Why humans can't get rid of their egos ?

[Dontaskme]

Lacewing wrote:

I also like to explore what the benefits are of any particular perspective.

So do I,with regard to metaphysical perspective and it's metaphysical perspective what DontAskMe is talking about when DAM praises the perspective of non duality.

Non duality is pragmatically similar to nihilism, and postmodernism. Its use is clearing one's mind of preconceptions before making decisions.

In the philosophical context. Nothing aka(Consciousness) being Everything aka ( Awareness) is hardly nihilism now is it?

Consciousness the sense of ''I exist'' as a KNOWN concept is a supposistion upon what is already here. (Pure Awareness without a concept) therefore, the KNOWN is a fictional story arising in never-not-here Pure Awareness) That is hardly nihilism is it?

The known concept ''I exist'' aka (a personalised mental construction) that person can also be depersonalised, deconstructed by the same mechanism that created it, using the same instrument aka(the mind) ...hence the Net i Net i ..not this, not that, both and yet neither.

When the mental nets over what is acceptable unlock... the illusory contracted sense of 'little me' aka separation dissolves into a whole new freedom from the contracted I am limited and separate sense, to an unlimited expansiveness of being aware of I Am Everything .. this is very beneficial in the context the contracted state of 'little unlimited me'' falls away and a new unlimited freedom arises.

Hardly nihilism is it?

.

“There is no controller, no selector, no personality making choices.”
Jean Klein

The freedom to be, the freedom you ARE.
Always here, never not here now.

.

[Dontaskme]

The reason why humans cannot get rid of their ego is because a human doesn't have an ego to get rid of, a human is just an idea within consciousness.

An idea that 'I exist' is a known concept of Consciousness only.

That which exists as an idea cannot rid itself of it's own idea, (imagined) it would be like trying to wash away blood using blood.

.

[roydop]

But, as I have stated, I can EXPLAIN ALL of this, in great detail.

Then please do so!

OH GOD NO!!

[roydop]

I know the forum is used to talk about human ideas. But what if talking about the idea there is no human except as idea crops up like now for instance ...would that be of interest to you lacewing?

Yes, it is of interest. I simply find moderation and context-discernment most reasonable in communication -- and there are times when this seems ignored.

I also like to explore what the benefits are of any particular perspective. When asked this, a lot of people don't seem to have an answer... perhaps because they're thinking that their beliefs/perspective is just what is (some sort of ultimate truth/reality), and that it has nothing to do with choices and benefits. But I see all of these choices on an equal playing field, with benefits and downfalls (pros and cons) that appeal or are acceptable to the individual. So, without thinking that any particular perspective is crucial for everyone, I like to ask anyone (including myself), "What does your perspective offer you or do for you?" And "Are you and your life more bountiful and empowered as a result of your chosen perspective?"

The less internal monologue that's going on in consciousness ("my head") the more peaceful and happy I am. Also, since adapting the thought free Awareness perspective I am able to see and understand the "why" to people's actions (hint: it's all to prop up the ego).

[surreptitious57]

The less internal monologue thats going on in consciousness ( my head ) the more peaceful and happy I am

This is also how I feel except I would describe it as contentment rather than happiness
The quieter my mind is the more calm I feel and the more balanced my mental state is

[Dontaskme]

The still calm centre of being is always calm even amid surrounding chaos

It’s neither happy or content because it’s without preference...preference is chaos...if there is contentment it’s because of none contentment..if there is happiness it’s because of unhappiness...and viceversa.

.

[surreptitious57]

I feel more content the older I become since I know that I am only passing through this life which is very temporary indeed
As I am really only waiting before the eternal state of death awaits there is no point in hanging on any more than I have to

[AlexW]

The less internal monologue that's going on in consciousness ("my head") the more peaceful and happy I am

Yes, sounds familiar - its important that thought finds back to its natural balance. It doesn't have to be ON all the time (as seems to be the default state for many people), thought should only arise when required, otherwise it should be quiet - thats the natural state. Its the same for everything, you run when you have to, but you don't run all the time...

[Lacewing]

It doesn't have to be ON all the time (as seems to be the default state for many people), thought should only arise when required, otherwise it should be quiet - thats the natural state. Its the same for everything, you run when you have to, but you don't run all the time...

Nicely said. Too much thinking is like noise that blocks receptivity to broader awareness and other signals. In my experience, amazing things happen when we "get ourselves out of the way": bigger things with greater possibilities... beyond the limits/imagination of our own specific thoughts.

[Age]

If you don't believe anything, then there's no requirement to not believe what you already don't believe is there?

It's true that one aka the ( I )doesn't need the belief they are, they simply are, no belief is needed. This simple fact of being is the divine oxymoron that is a no position position.

But as soon as that position of no position is taken up by the knowledge that someone else can have a belief then you've artificially superimposed a belief on your no belief position.

Have I?

Can you explain EXACTLY how I have, supposedly, done this?

From what I can SEE, I have NO belief at all, especially in regards to the VIEW that I have NO belief. I just LOOK AT and SEE (understand) things, from a certain perspective, and then some times express those VIEWS.

I have NO belief, either way.

WHERE exactly do you see this so called "belief", that you BELIEVE that I have now, supposedly, "artificially superimposed" onto one of my VIEWS?

I can't remember which post it was in now, but you made a reference to the concept ( belief) saying to someone else that that is your belief...

OF COURSE I have said to "another" that "that is YOUR belief". If I recall correctly I have said this many times BUT if I also recall correctly that is NOT the question I asked you about.

Look above in the quoted part. You stated that I have artificially superimposed a "belief", on my position/view.

I asked you; WHERE exactly do you see this so called "belief" (which you state that I have artificially superimposed)?

If you are going to make accusations about me, then back them up.

so all I'm asking is can someone have a belief? even if you don't?

.

Plenty of adult human bodies can have beliefs. This can be SEEN a lot.

If you look in the writings, under the label "dontaskme", then 'beliefs' CAN be SEEN, as well as in other writings.

Are BELIEFS expressed in writing, under the label "dontaskme"?

[Age]

You cannot know if another person has a belief while at the same time denying yourself of all belief...

Why NOT?

If you don't have a belief...then how can you know the word (belief) even exists?

The word 'belief' is seen in written words and heard through spoken words.

Is that the answer sought when asking such a question?

If no, then maybe better the answer be provided.
If yes, then great.

Lets now move on.

to be able to tell another that's their belief?
..the word (belief) here is being uttered by you is it not? so it's you that knows the word exists.. right?

If an answer is wanted, then clarification of what a 'you' is, IS NEEDED.

Sometimes it is expressed, under the label "dontaskme", that a 'you' does NOT exist. So NOT really sure WHAT answer is being sought here now.

I can KNOW you have a BELIEF. You do have BELIEFS, correct?

How can you know if I have a belief until I tell you I have?

But the 'I' is NOT the 'you'. So, A 'you' is NOT an 'I'.

Until both are KNOWN, expressed with clear and distinct definitions, which are agreed with and accepted, then what is being asked here can NOT be answered properly and correctly.

But, from "another" perspective, it is VERY SIMPLE and EASY to KNOW when a BELIEF is being expressed, rather than when just a VIEW is being expressed.

HOW?

1. By the way the "position" IS expressed.
2. Through clarifying questions.

Is that what you mean?

.

A question was asked, then another question asking if that is what is meant.

No the first question is NOT what I meant, because I ALREADY KNOW what a BELIEF is, also how, why, where, and when BELIEFS exist.

[Age]

Dontaskme wrote:
all you are doing is creating the idea of there existing a belief that others can have without realising that the seed of thought that others can have a belief is manifesting in you yourself, that you then planted in another...the seed of belief that someone else can have a belief came from you, you created the idea, not someone else...

Did I? When did I do this?

Was the "idea of belief" NOT created BEFORE I started expressing by writing here in this forum?

Isn't the ''idea of belief'' and the expressing of that idea instantaneous?

When the question, When did I 'create the idea of belief' is first answered, then, when the question, Was the "idea of belief" NOT created BEFORE I started expressing by writing here in this forum is also first answered, THEN I will answer the question posed here.

But on second reflection I will answer this question now. ANY 'idea' can be EXPRESSED any amount of "time" AFTER the 'idea' arises. For example on many occasions 'ideas' come and go as i read writings here, in this forum, but when I am about to express them I am called away to do some thing else. The 'idea' remains within this body and when I come back to this forum I express that 'idea', which may be a few minutes, few hours, or even a few days later. Therefore, the 'idea' and the 'expressing of that idea' obviously do NOT occur instantaneously. The expressing of the 'idea' comes from recollection of the 'idea'.

However, if the 'idea' that ABSOLUTELY EVERY thing is in the NOW, then the 'idea' of the 'idea of some thing' and the 'expressing of that idea instantaneous' COULD be said to be 'expressed instantaneous'.

The ANSWER, which is being SOUGHT, ALL depends on from which perspective the question is being asked FROM.

If the 'idea of belief' existed before it was expressed by I writing in this forum, where is the BEFORE I am talking about here??



.

Because cause AND effect IS a natural phenomena of the Universe, of which this is occurring HERE, NOW, then the BEFORE, was at any one of those moments of NOW, which CAUSED, this EFFECT.

[Age]

Dam: So that idea about a belief belonging to someone has come from you, the you that denies it has a belief, and yet assumes others can have one...

But I do NOT assume that "others" can have BELIEFS. "Others", themselves, TELL me that they have BELIEFS.

I get that and I agree..you cannot assume someone has a belief until they tell you. I agree.
I'm starting to understand you better. So thanks. It is only my own misunderstanding of what you write that confuses myself of what's being said. Not that you are being confusing...is that fair to say?

I would NOT say that what I write does not come across as confusing, at times. But I agree that people do NOT generally express a view to be not understood, or misunderstood.

From one's perspective there is usually no misunderstanding in what is being expressed, and the misunderstanding, itself, usually comes from "another" when they read/hear what the "other" is writing/saying.

This misunderstanding usually comes about just because the reader/listener has a view/perspective/position of their own, which is different than the "others" is, and this different position can lead to confusion of what the reader/speaker is really, and actually, saying.

Making ASSUMPTIONS before clarification, AND having/holding BELIEFS, I found also, can lead to and cause far more misunderstanding/confusion far more quickly.

All of this I KNOW is totally unnecessary.

In fact some "others" have BELIEFS that are so strong that they BELIEVE that even I MUST HAVE BELIEFS also. Some people's BELIEFS are so strong that they INSIST that I MUST HAVE BELIEFS, otherwise I would die.

I think what happens here is that if a person can think they have a belief, they will also believe that another person can have a belief as well..is that what you mean?

.

Having the ABILITY to have a belief, as in a belief CAN be had is one thing. But BELIEVING that just because beliefs CAN be had, then they MUST BE had is another thing.

[Age]

So in essence Age, you are not making any sense are you when you say you have no belief,

To WHO?

To Me it makes PERFECT sense that when I am NEITHER believing nor disbelieving any thing, then I have NO belief at all.

Does that NOT makes sense to "dontaskme"?

Yes, it does make sense to me too, that it makes perfect sense to you. I agree with you.

because it's you who is making up the idea in the first place, the idea of belief belongs to you... it's your own grown concept....that you then deny having...you remind me of someone trying to wash away blood using blood.

If me saying; I have NO beliefs, reminds you of a human being trying to wash away blood using blood, then I accept that that is what you remember.

I am just NOT sure WHY you would remember, and then say, such a thing. Would you like to elaborate and/or explain WHY you wanted us to KNOW what I remind you of?

Because you must know the concept (belief) to be able to say you don't have one. So you know the concept even if you don't have the concept?

Yes.

Just like I know the concept (lying) but, at the moment, I do NOT have the concept.

And just like I do NOT have the concept (world peace) although I know the concept.

Just because a concept is known, that does NOT infer that I MUST HAVE the concept. For example I know the concept (perfection) but are you saying I MUST then have perfection?

If yes, then HOW exactly?

Are you suggesting that because I MUST know the concept (of any thing) to be able to say that I do NOT have that concept, then I MUST actually and really have that concept?

If yes, then can you explain HOW this is even possible?

Right?

Yes.

To know some thing does NOT mean one HAS TO believe that thing.

'To know' is, literally, different from 'to believe'.

Then to say you don't have the knowledge that is the known concept (belief)and that is like trying to rid the concept known that you don't have by using the concept that you must know to rid that knowing away with what you know you don't have? ..

Is this a question, or a statement?

Just because the knowledge of 'belief' can be KNOWN, that in no way infers that any thing has to be BELIEVED, nor that I do not have the knowledge of 'belief'.

To me you appear to be confusing that which is not even here.

does that make sense to you?

.

No, that does NOT make sense to me.

Just because the concept of 'belief' is known, and thus is a 'known concept', that does NOT mean that 'that' concept has to be believed, or be a belief, itself.

The concept of a 'flat earth' is known. A 'flat earth' is a 'known concept', is that 'known concept' BELIEVED by ALL people? Is that 'known concept' even a fact?

Is that 'known concept' true or false?

The concept of 'assumed' is known. To have 'assumed' is a 'known concept', does that 'known concept' HAVE TO BE assumed?

[Age]

Yes, some human beings would, and some DO.

Yes, they would do that, I totally agree with that. Most don't because of fear of ridicule.

Are you, here, suggesting that most human beings 'behave' in certain ways because of fear of ridicule, from "other" human beings?

If yes, then is this 'ridiculing' that human beings do to "each other" based upon some sort of 'judging'?

If yes, then WHERE exactly does this 'judging' come from? WHAT is this 'judging' actually based upon, and, WHAT exactly could this 'judging'
ACCURATELY be based upon?

Does a person feel self-conscious about doing such an activity ?

Some do, some do not.

I agree.

or would they do it without feeling any sense of self consciousness?

Again some would feel such a thing, while some would not.

Are you at all aware that NOT every one is the same?

Yes, I am aware that NOT every one is the same.

Or do they have to pretend they have self-consciousness?

If some do pretend, so what?

So what, is what they'll do, they will pretend.

My question was; WHY pretend?

My question was NOT about; WOULD people pretend? But WHY do they pretend, TO BE SOME THING WHICH THEY ARE NOT?

OF COURSE some human beings pretend. My question is in relation to WHY do they pretend? For example, WHY do you "dontaskme" PRETEND to be some thing which you are NOT?

Answer that properly and correctly, then you will KNOW WHY ALL adult human beings pretend.

The answer really is VERY simple and easy.

Why they pretend to have self-consciousness is because they believe they have consciousness? ...

What does 'consciousness' actually MEAN to 'you', "dontaskme"?

is that why?

You just explained WHY. Although the question mark at the end of some of your statements can appear rather confusing as to whether you are telling OR asking some thing.

But to me, WHY some human beings might pretend to have 'self-consciousness' is NOT because they BELIEVE they have consciousness but for another reason, which is depended upon what "you" mean by 'self-consciousness'.

To a person who BELIEVES, then, to them, they are NOT pretending any thing nor at all.

For example;
If a person BELIEVES that they are a "good sports person", then, to them, this is what they ARE. To them, they are NOT pretending.
If a person BELIEVES that they are NOT "lying", when it is clearly obvious to "others" that they ARE lying, then, to the former, they are NOT pretending to be telling the "truth". To them, they just ARE.

By the way, what does it MEAN to be 'pretending to have self-consciousness'?

Firstly;
What is 'self'?
What is 'consciousness'?
How do the two definitions relate to be 'self-consciousness'?
And then,
How exactly can one 'pretend' to 'be self-conscious' or pretend to 'have self-consciousness'?

Your example about humans excreting in front of each other, to me, is just a form of "behavior", which is enforced upon "each other" through fear. The fear of being judged, ridiculed, and/or punished.

For obviously excreting in front of each other" was once a PERFECTLY NORMAL thing to for human beings. To me, just because human beings, usually, do NOT do this, in the days of when this is written, does NOT really have much to do with 'self and/or Self consciousness' at all, but rather about judgement and FEAR.

By the way, the answer to YOUR question is; NO one HAS TO pretend that they have self-consciousness.

I agree Age...NO one HAS to pretend they have self-consciousness...I totally agree with you.

.