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

Re: [Meditation Society of America] ego death?

Expand Messages
  • sandeep
    Hi Doug, ... From: Doug To: Sent: Thursday, January 08, 2004 05:49 AM Subject: Re:
    Message 1 of 13 , Jan 8, 2004
      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 2 of 13 , Jan 8, 2004
        --- 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 3 of 13 , Jan 8, 2004
          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 4 of 13 , Jan 8, 2004
            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 5 of 13 , Jan 8, 2004
              --- 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 6 of 13 , Jan 8, 2004
                --- 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 7 of 13 , Jan 8, 2004
                  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 8 of 13 , Jan 8, 2004
                     
                    ----- 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 9 of 13 , Jan 10, 2004
                      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.