Different realities

PK and E, I believe that's something one learns from meditation: one eventually comes to see the processes by which we deny Reality, processes by which we fortify the illusion of an ego that amounts to our separation from everything else.
I've heard, also, that sometimes when zen monks in meditation centers are on the verge of "enligtenment" they resist going to their "test" with their (in the Rinzai sect) master for the testing of their state of mind within the context of the koan exercise. It appears that they are afraid to confront the master (roshi) because of an intense fear of dying. What is going to die is not their physical selves but their ego selves. Once they have "passed" through the "dharma gate" (e.g., "satori") to the realization of their essential nothingness or oneness with everything, they tend to lose their fear of the physical death the rest of us dread (and suppress). They come to realize, in their bones, so to speak, that what we fear is not physical death, but ego death. THAT MAY BE WHY WE HIDE RATHER THAN EMBRACE AWAKENING.

enlightenment does not mean one will not die so why fear death when they know it shall come anyway?

True, PK, but the question is "who is it that's dying?" That's the question behind the fear of death. Even without "enlightenment" one need not fear the inevitable; if it's inevitable, it's as good as done. Moreover, if there is no one (whether this be from the perspective that there is no "self" originally or from the perspective that even if there were a "self" after the end of life it surely ceases to exist) who will be in a state of death (the old subject-predicate fallacy) ,there isn't even a state of "death."

JLN, twyvel,...anyone!--

So, the ego fears death. What is the ego? That which fears? That which desires? I know that all these questions may disappear with enough investigation into their real meaning. Still, I am interested in trying to work it all out with words (which I guess is just a form of meditation).

Jln why does the Ego fear death? You have enough control over your ego that you tell it what to fear and what to fear. The ego is part of your mind its based on the same principles.

Fear is not rational. We have no control over our emotions. The ego doesn't fear death there is just the fear of death; try to find an ego.

you do not have to find the ego, the ego is self.

In a way, fear IS ego.

When you are completely tranquil, you have no feeling of self (ego) that desires or fears.

All right. Fear is ego. Ego is fear. I can get with that.
So, what, or why, is "fear"? What is "ego"?
How can it best be put into words?

I once applied for admission to Who's Who. They referred me to What's What. That turned me onto the path of mysticism.

Echi, I perceive "ego" as a feeling between and behind my eyes, a feeling that demands perpetuity.

JLN--

hmmm... okay, that's good (thinking... thinking...)

Don't think, look.

Why do you figure it is located between and behind the eyes? Something to do with the eyes? Some evolutionary advantage?

echi, I don't "figure" that it is located behind my eyes, I feel or sense that the "sensation" of a self is situated there.
In the case of ego--this little being inside of us--we should try to empirically sense its presence and location, rather than infer its existence by means of spurious logic like Descartes' assumption of an agent of thinking (I think therefore there must be a thinker, inside of me).

JLN--

yes, yes... of course... What I mean is, I wonder why the ego is apparently situated in that location. What do you think?

I really don't know. It's just that where it appears to me. I don't know where others have the sensation. Some people say its located in their lower stomach, what asians call their hara.

If you only look you decipher nothing you have to think to see.

PK, what I am talking about with that statment is beyond thought, but not beyond direct passive perception. Our cognitive disposition gets in the way of inSIGHT.
Otherwise you're right. Scientific empiricism must be mediated by extant theory if it is to lead to new theory.

Isn't saying that you sense your ego every bit as redundant as Descartes' assertion? I mean 'you' are the ego. Because you can say that 'you' can feel it behind 'your' eyes, we know that it isn't - because 'you' must not be behind the eyes, and 'you' are the ego.

We probably put the ego behind our eyes because it is through our eyes that we intuit spacial relationships, and thus it makes sense that what is doing the intuiting is doing so from the vantage point of the eyes.