I'm an EGO

[mandyjw]

39 minutes ago, Dinsdale said:

There doesn't seem to be a consensus here about what "ego" actually means. 

Sense of self? Invidual "me"? Something else? 

I'm also not sure what "God" means here. It sounds something like Hindu Brahman, but this is far from clear. 

Without some clarity and consensus about these terms, it's difficult to have a meaningful  discussion. 

The clarity isn't found in the ideas, it's found beyond the ideas, they are pointing to the truth. There's a very good reason why no consensus will ever be reached about those terms. 

[Forestluv]

53 minutes ago, Dinsdale said:

There doesn't seem to be a consensus 

Welcome to relativity and context dependence.

[Nahm]

What if legos made a person, and the lego person said, wait a minute here.....who am I again? 

[Dinsdale]

The stuff about non-duality is interesting, but it's a big topic with various interpretations. 

For this discussion it would be useful to see succinct definitions of "ego" and "God", and how they relate. Or more specifically, how exactly these terms are being used on this forum. 

Any takers? 

Edited October 26, 2019 by Dinsdale

[Nahm]

9 minutes ago, Dinsdale said:

For this discussion it would be useful to see succinct definitions of "lego" and "lego", and how they relate. Or more specifically, how exactly these terms are being used on this forum. 

A thought about who you are is made of who you are. So the implication of the thought, what a thought “suggests” you are (ego) could never be true. (The thought is already made of who you are).

[Forestluv]

19 minutes ago, Dinsdale said:

For this discussion it would be useful to see succinct definitions of "ego" and "God", and how they relate. 

The OP who started the thread provided definitions of Ego and God.

6 hours ago, Strangeloop said:

God is a giant Ego, this giant ego spreads into pieces of ego which are each separate human and creature. 

Are these definitions not “useful” and “succinct” in your view? If not, could you provide us with useful, succinct definitions for “useful” and “succinct”?. . . Notice the circularity. . . 
 

Definitions have practical value, yet there are no grounded objective, universal definitions. 
 

[Dinsdale]

I was under the impression that "ego" and "God" are used in a particular way on this forum, that's what I'm interested in understanding. If there is no consensus, then people need to clearly explain what they mean. 

The OP approach sounds like Atman/Brahman in Hinduism, but I don't know whether that reflects the general understanding here, or not. 

Definition of terms is important, otherwise people just talk past each other. Woolly speech often reflects woolly thinking, which often reflects woolly understanding. 

Ill-defined jargon is a perpetual problem. 

 

 

Edited October 26, 2019 by Dinsdale

[Forestluv]

4 minutes ago, Dinsdale said:

Definition of terms is important, otherwise people just talk past each other. 

I hear you. If I start talking about fliglits, it won’t be a productive conversation because a fliglit hasn’t been defined and no one knoes what a fliglit is. If everybody makes up their own definition of fliglit, there will be mass confusion because everyone is using different definitions. So it’s helpful to have some grounded and sense of consensus on what a fliglit is. . . .Yet there is also a problem on the other side of the coin. There is no single, objective universal truth of flignit. However, people will assume there is. This is problematic as well. It is also beneficial to questions our assumptions.

Regarding terms like enlightenment, awakening, consciousness, ego and God - it can be useful to have general definitions for grounding and also be fluid with groundlessness. For example, sometimes people use “self” to mean a personal identity and “Self” to point to an essence transcendent of self personality. Quite often, using lower case refers to a more “contracted” state and upper case is an “expanded” state. Similarly with god and God as well as you and You. 
 

Much of the time on the forum, “ego” is used in the traditional sense that it is self-centered thoughts that are generally negative. For example, someone might say “My ego is interfering with my relationship with my gf. How can I reduce my ego and become more spiritual?”. Other people may pause and think “What a minute. . . When I say I want to get rid of my ego, who/what is that *I* that wants to get rid of the ego? Is that *l* also ego? Is there a good ego and a bad ego. Or is it all one ego?” This is also a great exploration that involves groundlessness. Yet this exploration can also be a distraction in some contexts. If someone is asking for their because their ego is out of control, they have been harming others and want to stop - it would probably be more helpful to introspect underlying feelings and causes, such as insecurity and past trauma then to get into an abstract existential discussion about what is an ego.

As we contemplate deeper, it becomes apparent that it’s really hard to form concrete definitions in sand. It all becomes circular and collapses. Humans have been contemplating ego and God for thousands of years. . . In terms of getting a general sense of the forum, Leo has made many hours of video defining ego and God. The usage of the terms still vary on the forum, yet the videos can give a sense of  perspective on a higher conscious context of usage. Such as the below vide