Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [Meditation Society of America] ego death?

Expand Messages
  • Doug
    ... ___________________ Sent by a member of the Mystic Village, the online Zen Meditation School. http://www.theMysticVillage.com ___________________
    Message 1 of 13 , Jan 7, 2004
    • 0 Attachment
      -----
      On Tue, 6 Jan 2004 11:26:52 -0600 (CST), gryan@... wrote:
      > What is this ego death of which you speak?
      -----

      Hello Jerry.

      To step into this conversation and offer a Buddhist perspective on ego
      death I'd have to bring up a bit of Buddhist Psychology. Ego death in
      the Buddhist sense involves the devolution of five components which make
      up and support our illusory sense of self: 1.We separate from our True
      Nature by believing that we are fundamentally flawed which in turn
      creates a sense of self by giving rise to self-concern. 2.Self-concern
      requires that we judge things as good for me or bad for me or irrelveant
      for me. 3.By judging things we thereby project our judgements onto those
      things and then have no choice but to react emotionally to these
      hallucinations because of what we belive is at stake. 4.Our emotionality
      then requires that we justify our reactionism rationally through
      extensive discursive thought. 5.Being constantly surounded by all this
      inner turbulence we mistakenly take the turbulence to be our actual
      environment, much like being immersed in watching a movie, and in our
      lives we then feel and act according to what is going on in the movie.
      Reversing the buildup of this turbulence and returning to our True
      Nature through meditation we progress through gradations of quiescence
      relative to the devolution of these five stages: 5.We stop believing in
      the movie. 4.We stop fighting to prove ourselves right. 3.We stop
      knee-jerk reacting. 2.We stop fabricating our world with judgements.
      1.We stop believing we are fundamentally flawed. At each of these stages
      of "ego death" greater quiescence, clarity and compassion for others are
      the by-products.

      - Doug.

      ___________________

      Sent by a member of the Mystic Village,
      the online Zen Meditation School.
      http://www.theMysticVillage.com
      ___________________
    • sandeep
      Hi Doug, ... From: Doug To: Sent: Thursday, January 08, 2004 05:49 AM Subject: Re:
      Message 2 of 13 , Jan 8, 2004
      • 0 Attachment
        Hi Doug,
         
        ----- Original Message -----
        From: "Doug" <zen@...>
        Sent: Thursday, January 08, 2004 05:49 AM
        Subject: Re: [Meditation Society of America] ego death?

        > -----
        > On Tue, 6 Jan 2004 11:26:52
        -0600 (CST),
        gryan@... wrote:
        > >
        What is this ego death of which you speak?
        > -----
        >
        > Hello
        Jerry.
        >
        > To step into this conversation and offer a Buddhist
        perspective on ego death I'd have to bring up a bit of Buddhist Psychology.
        >Ego death in the Buddhist sense involves the devolution of five components
        which make
        > up and support our illusory sense of self:
         
         
        Components which support an illusion,...........would they be real?
        Real such that they can be devolved?
         
         
         
         
         1.We separate from our True Nature by believing that we are fundamentally flawed which in turn creates a sense of self by giving rise to self-concern.
        2.Self-concern requires that we judge things as good for me or bad for me or irrelveant for me. 3.By judging things we thereby project our judgements onto those things and then have no choice but to react emotionally to these
         hallucinations because of what we belive is at stake. 4.Our emotionality  then requires that we justify our reactionism rationally through extensive discursive thought. 5.Being constantly surounded by all this  inner turbulence we mistakenly take the turbulence to be our actual environment, much like being immersed in watching a movie, and in our  lives we then feel and act according to what is going on in the movie.
         
         
        Is there a turbulence apart or separate from the "we" (who is "mistakenly taking the turbulence to be our actual environment")?
         
        Or is the sense of "we", the very sense of the turbulence?
         
         

        > Reversing the buildup of this turbulence and returning to our True
        > Nature through meditation we progress through
        gradations of quiescence
        > relative to the devolution of these five
        stages: 5.We stop believing in
        > the movie. 4.We stop fighting to prove
        ourselves right. 3.We stop
        > knee-jerk reacting. 2.We stop fabricating our
        world with judgements.
        > 1.We stop believing we are fundamentally
        flawed.
         
        In the 5) to 1),.............the "we", persists, is it not?
         
        With an persisting "we", is the persisting sense of separation.
         
        You are my brother for whom I have love, compassion, etc etc,..............there is still a prevailing sense of separation, is it not?
         
         
         
         
         
        > At each of these stages  of "ego death" greater quiescence, clarity and compassion for others are
        > the
        by-products.
         
         
        Compassion for an "other" is cognizing an "other", is it not?
         
        A sense of the "loved-other", or "hated-other",..................births the sense of the "me", ,..........the birth of the sense of separation.
         
         
         
         
         
         
         
      • Andy
        ... Hello Doug ~ ... *****You write that it is the belief that we are fundamentally flawed which gives rise to a sense of self by giving rise to self-
        Message 3 of 13 , Jan 8, 2004
        • 0 Attachment
          --- In meditationsocietyofamerica@yahoogroups.com, "Doug" <zen@t...>
          wrote:
          > -----
          > On Tue, 6 Jan 2004 11:26:52 -0600 (CST), gryan@g... wrote:
          > > What is this ego death of which you speak?
          > -----
          >

          Hello Doug ~


          > To step into this conversation and offer a Buddhist perspective on
          > ego death I'd have to bring up a bit of Buddhist Psychology. Ego
          > death in the Buddhist sense involves the devolution of five
          > components which make up and support our illusory sense of self:
          > 1.We separate from our True Nature by believing that we are
          > fundamentally flawed which in turn creates a sense of self by
          > giving rise to self-concern.


          *****You write that it is the belief that we are "fundamentally
          flawed" which gives rise to "a sense of self by giving rise to self-
          concern."

          So the process, expressed linearly, is this:

          Belief [we are fundamentally flawed] ---> Self Concern ----> Sense of
          Self

          Is not the initial belief, the belief that there is a "we" that
          possesses the attribute of being "fundamentally flawed"...is not
          *that* belief already the appearance of the "sense of self"?
          Otherwise, who or what holds this feeling of being fundamentally
          flawed?

          ~andy
        • Doug
          On Thu, 08 Jan 2004 19:07:20 +0530, sandeep wrote: ----- Components which support an illusion,...........would they be real? Real such that they can be
          Message 4 of 13 , Jan 8, 2004
          • 0 Attachment
            On Thu, 08 Jan 2004 19:07:20 +0530, sandeep wrote:
            -----
            Components which support an
            illusion,...........would they be real?
            Real such that they can be
            devolved?
            ----- 
            Is there a turbulence apart or separate from the "we" (who is
            "mistakenly taking the turbulence to be our actual environment")? Or is
            the sense of "we", the very
            sense of the turbulence?
            ----- 
            In the 5) to 1),.............the
            "we", persists, is it not?
            With an persisting "we", is the
            persisting sense of separation.
            ----- 
            You are my brother for whom I
            have love, compassion, etc etc,..............there is still a prevailing
            sense
            of separation, is it not?
            ----- 
            Compassion for an "other" is cognizing an "other", is it not?
            A sense of the "loved-other", or "hated-other",..................births
            the sense of the "me", ,..........the birth of the sense of separation.
            -----

            Hello Sandeep.

            When someone critiques something such as something someone says for
            example they will first have to actually look at what was being said. If
            their view of themselves is that they are fundamentally flawed then when
            they look they will do their looking from a compensatory point of view,
            a how can this help me address my experience of being flawed point of
            view. They will then judge this thing they are looking at as good if it
            provides an opportunity to compensate for the flaw or as bad if it
            threatens to exacerbate the flaw or as irrelevant if it has no apparent
            bearing on the flaw. Once that judgement is made they will then only
            view that thing in it's self-worth based context and this view will
            therefore carry with it a significant emotional investment disrupting
            the opportunity for any real clarity. Feeling the lack of clarity will
            require that they then extensively rationalize their emotional bias
            somehow and in this fashion they move even further away from truly
            seeing and understanding the thing they are looking at. The end result
            of this process is the creation of drama. When they respond to their
            view of the thing they act oppositional or insulted or supported, etc.
            Their response is not in any way directly related to the thing they are
            responding to. They are merely "acting out" their self-worth issue.
            Noticing that this acting out is a painful experience answers a lot of
            questions about the components which make up our psychological
            programming as well clarifying the true insidious nature of the programming
            itself.

            - Doug.

            ___________________

            Sent by a member of the Mystic Village,
            the online Zen Meditation School.
            http://www.theMysticVillage.com
            ___________________
          • Doug
            On Thu, 08 Jan 2004 16:34:36 -0000, Andy wrote:To step into this conversation and offer a Buddhist perspective on ego death I d have to bring up a
            Message 5 of 13 , Jan 8, 2004
            • 0 Attachment
              On Thu, 08 Jan 2004 16:34:36 -0000, "Andy" wrote:

              > > To step into this conversation and offer a Buddhist perspective on
              > > ego death I'd have to bring up a bit of Buddhist Psychology. Ego
              > > death in the Buddhist sense involves the devolution of five
              > > components which make up and support our illusory sense of self:
              > > 1.We separate from our True Nature by believing that we are
              > > fundamentally flawed which in turn creates a sense of self by
              > > giving rise to self-concern.
              >
              >
              > *****You write that it is the belief that we are "fundamentally
              > flawed" which gives rise to "a sense of self by giving rise to self-
              > concern."
              >
              > So the process, expressed linearly, is this:
              >
              > Belief [we are fundamentally flawed] ---> Self Concern ----> Sense of
              > Self
              >
              > Is not the initial belief, the belief that there is a "we" that
              > possesses the attribute of being "fundamentally flawed"...is not
              > *that* belief already the appearance of the "sense of self"?
              > Otherwise, who or what holds this feeling of being fundamentally
              > flawed?
              -----

              Hello Andy

              This is correct. They arise concomitantly. I was explaining primarily
              where the sense of self is derived from. Perhaps look at it this way
              ((sense of self = self concern) = belief that beingness is fundamentally
              flawed)) where (beingness = a singularity of awareness that is absorbed
              in nowness - a secondary individual identity who is doing the awarenss).

              - Doug.

              ___________________

              Sent by a member of the Mystic Village,
              the online Zen Meditation School.
              http://www.theMysticVillage.com
              ___________________
            • texasbg2000
              ... My ... approach ... as my ... mathematical ... going meta? ... death is ... more ... Hi Jerry: The current is existential, it is the only thing that exists
              Message 6 of 13 , Jan 8, 2004
              • 0 Attachment
                --- In meditationsocietyofamerica@yahoogroups.com, gryan@g... wrote:
                > What is this ego death of which you speak? I just joined the group.
                My
                > approach to 'enlightenment, etc' has been to come at it from the
                approach
                > of cybernetics, systems theory, gregory bateson, nlp-ish, as well
                as my
                > own meditative inventions and things i've picked up. From a
                mathematical
                > kind of frame.
                >
                > You said something of awareness of awareness. By this you mean
                going meta?
                > You mean logical levels?
                >
                > Of course i want to do everything i read. I don't know yet if ego
                death is
                > my one goal. Of course i want to make everythign i do simpler and
                more
                > elegant so i can do more. I'm listening.
                >
                > jerry

                Hi Jerry:

                The current is existential, it is the only thing that exists .

                The ego as a concept can be debated and defined in many ways. But
                the existential definition is the one that pertains to ego death,
                Death is one thing that must happen in the present.

                While standing in line at Starbuck's I get irritable with the slow
                moving server.

                Then I notice that I am irritable and look at that feeling. The
                irritability dissipates. The ego dies when held as current. This is
                control of the senses, this looking inward. If the looking inward is
                more important, the runaway senses are deflated because they require
                that energy to remain.

                Then a moment later the ego is reborn again with the next
                involvement. The rebirth has to do with karma and tendencies or
                habits that have not been dealt out. The death and rebirth cycle
                continues.

                It is said that desire is the root of the cycle of death-rebirth, and
                that some have been relieved of the cycle. This would mean no ego to
                die. It is also written that there are five attachment categories:
                attraction, aversion, will to live, ignorance, and "I amness". If
                looking inward is more important than any of these in real time, the
                cycle may be broken.

                Meditation is in accordance overcoming the cycle, as is love,
                service, and vidya (real time spiritual knowledge or lack of
                ignorance).

                Was it the Association that sang this?
                "Now my empty cup is as sweet as the punch."

                Love,
                Bobby G.
              • Andy
                ... wrote: When someone critiques something such as something someone says for example they will first have to actually look at what was being said. If their
                Message 7 of 13 , Jan 8, 2004
                • 0 Attachment
                  --- In meditationsocietyofamerica@yahoogroups.com, "Doug" <zen@t...>
                  wrote:

                  When someone critiques something such as something someone says for
                  example they will first have to actually look at what was being said.
                  If their view of themselves is that they are fundamentally flawed
                  then when they look they will do their looking from a compensatory
                  point of view, a how can this help me address my experience of being
                  flawed point of view. They will then judge this thing they are
                  looking at as good if it provides an opportunity to compensate for
                  the flaw or as bad if it threatens to exacerbate the flaw or as
                  irrelevant if it has no apparent bearing on the flaw. Once that
                  judgement is made they will then only view that thing in it's self-
                  worth based context and this view will therefore carry with it a
                  significant emotional investment disrupting the opportunity for any
                  real clarity. Feeling the lack of clarity will require that they then
                  extensively rationalize their emotional bias somehow and in this
                  fashion they move even further away from truly seeing and
                  understanding the thing they are looking at. The end result
                  of this process is the creation of drama. When they respond to their
                  view of the thing they act oppositional or insulted or supported, etc.
                  Their response is not in any way directly related to the thing they
                  are responding to. They are merely "acting out" their self-worth
                  issue. Noticing that this acting out is a painful experience answers
                  a lot of questions about the components which make up our
                  psychological programming as well clarifying the true insidious
                  nature of the programming itself.


                  *****Not to mention the programmer! ;-))
                • Bruce Morgen
                  ... wrote: When someone critiques something such as something someone says for example they will first have to actually look at what was being said. If their
                  Message 8 of 13 , Jan 8, 2004
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Andy wrote:
                    --- In meditationsocietyofamerica@yahoogroups.com, "Doug" <zen@t...> 
                    wrote:
                    
                    When someone critiques something such as something someone says for
                    example they will first have to actually look at what was being said. 
                    If their view of themselves is that they are fundamentally flawed 
                    then when they look they will do their looking from a compensatory 
                    point of view, a how can this help me address my experience of being 
                    flawed point of view. They will then judge this thing they are 
                    looking at as good if it provides an opportunity to compensate for 
                    the flaw or as bad if it threatens to exacerbate the flaw or as 
                    irrelevant if it has no apparent bearing on the flaw. Once that 
                    judgement is made they will then only view that thing in it's self-
                    worth based context and this view will therefore carry with it a 
                    significant emotional investment disrupting the opportunity for any 
                    real clarity. Feeling the lack of clarity will require that they then 
                    extensively rationalize their emotional bias somehow and in this 
                    fashion they move even further away from truly seeing and 
                    understanding the thing they are looking at. The end result
                    of this process is the creation of drama. When they respond to their
                    view of the thing they act oppositional or insulted or supported, etc.
                    Their response is not in any way directly related to the thing they 
                    are responding to. They are merely "acting out" their self-worth 
                    issue. Noticing that this acting out is a painful experience answers 
                    a lot of questions about the components which make up our 
                    psychological programming as well clarifying the true insidious 
                    nature of the programming itself.
                    
                    
                    *****Not to mention the programmer! ;-))
                    
                      
                    Indeed -- in the worlds of Sri
                    Walt Kelly, "We have met the
                    enemy, and he is us!"
                  • sandeep
                    ... From: Doug To: Sent: Friday, January 09, 2004 03:16 AM Subject: Re: [Meditation
                    Message 9 of 13 , Jan 8, 2004
                    • 0 Attachment
                       
                      ----- Original Message -----
                      From: "Doug" <zen@...>
                      Sent: Friday, January 09, 2004 03:16 AM
                      Subject: Re: [Meditation Society of America] ego death?
                       
                      <SNIP>


                      Hello Sandeep.

                      When someone critiques something such as something someone says for
                      example they will first have to actually look at what was being said. If
                      their view of themselves is that they are fundamentally flawed then when
                      they look they will do their looking from a compensatory point of view,
                      a how can this help me address my experience of being flawed point of
                      view.
                       They will then judge this thing they are looking at as good if it
                      provides an opportunity to compensate for the flaw or as bad if it
                      threatens to exacerbate the flaw or as irrelevant if it has no apparent
                      bearing on the flaw. Once that judgement is made they will then only
                      view that thing in it's self-worth based context and this view will
                      therefore carry with it a significant emotional investment disrupting
                      the opportunity for any real clarity. Feeling the lack of clarity will
                      require that they then extensively rationalize their emotional bias
                      somehow and in this fashion they move even further away from truly
                      seeing and understanding the thing they are looking at. The end result
                      of this process is the creation of drama. When they respond to their
                      view of the thing they act oppositional or insulted or supported, etc.
                      Their response is not in any way directly related to the thing they are
                      responding to. They are merely "acting out" their self-worth issue.
                       
                      ------------
                       
                       
                      An excellent presentation of the hoopla of human behaviour.
                       
                      As neuro-science and behavioural investigations reveal, a image is created of the arriving impacting input from the external environ, as per the prevailing conditioning-in-the-moment, of the impacted biological organism.
                       
                      To this "self"-created image, the same conditioning-in-the-moment, "fashions" a response, either as mentation or the actualization of the mentation, aka a physical action.
                       
                      ------------
                       
                      Noticing that this acting out is a painful experience answers a lot of questions about the components which make up our psychological programming
                       
                      -----------
                       
                      What I am suggesting is that there is no "our".
                       
                      That is, there is no "me" which then has a tragic flaw.
                       
                      The sense of the flaw (conditioning-in-the-moment),...........is the sense of the "me", .....as so,...in the moment.
                       
                      There was no Hamlet with a tragic flaw, ......the sense of the tragic flaw in the moment, was the Hamlet, in that moment.
                       
                       
                       as well clarifying the true insidious nature of the programming itself.
                       
                      The programming, or the intrisnic prevailing conditioning,.............is both genetic in orgin, (hence a legacy going back to the notional start of the hoopla, aka the Big Bang),.....
                       
                      ...as well as the effect of the nurturing environ, in which the organism grows up.
                       
                       
                      I know there is a multi-million dollar industry which is focused on selling solutions(both material and spiritual) to change/alter/amend the programming.
                       
                      An altered/changed programming, is still "a" programming at work.
                       
                       


                       
                    • jazzpua
                      Let s synergize! ... ego ... in ... make ... True ... Nietzsche... talking about pity and original sin 2.Self-concern ... irrelveant ... beyond good and evil
                      Message 10 of 13 , Jan 10, 2004
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Let's synergize!

                        --- In meditationsocietyofamerica@yahoogroups.com, "Doug" <zen@t...>
                        wrote:
                        > -----
                        > On Tue, 6 Jan 2004 11:26:52 -0600 (CST), gryan@g... wrote:
                        > > What is this ego death of which you speak?
                        > -----
                        >
                        > Hello Jerry.
                        >
                        > To step into this conversation and offer a Buddhist perspective on
                        ego
                        > death I'd have to bring up a bit of Buddhist Psychology. Ego death
                        in
                        > the Buddhist sense involves the devolution of five components which
                        make
                        > up and support our illusory sense of self: 1.We separate from our
                        True
                        > Nature by believing that we are fundamentally flawed which in turn
                        > creates a sense of self by giving rise to self-concern.

                        Nietzsche... talking about pity and original sin

                        2.Self-concern
                        > requires that we judge things as good for me or bad for me or
                        irrelveant
                        > for me.

                        beyond good and evil

                        3.By judging things we thereby project our judgements onto those
                        > things and then have no choice but to react emotionally to these
                        > hallucinations because of what we belive is at stake.

                        semantic reactions of korzybski. Also, "the map is not the territory."

                        4.Our emotionality
                        > then requires that we justify our reactionism rationally through
                        > extensive discursive thought.

                        Rationalization. Mental masturbation. Negative self talk. 3rd circuit
                        time-binding rational circuit of timothy leary.

                        5.Being constantly surounded by all this
                        > inner turbulence we mistakenly take the turbulence to be our actual
                        > environment, much like being immersed in watching a movie, and in
                        our
                        > lives we then feel and act according to what is going on in the
                        movie.
                        > Reversing the buildup of this turbulence and returning to our True
                        > Nature through meditation we progress through gradations of
                        quiescence
                        > relative to the devolution of these five stages:
                        5.We stop believing in
                        > the movie.

                        "A map is not the territory it represents, but if correct, it has a
                        similar structure to the territory, which accounts for its
                        usefulness". I'm questioning whether it's useful to 'believe'
                        anything at all, and if so, how?

                        4.We stop fighting to prove ourselves right.

                        Open your senses. awareness of the present.

                        3.We stop
                        > knee-jerk reacting.

                        yes

                        2.We stop fabricating our world with judgements.

                        Labels and categorizations.

                        > 1.We stop believing we are fundamentally flawed. At each of these
                        stages
                        > of "ego death" greater quiescence, clarity and compassion for
                        others are
                        > the by-products.

                        Good, i like it. A lot of conditioning to overcome. Or get through.
                        Or whatever.

                        > - Doug.
                        >
                        > ___________________
                        >
                        > Sent by a member of the Mystic Village,
                        > the online Zen Meditation School.
                        > http://www.theMysticVillage.com
                        > ___________________
                      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.