WHY EGO IS SOO DESERATE TO SURVIIVEE????

[RMQualtrough]

Darwinian evolution.

[Leo Gura]

7 minutes ago, B222 said:

@Leo Gura ah yea love just is? Similar to what Eckhart said;

Of course

Is-ness is Love.

Quote

But the source itself is impartial?

To source there is no difference between any two things. There are not even two things. Source is just metaphysical Oneness itself. It's an infinite field of Oneness. You can't be partial when you are so One you have no parts.

Quote

How would we be dead already if we weren’t afraid of death? Is that by choice or recklessness? I think an intelligent being with no fear would still avoid life threatening danger for example? 

Mostly through recklessness. Fear keeps you from doing dangerous things.

[Michael Jackson]

Warning for all caps already received?

[The Mystical Man]

The ego's capacity for survival is something to marvel at; it has survived for eons. The ego's attempt to survive is a burden, but if the ego wasn't so good at survival, you wouldn't be here right now. 

[B222]

@The Mystical Man what’s the difference between ego survival and god/love survival, or the natural flow of evolution/life? 
I guess god doesn’t need survival but ego is a part of god that does need survival?

Isn't there a natural urge for survival/expansion? Is this urge always ego? What about animals and plants that act on natural instincts and flow? 

 

@Leo Gura ????
 

 

[Breakingthewall]

the ego is natural intelligence in its pure state. the same that makes birds have wings, or that in a human body there are 7 thousands of quadrillion atoms organized in a perfect pattern, each one occupying its exact place

[B222]

@Breakingthewall wouldn’t that just be god then? ‘Ego is natural intelligence in its pure state?’

[Breakingthewall]

25 minutes ago, B222 said:

@Breakingthewall wouldn’t that just be god then? ‘Ego is natural intelligence in its pure state?’

Yes , the ego is god, since God is everything. There is only god, or infinity, or reality, any name, since it can't be limits.  and what appears to be separate, like the ego, is only an appearance, a form of reality

[The Mystical Man]

2 hours ago, B222 said:

@The Mystical Man what’s the difference between ego survival and god/love survival, or the natural flow of evolution/life?

There is no such thing as "god survival". The flow of life is the spontaneous expression of God's creativity which is not inhibited by the ego's attempt to survive as something that is not worth surviving as. The problem isn't the ego's capacity for survival; the problem is the ego's capacity to survive in destructive and unnecessary ways. 

2 hours ago, B222 said:

I guess god doesn’t need survival but ego is a part of god that does need survival?

Ego doesn't need survival; ego is survival. Dr. Hawkins taught: survival established the main core of the ego.

2 hours ago, B222 said:

Isn't there a natural urge for survival/expansion? Is this urge always ego?

Survival and expansion are two different things. Things tend to expand; that doesn't necessarily have anything to do with the ego's survival. In fact, the ego is often in the way of expansion, leading to the obstruction of the flow of life and the destruction of life. 

2 hours ago, B222 said:

What about animals and plants that act on natural instincts and flow? 

Animals and plants are also an expression of God's creativity, but their behavior is pure survival. Dr. Hawkins taught: the ego originates from the animal world.

We can enjoy the spontaneous flow of life because the mechanical nature of the ego got us through the early stages of evolution. When evolution or life first begins, consciousness goes to sleep. God becomes unconscious. What are we going to do while God sleeps? We have to rely on the ego. But when we rely on the ego for too long, that becomes problematic. Now we have to learn to rely on consciousness rather than the ego. It's time for God to wake up. 

Edited June 20, 2022 by The Mystical Man

[Razard86]

On 5/16/2022 at 10:23 PM, SeaMonster said:

You are confusing a conscious act of protest -- which does not require being enlightened by any means -- with involuntary deactivation of the survival drive.  Plenty of non-enlightened people kill themselves for all kinds of reasons as well.  The monks CHOOSE to take these actions, they are not deprived of the will to survive.  Their conscience simply overrides the survival drive.

The whole basis for your disagreement eludes you. How would you know if someone was enlightened or not? Just because somebody says a bunch of things wouldn't be proof. You barely know yourself, you think you would really know? Also if you think an enlightened person is immune to burning themselves in protest then you are placing limits on reality. You are free to do that, but then you will just cease to grow in knowledge. Your choice.

Edited June 20, 2022 by Razard86