I prefer to think of 'ego' as the sum total of conditioning over ones life?
what is your perception of "ego'?
is it of value to you?
if yes in what way is it value?
if no how would you let go fo it?

Life in the physical body or beyond?

Ok Joesus,
if this is your interpretation of ego?

do you see it as value to you or not?

Can you define 'ones life'?

I don't see how you could ask the question, perceive the question or answer the question without it.
I'd say importance is a moot point.

lucid_dream, I will attempt to define "life"
First making the assumption that this reality is not a dream?

then If I take Joesus statement and qualify this statement by adding " interval of a conscious/unconscious perceiving in a", to the above quote
i.e. Life to me, is the interval of a "conscious/unconscious" perceiving in a physical body.

while leaving out the as I have no perception out side of the physical body yet?

Joesus, I agree that all this depends on your model of reality and hence the view you or I take .

to me this is more a discussion of philosophical concepts. does my concpt of life have any meaning ? logic ? relivance ? to you......

personality as determined by innate influences (genes) and life experiences.

Your concept is based on a point of reference which is argumentative rather than stable. Your point of reference has to be defended and proved to you by sources of authority. Scientific authority is an authority based on theories and changing ideas, kind of like looking at the universe and deciding what it is in the moment of change and experience rather than what it is beyond change and experience.
I don't find a logical relevance to truth if that truth is a changing truth. If truth is limited to one single experience, such as your perceptions of life in your physical body then it ignores the truths of everyone else in their body and their perception of themselves in or out of their body and their interactive relationship between the two.

So philosophically, your concept is limited.

Hi Joesus, would you mind defining "truth"? or give me your model of truth? or clear example of your "truth"?
cheers allan

Hey Hey, <personality as determined by innate influences (genes) and life experiences> is more down to earth in my mnd , is ego personality or part of personality?

Truth is relative when built on a foundation of changing beliefs or experiences.
Truth is eternal when built on a foundation that does not change.

The stable unchanging Truth that is my truth is the same truth for everyone else regardless of beliefs and experience.

and that truth would be? I mean I don't know how YOU the great Joesus (hell lets just take out a letter and make it Jesus for all intensive purposes) have found some universal truth while the rest of us toil in our uninformed misery. I mean how am I supposed to have an unchanging foundation to base truth on when I do not even have a single cell in my body that is the same as when I was born?

But you have no doubt that the truth you speak of is the one which supercedes all? How have you come to this conclusion? And, if it is not too much trouble, explain (as well as one can with relative language) what this truth is, preferably without using an abstract metaphor.

Simple, extend the awareness of yourself beyond the meatsack.

Oh sure I've had my doubts, but setting doubt aside there is a greater process of thought that follows the awareness of Truth. Doubt has a myriad of tentacles that lead the mind astray. Usually they can all be traced to fear. Once you deal with fear then you can be intelligent about the choices you make to follow certain thoughts.
I got here with Faith, Focus and Discipline. Experience is the best teacher and mine was one that led me to an experience that allowed me to see mySelf above and beyond the changing experiences of belief.

[quote name='Joesus' date='Dec 11, 2006, 11:20 PM' post='73473']
[quote]But you have no doubt that the truth you speak of is the one which supercedes all?[/quote]Oh sure I've had my doubts, but setting doubt aside there is a greater process of thought that follows the awareness of Truth. Doubt has a myriad of tentacles that lead the mind astray. Usually they can all be traced to fear. Once you deal with fear then you can be intelligent about the choices you make to follow certain thoughts.[quote]
[/quote]

Casting fear and other man made safe guards including but not limited to love, hope and/or faith aside does not bring about some universal truth; all that eliminating safe guards does is allow one to think relatively more objectively.

Thinking more clearly and consistently aids in clear and consistent perception.

Joesus , I see that it is not necessary to criticize on this forum, as am sure some one else will, if I do not.

Your statement;
I understand what you mean by your definition of "truth" though do not feel that you are consistent with your definition.

My feeling on what you mean by universal truth is an objective truth (i.e. has no emotion attached to the truth), an example to me of your truth is when I point to an "object", a person is sitting on and call the object a "chair".
To all the people perceiving the object, who have in their minds a "model" of a chair fitting the object I point at, there is agreement with out emotion. To me calling the object a chair is a truth.
Your statement;

You seem very emotional about my questions and answers being not in agreement with your truth?

Also wanting me to adopt your process as you feel that I am not being scientific in my arguments?

You may feel that I am with out reference? to me this is ok, as you understand exactly what I say in order to correct me in great detail.

To me "science is a frame work, that allows some people to keep a focus and degree of objectivity while exploring elements that are in question or dispute.

I do not feel that a scientific approach is of benefit to me as opposed to the process I currently use?

To me the feeling that comes across when you reply to my comments, is that you are not in agreement with your own "so called" truth and hence appear to be emotional about me adopting your process in order to save you facing the trigger of your emotion?

Joesus I can see that you are well educated and would be very intimidating to many, though, are you happy?

Only if you're not up to it.


By the response I'd have to say no on the understanding part, which is probably why you find no consistency.


I do have a passion..

Why would I want you to be me? Whether you are scientific or not is not my interest. If you can expand upon Truth...well that I would be interested in, but so far you haven't moved me.

Of course I understand you but what I'm interested in has nothing to do with you personally.

I somewhat agree but I don't focus on agreements or disputes only Truth.

I think spiritual science allows for objectivity and immersion, without identifying with a process.

If you look at your own desire to participate in life rather than to define it I think you will come closer to understanding.


I never Graduated High School, Didn't have much use for it.
Define happy..

High School and education have little to do with one another~happiness is not something that needs to be defined, nor can be definedin my opinion--only you know if you are happy. But for the sake of a definition lets use "enjoying or characterized by well-being and contentment". Or lets just refraze the question. Are you satisfied with where you are in your life, and do you have more joy and/or pleasure in your life than pain/sorrow?

Tell me about Joy...

Well I can tell you about various joys I experience in my life. The most profound of which being derived from the unique relationship I have with my brother. I could talk all day about the joy I get out of life, but I am more curious as to weather or not you believe you have more pleasure in your life than pain?

You're describing relative happiness. Happiness relative to the senses association of belief and attachment to reality.

The Joy that I was hoping you would speak of is the expanding enlivenment that comes from pure being and is not affected by any feeling but continues to grow in spite of changing beliefs and feelings.

Well I know that the joy I get from my brother comes only from time. The joy I recieve from him does not result from anything tangible. The joy can only be described as love. I do not think that my joy from pure being will ever grow--there is nothing new being contributed, I already recieve tons of joy from the fact that I am living, and that I will die. That is a constant joy in my life, but to say that joy is limited to existance alone would not be true to myself.

Ego is not the sum total of conditioning over ones life since there can be conditioning without ego. But we should be clear about what we are talking about: What is ego? What is conditioning? I understand ego as involving the illusion of separateness from everything else, often involving the experience that one's identity is synonymous with a myopic personal experience which probably necessitates some sort of conditioning. But this does not imply that ego is synonymous with the sum total of conditioning. Rather, conditioning may be necessary, but not sufficient, for ego.

Ego is an illusion of individuality that many people experience. It makes the world work, and if suddenly everyone became enlightened or sensed their universality, then many of the things we take for granted today would come to a halt. It is precisely because so many people are caught up in the illusion of individuality and are so caught up in their egos that our society functions, in many ways, like a big predictable machine. If everyone lost their egos, who would clean the public restrooms and empty the dumpsters? Should we train monkeys or build robots to do this before trying to wake up humanity from their collective delusions?

Which us why Joy is not limited to psychological emotions and is perceived intuitively as well. It is greater than the physical container. It is expanding love without any conditions.

If everyone dumped the limitations of belief filtered strictly through the identity created by the ego we wouldn't need public restrooms, or dumpsters, or police, or doctors, or lawyers, or politicians, or mortuaries, or foreign oil.....

I don't know about you, but I use public restrooms all the time~my huge ego must make me full of umm well you get the idea I could do without lawyers though.

Why not?

I think Joesus refers to the substrate or "ground of being." Experience of this is sometimes called mystical.

I really do not think that joy is something mystical. I simply believe that there are two kinds of joy--those derived from the tangible world, and those derived from the intangible world.

Not equivalence, but a subset relation. Not all joy is mystical, but mystical experience has been said to bring joy.

This place sure can get busy????

I agree, Flex, that is, if mystical is a term used to describe the unconscious mind? which may or may not be inside the physical body???
Personally I feel that much if not all of the unconscious mind, is out side the physical body... to me the "unconscious mind" is everything that I do not already know.......

This will possibly be my last post as non web commitments have a higher priority etc.,

Joesus your statement; I can only come from my own experience and feelings as you are well aware,
"Happy" to me is the state of mind, resulting from a resolution of conflict (conflicting ideas like conditioning vs. self adventure) and release of the emotion (anger, sadness, etc.) which held the conflict in place with in the mind (prior to the resolution).
This resulting state of mind is conscious, made up of what was previously conscious as well as a part of the unconscious mind which is now also conscious, this expanded state of consciousness means that previous physiological suppression of (to use a term ) “endorphins” has stopped and a feeling of euphoria is experienced,
As conflicts may vary from issues as simple as a small algebraic equation being resolved to resolution of ones intimacy with a parent in the case of rape etc., the relative degree of euphoria may be perceived as different?
As you realize this is hypothetical, am sure you will find many terms to define in order to determine if I am fake or not?
Though to go one step further, I perceive that if the barrier between the conscious and the unconscious mind ( I call this barrier "ego") if let go of, (i.e. release all the conflicting emotion) then the unconscious would become conscious (enlightened?) and as you say Joesus, there would be no need for rest rooms, waste removal, lawyers etc.,
To me no one person can be enlightened, with out the rest of the planet being in the same state.
As enlightenment to me is a state of being, where every thing in the enlightened person's reality, reflects the state of enlightenment. i.e. peace, contentment, beauty, no needs, no judgment etc.
Therefore if some one declares that they are enlightened? & I realize that I am not. Then I say the first person declaration is a false.
Am sure that you will find many points to argue about what I have said, If I get time tomorrow will visit this forum once more though may not comment if it is too busy….. cheers allan

Because the world would not exist as we know it from the defined awareness of limitation.
Being limitless there would be no sickness, no need to protect yourself from anything or anyone, and the need to heat the home or travel would be taken care of without the need or use of external sources.


You could say anything you wanted to say, but how would you recognize an enlightened person if you yourself were not and didn't know what one looks like?
Or do you have some image in mind?

[quote name='Joesus' date='Dec 14, 2006, 01:38 PM' post='73701']
[quote name='Rick' post='73661' date='Dec 13, 2006, 10:56 PM']
[quote name='Joesus' post='73610' date='Dec 12, 2006, 11:16 PM']

[quote]Therefore if some one declares that they are enlightened? & I realize that I am not. Then I say the first person declaration is a false.
[/quote]
[quote] You could say anything you wanted to say, but how would you recognize an enlightened person if you yourself were not and didn't know what one looks like?
Or do you have some image in mind?
[/quote]
Hi Joesus,
Again relating from my feelings only, if a person were enlightened?
They would have no "ego"? i.e. they would have no barrier between their conscious and unconscious mind, If this is the case? any thought that you have in your mind would appear immediately in their mind, via the your unconscious and equally the reverse, if they have let go of their "ego" then their mind would release your "ego" and hence the expression of "becoming one with the self". The more I look inside my self? the more I feel that we are all the same entity, separated by the fear of death.
The concept of god to me, is not a being? more like my feeling about the unconscious i.e. god is every thing that I do not already know? To criticize, control, abuse another, to me is, to criticize, control, abuse an aspect of myself.

If Jesus did exist? and that he? if not she? made the statement; "do unto others, as you would have done to you". Then there would be no wars, fear, pain etc., only the universal bliss, which as I perceive is unconditional and is more (to use a relative term) high, than the state of mind achieved from any drug (chemical) you could find on this planet. I have experienced the bliss state, like many of you and look forward to being again in it if possible.

Ps I am not enlightened, nor am I a profit. Only like others, a person on my journey to understand how my internal world is affected by the external reality. There is no glory, fame or adoration in this journey as these are 'ego' states? Only continued focus and a desire to experience what is on the other side of my fear and expectations.

If I am fake? Then by all means tell me, though it is for you to take what insights you may value? if any? and use them to further your journey towards your peace and contentment,.............................. as I perceive.
Joesus & all, this is my last post.
Hope you and who ever else, read this post? have an interesting, entertaining, & not stressful Christmas and New Year.
I used to find this time of year, filled with expectations and anticipation of fun and adventure. Often after the event, realizing I had over committed myself and fell back on the addictions of sex and drugs to redeem an otherwise busy and lonely period.
Now this period is more enjoyable, as I try to have no expectation, say to my self “ wonder what will happen over this period? at the end of the New Year, ask myself what actually did happen? Usually a lot of fun

The anthroposophical approach has yielded no evidence for deity, nor has it indicated any methodology that might be used to provide such evidence. Does this impact upon your confidence in a spiritual realisation or your religious beliefs?
Without a process how can you investigate the mechanisms for anything? Perhaps I simply do not understand your meaning behind 'without identifying with a process'.

I believe you

It would be pointless to respond if this really was the last post, but I'll wager it isn't and wait for you to stop being so dramatic and come back and ask me again without telling me it's your last post.


Why would it?
The process is irrelevent.