Leggo My Ego


“A feeling of aversion or attachment toward something is your clue that there’s work to be done.” – Ram Dass

Greetings and welcome to yet another tedious episode of our dEGOnstruction (ego deconstruction) series.

Todays satsang 🙂 will focus on the suffering caused by the mind’s dependence and attachment to the possessive … or more simply put, the ‘my/mine’ construct.

My name
My thread
My post
My thoughts
My life
My idea
My past
My wife/husband/kids
My house
My pain
My beliefs
My sharona
My situation
My feelings
My experiences
My money
My religion
My future
My body
My dream
My grief
My goals
My world
My truth
My opinion
My love
My philosophy
My death
My secrets
My problem

When the mind attaches itself to thought and personalizes it, it strips that which it is trying to express of all truth. For when a thought becomes a personal possession it becomes part of the mind’s self defined identity. When a human identifies him or her self through what the mind possesses it is in fact defining everything but what we are as living beings.

To the mind this is what you are: imagine a box that bears your name on it, to the mind defined self all that you are is the accumulation of thoughts and experiences compiled through what it calls MY life. That is all one can be, namely a sum of thoughts.

It’s not that thoughts and the mind are merely illusions as some say. Illusion itself, like all concepts, is itself a meaningless concept. And it’s not an issue of discarding thought and mind for that is actually impossible, they are part of the truth and they are a vital component of this physical manifestation we call ‘life.’

It is more to assign them their rightful place in our existence as opposed to allowing them to define it.
As I have noted on a few occasions, allowing the mind to be in charge is akin to allowing the car engine to steer the car.

Why?
And how do we know this to be true even though the mind resists it?

Well, the fact that the mind is resisting it should be our first clue of the truth contained in that statement.

But more specifically, let us take the example of personal dynamics on ATS in order to highlight the deeper truth across all interactions in our lives.

Think honestly for a second of how you react if your post gets a star, or if your thread gets a flag, or if a staff member is nice enough to applaud you. Think about your first reaction if someone has posted the exact same thread as you. What is your reaction if a mod actions you or moves your thread? When a fellow member is rude to you? How do you feel if you worked on a thread for a week and get no response and someone who posted a random youtube video and barely a comment gets thousands? How about if you get actioned for something and someone doesn’t even though they said something worse? One of your friends got banned?

Can you let something go without having the last word?
Can your belief be attacked by someone without hurting you?
Do you get frustrated with others’ ignorance?

The above questions are all rhetorical so I beg you not to painfully answer each one.

But if the answer to ANY of them is anything other than honest indifference then such is the consequence of personalized thought … what you call your thoughts.
If someone challenging, criticizing, or applauding “your” thoughts triggers any reaction in you then you are personally attached to your thoughts and define yourself through them.

To be affected by dissent or by approval is an indication that the mind is reacting to either the giving or withholding of another mind’s approval.

We know that thinking minds require mutual approval for that is why we have ‘like minded’ communities, religions, political ideologies, social classes, cultures … and we know what happens when ‘like minded’ communities of any kind are at odds with other ‘like minded’ communities. Conflict happens, wars happen, destruction happens.

And all of this happens simply because from birth we are conditioned to think that we are own beliefs.

But are we really?

Can’t a thought be just a thought without having it be personal?
Why does anything have to be yours or mine?

All this of course is just an observation …
I’m not suggesting it is the whole truth.
Just a tiny tiny fraction of the truth that despite it’s lilliputian mass that unless observed, understood, and realized, sure initiates a great deal of unnecessary suffering. Suffering that can easily be peeled away and discarded simply by disconnecting one’s identity from one’s thoughts and the mind’s need to own them.

There’s nothing that I, you, nor anyone anyone else can add as far as information to realize the truth. Information is food for the mind and we’ve all had plenty of that. This is about peeling learned and conditioned information, one’s identification with it, so that all that we all already know can manifest.

And it is all available right now, and you don’t have to do anything other than stop adding stuff.

I hear you say: “Sdog just killed my Descartes and has replaced it with nothing. So now what do I do?”

Well to begin with Descartes was misinformed … there I said it!

What he should have said is not “I think therefore I am” … at best he should have said “I think therefore I think I am” … that is if he should have said anything at all.

And as far as what happens when one disconnects their identity from their thoughts?

Everything and nothing … but it happens without resistance, it happens in the present moment, and it happens truthfully.

One final note … all this stuff is simple observations. and could easily be, and if fact probably is, all bullpoop. But I observed it because I have done all that I described and suffered for it, and made others suffer for it. It isn’t meant as a lesson nor do I presume any position of authority on the matter. I just was moved to write it down so I did. I hope no one feels insulted by it, and if you do, perhaps there’s more truth to what I am pointing to that what you are willing to concede.

In closing … this is not my post and these are not my thoughts.

Cheers!

sdog

“If you think you’re free, there’s no escape possible.” – Ram Dass

via: ATS

Advertisements

Comments

  1. bigfatfurrytexan says:

    thank you for putting it here. i have sent my email notification to as many people as i could think of.

    you have found a way to express in words something that is so abstract that it is barely possible to express it in words. 🙂 good stuff.

    • Thank you bfft …

      The fact that your kind words both flatter me and embarrass me means I still have a few more layers to peel away 😀 … still, they are very much appreciated.

  2. Matthew Grayson says:

    An illusion makes itself. All things considered I pondered a single thing. When I was in school, a man stopped me and said a single thing – and I joke you not – in the “time” it
    took me to consider what he said, he was gone. This is what he said:

    “‘Time’ is a creation of humankind, so that we may measure
    the passage of our sentient understanding of what, where and who we are.”

    In that moment I got it.

    After he said it, I looked to find him and ask why he said
    it to me. But he was gone. This happened at TCJC in Hurst
    Texas. I was 19 years old (young?).

    Time is an invention. Just like dynamite. I have to
    consider the implications. And I truly despise a ralation
    to faith. But if there is a heaven. Why would anyone
    were a watch in such a place? If you live eternal… what’s
    the point of time tracking?

    This posits the simple. And the simple forces of the complex to reveal. We base “co·ef·fi·cient” relevance to an outcome that will determine a factor for the forementioned force.

    So we are indeed compelled to pursue the complex and
    ignore the very simply truth. And the truth is = we
    truly do not know = “that we do no know.” I have no idea
    why I exist. Why can I type these words. What are words?
    How did words come into existence?

    This is what I know for sure. Outside this paradigm I have
    no clue.

    For me to exist (extensibly) =

    Air

    Water

    Food

    Shelter

    Does this describe an animal? A sea creture? An insect?

    Yes.

    Consider the Big Bang. There are four basic components
    here. Weak and Stong Nuclear forces, Gravity and the
    spectrum of magnetisim.

    A simple question…

    Where did ‘1’ come from? If you have ‘one’ of any thing,
    then you can have its ‘negative.’

    So here is the question = How can anything exist (like the
    number ‘1’) If it can’t exist in the first place? Is it possible to instantiate? Consider the fact that zero (0)
    cannot exist without its polars?

    So – In The Beginning There Was VOiD (NOTHING = ZERO)

    The lack of its nothing made something happen. No Big
    Bang. Just the utterly simply fact that if there
    is a ZERO (0) = instantly implies the existence of both
    the negative and the positive. After all is said, you can’t
    have anything without having NOTHING to start with.

    Zero (0) make 1 and -1 real. And don’t even star me on
    imaginary numbers. Imaginatino would exist without(0).

    Prove me wrong.

    Matthew Grayson – Zero Universe Theroy (ZUT)

  3. bigfatfurrytexan says:

    It is nice to see a personal friend of mine find something intellectually stimulating here. How are you doing, Matt?

    I don’t think I could prove you wrong, even if I wanted to. Have you read “The Secret Teachings Of The Ages”? If not, then I will cut it short and refer you to concepts such as Pythagoras’ Triad.

    If there is 1, then there must be 2. By this, I mean that for there to be one, there must be another which to apply context to one. It is a concept of the duad. It is very, very similar to what you are talking about, and it follows closely with my own spiritual beliefs.

    If is funny that you didn’t want to inject matters of religious belief into the discussion, but the very concept you discuss is at the core of the foundational principles of virtually all ancient religions, and therefore at the core of all current religions.

    Knowing your professional background, I find it intriguing that you apply a scientific concept to the principle of the monad/duad/triad. I only ask to add to my own file (so i can regurgitate it later, so keep it simple for simple folks like me)…do you have any references that would support your theory that I might peruse, and use at a later date?

  4. Would you say that judging by many of the replies in ATS the point of your opening post seems to have been misinterpreted?

    If so is this a through desire to publically address a point for some reason or genuine misinterpretation? From where I sit the point seems clear enough for everyone’s eyes, perhaps not everyone’s I’s though.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: