GENIUS FORUMS

You're easily oppressed, Sam.

Tell it to David! lol ...

I finally checked back in and found that David Quinn has never replied to my last post to him here on 1/14. *
Has he quit the forum? I haven't done a "search" (don't know how) but don't see any posts on top since he quit on me.
Maybe I drove him into contemplative exile.... but I doubt it.
Are you still here, David.
* For easy access, here is the last post in question:
-----------------
David,
You didn't reply to my last post. You effectively ducked my response. (Ignore it and maybe it will go away?) Maybe not. I will however bump it one more time in the interest of truth telling about what enlightenment is.

Here is an edited version of the unanswered reply:
---------------
DQ wrote:
"No one here has ever said that it is limited to Buddhism. However, it isn't enough simply to expose the illusory nature of the ego. One also has to expose and eliminate all of the habits and delusions which have supported the illusion over the years, going back to early childhood. These habits and delusions are deeply entrenched in the brain and can't be undone overnight. It involves a long, long process of reversing a lifetime of bad habits.

That is what worries me when you say that you one day "popped" your ego and that's that. It leads me to think that you are not fully aware of what's involved. "

m: One... Who? "...has to expose and eliminate all of the habits and delusions which have supported the illusion over the years,..."
"One" who still sees himself as a separate identity has "work to do" to reach the realization of unity beyond this illusory duality.

When I said that all my personal programs about "personal identiy" "popped", that experience included the "habits and delusions" you speak of.
It is true that they "have supported the illusion over the years, going back to early childhood." My 22yr carreer in pschotherapy has given me an appreciation of how deeply rooted the illusion of "separate self" really is. I regret to inform you that you are still suffering from it.
That you still think of your "self" as the active agent who must purge himself of all lack of "perfection"... this speaks clearly of your own illusion... no matter how "wise" you aspire to be.

You wrote: "That is what worries me when you say that you one day "popped" your ego and that's that. It leads me to think that you are not fully aware of what's involved"

This statement makes me wonder how much of my "awakening story" you have read, either here or on my site.
I have no "attachment" to whether you know my true story of awakining or not. But the truth is (and has been very available to you) that I "sat" for an hour a day for 25 years before the journey that took me to the "breakthrough." That alone was over 9,000 hours of peaceful, blissful transcendence *before* the "final approach" (two months at 8-12 hrs a day) and then the near death experince, very nearly drowning at sea.
My very brief "story" before that is easily found on my website, if you are actually interested."Selflessness" is the short version, and "My Journey to Awakening" fleshes it out a bit more, tho still a quick read.
I really wonder how much more you "think should be... involved" as a lifelong intention toward true spiritual awakeing.

DQ: "Are you now immortal? "

Again "you" Who?" This individual? Of course not! This Consciousness (identical with The Consciousness)... Yes, of course!This is the universal real- "I"-zation (please indulge the word-play) among all who wake up from the ego dream (the illusion.)

DQ: "f there no longer any self or other, then who is doing the compassion and who is receiving it?"

"If you identify with the Awareness alone and not its contents, then what would motivate you to eliminate one piece of content of Awareness and elevate another?"

m: The "motivation" you speak of is egocentric motivation based on ego's mental *concepts about* "content."
"Content" naturally arises in consciousness. There is no "motivation" to change the content, as it is already the *perfect* content for "right now" for "this individual" in all curcumstances. (including new inspirations and changes in intentional focus... for a better world.
The "who" you are inquiring of is the One Consciousness Who is aware of this local, individual perspective, without the illusion of "my awareness" (implying this awareness *of* specific content) or "my consciousness", the "personal agent" or capacity for this local awareness.

DQ: "I'm curious to know if you are married, and if you are, how this "unconditional love" plays out in a marriage situation."

I am reluctant to share such personal info with you because of your predisposition to categorize and judge based on your personal biases about "emotions." Maybe after a certain level of respect is established between us I will share that information, which is common knowledge in my "real life" here......

DQ: "
As I say, it is possible to have a connection to Awareness and yet still retain all the deep roots of the ego hidden beneath the surface. It is easy for a person who believes that he identifies with Awareness to erect mental blocks about his own egotistical behaviour and to rationalize it away when he does perceive it. I see this all the time."

m: Yes it is possible and easy, as you say. This may be your case, which you constantly project onto everyone sharing "enlightenment" here in your forum. I guess you are here to cut everyone down to your own size. I mean this with all due compassion for your obvious suffering and struggle.
I think I will "go" now, as you are so cynical that you will not give true testimony on enlightenment a fair space to air and share and dialogue.
I do believe you should change the site subtitle to something more appropriate to your obvious intent and prejudice here.
Maybe something like:
"Enlightment is David Quinn's Ideal of Perfection, and All Others are Pretenders (or Deluded.)... (a forum to discuss this premise.)

For easy ref., as I (probably) leave... my site:
http://www.consciousunity.org
My teacher's site (no "worship" involved... I "graduated!"):
http://www.centerforsacredsciences.org/
Namaste'
mikiel
----------------
Well, there it is again.
Going... going...
---------------------

Well, this will be the last "bump" on this. Maybe I knocked him off his high horse. Probably not. But I spoke the truth of my awakening. If it did scare him away... fine. This is the end of the challenge.

(Maybe I'll join other dialogues here... maybe not.)
mikiel

mikiel,

Laird and I are having a discussion about enlightenment on the Does It Matter or Not thread. I made a post around the middle of page 3 (Tue Jan 22, 2008 8:13 am) that was looking for your input. I would really appreciate it if you would peruse that discussion and give us some of your feedback. It would certainly be helpful to both of us. Thanks!

samadhi wrote:mikiel,

Laird and I are having a discussion about enlightenment on the Does It Matter or Not thread. I made a post around the middle of page 3 (Tue Jan 22, 2008 8:13 am) that was looking for your input. I would really appreciate it if you would peruse that discussion and give us some of your feedback. It would certainly be helpful to both of us. Thanks!

Thank you for the invite samadhi, but I've already spent 14 yrs dealing with people like Laird (to no avail) who deny the possibility of permanent ego transcendence, and it's like arguing with fundy Christians... no point in it.

(I read the thread from pg 3 on... a long read going 'round and 'round over the same batch of basic impasses... again, no point in arguing with folks like Laird.)

If he or anyone else is interested in my true testimony about enlightenment s/he can start with my re-post to David above and then, *if interested* follow with a study of my site and my teachers site (as above)... who is very down to earth and talks plainly about enlightenment as selflessness.

One possibility that came to mind as I read the above thread was to start a thread on the subject of "choiceless awareness" kicking it off with my experience of how "choice" changed after my illusion of separate (from "Kosmos") self disintegrated. (Like fulfillment of a non-religious version of the intent to surrender the selfish "self" (ego) as expressed in the prayer/mantra "Thy will be done.")

Another tack might be to share how my life has changed into an effortless manifestation of the "universal will" as manifest "locally" through this life... (Way beyond my highest dreams/aspirations as a "personal identity!")

The opener, in either scenario would require some understanding of the gramatical use of first person singular as a designator of this individual without the misunderstanding that it denotes an actual identity... this just a housekeeping (semantics) consideration. I say "I" lke anyone else... very awkward to say "this one" or whatever instead... but the experience of "self" disappeared with the hardwired bio-computer program of "me." This is undeniable as the common experience of all enlightened ones.
(And my run-on sentences are just a nuance to "put up with"... stream of consciousness as a natural "style", if you will.)

Well... I'll wait 'til the inspiration strikes... if ever...
Spontenaity rules!! :)
mikiel

mikiel wrote:I've already spent 14 yrs dealing with people like Laird (to no avail) who deny the possibility of permanent ego transcendence, and it's like arguing with fundy Christians... no point in it.

Dude, I can't believe that you just compared me with a fundamentalist Christian. My mind's so open that it's constantly falling out. On the other hand, I can recognise abuse of reason when I see it. You want me to believe that you've "transcended" your ego and then on the other hand you go out to parties and get drunk! Ha! What is inebriation but an ultimate act of the ego: pleasure-seeking for the self?

mikiel wrote:(I read the thread from pg 3 on... a long read going 'round and 'round over the same batch of basic impasses... again, no point in arguing with folks like Laird.)

My thoughts exactly, except for "Laird" substitute "Sam". That's why I abandoned our original thread of discussion to take up the meta-discussion.

mikiel wrote:If he or anyone else is interested in my true testimony about enlightenment s/he can start with my re-post to David above and then, *if interested* follow with a study of my site and my teachers site (as above)... who is very down to earth and talks plainly about enlightenment as selflessness.

If plain and simple "selflessness" is where enlightenment's at then I'm way cool with it, but selflessness doesn't entail a lack of ego, which is what you are claiming to have achieved.

All conscious agents have egos. If they don't have egos then they're not conscious. So are you conscious or not?

Hi Laird,
Spontenaity is a wonderful and joyful thing. When I posted above I was nearly certain that engaging with you would be "pointless." Most of your post confirmed that... what with your harsh judgement about my "lifestyle'... having no clue that enlightenment does not preclude celebration of life in ways that don't conform to your personal "diss-ing" of those who use alcohol or "drugs" or whatever...
(L: " Ha! What is inebriation but an ultimate act of the ego: pleasure-seeking for the self?")
Are you really that judgemental about the evils of alcohol? You have no idea of my level of moderation in joyful celebration, tho I have been known to get drunk years ago... some years after my awakening... see my ""Roadtrip" page. It was a matter of inertia with old habits... now fine with my version of moderation... probably not yours. (Oh well!) But I'm still clumsy sometimes in relationships... not one's usual idea of "perfection."

And my comparison of you to fundy Cristians was specific to closed mindedness, about which you clearly have a blind spot, as I will explain.
You closed with:
"If plain and simple "selflessness" is where enlightenment's at then I'm way cool with it, but selflessness doesn't entail a lack of ego, which is what you are claiming to have achieved.
All conscious agents have egos. If they don't have egos then they're not conscious. So are you conscious or not?"

"Plain and simple 'selflessness' will do fine for what enlightenment is if you totally "get" what it means... as in *total* surrender of who you think you are into the One Identity (Consciousness) in all.

As I said in my last post:
(Like fulfillment of a non-religious version of the intent to surrender the selfish "self" (ego) as expressed in the prayer/mantra "Thy will be done.")
Here is what you clearly do not "get" in all of this. "I" is the local (in "this guy")manifestation of universal consciousness. This "I" dosn't
"claim" anything. This whole concept of the "me" who owns stuff is false.
"I" have not "achieved" lack of ego. Ego (selfish) "self" is false identiy from the git-go... always. Awakening is realization of true Identity... the One Identity in all... sans all the religious dogma... in all "Traditions."
There is One "conscious agent" in all forms/individuals. "It" does *not have* an ego.
You are incapable of "grokking" this because you are absolutely certain that "your ego"... the "separate self" you know and love is real... not just for you but for everyone.
Not so after awakening/enlightenment.
True testimony.
Good night.
michael

Laird: All conscious agents have egos. If they don't have egos then they're not conscious. So are you conscious or not?"

Michael: "Plain and simple 'selflessness' will do fine for what enlightenment is if you totally "get" what it means... as in *total* surrender of who you think you are into the One Identity (Consciousness) in all.

So, Michael, would or does *total* surrender of who you think you are into the One Identity (Consciousness) in all, in any way alter or transform the identity, as in you, Michael, trying to express your experiences of surrender, or has it in any way created a lack of continuous memory of the “I” particularly belonging to Michael, which cumulatively hold all the essence of experiences over the years of meditation, including a near death experience you particularly experienced?

Do you in any way think that consciousness is something apart from any particular thing?

Do you think this One Consciousness would be possible if there were absolutely no thing other than “it” around?

mikiel wrote:Are you really that judgemental about the evils of alcohol?

No - are you really that quick to jump to conclusions? If you had followed my posts to GF over the time that I've been here you would know that I occasionally post here whilst drunk myself, and I'm not one to condemn in others that which I practice. I occasionally even get into a state of inebriation that might well be termed "shitfaced". My qualms are not with you doing the same, but with you claiming to be egoless whilst doing so. Drunkenness is in my opinion mostly about gratifying the ego. But I'm willing to give you a fair hearing - so please explain what purpose drunkenness serves to a man without an ego.

mikiel wrote:But I'm still clumsy sometimes in relationships... not one's usual idea of "perfection."

Aren't we all? Like true egolessness, true perfection would seem to be unattainable.

mikiel wrote:"Plain and simple 'selflessness' will do fine for what enlightenment is if you totally "get" what it means... as in *total* surrender of who you think you are into the One Identity (Consciousness) in all.

You didn't answer my question specifically, but you did describe a unified consciousness, so I take it that you do still consider yourself to be conscious. By my reasoning then, you still have an ego, whether or not you choose to identify that ego with something greater than yourself (the "One Identity").

mikiel wrote:Here is what you clearly do not "get" in all of this. "I" is the local (in "this guy")manifestation of universal consciousness. This "I" dosn't
"claim" anything. This whole concept of the "me" who owns stuff is false.

Yeah, you're right that I clearly don't get this. Clearly as a practical entity the selves ("me"s) of human beings do exist, and in practical and legal terms these selves do own things. I don't really see how it could work any other way, but please go ahead and enlighten me.

mikiel wrote:"I" have not "achieved" lack of ego. Ego (selfish) "self" is false identiy from the git-go... always. Awakening is realization of true Identity... the One Identity in all... sans all the religious dogma... in all "Traditions."
There is One "conscious agent" in all forms/individuals. "It" does *not have* an ego.
You are incapable of "grokking" this because you are absolutely certain that "your ego"... the "separate self" you know and love is real... not just for you but for everyone.
Not so after awakening/enlightenment.

Right, well it doesn't make any sense to me at all, no. As I wrote to you in my last post, to be conscious is to have an ego. But look, I'm interested to know what you're actually experiencing, so please tell me how you do experience yourself right now. Give me a blow by blow description of the experience of writing a post to GF as an awakened/enlightened man. Be sure not to use the words "I" or "me" now - I want this to be as perfect a description of enlightened behaviour as you can manage.

Laird wrote:
If plain and simple "selflessness" is where enlightenment's at then I'm way cool with it, but selflessness doesn't entail a lack of ego, which is what you are claiming to have achieved.

All conscious agents have egos. If they don't have egos then they're not conscious. So are you conscious or not?

Sorry to butt in Laird, but I could not help sharing my views on this topic.

I define ego as an image of the self created by the mind, for example I am a rich/beautiful/ugly/sinful/virtuous person. Apart from this mental image there is still the conscious self. Thus the ego can end and the self remain. I think this is what the genuine masters were pointing to, and not of course the end of the self and merging with the universe which as you rightly point is unconsciousness.

mikiel,

mikiel wrote:Thank you for the invite samadhi, but I've already spent 14 yrs dealing with people like Laird (to no avail) who deny the possibility of permanent ego transcendence, and it's like arguing with fundy Christians... no point in it.

I understand about the arguing. I don't do it to convince him, he can believe what he wants, but because I enjoy talking about it.

(I read the thread from pg 3 on... a long read going 'round and 'round over the same batch of basic impasses... again, no point in arguing with folks like Laird.)

I appreciate you taking the time. I thought having someone with direct experience offer a perspective on it would be valuable, regardless of whether anyone's mind changes or not.

If he or anyone else is interested in my true testimony about enlightenment s/he can start with my re-post to David above and then, *if interested* follow with a study of my site and my teachers site (as above)... who is very down to earth and talks plainly about enlightenment as selflessness.

I like your site, your teacher's is good too.

One possibility that came to mind as I read the above thread was to start a thread on the subject of "choiceless awareness" kicking it off with my experience of how "choice" changed after my illusion of separate (from "Kosmos") self disintegrated. (Like fulfillment of a non-religious version of the intent to surrender the selfish "self" (ego) as expressed in the prayer/mantra "Thy will be done.")

Another tack might be to share how my life has changed into an effortless manifestation of the "universal will" as manifest "locally" through this life... (Way beyond my highest dreams/aspirations as a "personal identity!")

Any thread you might start I think would offer a great deal to anyone here who has a real interest, as opposed to just making points. I'm sure that's not many but maybe someone.

Well... I'll wait 'til the inspiration strikes... if ever...
Spontenaity rules!! :)

I hope it does, I'll look for it! :)

Laird wrote:

mikiel wrote:Are you really that judgemental about the evils of alcohol?

No - are you really that quick to jump to conclusions? If you had followed my posts to GF over the time that I've been here you would know that I occasionally post here whilst drunk myself, and I'm not one to condemn in others that which I practice. I occasionally even get into a state of inebriation that might well be termed "shitfaced". My qualms are not with you doing the same, but with you claiming to be egoless whilst doing so. Drunkenness is in my opinion mostly about gratifying the ego. But I'm willing to give you a fair hearing - so please explain what purpose drunkenness serves to a man without an ego.
Well, for openers, you've still got "me claiming" to be egoless tho "I" (cipher for this individual) disclaimed "claiming." I know ego as a bio-computer program which is transcended at Liberation, which is Freedom from all cultural/personal/institutional conditioning.

mikiel wrote:But I'm still clumsy sometimes in relationships... not one's usual idea of "perfection."

Aren't we all? Like true egolessness, true perfection would seem to be unattainable.
"Perfection" is a personal moral judgement in your (and David's) mind. Right now my attempt to address your misconceptions about enlightenment is perfect intent for this individual in this moment.

mikiel wrote:"Plain and simple 'selflessness' will do fine for what enlightenment is if you totally "get" what it means... as in *total* surrender of who you think you are into the One Identity (Consciousness) in all.

You didn't answer my question specifically, but you did describe a unified consciousness, so I take it that you do still consider yourself to be conscious. By my reasoning then, you still have an ego, whether or not you choose to identify that ego with something greater than yourself (the "One Identity").

Your concept of "me" as per "yourself" above is your concept limited by your definition (to 'make finite') of ego... which everyone (separate 'selves') are required to "have" (see earlier ref to ownership) by your limited definition. All you assumptions about "me" are false. Reminds me of the old saw: "Have you stopped beating your wife?... yes or no!" You are unwilling to even consider the reality of enlightenment as ego transcendence, so it is, as previously suspected, futile to say more, given your cast-in-stone mindset and on 'ego."
"...something greater than "my" SELF, indeed! Kosmos as omnipresent consciousness/identity-in-all is total bullshit to you. What can i say to that.(

mikiel wrote:Here is what you clearly do not "get" in all of this. "I" is the local (in "this guy")manifestation of universal consciousness. This "I" dosn't
"claim" anything. This whole concept of the "me" who owns stuff is false.

Yeah, you're right that I clearly don't get this. Clearly as a practical entity the selves ("me"s) of human beings do exist, and in practical and legal terms these selves do own things. I don't really see how it could work any other way, but please go ahead and enlighten me.

OK. Here it is. My gift to you. Enlightenment. (kidding... no one can "enlighten" anyone else!) How 'bout some more words. Yummy!
There is One Light in All. Call it what you will. I'll say universal consciousness. There, you "have" it!

mikiel wrote:"I" have not "achieved" lack of ego. Ego (selfish) "self" is false identiy from the git-go... always. Awakening is realization of true Identity... the One Identity in all... sans all the religious dogma... in all "Traditions."
There is One "conscious agent" in all forms/individuals. "It" does *not have* an ego.
You are incapable of "grokking" this because you are absolutely certain that "your ego"... the "separate self" you know and love is real... not just for you but for everyone.
Not so after awakening/enlightenment.

Right, well it doesn't make any sense to me at all, no. As I wrote to you in my last post, to be conscious is to have an ego. But look, I'm interested to know what you're actually experiencing, so please tell me how you do experience yourself right now. Give me a blow by blow description of the experience of writing a post to GF as an awakened/enlightened man. Be sure not to use the words "I" or "me" now - I want this to be as perfect a description of enlightened behaviour as you can manage.

Under your particular set of rules and definitions of reality, there is no way for me to "make sense" of IT to you.
My "blow by blow" is that this attempt, tho obviously futile, is the best i can do *right now*, therefore "perfect."

I will close with my brief excahnge with David (in above post) as follows:
----------
David Quinn:
"As I say, it is possible to have a connection to Awareness and yet still retain all the deep roots of the ego hidden beneath the surface. It is easy for a person who believes that he identifies with Awareness to erect mental blocks about his own egotistical behaviour and to rationalize it away when he does perceive it. I see this all the time."

mikiel: "Yes it is possible and easy, as you say. This may be your case, which you constantly project onto everyone sharing "enlightenment" here in your forum. I guess you are here to cut everyone down to your own size. I mean this with all due compassion for your obvious suffering and struggle."
-----------
Ditto, Laird.
Sorry, but that's all I've got for you.
mikiel

maestro wrote:I define ego as an image of the self created by the mind, for example I am a rich/beautiful/ugly/sinful/virtuous person. Apart from this mental image there is still the conscious self.

That's an interesting definition but if you consult the dictionary (at least the same one that I consulted - dictionary.com) you'll find that it's an unusual one. The usual one is that the ego is the actual self, not merely a mental image of that self.

maestro wrote:Thus the ego can end and the self remain. I think this is what the genuine masters were pointing to, and not of course the end of the self and merging with the universe which as you rightly point is unconsciousness.

Why might one want to end that form of ego anyhow though? Isn't self-judgment important? How else do we improve ourselves if not by evaluating ourselves and working out how we can do better?

mikiel, this is turning into a fruitless discussion because you refuse to engage seriously. I challenged you to explain what use alcohol might have to an egoless man and you dodged the question. I requested that you give me some idea of what enlightenment is like for you by providing a blow-by-blow description of an everyday enlightened experience and you dodged that too. Let alone that what you're saying is flat-out irrational - if you no longer had a self then you plainly and simply wouldn't be alive, unless we speculate that you have been possessed by the Devil so that your biological shell is now a robot and your true self has been destroyed in hell. Should we be calling for the exorcist?

Laird wrote: Why might one want to end that form of ego anyhow though? Isn't self-judgment important? How else do we improve ourselves if not by evaluating ourselves and working out how we can do better?

If you know yourself through the mind you limit yourself, since the mind creates its conceptions from outside. Thus you are at the mercy of the world and its judgement. In my reading of many enlightened people the self is the one behind the mind, and since the mind nowhere sees the self whatever view it forms is distorted and limited.

Further if you see yourself through the mind you will forever be attached to the mind, and the possibility of ending its various compulsions and obsessions is greatly diminished. The ending of viewing oneself from the mind and "being as you are" without trying to define or visualize yourself and "living in the now" relieves tremendous amount of stress and unhappiness.

maestro wrote:

Laird wrote: Why might one want to end that form of ego anyhow though? Isn't self-judgment important? How else do we improve ourselves if not by evaluating ourselves and working out how we can do better?

If you know yourself through the mind you limit yourself, since the mind creates its conceptions from outside. Thus you are at the mercy of the world and its judgement. In my reading of many enlightened people the self is the one behind the mind, and since the mind nowhere sees the self whatever view it forms is distorted and limited.

Further if you see yourself through the mind you will forever be attached to the mind, and the possibility of ending its various compulsions and obsessions is greatly diminished. The ending of viewing oneself from the mind and "being as you are" without trying to define or visualize yourself and "living in the now" relieves tremendous amount of stress and unhappiness.

I too couldn’t help but share my view, Maestro.

In no way could the 'mind' be any other thing than a particularly thinking 'self', otherwise something else is doing the thinking, in which case, I might as well stop arguing because most assuredly I (self) can.

In saying “my” mind, I am already making a grave mistake of creating a separate identity, namely, “self” against the “mind”, and all the while through the very same process of 'thinking', also known as a particular mind or a particular self. Self ("I") does not do the thinking, thinking (mind) tells that there is a particular Self that thinks, or has a mind because cognitive thinking is self-reflective. Mind, or Self, or the “I” of the “mind”, is one and the same thing. In other words, you cannot separate the “I” (self) of a particular “mind”, otherwise there would be neither.

Well there is consciousness besides the thinking of the mind.

Look at it this way, the mind is a thinking organ, but is it really the seat of consciousness?

Maestro;

Well there is consciousness besides the thinking of the mind.

Of course, but that depends on which kind of “consciousness” you are talking about; A cat consciousness? A bug consciousness? Or a quantum particle consciousness? But as far as humans go, we have an abstract thought assisted - cognitively self-reflective consciousness, (I don’t know how else to say it), defined as ‘mind’ for easy linguistic reference or communication.

Look at it this way, the mind is a thinking organ, but is it really the seat of consciousness?

The mind is a thinking ORGAN? Am I reading this right? Do you think the physical brain and its electro-chemical signaling is one and the same thing?

And what has the question of ‘where is the seat of consciousness?’ got to do with the seat of “my” particular “self” or “mind”? If everything is ‘out there’, then there can’t be anything ‘in here’, and if there is nothing ‘in here’ then there can’t be anything ‘out there’ either, because then “I” could never ever KNOW it, (contrary to MY experiences). I know the “I” because there is something other than me to begin with, otherwise I could never ever know an “I” or anything at all.

There is an I and there is thought. Is the I not separate from thought, it seems to me that it is.

I think you are defining the mind to be identical to consciousness, whereas my definition of mind is the thinking organ nothing else. In fact without language my mind does not even exist.

Maestro;

There is an I and there is thought. Is the I not separate from thought, it seems to me that it is.

No, “I” is a thought as well, as far as human mind goes that is; however, at the core of it all, one doesn’t need to “think” of an “I”, or better yet a “self”, for one already “knows” THAT sensually, way before one can thoughtfully or cognitively formulate a conception through language and define it as an “I” or “self”, otherwise say a newborn could not coherently operate with its environment without sensing that the environment is not me. And THAT sensual “I” is the REAL EGO – the “I” of the human mind for us, the REAL SELF, not the false ego that later selfishly acquires pride through thinking say ‘I exist inherently’, (that is, exist totally independent and hence unconcerned of all else that there is).

I think you are defining the mind to be identical to consciousness, whereas my definition of mind is the thinking organ nothing else.

I cannot get around the face that you are calling ‘mind’ an “organ”. I have mentioned many a times, my English is not that good and hence I heavily rely on a dictionary. Could you please explain that part? And what if I were?

In fact without language my mind does not even exist.

No, the deaf and dumb have a mind too, and so does a minkey. (Original Inspector Clouseau (Peter Sellers) style)

Sapius wrote: No, “I” is a thought as well, as far as human mind goes that is; however, at the core of it all, one doesn’t need to “think” of an “I”, or better yet a “self”, for one already “knows” THAT sensually, way before one can thoughtfully or cognitively formulate a conception through language and define it as an “I” or “self”, otherwise say a newborn could not coherently operate with its environment without sensing that the environment is not me. And THAT sensual “I” is the REAL EGO – the “I” of the human mind for us, the REAL SELF, not the false ego that later selfishly acquires pride through thinking say ‘I exist inherently’, (that is, exist totally independent and hence unconcerned of all else that there is).

Okay so what you refer to as the sensual I, I refer to as the self.

What you say as the false ego I refer to as the ego.

Now you see how ego can die and still leave the self intact. This is what I read in all the wise men recommending ego death.

Sapius wrote:

I think you are defining the mind to be identical to consciousness, whereas my definition of mind is the thinking organ nothing else.

I cannot get around the face that you are calling ‘mind’ an “organ”. I have mentioned many a times, my English is not that good and hence I heavily rely on a dictionary. Could you please explain that part? And what if I were?

In fact without language my mind does not even exist.

No, the deaf and dumb have a mind too, and so does a minkey. (Original Inspector Clouseau (Peter Sellers) style)

Here again, by mind I do not mean the brain, or various other faculties such as cognition and such. I specifically refer to only the thinking part, if organ terminology is confusing then we can say thinking module.

Why am I making this distinction is because I think many enlightened ones refered to the mind in this fashion, the reason being that they perceived themselves sensually, unlike many people today who do not directly observe themselves but rely on labels transmitted by science or education. In my experience I do not see the whole of brain's activity, but perceive thinking cognition etc. I put the label mind on the thinking process. The thinking process requires some sort of language. Maybe deaf dumb think in sign language.

Maestro, I believe since you refer to enlightened people or how they expressed themselves, or specially the death of the ego they recommended, you might be interested in U.G. KRISHNAMURTI. Do you know of him? Videos here.

I know him, he was an intelligent man with some good points, but was also frivolous in a way. Maybe he was trying to break the aura around enlightened people which is good.

maestro wrote:I know him, he was an intelligent man with some good points, but was also frivolous in a way. Maybe he was trying to break the aura around enlightened people which is good.

I agree. However, I understand him perfectly well.

Commentary on ego from The Eye of the I:

Q: What of the duality of ego versus spirit?
A: This is one of the prime sets of opposites that has to be transcended. It is helpful to look at the two concepts operationally. In the state of being at One with the Spirit, the Self, by virtue of one of its innate qualities, knows at all times. In the world of form, the ego is hard set to duplicate this effortless, instantaneous performace, and over time, it has thus evolved an extremely conplex set of operations. The ego could be called the central processing and planning center, the integrative, executive strategic and tactical focus which orchestrates, copes, sorts, stores, and retrieves. In addition, it chooses among options and evaluates, weighs, compares, and categorizes those options. To do this, it requires abstractions, symbols, hiierarchies of meanings and values, prioritization, and selection.

This is made more effective by constant acquisition of facts and their realignment into modified strata of meaning and significance in order to effect endless detail, and at the same time, overall, to seek pleasure and survival and avoid that which lacks pleasure or is painful. This complex performance requires extreme degrees of education, training, and development of tools of cognition and mentation, called intelligence and logic. Another overriding function of the ego is to analyze, correlate, integrate, synthesize, memorize, subordinate, arrange, and develop complex programs of faculties, skills, and behavioral patterns.

Behind this dazzling performance is "the great Oz," called the "I." The existence of this "I" is hypothecated because the performance of the ego has to do with form, and it integrates all its experience under the belief system called "causality." Therefore, the great OZ is the central focus of this causality and, as in sentence structure, the"I" becomes the imputed subject and the "me" the imputed object of actions and experience.

Q: As one advances in consciousness, the question arises, is the great Oz the "I," a "who," or a "what?"
A: Because the ego deals in form and definition, it cannot comprened the Self, which is beyond all form but without which form would not appear to exist, In Reality, there is neither subject nor object; therefore, there is no relationship to be explained. No causality is necessary, which then precludes time and space, or doer versus experiencer.

In a peculiar way, the ego is caught in the famous dyad of perpetrator versus victim. As the subject, it imputes itself as cause and therfore perpetrator; if it disowns that definition, it then becomes the object and therefore the martyr or victim. The ego thinks, "If I'm not causing something, then something out there is doing it to me." This is the primary concept of today's construction of social interaction in which society is seen as the alteration between victim and victimizer.

Q: How can one get out of this trap?
A: Although various methods have been described, one that is helful is to cease having opinions about anything. Because all opinions are vanities, they are based on duality and tend to reinforce it. It is observable, for instance, that spiritual organizations which have a very high calibrated rating have "no opinions on outside matters."

Q: After what has been called enlightenment, what remains of the former personal self?
A: The inner state is similar to sleep in that there is silence, peace, and stillness. There is no volition, movement, or form. There is an absence of thoughts or mental activitiy.

It takes volition and energy to focus attention from the formlessness of the Self to the processing of information. Consciousness in its higher states merely notes the interaction of essenses, presences, and significances as they are prevailingly held by the world. To pay attention to detail and form takes more energy and is accomplished only by an act of the will as a response to the value of life. What is left of what the world would consider the personal self is a shadow of the former persona, but it has no desires, wishes, or needs. It has no desire to control events, circumstances or people. It lacks nothing within itself; therefore it does not seek gain inasmuch as all is complete at every moment. There is not even a desire for continuance. There is nothing one needs or wants to experience.

The central focus of the ego which was relinquished was replaced by the more pervasive and powerful effect of the presence of the Holy Spirit, which effortlessly orchestrates simultaneity and synchronicity as it automatically sorts out the irrelevant from the relevant because it interacts only with Reality. Thus, what appears to be a miracle is merely the action of the Holy Spirit sorting out the false from the true so that what appeared to be imperfection is revealed as perfection. To the ego, which deals in causality, no such occurrence is logical or possible, but to the Spirit, this quality is automatic and inherent to Reality.

Q: We often hear the rationalization that a person needs some form of ego in order to survive. What is the truth about that?
A: This is an understandable question and rises from the belief in causality. The ego as we know it has a large number of complex operations. It imagines that there is an "I" behind these operations. In actuality, these operations are autonomous and do not require an "I." The main transistion occurs when one no longer identifies with these operations and no longer assumes there is a volitional, independent entity behind them.

This is easy to understand if one looks at one's relationship to the body. Although people loosely call it "me,"they don't refer to their knee as "me;" they call it "mine." The knee is a phycicality which operates without thinking. The operations of the body are extremely complex, similar to those of the ego, and occur autonomously. When one stops identifying with either the body or the mind, the functions continue autonomously but merely without identification as "myself." The sense of authorship disappears. Ongoing survival is autonomous and continuance is an expression of consciousness in its alliance with the Holy Spirit. The prevailing conditions are related to karma [choice] and operate impersonally. Karma then becomes part of the impersonal conditions which are in accord as appearance.

By analogy, one can enjoy beautiful music without the ego's claiiming authorship for the origination of the music itself. The enjoyment is spontaneous. If one claims authorship for the music, then many anxieties and feelings arise which have to do with belief systems about perfection, approval, desirability, and acceptance.

According to the Eye of the I, then, an enlightened mind does no thinking?