This is a really great thread with a lot of interesting ideas, I think.  One of the things that really bothered me when I started studying spirituality was the idea that merging with the source means that I would BECOME the source, become the only thing there is, and have no one/nothing to interact with.  The idea gave me panic attacks! 

I like the way that Deepak Chopra put it once, though - to think of yourself as a cell in the body.  For some reason that made a lot of sense to me, because the good of the cell and the good of tthe body are completely entwined, separate but one, yes? 

Also, I've read a pretty amusing article once that said it is impossible to destroy the ego, simply because the desire to destroy the ego comes from an aspect of the ego itself!  "Ego vs. Ego - Ego wins!"  and oh, oops, it's still there!

that reminds me Starry, this friend of mine put it the same way, only he used desire as the idea, instead of the entire ego.

In some eastern schools, the idea was to red oneself of desire. yet that cannot be done either. for first you'd have a desire.
a desire to be without a desire.
therefore you would be chasing your tail.

same with the ego of chasing after the state of enlightenment and to claim to be unattached to anything.

we're in a body therefore we're attached to it. a better way to understand these things is to be unattached emotionally to the outcome of any situation and look at that as equanimity.

equanimity is to be in the world, but not of it, or to derive the best of two worlds. Here, and also there.

in a way, what I'm saying is, don't worry. because worry never accomplished the thing desired anyway. It either turned out good, or it turned out bad, and all the worrying done didn't make it turn out good (if it turned out good) what I then do, if things work out good, I wonder why I worried about in the first place?

so worry is a waste of time. I find I'm still quite capable of inventing problems that simply aren't there, lending energy to them and then finding out later I made it all up in my head. there was no problem.
this happens enough times, and equanity in the emotions takes place over time. the way I figure everything works out good in the end.
It was easier to explain as faith.

nobody wants to hear that word anymore. too simplified.

nice image Starry. welcome.

Stary:

I agree with what you wrote. I used to believe in the one self viewpoint, which is a real bummer if you think about it, but found that many many selves make up the oneness. Lots of fun and love for everybody for all of eternity.

The more we let go of our limitations so we can live according to love,  the more we can become aware of how connected we are.

Hi Recoverer, what do you mean by the one self theory? Why is it a bummer? Are you referring to each of us having multiple selves?
just wondering

Here's a really great explanation video about the ego from Deepak's blog, if anyone is interested:

http://www.intentblog.com/archives/2008/11/tools_of_person.html