Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length

The nature of ego.

The nature of ego.
October 11, 2012, 04:48:16 PM
What is ego, anyway?
I'll tell you what it is.
I am an expert on ego.
I used to have one.

Ego is what you pretend you are, when you aren't.
Ego stands in for the substance that is lacking.
Ego makes of you, something you wish you were, but aren't.
Ego prevents you, from ever being what you claim to be.

People often say I am egotistical and arrogant.
What they mean, by that, is that I act 'superior'.
Not realizing that it is not an act.
Because superiority is unknown to them.

It never occurs to the inferior, that they behave as they do, because of their inferiority.
It never occurs to them, either, that what they see in a superior being, is, in fact, superiority.

Superiority means authority. And authority is bad.
Because the one who rebels against authority is immature.
That is why this age of 'equality' will be the death of us all.
Because it cancels out the benefits of superiority.

There are a few who recognize their inferiority.
And seek to leave it behind, as a child outgrows its toys.
But for every one of those, there are a hundred who cling to childhood.

What would you rather be?
Inferior, or superior?
Superiority doesn't appear by claiming it so.
It comes by abandoning inferiority, and putting superiority first.

The real failing of ego, is that when enough people are egotistical, nothing is real any more.
Nothing can be trusted. Nothing is true.
Proofs must be demanded, and the proofs become more important that what they prove.
What are you going to do with proof?

Life isn't about proof.
It is about living.
And proof is nothing, whatever, to do with living.
Neither is ego.
Squawk!

Re: The nature of ego.
October 11, 2012, 05:35:05 PM
The notion of superiority or inferiority is a notion of the ego.  Ego-less, boundaries are dissolved; how can one be superior when all is one?  There is no other over which to be superior.

Re: The nature of ego.
October 11, 2012, 05:51:01 PM
The notion of superiority or inferiority is a notion of the ego.  Ego-less, boundaries are dissolved; how can one be superior when all is one?  There is no other over which to be superior.

Physical manifestation (emanation) appears to be hierarchical. Though I suppose ones superiority is analogous to the difference between a Buddha(freed from the world of becoming) and a mundane. I think it would be hard to argue that a Buddha is not superior to a mundane.
There's too many of us There's too many of us There's too many of us There's too many of us There's too many of us There's too many of us There's too many of us There's too many of us There's too many of us There's too many of us

Re: The nature of ego.
October 11, 2012, 06:05:14 PM
Superiority may have something to do with the ego, but not necessarily.
The example of the Buddha is a good one.
One may be superior without seeing oneself as such.
Squawk!

Re: The nature of ego.
October 11, 2012, 06:55:21 PM
Its me I'm the ego

Re: The nature of ego.
October 11, 2012, 08:42:40 PM
Superiority may have something to do with the ego, but not necessarily.
The example of the Buddha is a good one.
One may be superior without seeing oneself as such.

For clarification, I said "a" not "the" Buddha. The distinction is important. Especially as it pertains to (aides) your position.
There's too many of us There's too many of us There's too many of us There's too many of us There's too many of us There's too many of us There's too many of us There's too many of us There's too many of us There's too many of us

Re: The nature of ego.
October 11, 2012, 09:14:39 PM
The same experience in two individuals with similar  conciousness is in fact the same in the same way two carbon copies are similar to the original.

You migth have a very similar conciousness to someone who once walked about. But even if you remember  nothing, it is still true.

There is nothing that binds the conciousness to your individual existence apart of the illusion of the ego set apart from the world---the self is like a drop of ink in the water which is reality.

The esoteric secret about reincarnation and loving thy neighbor is the realization that two similar men thinking the same thought are in fact the same self----but also the same ego which is in a delusion of separation from the whole. Thats what the ego is : that line that separates the experience  from the whole/reality/the experienced.

Re: The nature of ego.
October 11, 2012, 10:53:56 PM
I posted this same thread on another forum, to compare the commentary that followed.
You fellas really should get a bit more uncivilized, if Death Metal is your thing.
I'm being hung, drawn and quartered by the other lot, and they call themselves critical-thinkers/philosophers.
Maybe they are more sensitive about the subject of 'ego' than you are.
Squawk!

Re: The nature of ego.
October 12, 2012, 01:49:52 AM
Death metal isn't created by the savage. It is created by the civilized who idealizes the savage.
There's too many of us There's too many of us There's too many of us There's too many of us There's too many of us There's too many of us There's too many of us There's too many of us There's too many of us There's too many of us

Re: The nature of ego.
October 12, 2012, 02:15:15 AM
Thank you.
Somehow that distinction had escaped me, until you stated what probably should have been obvious.
Squawk!

Phoenix

Re: The nature of ego.
October 12, 2012, 03:51:18 AM
I--someone who claims to be enlightened--reject the notion of superiority to the extent of how it's been elaborated in this thread. It's so stupid I find it offensive, it's as hollow as a Republican talking point.

If a person seeks to evolve, do they strive to realize an inferior state?

If a person seeks to evolve, do they strive to realize a superior state?

If the spiritual path is a matter of self-improvement, then by definition one who's further along the spiritual path has realized a superior state than someone less far along. It goes without saying.

Can one drastically, sustainably realize a superior state with the snap of their fingers, without actually making any effort? Of course not. Because what a "superior" state is, is precisely unknown to them.

The trajectory towards a more superior state is never fully known--otherwise it would already have been pursued--and the destination of said superior state is never fully known either--since obviously one can't discern where they'll end up before they decide where to go. (Realization of the trajectory arises simultaneously with arrival at the destination.)

Crow speaks of certain qualities corresponding to 'superiority', such as experience, authority, lack of ego, etc.

Why not simply use the terms "experience", "authority", "lack of ego", etc? Oh, well actually he does. But then he adds the word "superiority" to top it all off. Does it imply anything extra?

Crow talks about his perspective of enlightenment and strategies for attaining enlightenment. But he never defines "superiority".

Furthermore, not only is it derogatory towards others to call one's self superior, but to make it the central thesis of a thread, to imply it goes hand-in-hand with enlightenment, to never give any definition of it, and to stress that unenlightened folks are painfully ignorant of it... it's a sneaky, passive-aggressive way of touting one's horn for no other purpose than to get off on it.

The dictionary is quite clear in this matter. "Superiority" can refer to a person or thing being greater in quality or quantity to another person or thing in a specific, defined way, or it can refer to a person or thing being greater in quality or quantity to another person or thing in a general, universal way. The former case requires elaboration of the specific, defined aspect in question. The latter case is a matter of absolute value, necessitating ontological and epistemological discussion to have any hope of moving beyond the subjective whims of personal opinion, that is, in the eyes of any rationale, critical-thinking reader.

Recklessly tossing about polarizing words only helps promote the equally ludicrous notion that somehow we're all identical, that all personal agency is illusory, that at the end of the day we're all just a big, fat, homogeneous blob of undifferentiated oneness.

Namaste

Re: The nature of ego.
October 12, 2012, 03:57:47 PM
The wanker returns.
Interested only in showing others his own illusory superiority by attempts to show another's inferiority.
His personal hatred blinds him to all else.
I have learned that the very word 'ego' sets such people off on their ranting hate-fests.
An interesting phenomenon, that.
Squawk!

Re: The nature of ego.
October 12, 2012, 06:37:25 PM
Evolution is compulsory.
There's too many of us There's too many of us There's too many of us There's too many of us There's too many of us There's too many of us There's too many of us There's too many of us There's too many of us There's too many of us

Re: The nature of ego.
October 12, 2012, 07:11:55 PM
Not to the deluded.
Squawk!

Re: The nature of ego.
October 12, 2012, 08:23:07 PM
crow, while frequently there is depth to what you say, you do seem to have a pretty canned knee-jerk reaction to dissent. I must hesitate even to say that as you are my senior in life and experience, but its a trend across the forum and even on Amerika that I cannot help but notice. I would be interested in your response to Transcix that did not read past the words; I understand there is little value in dialectic, it is a pointless exercise usually, but it isnt pointless for the spectators.