Ego manipulation

The ego has no absolute standing as a principle -- it changes according to what can supports its own existence -- it is not consistent at all, full of self-contradiction. The ego will use whatever it takes to protect itself -- some very manipulative methods. No matter good or bad, postive or negative can be used by the ego to feed itself. Especially, those traits that i define as good,which i place value/worth in, which i am reluctant to let go of are supporting my ego in such a subtle way that i may easily fall for that. I abused self-forgiveness by applying self-forgiveness on those i dislike while not allowing myself to apply self-forgiveness on those that i fear losing -- this is not unconditional self-forgiveness and is actually supporting the ego. So be careful! Be aware! Osho's words opened up this point of the manipulative and abusive nature of the ego. In order to be consistent, self has to stand as the principle of Life as all as one as equal no matter what.

I used to define myself as rebellious, always wanting to stand opposite to what is presented, always wanting to refute/to fight/to win/to prove that i am right/special/unique/unrelenting. This is just another method my ego uses to fuel itself. My ego never wants to agree with others even i know that what others said makes sense. It only wants to refute others, to defeat others, and to win. It does not stand as one principle. If i participate in a discussion from the starting point of finding out the truth and not from the starting point of wanting to win, agreeing with others does not mean compromise; refuting to others does not mean standing as the truth --- agree or disagree is not the point; what is the truth is the point. Honest discussion is within the standing of the principle as the truth, not within the standing of desiring to defeat/win over others. Honesty: if you are speaking common sense, i agree unconditionally -- how can this be compromise? if you are talking bullshit, i will disagree no matter who you are. So the central point is what is real, not that i must defeat you. From the ego's point of you, agreeing with others = not defeating others = I lose; disagreeing with others/not being persuaded = not being defeated = I win. The ego does not stand as one principle, it only wants to win. Likewise, i used to define myself as a minority, which i feel make me special/unique. I never wanted to agree with others and I never wanted to join a group which i perceive can diminish my minority definition. If i stand as the principle of what is real, then it does not matter whether i am a minority or majority. Maybe in the beginning i can be categorized as a minority because many people are not aware of what is real, but i do not hold onto this definition -- being a minority does not make me feel special/unique, rather it makes me feel sad because many are not aware of the truth -- so i would like more people to be able to understand what i am aware of, to share my realizations -- minority is not going to hold me from sharing my realizations. But from the ego point of view, the truth is always in the few -- i belong to the minority, i am the one that is holding the truth, i am the one that is special, i am the one that is going save the world, i am the one that is must superior, you are all less than me etc -- i will protect my minority definition, there is no way i am going to share my realizations because then i will lose my minority/specialness/uniqueness/superiority etc. The difference is obvious. Am i standing as the principle of common sense as what is best for all or am i just wanting to win to fulfill my enlightend self-interest?

I drop the desire to win over others unconditionally because it is not who i really am. I stand as the principle of common sense as what is best for all no matter what, especially i destroy deliberately myself as ego.

Kill/murder/slaughter the illusion as the mind manifested personality as ego, otherwise i am killing/murdering/slaughtering who i really am as Life. No middle line.