nothing but empty shells...No motives, no love really. We would be equal and everyone would be the same to you.
The problem is that after you become egoless, you still have an identity, Gautama Buddha was egoless, but he himself still had his own mind, he himself still recongnized that he was different from others....this difference is called the individual...

Also you are thinking of being egoless as a bad thing, in reality if you were egoless all of your greatest desires would be fulfilled, you would enjoy every infinitismal moment to very highest degree, you would finally have that happiness you had always been seeking, at last you would free from all degrees of suffering, including this sensation of loss causing you to believe that you may not have your own individuality after.....this happiness is not emptiness like deep relaxation, it is rather fullness, you would have high energy, a sense of fulfilment, and true happiness (as opposed to fake happiness caused by suppression)

no, that is being content. I believe that you can not be content without your ego.

When you realize that you are everything, your ego dissapears and becomes nothing.

But in reality, there is no one who can realize anything because there is no one here.

As long as you think you are awake instead of dreaming, you can't wake up from this dream.

(these are your subconscious thoughts, because 'in your dreams' everything is your thoughts)

no, that is being content. I believe that you can not be content without your ego.

As long as you need or want something, like being content, you are not content.

What are the lines without the triangle?

The triangle without the lines?

I think that the consciously aware part of your mind--i.e. the part that realizes something, even in the absence of an ego--is because of the limited cognizance of your senses. That is, you are able to realize because you can put two and two together, both twos being something you can sense directly, but put together they unveil a relationship that you cannot sense directly. The reason you have the sensation of 'realization' is because your cognizant comparative system (your mind) is limited to your own body. The realization is like a bridge suddenly connecting your mind to the rest of the world.

Therefore, we all are able to change the universe, but also be changed by it--that our changes in the universe occur because of changes the universe has made in us. It is because of this that I think that absolute truth can be inherent in the universe. Because that absolute truth is the universe and nothing less. If there was no absolute truth, then nothing would interact.


I don't agree, but i am living dangerously busy life right now (havent had a holiday for last 25 days, yes including weekends)...When i find time i"ll get to writing a detailed reply.

Rick

I consumed Ayahuasca in the Amazon with a shaman and a french girl. I checked my email today in the City and the thread title caught my eye as very relevant.

I lost my ego that night. My goals and everything which made me human ceased, it was very very intense

Anyway, got things to do goodbye

I consumed Ayahuasca in the Amazon with a shaman and a french girl. I checked my email today in the City and the thread title caught my eye as very relevant.

I lost my ego that night. My goals and everything which made me human ceased, it was very very intense

Anyway, got things to do goodbye

Do tell! Perhaps create a new thread if you have to.

I read a book by a biologist who was trying to research native herbal medicine in chile and other S. American countries. He asked the local shaman how he knew what all of the plants in the rainforest could be used for medicinally. The shaman replied "I was told by Ayahuasca." He elaborated by saying that when one drinks ayahuasca [in the rainforest], you are shown what every plant can do for/to you. This was in a book regarding the close relationship between the nature (particularly the shape) of DNA and cultures worldwide.

I Am Existence

'Ego' must exist, that
'Self' might exist, that
'Perspective' can exist, that
'Memory' can exist, that
'Self' might exist, that
'Existence' can exist!

All are mutually existent, simultaneously, not linearly.
Ego=Self=Perspective=Mind, all inextricably dependent for context/definition... 'existence'!

'Unhealthy Ego' results from, perhaps, the result of an infection of the 'Belief virus', that the 'illusions of the mind' are, somehow, 'Objective Reality' (which does not exist!).
(the 'Belief virus 'attacks/feeds on' the Ego 'creating' 'Pride', and mental destruction and behavior disorders and pathologies!?)

Individual Egoic conception of individual Self is the platform of our unique Perspectives/Concepts of 'Existence'.
Ego perceives/conceives the Self (in the Memory), as displayed in the hologramic Mind/Brain. (a 'node' on Indra's Web?)

And thus a 'unique' perspective for 'Consciousness' to Experience existence (or anything at all).
All existence is Ego/Self/Perspective,. It is within that 'structure' that all existence 'appears' to 'unfold' as Memory.
We are the experience, not the 'Experiencer', which is 'Consciousness/Tao/Dharma/God/whatever..'.

Ego=Self=Perspective=Memory=Existence

'Imagination' is nothing more than Memory.

We do it all the time! The problems quickly arise, though, when we host a 'Believe' that our 'imagination/comcepts' (of 'existence') is anything other than our Memories.

The ego IS perspective!
There must be the 'feeling' of being an 'indivi-dual', a 'person', for there to be a 'perspective', a 'viewer' for there to be a 'viewpoint'. So the 'person' is formed around the ego and 'experiences' all the thrills of the 'perceptions/concepts' of 'life'.

Mind IS Memory!
There is no more 'motion' of 'thinking/thought' as any other kind of 'motion'.
All concept of 'self/unique perspective/Ego' is inherent with Memory, Now.
Nothing more needed than Memory, Now, for Ego to Be and Perspective to Be. From that Ego/Memory, existence is Perceived, as there is now a (self), Point of View (Perspective) for 'Consciousness' to have that of which to be 'Conscious', existence...
'Consciousnes is One'.

Egoless, but still an individual?
Cannot be. Ego perceives existence. False ego, 'loss of innocence' is the acceptance of the 'belief virus' of 'others'. The 'distinguishing' of the flow and patterns of which one now learns to see, isolated and individual and seperate 'things'... 'oneself' (false egoic construct now) most isolated of all. Deep in delusion that his slumbering dream of a 'life' is actually more than just that... momentary.. timeless..

So the child is free of the false egoic self conception, then 'falls'..
The 'enlightened' as 'regained 'innocence', state of being One with, One as, all existence; our 'true state', our 'default' state. No 'us', so no 'us and them', all are false distinctions of the mind (that big lie!) imposed on the Tapestry of Existence.

So there can be no 'individual' if there is no false ego, healthy ego is merely a 'perspective'...

(or not)
*__-