Why Do We Hold On?

[vicente]

CASTELGANDOLFO, Italy Aug 22, 2004 - Pope John Paul on Sunday condemned human cloning as an arrogant attempt to improve on God's creation. (LOL)

The pope said medical research should not try to "manipulate" human beings "according to a project considered with arrogance better than that of the Creator himself."


***When are these people going to "let Go" of this BS?***

Peter Russell freely (anti-copyright)wrote:

We hold on to our desires
We hold on to what we think we need.
We hold on to what promises us happiness.
We hold on to our image of who we are

We hold on to our theories.
We hold on to our beliefs.
We hold on to our attitudes.
We hold on to our judgements.

We hold on to the past
We hold on to the future.

We hold on to our grievances.
We hold on to our fears.
We hold on to our loves
We hold on to our lovers.

We hold on to our thoughts.
We hold on to our illusions.

We hold on to our gods.
We hold on to our bodies.
We hold on to our lives

But why do we hold on?

Maybe we believe that our safety lies in holding on,
That losing our grip could spell disaster,
Or we may believe that holding on is the way to salvation.
But do we really know it is safer to hold on?
Would letting go really be so bad?
Do we really gain from holding on?

It is the role of the teacher to show us that such security is illusory.
That holding on only holds us back.
That our salvation lies in letting go.

Our holding on is a constraint we've placed upon ourselves.
It is an attitude, a way of thinking.
And our thinking - unlike the weather or the movements of the planets - is one thing we have complete control over.

The task of the teacher is to show us that we can change our minds, and that it is safe to do so.

We are like a person holding on to a piece of rope.
He holds on for dear life, knowing that if he were to let go he would fall to his death. His parents, his teachers, and many others have told him this is so; and when he looks around he can see everyone else doing the same.

Nothing would induce him to let go.

Along comes a wise person. She knows that holding on is unnecessary, that the security it offers is illusory, and only holds you where you are. So she looks for a way to dispel his illusions and help him to be free.

She talks of real security, of deeper joy, of true happiness, of peace of mind. She tells him that he can taste this if he will just release one finger from the rope.

"One finger," thinks the man; "that"s not too much to risk for a taste of bliss." So he agrees to take this first initiation.

And he does taste greater joy, happiness, and peace of mind.

But not enough to bring lasting fulfillment.

"Even greater joy, happiness and peace can be yours," she tells him, "if you will just release a second finger."

"This," he tells himself, "is going to be more difficult. Can I do it? Will it be safe? Do I have the courage?" He hesitates, then, flexing his finger, feels how it would be to let go a little more . . . and takes the risk.

He is relieved to find he does not fall; instead he discovers greater happiness and inner peace.

But could more be possible?

"Trust me," she says. "Have I failed you so far? I know your fears, I know what your mind is telling you -- that this is crazy, that it goes against everything you have ever learnt -- but please, trust me. Look at me, am I not free? I promise you will be safe, and you will know even greater happiness and contentment."

"Do I really want happiness and inner peace so much," he wonders, "that I am prepared to risk all that I hold dear? In principle, yes; but can I be sure that I will be safe, that I will not fall?" With a little coaxing he begins to look at his fears, to consider their basis, and to explore what it is he really wants. Slowly he feels his fingers soften and relax. He knows he can do it. And he knows he must do it. It is only a matter of time until he releases his grip.

And as he does an even greater sense of peace flows through him.

He is now hanging by one finger. Reason tells him he should have fallen a finger or two ago, but he hasn"t. "Is there something wrong with holding on itself?" he asks himself. "Have I been wrong all the time?"

"This one is up to you," she says. "I can help you no further. Just remember that all your fears are groundless."

Trusting his quiet inner voice, he gradually releases the last finger.

And nothing happens.

He stays exactly where he is.

Then he realizes why. He has been standing on the ground all along.

And as he looks at the ground, knowing he need never hold on again, he finds true peace of mind.

:)

[Nick_A]

Hi Vicenti

But why do we hold on?

Maybe we believe that our safety lies in holding on,
That losing our grip could spell disaster,
Or we may believe that holding on is the way to salvation.
But do we really know it is safer to hold on?
Would letting go really be so bad?
Do we really gain from holding on?

I believe it is because we do not see the value of letting go. There is this concept of the human condition and how the great teachers from all the ancient traditions have tried to show mankind the value of letting go and awakening to a more realistic view of this condition.

I remember a quote I read somewhere that "The fact that war appears necessary is proof of our stupidity". Seems reasonable.

So collectively it appears that mankind is content to live in a dream and oblivious of what is lost as a result. Often it is said that we must do this or do that or find world peace and the like but it never happens no matter what is said. The reason I believe is because what we do is a reflection of our being, our "isness". It seems that our imagination allows us to interpret what is obviously absurd as completely reasonable. If this is the case, is it any wonder that nothing changes? It is not a matter of us doing anything but the changing of what we are. In Christianity, Meister Eckhart has a wonderful quote about this that only a very people IMO calling themselves Christian will appreciate. Yet, if the depth of it were genuinely felt, I believe much would be different:

"People should not worry as much about what they do but rather about what they are. If they and their ways are good, then their deeds are radiant. If you are righteous, then what you do will also be righteous. We should not think that holiness is based on what we do but rather on what we are, for it is not our works which sanctify us but we who sanctify our works."


The key here I believe lies initially in the courage to follow the old Socratic axiom to "Know Thyself". If we were able to appreciate the value of this discovery, everything could change but we always want to be led by books, charlatens, and the like offering all the glories of your imagination. So nothing changes and it can't change because instead of experiencing the human condition within, as it is, and described well by St. Paul in the Bible as the "wretched man", the belief desirable to self esteem is that we are Mr. and Ms Wonderful. But the truth is that our inner psychology needs work to allow us to let go. We are in opposition to ourselves so our interactive life with our fellow man is a reflection of the chaos of this inner opposition.

I do not want to appear depressing but I've come to the conclusion that collectively nothing will change. Real change IMO, that comes from acquiring this ability for impartiality or letting go, can only occur for individuals willing to look inside. Experiencing this reality can provide the courage to let go. Such people appear few and far between.

[todd]

This sounds very nice and appetizing.
Why holding on in life, why not let everything go, the result is the same...
Because this is what life is. Let everything go and let life go, become an amoeba waiting for the ineffable end.

This denying everything life is worth living.
What do you remember from your life vicente? The moments you lied down in bed, starring in one inexistent point with your mind absolutely empty, the moments you were sleeping?
Or do you remember the beautiful moments of your life when you achieved something, when you fulfilled your dreams?
The struggle is the beauty of life.

[vicente]

The struggle is the beauty of life.

I disagree Todd. Struggle equals competition and division,...individuality, socially, economically (our economy is actually stiffled by struggle, competition and division). Competition is in direct opposition to cooperation,...in the workplace, school, home and government. The term 'healthy competition' is not only an oxymoron, but a cultural cancer. And yes, competition most certainly arises from the Abrahamic religions, ie., "wisdom of a poor man is despised and his words go unheeded" Eccles 9-16.

Struggle and competition breeds division, conflict and an inability to see anothers point of view. We are taught that competition builds character and self-worth,...but in truth, competition builds dependence on external sources for that self-worth or so-called esteem, through others loss.

Personally, I do not view this perceived reality as "life", but as a dream of diversions, obscuring real Life from us.

What is Life? That which is in the Now. My memories, the bed I lie in, moments of perceived beauty, etc., are all in the past. Everyones every thought is in the past. Try thinking in the Now,...it cannot be done.

NickA,...that was an excellent quote you shared:
"The fact that war appears necessary is proof of our stupidity"

As for: old Socratic axiom to "Know Thyself"
My view is slightly different:
http://www.thebigview.com/discussion/index...ct=ST&f=2&t=140 (http://www.thebigview.com/discussion/index.php?act=ST&f=2&t=140)

:)

[Nick_A]

Todd

I would say that struggle can be more than just the beauty of life but be actually the necessary ingredient for becoming a conscious part of a higher purpose for life as suggested in Christianity by its conception of re-birth.

We have our struggle with external life and our emotional perceptions of this struggle lead to a quality of suffering warned of in buddhism for example.

However we also IMO have an inner struggle to attain "understanding" so as to perceive "purpose" and this struggle is primarily with ourselves. Though it can have its moments of beauty, at the right times the presence of some higher feelings enter that are beyond normal human emotion.

Imagination can lead to beauty but the perception of reality can invite feelings that transcend beauty indicating the direction of human potential.

Vicente

I agree that higher knowledge must begin with the heart but I also believe that true knowing is a combination of real faith and use of mind that goes beyond what is normally considered the intellect which is just our computer mind.

When they can work together, then I believe we can really begin to "know" something. :)

[thirst4sun]

Great post Vincent :thumbsup:


I feel people feel secure in holding on because it's easier to hold on to things then to let go. I have been trying to let go of things in my past and each thing I let go of I become a happier and I become free. .........................Thanks for the post Vincent :applause:

[todd]

Vicente, I don’t know, but I feel that you found some terrible disappointments in life, you hate life, and you found your way to deny what is obvious for most of us, and to culture your Enlightened Now. You learned how to trust nonexistence, and I admire you for that, even if I disagree.
And I disagree because your opinions are in contradiction with the intrinsic reality as I see it. Maybe I’m blind as you say, maybe I do not want to see the evident that you see, lying myself everyday with some theories that I know they won’t bring me the certainty that you offer.
But I cannot deny the miracle of life, I cannot stop admiring the nature beauty in diversity, I cannot stop myself searching limits, wondering…
And yes, I see life as a struggle. Every life form, even the simplest, is in a continuous struggle. For what? I cannot say, but it is in the nature of life, and everyone can see it.
It is in me, and I can say that looking back over my life, I remember with pleasure the moments of struggle, of suspense, the good fights I fought. I do not care about the results, even if I’ve lost, the beauty of the fight matters. And here I don’t mean any kind of physical violence, I mean the fight for an idea, the fight to conquer the woman you love, the struggle to understand more than you can, the endless fights with yourself.
What is a life where everything can be achieved without effort, without competition, where the satisfactions would be? I do not wish a life as a continuous state of trance,
I do not wish an afterlife as an endless state of trance either.

[...]

..the ideas you entertain about life, how it must be like for it to mean something, can/will become a prison you have to escape sometime. That is, when you can no longer fool yourself into thinking this image you've painted has value. Whether you let-go, or attach value, life's gonna be life...

..Vicente's initial post was about a man who attached so much value to his ideas, he could not see past his nose. Did it seem familiar?

[sahyo]

I have been trying to let go of things in my past and each thing I let go of I become a happier and I become free.

haps let go I-magining I-dea I? ;)

[vicente]

Todd says:
But I cannot deny the miracle of life, I cannot stop admiring the nature beauty in diversity, I cannot stop myself searching limits, wondering…

For another point of view, check out these 3 question asked of 'A Course In Miracles':

If God did not create the world or the body, who did? Moreover, who are we and how did we get here?

This is among the most commonly asked questions, and is certainly an understandable one. Almost all people believe that they are physical and psychological selves, living in a material universe that pre-existed their coming, and which will survive their leaving. The difficulty in understanding that this is not the case lies in the fact that we are so identified with our individual corporeal selves, that it is almost impossible to conceive of our existence on the level of the mind that is outside the world of time and space.

When the thought of separation seemed to occur, A Course in Miracles explains that man seemed to fall asleep and dream a dream, the contents of which are that oneness became multiplicity, and that the non-dualistic Mind of man became fragmented and separate from its Source, split into insane segments at war with themselves. As the Course explains, these fragments projected outside the mind a series of dreams or scripts that collectively constitute the history of the physical universe. On an individual level, the serial dramas our ego personalities identify as our own personal lives are also projections of our split and fragmented minds.

Thus we are all actors and actresses on the stage of life, as Shakespeare wrote, living out a dream that we experience as our individual reality, separate and apart from Who we really are as Real Self. Moreover, our minds have projected many different personalities in the collective dream of the fragmented little self, complicating the whole process. Therefore, the question "How did we get here?" must be understood from this perspective of the collective and individual dream. In other words, we are not truly here, but are dreaming that we are. As A Course in Miracles states: "[We] are already home, dreaming of exile" (text, 169; T-10.1.2: 1). And this is how the dream seemed to happen:

Into eternity, where all is one, there crept a tiny, mad idea, at which man remembered not to laugh. In his forgetting [to laugh] did the thought become a serious idea, and possible of both accomplishment and real effects (text, p. 544; T-27.VITI.6:2-3).
These "real effects" constitute the physical world we think is our home. The following passage is perhaps the best description in the Course of the process whereby this effect came into existence, once man took seriously the tiny, mad idea that there could be a substitute for Love. As we shall now see, this resulted in the making of the physical universe which is believed to be an opposite to our true Home:
The physical universe substitutes an illusion for truth; fragmentation for wholeness. It has become so splintered and subdivided and divided again, over and over, that it is now almost impossible to perceive it once was one, and still is what it was. That one error, which brought truth to illusion, infinity to time, and life to death, was all you ever made. Your whole world rests upon it. Everything you see reflects it, and every special relationship that you have ever made is part of it.
You may be surprised to hear how very different is reality from what you see. You do not realize the magnitude of that one error. It was so vast and so completely incredible that from it a world of total unreality had to emerge. What else could come of it? Its fragmented aspects are fearful enough, as you begin to look at them. But nothing you have seen begins to show you the enormity of the original error, which seemed to cast you out of Home, to shatter knowledge into meaningless bits of disunited perceptions, and to force you to make further substitutions.

That was the first projection of error outward. The world arose to bide it, and became the screen on which it was projected and drawn between you and the truth. For truth extends inward, where the idea of loss is meaningless and only increase is conceivable. Do you really think it strange that a world in which everything is backwards and upside down arose from this projection of error? It was inevitable (text, pp. 347-48; T- 1 8.1.4:1-6.-5)

But A Course in Miracles further states that the world was made as an attack on Reality (workbook, p. 403; W-pIl.3.2:1), and this was accomplished, again, by the collective split mind of man that believed in its hallucinatory dreaming that it had usurped First Cause. This is the beginning of the ego's unholy trinity that was mentioned above in question 4 on page 4. The guilt over his seeming sin of separation and usurpation demanded that man be punished. Consequently, the fearful man sought to flee from his own insane projection of a wrathful, vengeful Reality who wished to destroy him. Therefore man projected his illusory guilt and fragmented self out of the mind, thereby miscreating a physical world of time and space in which he could hide from the non-physical Reality he believed he had dethroned and destroyed. Within these multiple dreams, the one man appeared to split into billions of fragments, each of which became encased in a body of individual insane dreams, believing that this would render personal "protection" against the ego's image of a wrathful Reality's ultimate punishment.
It is important to note still again that we are speaking about the collective mind of the separated man as the maker of the world. Every seemingly separated fragment is but a split-off part of that original one mind that sought to replace the One Mind of Man. Thus, the individual fragment is not responsible for the world, but it is responsible for its belief in the reality of the world.


Does A Course in Miracles really mean that God did not create the physical universe?

We answer this question with a resounding affirmative! Since nothing of form, matter, or substance can be of God, then nothing of the physical universe can be real, and there is no exception to this. Workbook Lesson 43 states, in the context of perception, which is the realm of duality and separation:

Perception is not an attribute of God. His is the realm of knowledge....In God you cannot see. Perception has no function in God, and does not exist (workbook, p. 67; W-pI.43.1:1-2; 2:1-2).
In the clarification of terms we find the following crystal clear statement about the illusory nature of the world of perception, which God did not create:
The world you see is an illusion of a world. God did not create it, for what He creates must be eternal as Himself. Yet there is nothing in the world you see that will endure forever. Some things will last in time a little while longer than others [e.g., the greater cosmos, as we shall see below in a passage from the text). But the time will come when all things visible will have an end (manual, p. 8 1; C-4. 1).
And finally, a similar statement in the text:
God's laws do not obtain directly to a world perception rules, for such a world could not have been created by the Mind to which perception has no meaning. Yet are His laws reflected everywhere [through the Holy Spirit]. Not that the world where this reflection is, is real at all. Only because Man believes it is, and from Man's belief He could not let Himself be separate entirely. (text, p. 487; T-25.111.2; italics ours).
These passages are important, because they clarify a source of misunderstanding for many students of A Course in Miracles who maintain that Jesus is teaching that God did in fact create the world. They assert that all the Course is teaching is that he did not create our misperceptions of it. Statements which contain the phrase "the world you see," as in the above passage from the manual for teachers, do not apply simply to the world we perceive through our wrong-minded lens, but rather to the fact that we see at all. Again, the entire physical universe, the world of perception and form, is illusory and outside the Mind of Reality.
Therefore, nothing that can be observed -- nothing that has form, physicality, moves, changes, deteriorates, and ultimately dies -- could be of God. A Course in Miracles is unequivocal about this, which is why we speak of it as being a perfect non-dualistic thought system: It contains no exceptions. And so the seeming majesty of the cosmos and perceived glory of nature are all expressions of the ego's thought system of separation, as we see in this wonderful passage from the text:

What seems eternal all will have an end. The stars will disappear, and night and day will be no more. All things that come and go, the tides, the seasons and the lives of men; all things that change with time and bloom and fade will not return. Where time has set an end is not where the eternal is (text, p. 572; T-29.VI.2:7- I0).
To attempt to make an exception to this fact is to attempt a compromise with truth, exactly what the ego wants in order to establish its own existence. As it states in the workbook: "What is false is false, and what is true has never changed" (workbook, p.445; W-pII.10.1:1). And again in the text:
How simple is salvation! All it says is what was never true is not true now, and never will be. The impossible has not occurred, and can have no effects. And that is all (text, p. 600; T-31.1.1:1-4).
In conclusion, therefore, no aspect of the illusion can be accorded truth, which means that absolutely nothing in the material universe has come from Reality, or is even known by Reality. Reality is totally outside the world of dreams.


What about the beauty and goodness in the world?

Following the above answer, we can see that the so-called positive aspects of our world are equally as illusory as the negative ones. They are both aspects of a dualistic perceptual universe, which but reflect the dualistic split in the mind of Man. The famous statement "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder' is also applicable here, since what one deems as beauty, another may find to be aesthetically displeasing, and vice versa. Similarly, what one society judges as good, another may judge as bad and against the common good. This can be evidenced by a careful study of history, sociology, and cultural anthropology. Therefore, using the criterion for reality of eternal changelessness that is employed in the Course, we can conclude that nothing that the world deems beautiful or good is real, and so it cannot have been created by Reality.

Therefore, given that both beauty and goodness are relative concepts and thus are illusory, we should follow the injunction to always ask ourselves: "What is the meaning of what I behold?" (text, p. 619; T-3I.VII.13:5). In other words, even though something beautiful is illusory, it remains neutral, like everything else in the world. Given to the ego, it serves its unholy purpose of reinforcing separation, specialness, and guilt. Given to the Holy Spirit, on the other hand, it serves the holy purpose of leading us to an experience of truth that lies beyond perception. For example, a sunset can reinforce the belief that I can find peace and well-being only while in its presence, or it can help remind me that the true beauty of Man is my Identity, and that this beauty is internal, within my mind and independent of anything outside it.

:)

[venom mama]

i don't know why we hold on because in the end everything goes away. sometimes it's not our choice to let go. whose to say that whatever you hold onto doesn't let you go.

[Trevor]

CASTELGANDOLFO, Italy Aug 22, 2004 - Pope John Paul on Sunday condemned human cloning as an arrogant attempt to improve on God's creation. (LOL)

The pope said medical research should not try to "manipulate" human beings "according to a project considered with arrogance better than that of the Creator himself."


***When are these people going to "let Go" of this BS?***

Peter Russell freely (anti-copyright)wrote:

We hold on to our desires
We hold on to what we think we need.
We hold on to what promises us happiness.
We hold on to our image of who we are

We hold on to our theories.
We hold on to our beliefs.
We hold on to our attitudes.
We hold on to our judgements.

We hold on to the past
We hold on to the future.

We hold on to our grievances.
We hold on to our fears.
We hold on to our loves
We hold on to our lovers.

We hold on to our thoughts.
We hold on to our illusions.

We hold on to our gods.
We hold on to our bodies.
We hold on to our lives

But why do we hold on?

Maybe we believe that our safety lies in holding on,
That losing our grip could spell disaster,
Or we may believe that holding on is the way to salvation.
But do we really know it is safer to hold on?
Would letting go really be so bad?
Do we really gain from holding on?

It is the role of the teacher to show us that such security is illusory.
That holding on only holds us back.
That our salvation lies in letting go.

Our holding on is a constraint we've placed upon ourselves.
It is an attitude, a way of thinking.
And our thinking - unlike the weather or the movements of the planets - is one thing we have complete control over.

The task of the teacher is to show us that we can change our minds, and that it is safe to do so.

We are like a person holding on to a piece of rope.
He holds on for dear life, knowing that if he were to let go he would fall to his death. His parents, his teachers, and many others have told him this is so; and when he looks around he can see everyone else doing the same.

Nothing would induce him to let go.

Along comes a wise person. She knows that holding on is unnecessary, that the security it offers is illusory, and only holds you where you are. So she looks for a way to dispel his illusions and help him to be free.

She talks of real security, of deeper joy, of true happiness, of peace of mind. She tells him that he can taste this if he will just release one finger from the rope.

"One finger," thinks the man; "that"s not too much to risk for a taste of bliss." So he agrees to take this first initiation.

And he does taste greater joy, happiness, and peace of mind.

But not enough to bring lasting fulfillment.

"Even greater joy, happiness and peace can be yours," she tells him, "if you will just release a second finger."

"This," he tells himself, "is going to be more difficult. Can I do it? Will it be safe? Do I have the courage?" He hesitates, then, flexing his finger, feels how it would be to let go a little more . . . and takes the risk.

He is relieved to find he does not fall; instead he discovers greater happiness and inner peace.

But could more be possible?

"Trust me," she says. "Have I failed you so far? I know your fears, I know what your mind is telling you -- that this is crazy, that it goes against everything you have ever learnt -- but please, trust me. Look at me, am I not free? I promise you will be safe, and you will know even greater happiness and contentment."

"Do I really want happiness and inner peace so much," he wonders, "that I am prepared to risk all that I hold dear? In principle, yes; but can I be sure that I will be safe, that I will not fall?" With a little coaxing he begins to look at his fears, to consider their basis, and to explore what it is he really wants. Slowly he feels his fingers soften and relax. He knows he can do it. And he knows he must do it. It is only a matter of time until he releases his grip.

And as he does an even greater sense of peace flows through him.

He is now hanging by one finger. Reason tells him he should have fallen a finger or two ago, but he hasn"t. "Is there something wrong with holding on itself?" he asks himself. "Have I been wrong all the time?"

"This one is up to you," she says. "I can help you no further. Just remember that all your fears are groundless."

Trusting his quiet inner voice, he gradually releases the last finger.

And nothing happens.

He stays exactly where he is.

Then he realizes why. He has been standing on the ground all along.

And as he looks at the ground, knowing he need never hold on again, he finds true peace of mind.

:)

I think we hold on because everyone else does. If we don't then we are seen as not normal.

[dfift]

Thankyou Vicente, a fantastically composed thread. Just one question though....Why the the Wise person?? Only a fool would not look down. Sooner or later the situation would become clear for most of us. Do we really need such guidance?

[Michael]

We hold on to serve our needs in the material world as we must. Physically we have to eat and breath and move. Around this physicality the ego grows and attempts to create permanence for itself in areas beyond our immediate needs. This has the effect of obscuring our true nature and the true nature of the world in which we live.

We think we are the ego and the ego will cling to anything to survive. I am an invalide, I am sick, I am rich, I am powerful, I am a victim, I am superior, I am trendy, strong, weak, unworthy, more deserving, all these are examples of ego identifications. All are illusions. And that is what the ego does, it clings to illusion.
The truth is that nothing in the material world is permenant.

Observe your own reactions to the above. Here I´m not refering to your thoughts,
but to the feelings that have been aroused in you while reading it, the emotions that precede thought. Discomfort, denial, feelings of negativety will be the ego
in action, rejecting and attacking anything that threatens it. That is its nature.
It is not our true nature. And we all feel, somewhere within us, the conflict between our egoic selves and our true selves.

[bito]

We hold on to serve our needs in the material world as we must. Physically we have to eat and breath and move. Around this physicality the ego grows and attempts to create permanence for itself in areas beyond our immediate needs. This has the effect of obscuring our true nature and the true nature of the world in which we live.

We think we are the ego and the ego will cling to anything to survive. I am an invalide, I am sick, I am rich, I am powerful, I am a victim, I am superior, I am trendy, strong, weak, unworthy, more deserving, all these are examples of ego identifications. All are illusions. And that is what the ego does, it clings to illusion.
The truth is that nothing in the material world is permenant.

Observe your own reactions to the above. Here I´m not refering to your thoughts,
but to the feelings that have been aroused in you while reading it, the emotions that precede thought. Discomfort, denial, feelings of negativety will be the ego
in action, rejecting and attacking anything that threatens it. That is its nature.
It is not our true nature. And we all feel, somewhere within us, the conflict between our egoic selves and our true selves.

A view on the different between our "egoic selves" and our "true self" that explains "why we hold on:"

The ego is the interpreter of the senses. As you say, the senses are not permanent. This leaves the ego ever in a position of fear, for it denies the impermanence of its subjective-feeling-objective envisioning, and goes about forming its good and evil worlds as if they are solid and real and true. When and where the ego finds itself exposed is when the breath is withdrawn from the body and oops, no thing to hold onto (interpret).

So much is written about the nature of the ego world of impermanence, but very little about the world of "the true self", as you call it. The reason for this is that the ego mentality of belief it is possible to choose between this and that and make this or that a permanent truth is deeply entrenched in man's consciousness. It's will to survive is powerfully strong.

The ego is wholly dependent on its self-survival (breath survival) thought "I am different", "I am special", "I am a chooser." If it cannot relate this with that, if it cannot compare itself, the ego's voice ceases to arise. Its voice is silenced the moment there is no object present in its awareness to attach its "flesh" feeling to.

When this happens, when for a moment, man's ego is hushed, what is happening with his consciousness? What is the nature of this thought that compares not, that chooses not, that knows nothing of "being special?" The nature of this thought is Life Itself, or God Himself, the nature of omniety. I am That. That I Am. No this and that, I am That.

For the man who desire to transcend his egoic mentality that believes it can do what Life/God cannot do - choose between thoughts - he must stand on his awareness of the truth that in God's Mind, there is perfect equality of thought. There is no choosing, there is no differentiation, there is no sense of specialness whatsoever. Tell the ego this, and it begins to kick and scream. For the man who is sincere in transcending his ego's fear of death, this must be the only "goal" set in his awareness, for that kicking and screaming, or whispering or cajoling is more powerful than the drug of heroin, crack, nicotine, caffeine....name your addiction, the ego is stronger, for it is the ego that is the voice of all addictions.

[GuitarCrazyo]

I can not delete anything on my iPod. Its weird I was trying to delete a Cydia application one day and it wouldnt delete. So I re-installed Cydelete and still nothing. I tried to delete a blank webclip and a game but nothing. It is like it is not recognizing me touching the "x". Anyone know why?
P.S. Please dont post saying Restore, I will do so If no other options are available.

[peterh]

what does that have to do with religion?:angry:

[Michael]

what does that have to do with religion?:angry:
God is not religion, nor is religion God

[kris]

We hold on because we can't help it.

[jufa]

Well, since no individual can grab and hold onto a God, or Christ, or Buddha, nor Islam, Zen, Christendom, Hinduism, Buddhism, Zoroastrianism, or knows of anything other than what he is aware of to hold onto, why would he let go of that which he is? Can man reach and grab that which is a mystery and invisible?

[You are only as good
as those you come up
against]