--- In [email protected], Peter Sutphen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > --- Rick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: (snip) > > > > Is it possible that, the experience of there being > > no "I" to intend > > or not to intend is based on the recognition that > > ego as has always > > been identified with as "I" is actually not Self > > therefore "I" do > > not exist. Maybe a more accurate statement would be: > > therefore "I" > > is not the ego. > > No. "I" and the ego are one and the same. Rick, let me > ask you a question. Why this powerful protest about > the "I" disappearing? I contend that it is because of > the the "I"/consciousness confound. But why do you > stuggle with it?
Of course it could be just my fear of an "I" disappearing, I am not so stupid as to deny the possibility that I may not know all that there is to know, but, this discussion may also be about a greater understanding of the dissolution of ego and how that relates to the broader sense of I that is often hinted at in the Vedas and such. Things like "Curving back upon myself I create again and again" indicate a sense of consciousness knowing itself. Consciousness is conscious. When people say "hey, its not me, things are just happening", I wonder, what is noticing that? We end up back in duality, there is a witnessing of action and then there is some God/Nature/Mystery that is responsible for this action. "Why do you struggle with it?" I am reminded of the invasion of the body snatchers where the holdouts are encouraged to just go to sleep, everything will be okay. OSF Rick Carlstrom To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
