Why does the ego separate itself into seemingly individual components, that pick on each other or band together?
The ego cannot exist without being perceived by the Mind, and tricks the Mind into believing that the Mind will cease to exist without being perceived by the ego. The Mind becomes a function of the ego, simultaneously squashing and reviving the ego to confirm it, the Mind, is still there, computing and perceiving, existing. But if existence as we know it is a function of perception, the ego will always exist so long as we have a Mind, so long as we perceive -- trying to understand and analyze, put words and explanations to, instead of Being and Knowing. If the Mind couldn't create questions and/or observations, in its individual capacity, could it be aware of its existence? The awareness has to have something to be aware of.
We live by the concept that dialogue constitutes existence.
Waves on one beach ebb, on the opposite beach they flow; a back and forth rapport that never stops. But if the Moon stopped orbiting the Earth, would waves cease to exist? Light would still arrive at Earth in wavelengths, though we can`t see the ebb and flow of connected rays of light from the sun; we perceive a sunny day as one endless time of light. Even when clouds pass through the sky, light is perceived as one continuous stream; the clouds interrupt it.
If we aren't above ground to perceive the sunny day, does the continuous time of light exist?
Who receives the waves as they flow, and who misses them when they ebb? The beach, the sand, ... But what about the microscopic organisms in the sand...?
We don't see them, yet they validate the existence of the ocean waves by being there, by their own existence -- they perceive the waves in their own capacity. Since we don't see these organisms, or experience them directly, do they not exist? And if they don't exist, do waves not exist in the times that a human isn't near enough to perceive them?
A tree falls in the forest, and no one`s around. Does it make a sound?
The ego says no. There was no one to create a dialogue with the sound, a response or rebuff, no one to ignore it and thereby validate the existence of something to be ignored.
The Jnana yogi says, what tree?
The Mind says "I don't think I know."
The Heart knows the ground receives the tree with a sigh as the dirt below compacts under the weight; the birds who built their nest become homeless as the tree falls; neighbouring trees feel sadness for the loss of their friend, and excitement for his new life on the ground as a nursery log; the bugs, initially shaken by the rumble as the tree hits the Earth, rejoice at the arrival of a massive new feeding ground and home.
Perhaps dialogue constitutes existence, existence as we perceive it in our limited physical brain. But this Mind sensing existence is only a function of perception (I think, therefore I am). Perception is a side effect of existence, but awareness of existence comes from perception. So, do you still exist if you're not aware that you exist, if you're not aware that to others you exist?
There is no such thing as existence or non-existence; words are a feeble yet mighty attempt to explain the unexplainable, that which can only be experienced without perception. Existence is a concept, and concepts are not Real.
This all came to me while working on yoga flow for school. It took over an hour to put into words, and still I feel there's much more I could expand on, turn around and contradict to prove points. However we all KNOW the underlying point; expand your consciousness beyond perception. It's all in the inference, as usual.
