GENIUS FORUMS

I don't agree with your definition of 'mind'. I would only consider it to contain what we're conscious of, and we're not fully conscious of our egos because if we were, our egos would disappear.

.
I just added an example and can now see you've replied before it showed up. Let's just see how we go.

Matt Gregory wrote:I don't agree with your definition of 'mind'. I would only consider it to contain what we're conscious of, and we're not fully conscious of our egos because if we were, our egos would disappear.

So you think things exist beyond consciousness? How could that be so?

There is necessarily consciousness of any egotism present in any given moment, otherwise it would not exist. To illustrate using the above example, there was consciousness of the thought of an inherently existent self climbing a mountain, and consciousness of the depression felt. However, being conscious of the ego does not mean it is understood, or there is any effort to eradicate it.

.

Rhett Hamilton wrote:.
I just added an example and can now see you've replied before it showed up. Let's just see how we go.

Ok.

Lets look at an example. Say, for instance, there is an experience of a steep rocky mountain, the thought that it will be tough to climb, and a simultaneous feeling of depression. I would not consider the mountain or the description of it being tough to climb as the ego. The ego would reside as the thought of an inherently existent self climbing a tough mountain and being depressed about it. So we see the ego is only an artifact of the mind.

Ok, fine. It doesn't really matter to me if it's an artifact, anyway. That doesn't really change anything. I'm really only objecting to the fact that a person's ego fully resides in their consciousness.

Matt Gregory wrote:I don't agree with your definition of 'mind'. I would only consider it to contain what we're conscious of, and we're not fully conscious of our egos because if we were, our egos would disappear.

So you think things exist beyond consciousness? How could that be so?

Well, possibilities exist. We could become conscious of things presently beyond consciousness in the future. The Big Bang existed x billion years ago because we are conscious of it today.

There is necessarily consciousness of any egotism present in any given moment, otherwise it would not exist.

No, that's not right. You can't make things disappear by not thinking about them. That's like Merged Void material there.

To illustrate using the above example, there was consciousness of the thought of an inherently existent self climbing a mountain, and consciousness of the depression felt. However, being conscious of the ego does not mean it is understood, or there is any effort to eradicate it.

What's the difference between being conscious of something and understanding it?

Rhett Hamilton wrote:An example would be to give a woman a flower. In that moment she will likely become almost completely absorbed in the flower as if it is herself, and its beauty her own.

I actually doubt it happens like this. I'm sure she has a thought about how pretty the flower is, but I really doubt that she becomes wholly absorbed in that beauty. That would be very masculine. A woman receiving flowers would also be thinking about how they are going to enhance her: where she is going to put them, how much power she has over this male, what the flowers remind her of, etc. A woman is never wholly absorbed in anything other than the chaos and anxiety of her femininity.

Sue,

How could that (men hate women) be, when nearly everyman on the planet has devoted his entire life to her?

I can't believe you're asking me that question.

Give me time to pick my jaw up from the floor and figure out why before I respond.

.

Rhett wrote:

Rhett: Developing a good understanding of femininity has an interesting effect of helping one imagine and thus work towards egolessness. Not to say that women are egoless, but they are nearly so, being so barely conscious as they are. To further this, the understanding of minimally conscious states can be used and applied to the ego, pushing it to the extreme, to its obliteration.

Matt asked: I'm not sure what you mean, Rhett. Could you give an example?

In the deluded mind the ego exists like any other artefact. Where there is the aim of enlightenment, there is the aim to eradicate the ego. How is this done? This is done in a variety of ways, attacking and resolving from many angles.

One such angle is to apply the paradigm of lesser and greater states of consciousness, and in this case, to explore lesser states to see what they may be like. Spending time seeing what it may be like for there to be a lesser ego naturally gives opportunity for the ego to diminish. Where there is the genuine desire for it to diminish, of course.

It is interesting that you are looking at the “diminishing of the ego” as an aim, because when I consider the process of pruning attachments I see it as a way to strengthen the ego in one direction only, and that is toward its ultimate destruction.

To make the ego strong and single-minded in the goal of its own downfall, makes sense. If allowed to consider itself small and insignificant it can fool its owner of its true influence and strength – creating major problems further down the track. Better to see it as the Beast it is, and use it to destroy its self.

An example would be to give a woman a flower. In that moment she will likely become almost completely absorbed in the flower as if it is herself, and its beauty her own. For her it is not so much a gift or even a reflection of herself, but the arisal of an object giving full power to femininity.

Try and imagine what this may be like.

I see what you’re driving at Rhett, and yes, it is a useful state to meditate upon. Of course, one wouldn’t want to become too absorbed or attached to such a state, as it is that lose, fluffy mind that is already attracting so many men away from propelling themselves into consciousness. I think it is better to discover that state of complete acceptance from deeply understanding God’s nature in all things.

-
Sue

Sue, I have reviewed your post and I’m afraid I’m still gobsmacked.

You wrote:

The fact that most men squander this potential on building bigger and better worlds for women to play in - is beside the point.

Beside the point?! Hardly!

It might well uncover the single most useful causal factor to be found: like, men are unconscious despite their masculinity.

What would be the point to aspiring to consciousness only to trip up on this apparently irrelevant beauty of a problem? All that inner-force enabling them to pursue philosophy at the drop of a hat, but…

I am seriously beginning to wonder whether you understand your own philosophy. That’s what happens when you try and turn it into a biology class.

.

Blimey, Charlie.

Sue wrote:

To make the ego strong and single-minded in the goal of its own downfall, makes sense. If allowed to consider itself small and insignificant it can fool its owner of its true influence and strength – creating major problems further down the track. Better to see it as the Beast it is, and use it to destroy its self.

Seriously, Sue. You're genuinely starting to worry me.

Why would the owner of a thing require that thing to destroy a thing of its own making?

.

.

Rhett: Lets look at an example. Say, for instance, there is an experience of a steep rocky mountain, the thought that it will be tough to climb, and a simultaneous feeling of depression. I would not consider the mountain or the description of it being tough to climb as the ego. The ego would reside as the thought of an inherently existent self climbing a tough mountain and being depressed about it. So we see the ego is only an artifact of the mind.

Matt: Ok, fine. It doesn't really matter to me if it's an artifact, anyway. That doesn't really change anything. I'm really only objecting to the fact that a person's ego fully resides in their consciousness.


Matt: I don't agree with your definition of 'mind'. I would only consider it to contain what we're conscious of, and we're not fully conscious of our egos because if we were, our egos would disappear.

Rhett: So you think things exist beyond consciousness? How could that be so?

Matt: Well, possibilities exist. We could become conscious of things presently beyond consciousness in the future. The Big Bang existed x billion years ago because we are conscious of it today.

The future has no existence at the present time, so it cannot rightly be said to exist beyond current consciousness.

In so much as a Big Bang exists in any given consciousness, a Big Bang exists in that given consciousness. Its that simple. To conceive of some kind of 'Ultimate Big Bang' residing beyond consciousness is to entertain an error of logic, as any Big Bang that could possibly be conceived of would necessarily occur within consciousness, or to be more correct, as consciousness itself.

Rhett: There is necessarily consciousness of any egotism present in any given moment, otherwise it would not exist.

Matt: No, that's not right. You can't make things disappear by not thinking about them. That's like Merged Void material there.

If something is no longer appearing then it seems only sensible to say that it has disappeared.

To put that a slightly different way; if you are thinking something, then it is appearing, . . . and whenever there is a transition to thinking something else, that previous thing has disappeared and has no existence.

Rhett: To illustrate using the above example, there was consciousness of the thought of an inherently existent self climbing a mountain, and consciousness of the depression felt. However, being conscious of the ego does not mean it is understood, or there is any effort to eradicate it.

Matt: What's the difference between being conscious of something and understanding it?

To use the aforementioned example;

Being conscious of egotism means experiencing false abstractions and depression.

Understanding egotism means that it doesn't happen.


.

.

sue hindmarsh wrote: Rhett: Developing a good understanding of femininity has an interesting effect of helping one imagine and thus work towards egolessness. Not to say that women are egoless, but they are nearly so, being so barely conscious as they are. To further this, the understanding of minimally conscious states can be used and applied to the ego, pushing it to the extreme, to its obliteration.

Matt: I'm not sure what you mean, Rhett. Could you give an example?

Rhett: In the deluded mind the ego exists like any other artefact. Where there is the aim of enlightenment, there is the aim to eradicate the ego. How is this done? This is done in a variety of ways, attacking and resolving from many angles.

One such angle is to apply the paradigm of lesser and greater states of consciousness, and in this case, to explore lesser states to see what they may be like. Spending time seeing what it may be like for there to be a lesser ego naturally gives opportunity for the ego to diminish. Where there is the genuine desire for it to diminish, of course.

Sue: It is interesting that you are looking at the “diminishing of the ego” as an aim, because when I consider the process of pruning attachments I see it as a way to strengthen the ego in one direction only, and that is toward its ultimate destruction.

To make the ego strong and single-minded in the goal of its own downfall, makes sense. If allowed to consider itself small and insignificant it can fool its owner of its true influence and strength – creating major problems further down the track. Better to see it as the Beast it is, and use it to destroy its self.

For a man to explore womanliness is mostly a terrifying experience. A woman's 'life' is so lacking individuality, distinction, originality, most pertinently, thought itself, man sees her 'life' as death, and hastenes from it, knowing his very own life is at stake. He can only do this by strengthening his consciousness, as a protective measure. He naturally wants to avoid death at all costs. Then his ego gets so big the inevitable is finally pursued and accepted.

After this, and perhaps only after this, on later stages of the path, where some egotism is still present, my technique could be employed. What i am offering is really just a converse application of a technique used so commonly here. Using womanliness as a tool to increase consciousness, and using womanliness as a tool to decrease the ego.

I invite you to keep attacking it Sue, to see where it goes, if you like, although you have well expressed your views below, and there may be nothing more to say.

Rhett: An example would be to give a woman a flower. In that moment she will likely become almost completely absorbed in the flower as if it is herself, and its beauty her own. For her it is not so much a gift or even a reflection of herself, but the arisal of an object giving full power to femininity.

Try and imagine what this may be like.

Sue: I see what you’re driving at Rhett, and yes, it is a useful state to meditate upon. Of course, one wouldn’t want to become too absorbed or attached to such a state, as it is that lose, fluffy mind that is already attracting so many men away from propelling themselves into consciousness. I think it is better to discover that state of complete acceptance from deeply understanding God’s nature in all things.

Yes.

.

.

Matt Gregory wrote: Rhett: An example would be to give a woman a flower. In that moment she will likely become almost completely absorbed in the flower as if it is herself, and its beauty her own.

Matt: I actually doubt it happens like this. I'm sure she has a thought about how pretty the flower is, but I really doubt that she becomes wholly absorbed in that beauty. That would be very masculine.

In all likeliness, for the first moment she would be absorbed in the flower, then she would be absorbed by the notion of prettiness or beauty.

To abstract the flower, and say, compare it to other pretty things, to determine how pretty it is, would be masculine and not what she would do. Its prettiness would be determined by how it made her feel, in a basic positive (or negative) manner.

Matt: A woman receiving flowers would also be thinking about how they are going to enhance her: where she is going to put them, how much power she has over this male, what the flowers remind her of, etc.

These would come later. Such 'thoughts' would naturally arise for her, she would by no means undertake to think of these herself.

Matt: A woman is never wholly absorbed in anything other than the chaos and anxiety of her femininity.

Yes, as a proportion of her, emotional fuzziness is large, but when compared to a male mind, it is paltry.

My 'teaching' assumes the man will imagine a man size flower, and a woman size ego, then use this understanding to greater effect.


.

.

Leyla Shen wrote:Sue: To make the ego strong and single-minded in the goal of its own downfall, makes sense. If allowed to consider itself small and insignificant it can fool its owner of its true influence and strength – creating major problems further down the track. Better to see it as the Beast it is, and use it to destroy its self.

Leyla: Seriously, Sue. You're genuinely starting to worry me.

Why would the owner of a thing require that thing to destroy a thing of its own making?

Picture a ring of dominoes. If one domino kicks another over, they all end up falling, including the kicker.

Without a strong kick, however, they all remain standing.


.

Rhett wrote:

For a man to explore womanliness is mostly a terrifying experience.

That depends on how ‘womanly’ he is in the first place. If he knows the strength of his own mind he can turn that strength upon the feminine part of his mind in an effort to root her out.

A woman's 'life' is so lacking individuality, distinction, originality, most pertinently, thought itself, man sees her 'life' as death, and hastenes from it, knowing his very own life is at stake.

Woman has no existence apart from what man creates in his mind. If he loves her or fears her, he is equally attached to her. The only way to attack her is at the source – his mind. Prune away the attachment to status, comfort, and security, and you’ve made a good beginning at loosening the grip she has on your mind.

He can only do this by strengthening his consciousness, as a protective measure. He naturally wants to avoid death at all costs. Then his ego gets so big the inevitable is finally pursued and accepted.

Strengthen consciousness not only to protect against her, but to go into battle with her: that is, to go into battle with your own feminine weaknesses. The more you root her out of your mind, the less you’ll fall under her spell.

After this, and perhaps only after this, on later stages of the path, where some egotism is still present, my technique could be employed.

If you reach the stage where only “some egotism” is still present, you’re way past needing the technique you suggested – as by this stage, you know the nature of the feminine through and through.

What i am offering is really just a converse application of a technique used so commonly here. Using womanliness as a tool to increase consciousness, and using womanliness as a tool to decrease the ego.

The feminine (womanliness) stands in man’s way to greatness – just destroy those attachments which allow her to live in your mind, and be done with her.

I invite you to keep attacking it Sue, to see where it goes, if you like, although you have well expressed your views below, and there may be nothing more to say.

There’s always more to be said about the feminine. Man’s mind is often so full of her, he often doesn’t know where he begins and she ends.

-
Sue

Sue wrote:

There’s always more to be said about the feminine. Man’s mind is often so full of her, he often doesn’t know where he begins and she ends.

Praise the Lord. Amen!

.

Rhett Hamilton wrote:.

Leyla Shen wrote:Sue: To make the ego strong and single-minded in the goal of its own downfall, makes sense. If allowed to consider itself small and insignificant it can fool its owner of its true influence and strength – creating major problems further down the track. Better to see it as the Beast it is, and use it to destroy its self.

Leyla: Seriously, Sue. You're genuinely starting to worry me.

Why would the owner of a thing require that thing to destroy a thing of its own making?

Picture a ring of dominoes. If one domino kicks another over, they all end up falling, including the kicker.

Without a strong kick, however, they all remain standing.


.

Well, that's a very good graphic analogy. However, the owner appears to not be one of the dominoes. The power behind the kicking domino comes from something else -- "the owner." So, how does knocking down all these dominoes cause that thing to see that it has fooled itself in terms of kicking power?

.

Rhett Hamilton wrote:Matt: I don't agree with your definition of 'mind'. I would only consider it to contain what we're conscious of, and we're not fully conscious of our egos because if we were, our egos would disappear.

Rhett: So you think things exist beyond consciousness? How could that be so?

Matt: Well, possibilities exist. We could become conscious of things presently beyond consciousness in the future. The Big Bang existed x billion years ago because we are conscious of it today.

Rhett: The future has no existence at the present time, so it cannot rightly be said to exist beyond current consciousness.

That doesn't make any sense.

RH: In so much as a Big Bang exists in any given consciousness, a Big Bang exists in that given consciousness. Its that simple. To conceive of some kind of 'Ultimate Big Bang' residing beyond consciousness is to entertain an error of logic, as any Big Bang that could possibly be conceived of would necessarily occur within consciousness, or to be more correct, as consciousness itself.

I agree there is no Big Bang beyond consciousness, but there is Reality beyond consciousness and this is what the Big Bang is created from in our consciousness.

Rhett: There is necessarily consciousness of any egotism present in any given moment, otherwise it would not exist.

Matt: No, that's not right. You can't make things disappear by not thinking about them. That's like Merged Void material there.

RH: If something is no longer appearing then it seems only sensible to say that it has disappeared.

To put that a slightly different way; if you are thinking something, then it is appearing, . . . and whenever there is a transition to thinking something else, that previous thing has disappeared and has no existence.

I'm familiar with that idea, but it's not particularly useful in this situation. I mean, you do want to eliminate your ego, don't you? It's a practical matter that needs to be dealt with in practical terms. Trying to destroy a physical object with mental concepts just doesn't work.

Rhett: To illustrate using the above example, there was consciousness of the thought of an inherently existent self climbing a mountain, and consciousness of the depression felt. However, being conscious of the ego does not mean it is understood, or there is any effort to eradicate it.

Matt: What's the difference between being conscious of something and understanding it?

RH: To use the aforementioned example;

Being conscious of egotism means experiencing false abstractions and depression.

Understanding egotism means that it doesn't happen.

How would you express that as a universal principle, without using any example? I'm still not clear on it.

Matt wrote:

I agree there is no Big Bang beyond consciousness, but there is Reality beyond consciousness and this is what the Big Bang is created from in our consciousness.

Isn’t that kind of on the order of believing in life after death; the logic of it, I mean?

When you say “there is a Reality beyond consciousness,“ do you mean that things go on when you die?

.

Things go on in the consciousness of other people. Even when all consciousness in the universe dies, the universe itself will go on.

Matt,

How do you know for sure that other people exist - or that they have consciousness?

By "the universe", do you mean the Infinite?

-
Sue

Leyla wrote:

Sue: There’s always more to be said about the feminine. Man’s mind is often so full of her, he often doesn’t know where he begins and she ends.

Praise the Lord. Amen!

Well, I’m glad I could bring you a little joy – but this one thought fits in with everything else I’ve written about Woman on this thread. You took exception to the other points, so why do you like this one in particular?

-
Sue

sue hindmarsh wrote:How do you know for sure that other people exist - or that they have consciousness?

You know that no one can be certain if other (conscious) people exist or not. They probably do.

By "the universe", do you mean the Infinite?

Yep, the Totality.

.

sue hindmarsh wrote:Rhett: For a man to explore womanliness is mostly a terrifying experience.

Sue: That depends on how ‘womanly’ he is in the first place. If he knows the strength of his own mind he can turn that strength upon the feminine part of his mind in an effort to root her out.

I imagine exploring womanliness is terrifying for a man that is yet to develop an intellectual understanding of emptiness.

Conversely, for a man that has a notion of emptiness to work with and does so skillfully, learning about womanliness is deadly in a satisfying kind of way.

Rhett: A woman's 'life' is so lacking individuality, distinction, originality, most pertinently, thought itself, man sees her 'life' as death, and hastenes from it, knowing his very own life is at stake.

Sue: Woman has no existence apart from what man creates in his mind. If he loves her or fears her, he is equally attached to her. The only way to attack her is at the source – his mind. Prune away the attachment to status, comfort, and security, and you’ve made a good beginning at loosening the grip she has on your mind.

Generally speaking, women exist in man's mind as a female form and mostly worthless utterances. Men exist in man's mind as a male form and less regularly worthless utterances.

Womanliness exists as the desire to secure the ego in another thing, or to obliterate the ego through obliterating consciousness. Manliness exists as wisdom.

Loving women and fearing women shows key differences in mentality. If a man fears women it could be because he is attached to control, honesty, helping people, and the like, more so than he is her. Being subject to evolutionary urges pushing him in her direction, outside of his 'control', can be quite fear inducing. If a man can honestly say he is simply not interested when a woman makes him an offer, wishing also to thwart her desires for her sake, he is a long way developed.

Attachment to status, comfort and security, is a problem, as for attachment to being an insecure bum. However, it pays to be careful about some of these, because when attachment has been severed some necessarily come into play as part of any greater purpose. Greatness is unlikely to be achieved by someone no-one listens to, someone that is uncomfortable in respect to basic necessities, and someone who finds themself understandably thinking how to thwart the next bomb dropped in the war zone rather than its root in ignorance.

Rhett: He can only do this by strengthening his consciousness, as a protective measure. He naturally wants to avoid death at all costs. Then his ego gets so big the inevitable is finally pursued and accepted.

Sue: Strengthen consciousness not only to protect against her, but to go into battle with her: that is, to go into battle with your own feminine weaknesses. The more you root her out of your mind, the less you’ll fall under her spell.

Yes, continued rooting-out of falsity is good.

Rhett: After this, and perhaps only after this, on later stages of the path, where some egotism is still present, my technique could be employed.

Sue: If you reach the stage where only “some egotism” is still present, you’re way past needing the technique you suggested – as by this stage, you know the nature of the feminine through and through.

If one knew the feminine through and through, would that not be complete knowledge, in which case there would be no femininity left? That is the way i would see it. In that case feminine related tools would no longer be employed for one's personal development.

The technique i elucidated, if it has any worth, may be of worth at a different stage in a female path versus a male path. That might need some thinking about. It may be that a time will come where greater focus ought be placed on the unique elements of females pursuing a spiritual path.

Rhett: What i am offering is really just a converse application of a technique used so commonly here. Using womanliness as a tool to increase consciousness, and using womanliness as a tool to decrease the ego.

Sue: The feminine (womanliness) stands in man’s way to greatness – just destroy those attachments which allow her to live in your mind, and be done with her.

Yes, but perhaps the word 'just' would best be dropped.

Rhett: I invite you to keep attacking it Sue, to see where it goes, if you like, although you have well expressed your views below, and there may be nothing more to say.

Sue: There’s always more to be said about the feminine. Man’s mind is often so full of her, he often doesn’t know where he begins and she ends.

As i see it there is no existence in the feminine. The feminine is unconsciousness. Unconsciousness is thus never known. There is only the lack of consciousness.


.

.

Leyla Shen wrote:Sue: To make the ego strong and single-minded in the goal of its own downfall, makes sense. If allowed to consider itself small and insignificant it can fool its owner of its true influence and strength – creating major problems further down the track. Better to see it as the Beast it is, and use it to destroy its self.

Leyla: Seriously, Sue. You're genuinely starting to worry me. Why would the owner of a thing require that thing to destroy a thing of its own making?

Rhett: Picture a ring of dominoes. If one domino kicks another over, they all end up falling, including the kicker. Without a strong kick, however, they all remain standing.


Leyla: Well, that's a very good graphic analogy. However, the owner appears to not be one of the dominoes. The power behind the kicking domino comes from something else -- "the owner." So, how does knocking down all these dominoes cause that thing to see that it has fooled itself in terms of kicking power?

The appearance of the 'owner' as discrete is false. In actuality, the body is equally one of the dominoes.

Everything presents its appearance, e.g., the mountain, the rocks, the grasses, the sky, thoughts, depression, and perhaps a knee and foot raised to rest on a log, in anticipation of the climb ahead.

.

.

Matt Gregory wrote:Matt: I don't agree with your definition of 'mind'. I would only consider it to contain what we're conscious of, and we're not fully conscious of our egos because if we were, our egos would disappear.

Rhett: So you think things exist beyond consciousness? How could that be so?

Matt: Well, possibilities exist. We could become conscious of things presently beyond consciousness in the future. The Big Bang existed x billion years ago because we are conscious of it today.

Rhett: The future has no existence at the present time, so it cannot rightly be said to exist beyond current consciousness.

Matt: That doesn't make any sense.

It does Matt. The future is yet to manifest. To talk about it is to talk about that which has no existence.

Rhett: In so much as a Big Bang exists in any given consciousness, a Big Bang exists in that given consciousness. Its that simple. To conceive of some kind of 'Ultimate Big Bang' residing beyond consciousness is to entertain an error of logic, as any Big Bang that could possibly be conceived of would necessarily occur within consciousness, or to be more correct, as consciousness itself.

Matt: I agree there is no Big Bang beyond consciousness, but there is Reality beyond consciousness and this is what the Big Bang is created from in our consciousness.

For me Reality is that which has form, Reality occurs as consciousness. Pretty much everyone else thinks of it this way too. If Reality were to be beyond consciousness, no-one could ever be conscious of it, and of course would never know anything whatsoever about it.

For me Big Bangs are created from unconsciousness. If they were as you say created from consciousness, then they would have to go to unconsciousness, and then they wouldn't be seen.

Rhett: There is necessarily consciousness of any egotism present in any given moment, otherwise it would not exist.

Matt: No, that's not right. You can't make things disappear by not thinking about them. That's like Merged Void material there.

Rhett: If something is no longer appearing then it seems only sensible to say that it has disappeared.

To put that a slightly different way; if you are thinking something, then it is appearing, . . . and whenever there is a transition to thinking something else, that previous thing has disappeared and has no existence.

Matt: I'm familiar with that idea, but it's not particularly useful in this situation. I mean, you do want to eliminate your ego, don't you? It's a practical matter that needs to be dealt with in practical terms. Trying to destroy a physical object with mental concepts just doesn't work.

Trying to destroy anything that by your definition one is not conscious of, is definitely not practical, and will not work.

The ego not only resides in respect to the body seen and imagined. And even then, the body need not be destroyed for egotism to be destroyed.

Rhett: To illustrate using the above example, there was consciousness of the thought of an inherently existent self climbing a mountain, and consciousness of the depression felt. However, being conscious of the ego does not mean it is understood, or there is any effort to eradicate it.

Matt: What's the difference between being conscious of something and understanding it?

Rhett: To use the aforementioned example;

Being conscious of egotism means experiencing false abstractions and depression.

Understanding egotism means that it doesn't happen.

Matt: How would you express that as a universal principle, without using any example? I'm still not clear on it.

Consciousness of egotism is the experience of emotions and false abstractions.

Understanding of egotism means that these don't happen.

.

sue hindmarsh wrote:Leyla wrote:

Sue: There’s always more to be said about the feminine. Man’s mind is often so full of her, he often doesn’t know where he begins and she ends.

Praise the Lord. Amen!

Well, I’m glad I could bring you a little joy – but this one thought fits in with everything else I’ve written about Woman on this thread. You took exception to the other points, so why do you like this one in particular?

-
Sue

It does more than "fit in," Sue. I did not take exception to the other points, I took exception to the absence of this one in them; as I will always because I think it's worth being vigilant in exposing the little side scripts (and I mean that in its technical rather than "frankian" sense) like "Nick" for what they really are.

.