Combating the wisdom of spiritual world

Although the spiritual world is just a subset or offspring of the normal everyday real world, it has it’s own peculiar teachings, wisdoms and delusions. Here this fellow has a point, but it only probably goes this far for him…what be of the soul ?

Okay, going to approach this like a 5 year old (it’s a thing I’ve been doing). He keeps insisting there’s no ego. What does he mean by ego? He equates it to a “personal self.” What does he mean by personal? What does he mean by self?

What does anyone mean by these interesting words?

(Setting aside actualism for a sec.)

Ego is a funny word. It’s just Latin for I.

Ego sum animal. I am an animal.

I is just the English word for when a speaker wishes to refer to herself, deriving from Old English ik and the Proto Germanic ek.

It’s just this gutteral noise that informs others that the one making that gutteral noise will be talking about itself.

Just the speaker speaking about the speaker, as opposed to speaking about someone or something other than the speaker. There’s an acknowledgment by the speaker that indeed the speaker exists, just like you exist, and the sky exists, and so on. And if we can talk about all these other things existing, we can certainly talk about ek!

Further, that just like the sky can be defined, the speaker can be defined. To say, ego sum animal, I am an animal, is to say this object that you see in front of you that is moving and speaking can be described as an animal that has the ability to point to itself.

When it points to itself, it calls that which it points to I, when it points to the person it’s speaking to, it calls that person you, when it points to a collection of objects it calls it those, and so on.

Where is the controversy?

I think he is not speaking in terms of physical identification…such as the sky here which is distinct from an orgsnism here and another over there … but yes, we don’t know from this short clip alone what he means by ego and personal being here

Nowadays, I just find it actually way more cleaner and simpler thinking in terms of the instinctual vs the social identity !

Oh yes, very slight chance he is speaking in terms of the strictly physical. Even so, humans aren’t strictly physical beings.

That is, nearly all of them contain feelings, and thoughts, and emotions, as well as expectations, and regrets, and assumptions, and so on, along with mucous and cells and bones. And when one human refers to itself – which is understood to be inclusive all these things that comprise it, physical and non-physical alike – it utters a particular noise or writes a particular word, namely, I (or ek, ego, ich, yo, eu, je, mainwatashi in Japanese and in Mandarin, as some examples outside the PIE sphere).

When the human wishes to refer to the numerical concept of a thing plus a thing, it says or writes 2, when it wants to refer to that large salty body of water that connects continents it writes or says ocean. Yet many people say that while humans might exist (again, assuming that a human comprises all that physical and non-physical stuff), they insist that I – the individual human speaking about itself – does not exist. Why?

I am idly curious if the Chinese say something like “the does not exist.”

Do they say “the main does not exist” in Hindi?

Methinks it could be in the sense of not having control…at-least in Buddhism, everything within a human body is seen as impersonal processes arising simply due to the preceding conditions…so its the conditions which are running one’s life rather than an entity capable of decision making outside of these conditions

In Hindi language, this is something I’ve never heard but in Hinduism as a religion - yes, they do talk about the Ego as something like a false perception or concept erroneously arising due to ignorance…but so far from all I read and spoke to - none of them talk about elimination of the deeper “me” - the rudimentary “feeling being” itself…and none of them talking about living as this flesh n blood body only…Incidentally, there is an idea of Pure Consciousness in some schools of thought in Hinduism too, but that Pure Consciouness isn’t about the Universe’s experiencing but something divine lol

1 Like

One precocious 5 year old :joy:

1 Like

The best type.:joy:

Why? Why? But…why?

It’s really a fascinating thought. Although I was already thoroughly indoctrinated at 5, the idea that I would be contemplating the need for “psychic suicide” as an adult is such a foreign thought to the simplicity of being “EK”.

I have been studying Russian again recently, and also watching some videos on “Proto Indo-European” language. The evolution of language is fascinating.

Indeed the thought patterns in different languages is a huge part of learning.

How bizarre it is to imagine those ancient humans, and consider the language they spoke later being put into ‘squotes’ and a subject of such a monumental shift in thinking.

Пройти огонь, воду и медные трубы

Literally, "pass through fire, water, and copper pipes (copper pipes = trumpets = pride/ego).

Which is to say; the final tribulation is one’s ego/pride/the praise of others/social validation.

1 Like

Actualism is in a way the reverse,

By passing through “ego”, ( stepping out of the ‘real’,) one no longer needs to go through “fire & water” (tribulations).

Was wondering whether to put this in the meme thread instead :laughing:

What a complete moron he was. Unblinking stupidity incarnate.

Still, he had his harem and Rolls Royce fleet.

Maybe I need to take a quick detour down the enlightenment track. Except of course that Richard completely ruined that option.

Yeah It’s a really great thing Richard came right in time to give Peter n Vineeto a better alternative to this fellow !

1 Like

Not gonna lie…got me in the first half :smile:

At what point did he pull the ol switcheeroo for you, you think?

The part about the focus? That’s what made me go, nah - I was with you until that part.

But maybe I’m not seeing it to extent he is.

Why does he wear those beeds?

Yeah, the universe is not focused on me. Ridiculous.

But let me try to bend over backwards to accommodate.

It takes the entire universe to make these eyes see. Yes. It requires the entire universe to make me breathe. All the forces of nature are dedicated to putting air in my lungs.

But those forces are equally preoccupied over there, and there. They’re equally busy making the earth spin. Equally busy making the cricket chirp.

Everywhere and anywhere all at once.

(Isn’t that a movie title?)

Its when he says “Tat Twam Asi” of the Upanishads philosophy…basically here they are equating one’s soul to that Supreme Reality/ Absolute (aka the “Brahm”)…

What they mean is that this Brahm is what is everything which includes the universe…so what they’re essentially saying is that Brahm = Universe + X + Y + Z … In other words there is something more than the Universe itself !

Aah the holy moly beeds…they are basically some counting mechanism ( I guess one could get lost in an ASC while meditating so they need something actual to bring back to senses :laughing:)

A japamala , jaap maala , or simply mala (Sanskrit: माला; mālā, meaning ‘garland[1]) is a loop of prayer beads commonly used in Indian religions such as Hinduism, Jainism, Sikhism, and Buddhism for counting recitations when performing japa (reciting a mantra or other sacred sound) or for counting some other sadhana (spiritual practice) such as prostrating before a holy icon. They are similar to other forms of prayer beads used in various world religions and are sometimes referred to in Christianity as a “rosary”.

Do you think they could be responding to believers in a finite universe? Like our present day cosmologists who posit a measurable universe that begins in one place and ends in another.

Is Brahm considered infinite by the way?

Yeah I do think they consider Brahm as infinite…I think with all this Richard really nailed it where he said something like the identity out of it’s desparate need to survive at all cost, picks up the actual properties of the universe for itself

1 Like

Not the correct thread to post but Lol…he was going quite Richardian here…

No, without even watching it, he isn’t even a shit stain on the sole of Richard’s worn out thong.

(Apologies to my “land hemisphere” friends where that means something very different, however the gist is entirely the same, funnily enough)