What Is Ego

[vicente]

What is ego can be an interesting subject for those wishing to understand who they are. Therefore I present below, what ego means to me.

What is Ego
Ego,...the I, the self, alter ego, self-esteem, amour propre, ego tripper, egotist, self-conceptualizer, self-imaginer,... what exactly is Ego?

In psychotherapy, the western science of 'thinking processes', a person, the Perceiver, is divided into three parts. First in this grouping of 'separate selfs' is ego. They rationalize ego as the command center of the psyche, through which we can not function without. The ego, in their postulations, is the mediator between the other two parts of their 'divided Perceiver'. These other two are the id, or the primative drives of the senses, and the superego, the moral conscience.

This Psychotheraputic concept of a divided self, or the oxymoron hypothesis of a 'complete unity in separation', does nothing to bring clarity to the issue. Psychology is just one more 'Object-ive Science' that describes self through the objects perceived around it. By defining ego via ego, they merely describe what surrounds the Whole, not the Whole itself. Ego uses knowledge and belief to encourage a flurry of diversionary activities to protect itself from being recognized.

Through knowledge and belief, ego safeguards the attachment to a separate self. This fear of seeing ourselfs as anything other then separate selfs is how ego sustains the veils that obscures the truth of our essence. Ego and truth cannot coexist, for if you saw the phantasmagoria of mundane perception, then ego would instantaneously, and effortlessly, end, like waking from a dream. Perhaps not all at once, but it would precipitate a continuum of awakenings leading to total dissolution.

Visualize a keyhole for a moment; one of those slotted holes that can be peeped through, like in older colonial type homes. Now,...describe that hole.

It may be perceived as having the shape of a circle with a rectangle whose width is smaller than the diameter of the circle projecting from the bottom; or maybe that the hole is surrounded by a brass plate which is attached to a door, which is attached to a wall, etc. Perhaps we could look through the hole and see what's on the other side. But that's not describing the hole; that's describing what's around or through the hole. This is how most persons, especially Westerners perceive their own Wholeness,...by what's around it.

The simple Truth of ego is this: Ego arises when Self separates from Other Self. This separation is the beginning of intellect. As intellect perceives objects, or other selfs, through the five senses, memories are formed and stored. Once memory storage has taken place, the process of 'thinking' begins. Thinking is a part of intellect, the Greek scientia, that processes the stored information acquired from the division of Self from object. Intellect, memory and thinking form the Ego Complex.

For many, the question is, can one uncover Awareness while living as a divided self? From intellects point of view division is inescapeable. However, there is a faculty that will enable us to 'see' a thing without dividing it, to see itself in itself, through itself and not object-ify itself. This faculty can be realized through the Full Spectrum Consciousness of ontosophy.

Everything ego perceives is a complete reversal of the Truth. Through Full Spectrum Consciousness, we put our I Am comes before our 'i think',...the false i, the Ego. Thinking is always in the past, anticipating the future. This is because thinking is a by-product of matter,...all matter is simulated light. All the light you see is in the past, just like the Starlight in the evening,...that illumination is not only from the past and may not even exist, but because light curves, its not even where we are seeing it. All thinking is rooted in ego. Being attached to any viewpoint, whether universal or mundane, is an attachment to ego's illusory constructs, and thus a condition which covers the Unconditional Love, Peace and Joy that we are.

Ego is neither part of our Wholeness, nor can it in any way discover our Wholeness. We merge with Wholeness when we uncover ego. There is nothing to discover, only to uncover. The way to uncover ego is quite simple; we stop feeding it. Do not make friends with it as Psychotherapists would have us do, nor deny it as the stoic/ascetic traditions advocate. The conditions of useless happiness and useless suffering are two sides of the same coin,...Duality's Seesaw. Our Wholeness becomes 'gnown', when we observe our the Heart of our Essence, but first, the veils of ego's diversity must be Let Go.

Ma Amritananda once described ego like this: "There was a cowherd boy who took his cows to the meadows every morning and brought them back to the cowshed at the end of the day. One evening, as he was tying the cows up for the night, the boy found that one of them was missing her rope. He feared that she might run away, but it was too late to go and buy a new rope. The boy didn't know what to do, so he went to a wise man who lived nearby and sought his advice. The wise man told the boy to pretend to tie the cow, and make sure that the cow saw him doing it. The boy did as the wise man suggested and pretended to tie the cow. The next morning the boy discovered that the cow had remained still throughout the night. He untied all the cows as usual, and they all went outside. He was about to go to the meadows when he noticed that the cow with the missing rope was still in the cowshed. She was standing on the same spot where she had been all night. He tried to coax her to join the herd, but she wouldn't budge. The boy was perplexed. He went back to the wise man who said, "The cow still thinks she is tied up. Go back and pretend to untie her." The boy did as he was told, and the cow happily left the cowshed. This is what the guru does with the ego of the disciple. The guru helps untie that which was never there. Like the cow, due to our ignorance, we believe that we are bound by the ego when, in fact, we are completely free. We need to be convinced of this, however".

As there are not many guru's like that in Western Culture, we can help each other Let Go of what really is not there. The only commitment to allow such a process is an intent for "gnothi seauton",...Gnow Thyself.

Vicente
:)

[sahyo]

We merge with Wholeness

:blink:
aseparate 'notseparate'wholeness to "merge with"? :wacko:

....................;)

[shifu]

What is Ego
Ego,...the I, the self, alter ego, self-esteem, amour propre, ego tripper, egotist, self-conceptualizer, self-imaginer,... what exactly is Ego?

IMO and in what I have learn from school, Ego is the I, Self, Inner Being, the Know and Unknown, the Unlimited possibilities with the bound of limitations, the Anima,



This Psychotheraputic concept of a divided self, or the oxymoron hypothesis of a 'complete unity in separation', does nothing to bring clarity to the issue.

Had the idea of Yen-Yang doesn’t resolve the issue? If for Western have had difficulty in dealing with it, Asians don’t have much.

Please clarify this point [Ego uses knowledge and belief to encourage a flurry of diversionary activities to protect itself from being recognized.] Let take for example your Ego. So, you mean to say that Vicente’s ego is deceiving you in order to hide the truth-reality-inner-self-Vicente?

Ego and truth cannot coexist, for if you saw the phantasmagoria of mundane perception, then ego would instantaneously, and effortlessly, end, like waking from a dream.

It seems to me that What I perceived now and what is stored in my head, thus, able to communicate with you, is an act of let say….little devil. So, now I am as good as being pixilated? http://www.bartleby.com/61/2/P0340200.html


The simple Truth of ego is this: Ego arises when Self separates from Other Self. This separation is the beginning of intellect. Or it could also be… the Ego arises when Self recognizes Other (I and Thou).

As intellect perceives objects, or other selfs, through the five senses, memories are formed and stored.
It seems to me that you recognizes the empirical argument that all truth and knowledge leading to reality are posteriori or it is knowable on the basis of experience.


Everything ego perceives is a complete reversal of the Truth…. I may not agree. No common ground. No starting point. No clarity all.

We need to be convinced of this, however…. There may be millions ways to arrive at the same and one truth.

shifu

[sahyo]

The simple Truth of ego is this: Ego arises when Self separates from Other Self.


"separates from"?...."Other Self" :blink:

[DavidS]

Originally posted by vicente@Nov 11 2003, 06:13 PM
Through knowledge and belief, ego safeguards the attachment to a separate self.
In my view, only UNTIL 'it' doesn't, because 'its' 'observations' lead 'it' to 'see' -

(1) that thoughts-n-emotions associated with thangs like 'attachment' and 'safeguarding' (i.e., need-n-greed-n-fear-n-hate-of-'unfulfillment'-n-'loss') are ultimately counterproductive, as they psychospiritually 'operate' to 'bring about' that which is feared and hated -- so it understands the 'truth' conveyed by statements like "He that findeth his life shall lose it: and he that loseth his life for my sake shall find it." (Matthew 10:39)

and (2) that one, including 'it' as well, is part and parcel of All That Is (a/k/a God in some circles) and so is everyone-n-everything 'else' - so it 'recognizes' and understands the 'importance' and 'sanity' of "Love thy with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind." and "Love thy neighbor as yourself." (Matthew 22:37-39) -- UNTIL the 'ego' becomes universal·ized, that is.

IMO, the 'observing' faculty can never be 'extinguished' -- that is, it is 'innate' to and thus can never be separated from any 'self'.

"Let him seek liberation by the help of his Highest Self, and let him never disgrace his own Self. For that Self is his only friend; yet it may also be his enemy. To him who has conquered his lower nature by Its help, the Self is a friend, but to him who has not done so, It is an enemy." (Bhagavad Gita, Ch.6)

'Immature' ego can and often does 'mature' into 'communion' and 'community' with others and all 'else', IOW. It can and often does completely 'transcend' thangs like need-n-greed-n-fear-n-hate-n-attachment-n-safeguarding (after 'learning' about 'consequences' in these regards and choosing to be/do 'otherwise', that is).

Given your 'definition' of 'ego', my guess is that you would probably label what I reference as 'mature ego' something else, maybe 'egolessness' -- tho I would I be more inclined to think of this 'universal·ized' version as a kind of 'egomoreness'. Whatever you call that, vicente, is jes fine with 'my' 'ego' (observer), the 'one' that writes these words in response to to your post.
:)

Additional 'Seth-commentary', for what it may be worth to any reader (from Jane Roberts' The Nature of Personal Reality): There is nothing more pompous than false humility. [para] Many people who consider themselves truth seekers and spiritual are filled with it. They often use religious terms to express themselves. They will say, 'I am nothing, but the spirit of God moves through me, and if I do any good it is because of God's spirit and not my own,' or 'I have no ability of my own. Only the power of God has any ability.' [para] Now, in those terms you are the power of God manifested. Your are not powerless. To the contrary. Through your being the power of God is strengthened, for your are a portion of what He is. Your are not simply an insignificant, innocuous clump of clay through which He decides to show Himself. [para] You are He manifesting as you. You are as legitimate as He is. [para] If you are part of God then He is also a part of you, and in denying your own worth you end up denying his as well. (Pause) I do not like to use the term 'He,' meaning God, since All That Is is the origin of not only all sexes but of all realities, in some of which sex as you think of it does not exist. [para] Affirmation is in the spontaneous motion of the body as it dances. Many churchgoers who consider themselves quite religious do not understand the nature of love or affirmation as much as some bar patrons, who celebrate the nature of their bodies and enjoy the spontaneous transcendance as they let themselves go with the motion of their beings. [para] True religion is not repressive, as life itself is not. When Christ spoke he did so in the context of his times, using the symbolism and vocabulary that made sense to a particular people in a particular period of history, in your terms. [para] He began with their beliefes, and using their references tried to lead them into freer realms of understanding.

Salut! - David

[a random hack]

"He that findeth his life shall lose it: and he that loseth his life for my sake shall find it." (Matthew 10:39)


Tell me, what is 'it'?

"Let him seek liberation by the help of his Highest Self, and let him never disgrace his own Self. For that Self is his only friend; yet it may also be his enemy. To him who has conquered his lower nature by Its help, the Self is a friend, but to him who has not done so, It is an enemy." (Bhagavad Gita, Ch.6)


What does this 'Highest Self' look like?

[sonrisa]

good ?'s Random. To expand, ¿do we even want to find it, whatever it is? Be careful what you wish, can be paraphrased as be careful what you seek.....

so Random, what do you want your Higher Self to look like? B)

[sahyo]

was question "What does this 'Highest Self' look like?
"seeking"want", sonrisa? :)

"careful"?....tiptoeing?....imagined-cage? ;)

[a random hack]

so Random, what do you want your Higher Self to look like?

Brad Pitt ; D

[sonrisa]

Claudia Schiffer! :D

[a random hack]

lol :D

who does your higher self think like?

[sonrisa]

:D Bugs Bunny! :D

[DavidS]

Originally posted by a random hack@Nov 15 2003, 08:54 PM
"He that findeth his life shall lose it: and he that loseth his life for my sake shall find it." (Matthew 10:39)


Tell me, what is 'it'?

"Let him seek liberation by the help of his Highest Self, and let him never disgrace his own Self. For that Self is his only friend; yet it may also be his enemy. To him who has conquered his lower nature by Its help, the Self is a friend, but to him who has not done so, It is an enemy." (Bhagavad Gita, Ch.6)


What does this 'Highest Self' look like?
It's a matter for personal-consciousness 'interpretation', it strikes me as being, hack, one that 'requires' that one play Sherlock with all the 'clues' one can uncover. Having pretty much pulled the underpants of my particular version, or interpretation, of Moriarty, let me just say that, for me, It's the Cosmic-Mountain-Valley-Artesion-Well-Fountain-Flow of Eternal Love, or Eternally-Loving Life, which makes the latter ~ the Highest Self thang.

Of course, since I among many others could be 'wrong', you'd better use you're own innate capacity for image·inative clue-reading if you decide to make/place any 'bets' on any 'horses' in this regard. Take heart if you feel 'queezy' about doing so, though, by remembering that the whole danged s/hebang is an adventure! - and ya can never be sure what might and might not happen if you just sit on the sideline-bench either.

Good luck, whatever your your 'aims' and 'acts', bro! Hope to see you at the picnic table (I know, I know; this, of course, presumes there is or will be one) - David :D

[DavidS]

Originally posted by vicente@Nov 11 2003, 06:13 PM
Everything ego perceives is a complete reversal of the Truth.* Etc. . . .

Ego is neither part of our Wholeness, nor can it in any way discover our Wholeness. We merge with Wholeness when we uncover ego. There is nothing to discover, only to uncover. The way to uncover ego is quite simple; we stop feeding it. Etc. . . .
The following quote is submitted to provide some contrast in juxtaposition many historical notions-n-de·finite·ions pertaining to 'ego'. The view portrays 'ego' as a creative and creatively growing/evolving aspect of Conscious Life, not as some 'devilish' bastard-son which/who it would be better to completely 'extinguish' and 'eradicate'.

My best guess would be that the latter kind of 'judgment' (probably? possibly?) stems from mistakenly di·chotomously viewing-n-regarding Wholeness and Partness, or Unity and Duality, as 'opposites' in some sense. IOW, such 'judgment' itself reflects 'dualistic', or 'unwholesome', interpretation-perception-n-belief-based 'thinking', which makes it a kind of wolf-in-shepherd's-clothing example of the very thang it purports to 'identify' 'as 'false' and 'unwholesome' and ego·witch-hunt expose, while advocating it be starve-strangled out of the picture as a 'final' solution, Sig Heil!·ing (ostensible) 'wholesomeness' as a rallying call to attract others with a propensity to engage in such witch-hunts to join in such (ostensibly) 'progressive' procession.

Here's a 'contrasting' way of framing some of the same kinds of thangs (from Jane Roberts' Seth Speaks, Ch 21: The Meaning of Religion). As mentioned it portrays 'ego' as a creative and creatively growing/evolving aspect of Conscious Life:

===== what follows = 4½ wordprocessing program pages

The exterior religious dramas are of course imperfect representations of the ever-unfolding interior spiritual realities. The various personages, the gods and prophets within religious history – these absorb the mass inner projections thrown out by those inhabiting a given time span.

Such religious dramas focus, direct, and, hopefully, clarify aspects of inner reality that need to be physically represented. These do not only appear within your system. Many are also projected into other systems of reality. Religion per se, however, is always the external façade of inner reality. The primary spiritual existence alone gives meaning to the physical one. In the most real terms, religion should include all of the pursuits of man in his search for the nature of meaning and truth. Spirituality cannot be some isolated, specialized activity or characteristic.

Exterior religious dramas are important and valuable only to the extent that they faithfully reflect the nature of inner, private spiritual existence. To the extent that a man feels that his religion expresses such inner experience, he will feel it valid. Most religions per se, however, set up as permissible certain groups of experiences while denying others. They limit themselves by applying the principles of the sacredness of life only to your own species, and often to highly limited groups within it.

At no time will any given church be able to express the inner experience of all individuals. At no time will any church find itself in a position in which it can effectively curtail the inner experience of its members – it will only seem to do so. The forbidden experiences will simply be unconsciously expressed, gather strength and vitality, and rise up to form a counter projection which will then form another, newer exterior religious drama.

The dramas themselves do express certain inner realities, and they serve as surface reminders to those who do not trust direct experience with the inner self. They will take the symbols as reality. When they discover this is not so, they feel betrayed. Christ spoke in terms of the father and son because in your terms, at that time, this was the method used – the story he told to explain the relationship between the inner self and the physically alive individual. No new religion really startles anyone, for the drama has already been played subjectively.

What I have said, of course, applies as much to Buddha as it does to Christ: Both accepted the inner projections and then tried to physically represent these. They were more, however, than the sum of those projections. This also should be understood. Mohammedanism fell far short. In this case the projections were of violence predominating. Love and kinship were secondary to what indeed amounted to baptism and communion through violence and blood.

In these continuous exterior religious dramas, the Hebrews played a strange role. Their idea of one god was not new to them. Many ancient religions held the belief of on god above all others. This god above all others was a far more lenient god, however, than the one the Hebrews followed. Many tribes believed, quite rightly, in the inner spirit that pervades each living thing. And they often referred to, say, the god in the tree, or the spirit in the flower. But the also accepted the reality of an overall spirit, of which the lesser spirits were but a part. All worked together harmoniously.

The Hebrews conceived of an overseer god, an angry and just and sometimes cruel god; and many sects denied, then, the idea that other living beings beside man possessed inner spirits. The earlier beliefs represented a far better representation of inner reality, in which man, observing nature, let nature speak and reveal its secrets.

The Hebrew god, however, represented a projection of a far different kind. Man was growing more and more aware of ego, of a sense of power over nature, and many of the later miracles are presented in such a way that nature is forced to behave differently than in its usual mode. God became man's ally against nature.

The early Hebrew god became a symbol of man's unleashed ego. God behaved exactly as an enraged child would, had the those powers, sending thunder and lightening and fire against his enemies, destroying them. Man's emerging ego therefore brought forth emotional and psychological challenges. The sense of separation from nature grew. Nature became a tool to use against others.

Sometime before the emergence of the Hebrew god these tendencies were apparent. In many ancient, now-forgotten tribal religions, recourse was also made to the gods to turn nature against the enemy. Before this time, however, man felt a part of nature, not separated from it. It was regarded as an extension of his being, as he felt an extension of its reality. One cannot use oneself as a weapon against oneself in those terms.

In those times men spoke and confided to the spirits of birds, trees, and spiders, knowing that in the interior reality beneath, the nature of these communications was known and understood. In those times, death was not feared as it is in your terms, now, for the cycle of consciousness was understood.

Man desired in one way to step out of himself, out of the framework in which he had his psychological existence, to try new challenges, to step out of a mode of consciousness into another. In one way this meant a giant separation from the inner spontaneity that had given him both peace and security. On the other hand, it offered new creativity, in his terms.

At this point, the god inside became the god outside.

Man tried to form a new realm, attain a different kind of focus and awareness. His consciousness turned a corner outside of itself. To do this he concentrated less and less upon inner reality, and therefore began the process of inner reality only as it was projected outward into the physical world. [added comment: strikes me that something is missing from the last sentence, in my copy of the book at least – maybe something like "attending to" should be inserted either before "the process" or the second instance of "inner reality"]

Before, the environment was effortlessly created and perceived by man and all other living things, knowing the nature of their inner unity. in order to begin this new venture, it was necessary to pretend this inner unity did not exist. Otherwise the new kind of consciousness would always run back to its home for security and comfort. So it seemed that all bridges must be cut, while of course it was only a game because the inner reality always remained. The new kind of consciousness simply had to look away from it to maintain initially an independent focus.

I am speaking here in more or less historic terms for you. You must realize the process has nothing to do with time as you know it, however. This particular kind of adventure of consciousness has occurred before, and in your terms will again.

Perception of the exterior universe then changed, however, and it seemed to be alien and apart from the individual who perceived it.

God, therefore, became an idea projected outward, independent of the individual, divorced from nature. He became the reflection of man's emerging ego, with all of its brilliance, savagery, power, and intent for mastery. The adventure was a highly creative one despite the obvious disadvantages, and represented an "evolution" of consciousness that enriched man's subjective experience, and indeed, added to the dimensions of reality itself.

To be effectively organized, however, inner and outer experience had to appear as separate, disconnected events. Historically the characteristics of God changed as man's ego changed. These characteristics of the ego, however, were supported by strong inner changes.

The original propulsion of inner characteristics outward into the formation of the go could be compared with the birth of innumerable stars – an event of immeasurable consequences that originated on a subjective level and within inner reality.

The ego, having its birth from within, therefore, must always boast of its independence which maintaining a nagging uncertainty of its inner origin.

The ego feared for its position, frightened that it would dissolve back into the inner self from which it came. Yet in its emergence it provided the inner self with a new kind of feedback, a different view not only of itself; but through this, the inner self was able to glimpse possibilities of development of which it had not previously been aware. In your terms, by the time of Christ, the ego was sure enough of its position so that the projected picture of God could begin to change.

The inner self is in a state of constant growth. The inner portion of each man, therefore, projected this knowledge outward. The need, the psychological and spiritual need of the species, demanded both interior and exterior alteration of great import. Qualities of mercy and understanding that had been buried could now begin to surface. Not only privately by en masse they surged up, adding a new impetus and giving a natural "new" direction – beginning to call all portions of the self, as it knew itself, together.

So the concept of God began to change as the ego recognized its reliance upon inner reality, but the drama had to be worked out within the current framework. Mohammedanism was basically so violent precisely because Christianity was basically so gentle. Not that Christianity was not mixed with violence, or that Mohammedanism was devoid of love. But as the psyche went through its developments and battled with itself, denying some feelings and characteristics and stressing others, so the historic religious exterior dramas represented and followed these inner aspirations, struggles, and searches.

All of this material now given must be considered along with the fact that beneath these developments there are the eternal aspects and creative characteristics of a force that is both undeniable and intimate. All That Is, in other words, represents the reality from which all of us spring. All That Is, by its nature, transcends all dimensions of activity, consciousness, or reality, which being a part of each.

Behind all faces there is one face, yet this does not mean that each man's face is not his own. The further religious drama of which I have spoken, in your terms still to come [for whatever significance this may have, this was published in 1972], represents another stage in both the internal and external dramas in which the emergent ego becomes aware of much of its heritage. While maintaining its own status, it will be able to have much greater commerce with other portions of the self, and also to offer to the inner self opportunities of awareness that the inner self on its won could not procure.

The journeys of the gods, therefore, represent the journeys of man's own consciousness projected outward. All That Is, however, is within each such adventure. Its consciousness, and its reality, is within each man, and within the gods he has created. That last is in small letters, and gods shall always remain in small letters. All That Is is capitalized.

The gods attain, of course, a psychic reality. I am not saying therefore that they are not real, but I am to some extent defining the nature of their reality. It is to some extent true to say: "Be careful of the gods you choose, for you will reinforce each other."

Such an alliance sets up certain fields of attraction. A man who attaches himself to one of the gods is necessarily attaching himself largely to his own projections. Some, in your terms, are creative, and some destructive, though the latter are seldom recognized as such.

The open concept of All That Is, however, frees you to a great extent from your own projections, and allows a more valid contact with the spirit that is behind the reality that you know.

In this chapter I would also like to mention several other pertinent points.

Some ancient tales have come down through the centuries that tell of various gods and demons who guard the gates, so to speak, of other levels of reality and stages of consciousness. Astral levels are neatly laid out, numbered and categorized.

There are tests to pass before entry. There are rituals to be acted out. Now, all of this is highly distorted. Any attempt to so rigorously and precisely express inner reality is bound to be abortive, highly misleading, and in your terms sometimes dangerous; for you create your own reality and live it according to your inner beliefs. Therefore, be careful also of those beliefs you accept.

Let me take this moment to state again that there are no devils or demons, except as you create them out of your belief. As mentioned earlier, good and evil effects are basically illusions. In your terms all acts, regardless of their seeming nature, are part of a greater good. I am not saying that a good end justifies what you would consider to be an evil action. While you still accept the effects of good and evil, then you had better choose the good.

I am saying this as simply as possible. There are profound complications beneath my words, however. Opposites have validity only in your system of reality. They are part of your root assumptions, and so you must deal with them as such.

They represent, however, deep unities that you do not understand. You conception of good and evil results in large part from the kind of consciousness you have presently adopted. You do not perceive wholes, but portions. The conscious mind focuses with a quick, limited, but intense light, perceiving from a given filed of reality only certain "stimuli." It then puts these stimuli together, forming the liaison of similarity. Anything that it does not accept as a portion of reality, it does not perceive.

The effect of opposites results, then, from a lack of perception. Since you must operate within the world as you perceive it, then the opposites will appear to be conditions of existence. These elements have been isolated for a certain reason, however. You are being taught, and you are teaching yourselves to handle energy, to become conscious cocreators with All That Is, and one of the "stages of development" or learning processes includes dealing with opposites as realities.

In your terms, the ideas of good and evil help you recognize the sacredness of existence, the responsibility of consciousness. The ideas of opposites also are necessary guide lines for the developing ego. The inner self knows quite well the unity that exists.
=========

[a random hack]

Bugs Bunny!
rotflol!!!
best laugh i had all week :D)))))))


hmm, inspiring words, david :)))
that pic-a-nic sounds like a good idea. :)

[sonrisa]

hell yeah it's Bugs Bunny! He's alla time outsmarting everybody (well every Looney Tune, at least) & gets away with all sorts of stuff. Damn straight it's Bugs Bunny! :P

so hoo duz your Higher Brad Pitt Self think like?

[a random hack]

hell yeah it's Bugs Bunny! He's alla time outsmarting everybody (well every Looney Tune, at least) & gets away with all sorts of stuff. Damn straight it's Bugs Bunny!

so hoo duz your Higher Brad Pitt Self think like?
In that case, is either Yosimite Sam, or Foghorn Leghorn (BOY, AH SAY BOY.....) :D

[sonrisa]

:P :D reminds me of when I wuz working for the Govt & we had this check come in..... the watermark was Looney Tunes characters & the man's name was Leghorn.... we all had a good old hoot at the time, but looking back, I'm thinking Mr Leghorn deliberately ordered those chex becuz his name wuz Leghorn....

The Looney Tunes movie is out!! Hopefully I'll get to see it this weekend! :D

[a random hack]

:lol: :lol: :D

[sonrisa]

:P :lol:

[a random hack]

you sure are proud of that tongue, ain't you? ;)

[sonrisa]

yep :P
specially when it gets me in trouble cuz then I know I must be saying something right! :P

[a random hack]

lol, you're in trouble, are you? :)

[rich]

Oh, oh, cheezit. :blink: :unsure:

[sonrisa]

Originally posted by a random hack@Nov 21 2003, 10:36 PM
lol, you're in trouble, are you? :)



dunno, am I?

(ps, that's Cheez Whiz, Richie)

[rich]

Gee Whiz, I'm so sorry, Uncle Albert.
Doo Dee Doo
Doo DEE DOO
Doo Dee Dee Doo Dee Doo,
Hands across the water,
Hands across the sea,
E
t
c
e
t
e
r
a :lol:

[a random hack]

sonrisa,
dunno, you telling this story... :)
and btw, :P lol


rich,
:D
de doodoodoo, de dahdahdah,
is all i got to say to you. :D

[sonrisa]

Admiral Halsey notified me
He had to have a berth or he couldn't get to sea,
So I had another look, & I had a cup of tea, & a butter pie,
(butter pie?
The butter wouldn't melt so I put it in the pie)
Hands across the water (water)
Hands across the sky
Hands across the water (water)
Hands across the sky

I luv Paul McCartney! :)

[shifu]

yep :P
specially when it gets me in trouble cuz then I know I must be saying something right! :P

hmmm! <_< K. at least that something is not nothing eh.... ey, how do you find George Harrison? I like hjim more than the rest.

shifu