Ego Death, Lego My Ego Options

[Phi]

So, does anybody have an outlined way to achieve that state permanently? I believe many have done it through the experience of their own life, but maybe there is a faster way than that. Personally, I don't feel that I am perfect at the topic myself, so maybe somebody can help make me more efficient/help others who have no idea where to start.

[Phi]

Anybody?

[Phi]

Anyone?

[Rick]

People can't even agree on what "enlightenment" is let alone embody it. I suspect Joesus will have an opinion on this.

[Joesus]

Immerse the mind in the absolute, or spirit until it washes the influences of ego from perceptions of reality that are limited by belief and opinion. By connecting with spirit directly rather than thru the filters of belief and impressions of reality focused on past experiences the mind orients itself to the present moment and Consciousness as it is without influences of opinion and belief. The mind re-immersed in spirit becomes cognizant of Oneness in all things, the underlying nature of reality supporting the manifest world, and recognizes itself as THAT.
This permanent state of awareness is called ego death, or Self Realization, or Enlightenment in the State of Unified Consciousness.

To do this requires the commitment and focus of the mind by using whatever tools are necessary to achieve this.
Tools that are used by the enlightened and have been tested and proven throughout the course of history are the quickest and easiest.

Tools of meditation created from the unenlightened mind are less useful and often a waste of time. Reason being that the ego without the experience of enlightenment does not differentiate the thoughts and habits of the ego from its own projections of enlightenment and superstition. Without the feedback of someone who has made the transition from ego to ego death, the mind cannot discern truth from illusion.
Many try, but reinventing the wheel is often labor intensive and psychologically damaging to the progress of Ascending the ego in belief and illusion of habit, superstition and fear.

[Lindsay]

I suspect Joesus will have an opinion on this.

But my ego suspects: We will need a translator to understand the opinion. He will also claim declare: "I, "Jesus", am the way..."

BTW, IMO, I have found that just being aware that we do have bodies and egos--including the emotions, plus the pains, and pleasures thereto attached--does help.

[dream]

Joesus is correct, as far as my studies have told me...Eckhart Tolle wrote a book on this subject A New Earth...he makes reference to the ancient masters and their journey to death of the ego

[Joesus]

Immerse the mind in the absolute, or spirit until it washes the influences of ego from perceptions of reality that are limited by belief and opinion.

To immerse the mind in the absolute or spirit, requires an image or definition of what absolute or spirit is…in order to acquire a definition or conscious belief of an absolute or spirit awareness…the ego must come into play… for it is that which creates sensing into image that begets thought, that begets manifestation or experience. So…what washes away what? A new belief that supersedes an old one?

For the ego a new definition must come into play if the ego wishes to redefine the infinite.
When the ego becomes the master all is defined. When the ego becomes the servant definitions do not define the absolute or the spirit for awareness of the absolute is beyond definition no matter how the ego engages it.

By connecting with spirit directly rather than thru the filters of belief and impressions of reality focused on past experiences the mind orients itself to the present moment and Consciousness as it is without influences of opinion and belief.

How does one recognize or realize direct connection with spirit?

When thoughts do not precede spirit. One becomes master of the obvious.

How does one realize that subtle filters are not in play?

From the influence of ego and dereliction to awareness of spirit one does not.

What can be without thought? And what thought can be without belief of it?

The absolute. Awareness of awareness.

Consciousness without influences of opinion and belief…would be unconscious…would it not? In being unconscious…how does it manifest?

Awareness of awareness itself is a thought but not a belief. It manifests in awareness.
Beliefs are filters of egoic identity with the manifest as absolute. The cart leading the horse.

The mind re-immersed in spirit becomes cognizant of Oneness in all things, the underlying nature of reality supporting the manifest world, and recognizes itself as THAT.
This permanent state of awareness is called ego death, or Self Realization, or Enlightenment in the State of Unified Consciousness.



Really? Explain this occurrence.

Really..No

…and can you do so without an ego…or thought or belief in that thought?

Yes

For mind to re-immerse within spirit requires conscious awareness which requires an ego or some kind of vessel to give it expression. Ego death? With ego death would we not be just an amoeba…that is unconscious and can only wiggle to that which prods it?

No.

Therefore how can one recognize itself as THAT?

When all other is set aside.

To do this requires the commitment and focus of the mind by using whatever tools are necessary to achieve this.

Would these tools be of the mind that is constructed through, and used by the ego to give it meaning or conscious belief?

Not of the mind of the ego but of Universal mind which is not bound by delineation of personality and belief. The ego can reflect any belief of consciousness or the tools.

Tools that are used by the enlightened and have been tested and proven throughout the course of history are the quickest and easiest.

Really? Just what is enlightenment?…without using your ego to express it of course…can that really be done…and if so…who is expressing this enlightenment? The absolute? Hmm how can the absolute be and express…without a vessel to express it?

Really..Consciousness with thoughts stilled. Yes. God. Define Vessel.

Tools of meditation created from the unenlightened mind are less useful and often a waste of time.


That would be a belief would it not?

It is reality built into the realm of belief. Like wet goes with water.

Reason being that the ego without the experience of enlightenment does not differentiate the thoughts and habits of the ego from its own projections of enlightenment and superstition.


Hmm? how does the ego differentiate experience of enlightenment from that which is not consider enlightenment?

Hmmm is a song without words...
The ego doesn't . When the ego is stilled rather than actively preceding thought awareness becomes aware of itself.

HOW DOES ONE KNOW ANYTHING? Through differentiation, which requires a sense of self…that is embodied in the structure of an ego which must be put to death?

How does anything become anything and how does ego become ego?

Hmmm what can be without thought and belief???

That which underlies thought and belief. And no that is not a thought. Awareness of it can lead to thought and belief.

Without the feedback of someone who has made the transition from ego to ego death, the mind cannot discern truth from illusion.

A dead ego cannot concern anything…for it is DEAD…so what is truth and how does it express its vitality through a DEAD vehicle?

It wasn't alive to begin with......

Many try, but reinventing the wheel is often labor intensive and psychologically damaging to the progress of Ascending the ego in belief and illusion of habit, superstition and fear.

Yep…many try to deceive themselves…through believing that they do not believe…

Spinning beliefs one on top of the other only perpetuates the realm of belief.

[trojan_libido]

DMT Phi...DMT. You will rip that ego right out of your head. Thats if you want a shortcut.

Try reading the psychedelic annotated Tibetan Book of the Dead, because its understood that this details the death of the Ego and what to expect rather than an actual death. If the people that wrote it had actually died, then their would be no text.

I also found some interesting information in the Story of the original Buddha and his enlightenment. It also details hallucinations of sexual temptresses and demons, which resonate with the Tibetan text.

But we're all guessing. Even if you did have an Ego death, there are no instructions or directions on re-integration. In fact their is no real definition of Ego, never mind death of that Ego.

Its quite possible to believe you've had an Ego Death experience and not, or have the experience and not recognise it as such. I guess people who are genuinely 'reborn' in a religious way have had the real deal.

I'd also like to know how many Ego deaths the people of Brainmeta have gone through? My count is currently at 0.

[Phi]

The DMT is on it's way, although it's not the only way. To reinforce the DMT idea, some of the most inspirational and healthy beings I've met were experienced with the chemical.

Yes, the tibetan book of the dead...thank you for reminding me about that. I do believe that many are guessing if they've never experienced, but I guess I'm lucky in that sense. I agree that people would need some kind of reference point, but for me that could be thinking back to myself as a child(along with rejecting the influence of people that didn't display love) as I was somehow able to ignore bad influence. I believe ego is a learned trait.

Now I had a fun conversation with my girlfriend about ego. She had this understanding:no matter what, the ego is what makes us human and that is beautiful. It seems that I, and many other males, try to aim for being more than human. Whats funny is that in doing either, the same is achieved as negativity is rejected for those who accept their humanity while positive traits can be picked up along the way for those who aim for something more than human. I don't think either side would reject the positive along the way of achieving their view.

I'm not saying that these are the only goals in achieving a higher state of existence, but this just seemed to simply work for us.

It's hard to say that one has to have guidance; many people have different starting points, experiences, knowledge, and interpretation of the goal. As trojan said, there are many different definitions of ego to most people. I hope that we can come to a direct definition here in this thread. I also believe there are a few more definitions that should be clarified.

I feel that lindsay was definitely right about being aware of being...it's a great starting point and reference along the path.

Finally, I believe in what joesus first said about being immerses in the oneness consistently. He also mentioned tools...which I would like to have defined. I believe that many people are capable of figuring it out themselves, otherwise, how would people be able to teach in the first place. That is, unless, super dmt elves are messing around with humans. Oh well, they must just be bored...don't listen to them.

Growth is meant to be shared, not squandered, and utilized without the fear of others having a chance to ruin the idea. If it is timeless, it will stand the test of time and should catch on exponentially

Please do not assume that anything is defined, and if there could be a question on anything, please think ahead to try and be specific on all examples that are used.

[Rick]

Here's the reference:

http://www.lycaeum.org/books/books/psyched...ience/tib2.html

Of course, that's only one way to view things.

[trojan_libido]

It sure is Rick, but what better place to start looking at the death of the Ego! These monks have been their a long time doing precisely what we're just talking about here. They hold the secrets of meditative conciousness, or at least one of their members did at some point.

I actually feel that texts such as this one is a timeless treasure, however you take it. Mainly because it was written at a simpler time, in a simpler place, without the distractions of the modern world most of us have to endure.

[Phi]

thanks for the lead guys

[Phi]

So how would you go about achieving removing the mask and polishing the lenses?

[lucid_dream]

Trying to create an ego death is like chasing an eternal carrot…it cannot be done…for there is no death of anything…there is only transcendence through transmutation.

of course it can be done. I've done it many times. Listen, this comes down to definitions of 'ego'. My understanding of ego is that it involves a subject/object split, which includes consciousness of one's personal history, as well as distinguishing between 'self' and 'other'; remove these and you achieve ego-death. Maybe we're talking about the same thing and you're just referring to it as ego transcendence. In any event, the ego is a fictitious entity that helps us adapt and plays an operational role, but that many mistake for something substantive. 'Ego-death' refers to a well characterized experience (or state of mind), and yes, it can be done.

As for doing it permanently, I don't think this is desirable for most people. The ego plays an operational role; it does have a function. As for permanently removing it, I would be curious about this too, but would be hesitant about doing it anytime soon since there are still many things that I'd like to accomplish, and that can be more readily accomplished with an intact ego, in spite of its limitations. Remove the ego, and you're immersed in the infinite and in unity, which makes it kind of hard to deal with the Ten Thousand Things.

Conscious experience (intelligence) cannot occur without an ego or a sense of an I.

sure it can. Consciousness is infinitely variable and is not constrained to have a sense of I or an ego, which are just attributes of typical human modes of consciousness.

[lucid_dream]

My point is, Lucid…is that you/me are expressing conscious experience…and this is through a vehicle that we call ego.

What can be, or expressed or known in any reality…without a sense of I Am?

I disagree. There are states of consciousness that are devoid of a sense of "I Am" and ego. "I Am" is a conceptual thought, and there are states of consciousness that do not involve conceptual thought. "Ego" is a fictitious entity that is associated with personal history and subject/object duality, and there are states of consciousness that are devoid of ego. If you are limited by your conscious experiences and states of mind, then why are you extrapolating from your conscious experiences and states of mind to other experiences and states of mind that you have not directly experienced? Maybe our disagree is semantic? How are you defining ego? In a psychoanalytic sense?

[Joesus]

you/me are expressing conscious experience…and this is through a vehicle that we call ego.

The You/Me is a thought, which unconscious awareness often carries into experiences of identity. It, the thought, is not a conscious experience but rather an expression of consciousness filtered through limited perception. The limits prevent consciousness from revealing itself in its entirety or even close to its reflection of entirety. So the identification of consciousness as the I am in ego is relative to limits of belief and projection of belief.

What can be, or expressed or known in any reality…without a sense of I Am?

God once spoke to Moses and told Moses I am that or I am becoming. The I am presence being the absolute/That in activity or in expression.
In the dialogue God pointed in a direction of ambiguity as to who or what God is because God is constant evolving change like waves upon the ocean (to the ego) which rise and fall with the impulse of choice/desire. That "I am" is not a "me" or an "I", and the me and the I, is limited to perceptions of relatively perceived constants/beliefs within the boundaries of life and death (also a belief). Consciousness or the I am is not something that is born nor does it die. Experience of Consciousness that is born and dies is only a reflection of limitation and belief rather than the reflection of true consciousness or God Absolute.

Consciousness does not experience itself as me and I or as the thought but as consciousness. What the ego thinks consciousness experiences as identity, consciousness experiences as consciousness within the activity of consciousness.

In a simple explanation, God is Love unbounded and without condition. Love with conditions of egoic boundaries is not the love of God unbounded but a filtered belief. So God does not experience love as boundaries in beliefs but love absolute as love absolute. Ego experiences the boundaries not the love. The I or the me experiences the boundaries.
Another way to look at it is if you take water and change it into steam or ice it is still water tho it can be experienced by the ego as gaseous, a solid or a liquid. Water experiences itself as water.

If you change your clothes to give yourself an appearance you are still you regardless of the clothing. Such is the state of consciousness as it experiences its flexibility as consciousness.

[maximus242]

I think in order to lose the ego you have to lose your personality and your self.

There are really two definitions of ego: Ones personal pride... and... the lens through which one views reality.

To lose personal pride is not so hard, to lose the way you see reality requires you simple become an observer incapable of processing - in which case you would be no different than being dead.

In order to process and understand the sensory feedback of the world around us, we need to have something that draws conclusions based off of that feedback. This is the basis for the self and the way in which one views reality.

To lose ones self implies to lose yourself entirely. Since memories and experiences make up yourself, you would have to have none of those.

To me I dont get how you would lose your ego without losing yourself entirely. Except making yourself believe you have lost your ego without really losing it.

[Joesus]

To me I don't get how you would lose your ego without losing yourself entirely.

That is what keeps the ego from becoming enlightened. It can only identify with the relative association to sensory ideas of opinion and belief. EGO Everything Goes Outward...

[Lindsay]

Dianah questions

Really? Just what is enlightenment? without using your ego to express it of course can that really be done and if so who is expressing this enlightenment? The absolute? Hmm how can the absolute be and express without a vessel to express it?

Dianah, I have never read, or met, a teacher worthy of the name--whether from the prophets, philosophers, rabbis, including great names like Socrates, Jesus, Mohammad, even Eckhart Tolle, or others--who ever said: "I am here to teach you The Truth; you are here to listen, not to ask questions." If ever I met such a teacher I would not walk away, I would run.

I look back in appreciation to one of my beloved teachers whose job it was to have oversight over sixty theological students. The first time he gathered us together--fifty-nine males and one female--he began to introduce himself and to outline the year ahead by saying: "Lady and gentlemen! When you come into any of my classes, please do not leave your brains, and your questions, where you hang your hats ..."

BTW, Tolle created his book, The Power of the NOW--a guide to spiritual enlightenment, based on dozens of questions--some of then very challenging ones--which seem to be right out of the egos of the questioners.
On pages 14-16 of his book, it seems to me that the point he makes about thinking and the mind, or the psyche, is this: The mind, and the process we call thinking, is there to serve us, not to be our master. Obviously, Tolle is not one to discourage using the mind to ask questions. But beware, there is a difference between sincere and information seeking questions and rhetorical ones; the latter are ego-based.


I think of the mind as being a superb personal computer--an extension of the mind to be of service to me. "The mind is a superb instrument" Tolle writes, "if used rightly." He goes on. " Used wrongly, however, it become very destructive." The mind is there to be used. Otherwise it will use us. So keep on asking your questions.

Dianah, does this make sense? One way or another, let's continue to dialogue about this.

[Lindsay]

CHECK OUT THE FOLLOWING FOR SHORT VIDEOS BY ET:

http://video.google.ca/videosearch?q=eckha...num=4&ct=title#

[Phi]

Awesome link. I liken it to when I am in the now...even my perception changes.

[Lindsay]

A friend from http://www.redefinegod.com sent me information about
METAPSYCHIATRY
Founded by the Dr. Thomas Hora.

He said, "I relate very closely to his concepts of reality:

Having observed, first-hand, that orthodox forms of treatment did not always bring healing to the ills of mankind, he sought to obtain a deeper understanding of the issues which, in turn, led him to spiritual literature. From this point, until the birth of Metapsychiatry in 1977, Dr. Hora's spiritual quest was in full bloom. His search encompassed the study of various theosophies, of existentialism and phenomenology, and of the sacred texts of Zen, Taoism, Buddhism, Judaism and Christianity...."

THE ELEVEN PRINCIPLES OF METAPSYCHIATRY

1. Thou shalt have no other interests before the good of God, which is spiritual blessedness.

2. Take no thought for what should be or what should not be; seek ye first to know the good of God, which already is.

3. There is no interaction anywhere, there is only Omniaction everywhere.

4. Yes is good, but no is also good.

5. God helps those who let Him.

6. If you know what, you know how.

7. Nothing comes into experience uninvited.

8. Problems are lessons designed for our edification.

9. Reality cannot be experienced or imagined; it can, however, be realized.

10. The understanding of what really is, abolishes all that seems to be.

11. Do not show your pearls to unreceptive minds, for they will demean them.

� Thomas Hora

[Phi]

You're doing a good thing by spreading that idea. What do you think the outcome will be if everybody understands and applies?

[Joesus]

What if the ideas aren't understood and applied?

[Lindsay]

You're doing a good thing by spreading that idea. ...

Thanks Phi.

You ask me: "What do you think the outcome will be if everybody understands and applies (the above principles to practical problems calling for solutions)?"

Phi, I always keep in mind that any new idea, no matter how wise and wonderful, worth taking seriously, is almost always met, initially at least, with resistance--even from those who stand to benefit from seeing it put into action. And, of course, from those who make a profit from the status quo comes the strongest resistance.

In Matthew 23:37-39 Jesus, makes this point when he utters his famous lament: "O Jerusalem, Jerusalem you kill the prophets and stone the messengers God has sent you! How many times I wanted to put my arms around all your people, just as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you would not let me! " Then Jesus warned the people of Jerusalem of the destructive consequences of their resistance.

THE ROLE OF THE MARKET PLACE
I am well aware that, for many entrepreneurial types, the preventive, integrative and holistic approach to solving health problems would not be their first choice. For many professionals with expensive and greed-based life styles to support there is, "gold in them that ills".

If our policy makers actually became serious about preventive medicine and the holistic approach to health what would we do with all those unemployed disease-oriented experts of the so-called health industry--doctors, nurses, druggists, psychotherapists, and the like. And what about all those germ factories called hospitals? Yes, we will always need some of these, including some prisons.

And, too, any number of professions and trades, for example, lock smiths, thrive on there being enough people who do not trust one another, enough dishonest and criminal types. What would the legal profession, the courts, the police departments, the news media, you name it, do without crime? What would the clergy do if there was no sin? What would teachers do without ignorance? Even undertakers depend on the dying to help them make a living?

In saying the above I am not just being facetious. Many of our most profitable human activities are triggered by our fears, uncertainties, doubt and ignorance (FUDI). Sad!

BUT WHAT ABOUT THE PUBLIC INTEREST?
=====================================
Looking back, how many remember how we, the people, made a religion of futurism and ordained a select few to guide us to the heavenly future? They--the high priests of politics, economics and finance, aided and abetted by those in science and technology--took on the power to influence the makers of our public policies. Where did these false prophets (profits) lead us? Hmmm! Just read today's media.

In what was then called the INFORMATION age (around 1990)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_Age
futurists predicted a future beyond 2000, filled with so much leisure time we would not know what to do with it. WHAT A LAUGH!!! They predicted it, but failed to help us produce it. As the old adage puts it: Beware of false prophets.

BTW, some captains of industry get to enjoy leisure time--in jail!!!

Be that as it may, using a holistic and integrative approach, perhaps we can get back to what the economic and financial "experts" predicted by making ourselves aware that while it is impossible to predict the future, what is possible is: In GOD we can create it.

As you are no doubt aware, I have a great deal of respect for all the great philosophies (including religions), sciences and the arts, when we use them morally, ethically and lovingly.

However, I do have a great deal of concern when they operate reductionistically-- putting all their faith in too many so-called experts. I prefer to take a holistic and more humble approach--one serving not just THE MARKET PLACE, but THE PUBLIC INTEREST.

[Joesus]

I prefer to take a holistic and more humble approach--one serving not just THE MARKET PLACE, but THE PUBLIC INTEREST.

Famous words of all politicians.

What is the public interest? Is it personal, opinionated, universal, egotistic, spiritual, philosophical, moral, educated, mature, childish, feminine, masculine, socialist, democratic, engendered by natural laws of evolution??......Is it pro choice or is it pro life, is an uninformed moral majority still moral when it is only a greater number of uninformed intellects, is democracy working when the majority is filled with influences of opinion and belief born of illusion and superstition?
Jesus never catered to the public interest, in fact he served only one interest, that of spirit and Oneness in all things. Which I dare to say, eluded public recognition and today sets in the minds of public interests as religious fanaticism by those who reserve spirituality to those who are religious and dogmatic.

The "I'll leave you alone if you leave me alone" public interest and the "I don't have any interest in that which I don't understand" public interest is what keeps most eligible voters from the polls, and disinterested in caring about what one another gets involved in as long as it doesn't infringe in personal space, opinion, belief and ideals.

I have a great respect for God in everything but no liking for ideals which create separation and ideals which breed continuing devolution in spirit recognition.

A philosophy which is bred from ignorance lives in ignorance. A religion bred from ignorance worships ignorance, a political system that creates dishonor among thieves is not impressive and deserves no respect even if the public interest keeps it alive out of complacency under influence of those who preach to save public interest as a policy of live and let live in conditions of ignorance.

Jesus said,
34 "Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.

35 For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law." --Matthew 10

[Iridium]

It is very unlikely that everybody interpret them exactly the same and practise all of them. The nature is dynamic. Just like the concept of yin and yang.
If it ever happens to be homogenous or exactly uniform, it would be against the nature. I think it is very unlikely to happen.

You're doing a good thing by spreading that idea. What do you think the outcome will be if everybody understands and applies?

[Lindsay]

Dianah, perhaps J thinks of himself as the pope, the vicar of Christ, at Brainmeta!
We have a similar poster--or perhaps they are one and the same--at scienceagogo.com --Pope TT, who has the same style as J.

[Joesus]

How do you know this? Where you with Jesus at this time…or is this an assumption from a thought that is believed by you? Dare I say?

If you did dare say, would it be you making the remark, and would it be an assumption made from a thought that was believed by you.........?

perhaps J thinks of himself as the pope, the vicar of Christ, at Brainmeta!

I think you have much to say of what you and others think of me, so I don't have to think so much to label myself when you are taking such an active interest.