When I ask a question...

I don't think ego is necessarily bad. It is a given fact of our existence.
It can be bad - 'unbridled egotism' etc can lead to much selfishness and suffering for others, as well as being an objectionable spectacle when you see it in full flight.
Most of us learn to control our egoism to some degree, and the ego can be good - it can be resolved on 'putting others first' etc.

Since you're determined to entice me into your trap, I'd have to say that the only way to know about non-ego and why it's so great would be......well, need I finish the sentence?

 

we were having a misunderstanding then.

You are taking it as asking questions to one's self, and I took it as asking questions to others.

now I see where you are coming from.

 

No - every question to others implies that one believes in oneself as a separate being. It's ego questioning ego.

 

You can experience and interact with others without having to buy into the belief that they are seperate beings.

Enlightenment can only be internally realized. With the help of a guiding "enlightened one", our ego could be poked and prodded in just the right way.

 

And is that a good thing, given the questions that we can ask?

I find some people communicate in questions. They ask question to express themselves; rather than simply saying "x should be true", they ask "should x be true?", encouraging others the right to question their belief, rather than merely proclaiming it.

This may be true, but I think there's another extreme which goes unchecked. The not-ego, unbridled, leaves people indolent and self-satisfied, as much as an ego leaves them frantic and critical of others. I think there's a fair few like that here.

I don't think it's my trap though, or a trap at all really. No irony intended, but it's a question sitting there waiting to be asked by precisely the people who won't ask it.

 

But they wouldn't be 'others' if one didn't feel separate!

.

I don't really know what you mean by 'enlightenment'. Do you mean in a Buddhist sense?

 

And that's not true?

 

From the standpoint of the one doing the interaction and facilitation of spiritual growth, no, they would not be considered others.

I dont have a sense of what enlightenment is in the Buddhist sense. All I meant was a realization of self awareness.

 

Sorry if I sound as if I'm 'proclaiming' anything. Just putting my own no doubt limited view.

I agree 100% that the non-ego fraternity can be a bit obtuse to say the least, as well as intellectually lethargic and often with an inadequate philosophy.

 

Such as who for instance?
How do you know this?

.

What do you mean by 'self awareness'. Is there a 'self' other than the ego do you think?

 

for me, it's common sense. One can utilize their ego in such a way to facilitate the growth of consciousness and self awareness in others.


But since this is directly relevant to the nature of this thread, I want to ask you what is your purpose for asking me these questions.

The one true eternal self, that is outside of temporal and identity boundaries.

 

I'd be interested to know how this can be done.

Curiosity mainly. It interests me to know what others believe and think.

.

But He knows who He Is.

 

Oh, no, not at all. I mean, you're actually willing to engage on this subject. Others have not done so. They tend to withdraw from conversation/debate by saying that they have nothing left to say, which, to me, implies that follow-up questions are unwelcome and viewed with disdain. To me, that's not conversation, it's the equivalent of talking to yourself! The same is true of a community that doesn't converse; it might as well be a dissolved mass, and often seems like they've dealt with the "problem" of ego and identity by pretending it's not there.

But that's more my ongoing gripe with those who'll tell me that it's all about the journey with one breath and act like they actually got to the destination and found that they didn't want to go on any more journeys after all with another. Maybe I misunderstand the axiom.

Yeah, it all comes down to self-satisfaction. If a group sees inquisition and inquiry as negative or unnecessary or something that is hampering their process, they have no reason to better themselves. We have no reason to think that what we're doing, whatever it is, isn't bettering ourselves, if we cease to care what others think. Not that you have to stop caring what others think, but people tend to.

 

As one possibility, Adam Smith proposed that total selfishness on everyone's part leads to the betterment of all. Of course, he was a horrible ****, but if indiscriminate and total egomania can have a positive effect, I'd think that well-guided application of the ego, of drive rather than indolence, can only have a positive effect. We mostly do good deeds for some personal gain, even if it's only the endorphin rush at the end.

 

well, then who are you?

 

It's just me me me me me with you, isn't it.

(And occasionally he he he he he.)

This is all reminding me of Ayn Rand, which is upsetting in itself, and in a similar way of Doris Lessing's The Cleft.

 

Yes. When its not ShivaKaliKrishna

What is it with you?

 

Yeah. I think that, if you believe it's about the journey, not the destination, then you don't get to decide when you've arrived; when you're there, everyone will know it for you.

It seems like a lot of what is "attacked" as being a sign of ego is really only the superficial signs, rather than the deeper-rooted ones. It's like only looking for racism in people's offensive words, rather than in their thoughts and deeds. Plenty of racists manage to get off scott free by never actually saying the N-word, while plenty of people who wouldn't dream of discriminating will be vilified for doing so. Much as it is with the ego: one may avoid ever using the word "I" but still be profoundly selfish, self-absorbed and as obsessed with their own individuality and specialness as anyone else.

 

When I engage in answering the questions that arise in mind, I am not here. I am there, then.... in the memory of a past 'now', in contemplation of a question that his already passed. It is no more and is not now, yet as I still think of it, I am also not here now. This is not a problem, and nothing wrong with it, merely something to recognize. Questions and answers will be necessary, until they're not.