|
|
Post by andrew on Jan 29, 2012 14:16:04 GMT -5
As I see it, aversion is when the bodymind consciously experiences a sense of being moved away from something (which we basically experience as a 'no') and attraction is when the bodymind consciously experiences a sense of being pulled towards something (which we basically experience as a 'yes')
I would say attachment is when we hold onto something in order to maintain a self-image or position of status. So is linked more directly to ego.
|
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jan 29, 2012 14:35:49 GMT -5
As I see it, aversion is when the bodymind consciously experiences a sense of being moved away from something (which we basically experience as a 'no') and attraction is when the bodymind consciously experiences a sense of being pulled towards something (which we basically experience as a 'yes') I would say attachment is when we hold onto something in order to maintain a self-image or position of status. So is linked more directly to ego. Apparently what I've been hearing on the forum is that an enlightened person still has all these three things still intact. So you are saying that you see only "attachments" as based in ego? Correct? The way I see it is a bit odd compared to most people probably. Although I think attachment is directly linked to ego, I also think that if we transcended ego fully, we would also transcend the duality of attraction and aversion. So in a way, attraction and aversion are still indirectly linked to ego, but if the conscious experience of attraction/aversion is released, it wont be through trying to AVOID being attracted/ averse to something because trying to avoid something is obviously still an aversion! I see a little bit of ego as somewhat inevitable for humans currently so I also see attraction and aversion as inevitable (and maybe even a bit of attachment might be inevitable). I think ego enables us to identify ourselves to others, play with roles (I am a man for example), engage with people and basically function in a rational way in a world which demands us to be logical. If we can get ego in the back seat as opposed to the drivers seat, that would be good. In my opinion, we can live peaceful lives on earth whilst experiencing attraction and aversion, but releasing a bunch of attachment is necessary. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jan 29, 2012 14:56:11 GMT -5
The way I see it is a bit odd compared to most people probably. Although I think attachment is directly linked to ego, I also think that if we transcended ego fully, we would also transcend the duality of attraction and aversion. So in a way, attraction and aversion are still indirectly linked to ego, but if the conscious experience of attraction/aversion is released, it wont be through trying to AVOID being attracted/ averse to something because trying to avoid something is obviously still an aversion! I see a little bit of ego as somewhat inevitable for humans currently so I also see attraction and aversion as inevitable (and maybe even a bit of attachment might be inevitable). I think ego enables us to identify ourselves to others, play with roles (I am a man for example), engage with people and basically function in a rational way in a world which demands us to be logical. If we can get ego in the back seat as opposed to the drivers seat, that would be good. In my opinion, we can live peaceful lives on earth whilst experiencing attraction and aversion, but releasing a bunch of attachment is necessary. You can't do "Gods Will" that way. You can only serve yourself. Because if you averse/attached to something then it might be what is required to carry out Gods Will. How ever you want to define Gods Will. Im not quite sure what you mean here but I defined attraction and attachment as slightly different. If you go into an ice cream parlour you will be more consciously attracted to some flavours than others. If you buy strawberry because you think that is the manly flavour to buy then you might be attached to a self-image. Serving yourself and serving God is the same thing. Most people DONT serve themselves, they serve ego. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jan 29, 2012 15:15:06 GMT -5
Im not quite sure what you mean here but I defined attraction and attachment as slightly different. If you go into an ice cream parlour you will be more consciously attracted to some flavours than others. If you buy strawberry because you think that is the manly flavour to buy then you might be attached to a self-image. Serving yourself and serving God is the same thing. Most people DONT serve themselves, they serve ego. Yeah, but the enlightened one goes in and says,"whatever you got will be okay, in fact, I don't care if you have anything." ;D I must be enlightened!
Enlightened people have preferences too. In a way, what we are talking about is basically a swap in priorities. Most people cant help but prioritize the individual good over the greater good. The enlightened prioritize the greater good over the individual good. This still manifests as having preferences. The enlightened prioritize the greater good because they dont have a belief in lack, limitation and scarcity. The unenlightened do have that belief. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jan 29, 2012 15:15:40 GMT -5
I would think everything he does would be an expression of love. Even picking out the ice cream. He'll probably chose the one that is most convenient for the lady behind the counter to get for him. He probably would only be in the ice cream parlor because someone wants him to be. I think thats maybe what I was kind of perhaps just sort of saying. |
|
|
|
Post by relinquish on Jan 29, 2012 15:18:02 GMT -5
Im not quite sure what you mean here but I defined attraction and attachment as slightly different. If you go into an ice cream parlour you will be more consciously attracted to some flavours than others. If you buy strawberry because you think that is the manly flavour to buy then you might be attached to a self-image. Serving yourself and serving God is the same thing. Most people DONT serve themselves, they serve ego. Yeah, but the enlightened one goes in and says,"whatever you got will be okay, in fact, I don't care if you have anything." ;D I must be enlightened!
Pretty much, yeah. The 'enlightened one' welcomes WHATEVER may happen 'next' with open, embracing arms. Why? Because they are literaly IN LOVE with this existence, and the very fact that they are HERE, able to experience AT ALL. They may not exactly love eatch little negative, in and of itself, but they know that the infinite, eternal 'IS' infinitely out ways the infintesimal temporary 'negative', and that it is labled as negative by their conditioning, which is no longer believed in. |
|
|
|
Post by therealfake on Jan 29, 2012 15:21:20 GMT -5
Im not quite sure what you mean here but I defined attraction and attachment as slightly different. If you go into an ice cream parlour you will be more consciously attracted to some flavours than others. If you buy strawberry because you think that is the manly flavour to buy then you might be attached to a self-image. Serving yourself and serving God is the same thing. Most people DONT serve themselves, they serve ego. Yeah, but the enlightened one goes in and says,"whatever you got will be okay, in fact, I don't care if you have anything." ;D I must be enlightened!
I'm thinking that if the enlightened one is lactose intolerant, he might prefer the sorbet over the ice cream. Cause nobody likes a flatulating guru... ;D |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jan 29, 2012 15:23:25 GMT -5
Yeah, but the enlightened one goes in and says,"whatever you got will be okay, in fact, I don't care if you have anything." ;D I must be enlightened!
I'm thinking that if the enlightened one is lactose intolerant, he might prefer the sorbet over the ice cream. Cause nobody likes a flatulating guru... ;D ;D Parrrp! |
|
|
|
Post by relinquish on Jan 29, 2012 15:28:55 GMT -5
Enlightened people have preferences too. In a way, what we are talking about is basically a swap in priorities. Most people cant help but prioritize the individual good over the greater good. The enlightened prioritize the greater good over the individual good. This still manifests as having preferences. The enlightened prioritize the greater good because they dont have a belief in lack, limitation and scarcity. The unenlightened do have that belief. How do you know this? Isn't preferences based in ego? Only the attachment to preference that says, "this is MY favorite". This attachment will lead to some kind of un-happiness if unable to be fulfilled. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jan 29, 2012 15:30:12 GMT -5
Enlightened people have preferences too. In a way, what we are talking about is basically a swap in priorities. Most people cant help but prioritize the individual good over the greater good. The enlightened prioritize the greater good over the individual good. This still manifests as having preferences. The enlightened prioritize the greater good because they dont have a belief in lack, limitation and scarcity. The unenlightened do have that belief. How do you know this? Isn't preferences based in ego? I think preferences and ego may be indirectly and linked in a very subtle way, yes (and I think I said that in my second message) But if the preferences that arise come from alignment to the greater good, whats the problem? What you are looking for is a kind of 'perfectedness' and its possible that we are in a process of being perfected, but we are not 'there' yet. So in a way, the enlightened are at peace with being imperfectly perfect. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jan 29, 2012 15:30:50 GMT -5
How do you know this? Isn't preferences based in ego? Only the attachment to preference that says, "this is MY favorite". This attachment will lead to some kind of un-happiness if unable to be fulfilled. Good answer. |
|
|
|
Post by relinquish on Jan 29, 2012 15:33:56 GMT -5
How do you know this? Isn't preferences based in ego? I think preferences and ego may be indirectly and linked in a very subtle way, yes (and I think I said that in my second message) But if the preferences that arise come from alignment to the greater good, whats the problem? What you are looking for is a kind of 'perfectedness' and its possible that we are in a process of being perfected, but we are not 'there' yet. So in a way, the enlightened are at peace with being imperfectly perfect. Yep. They also see that 'imperfect' is an opinion that does not exist outside the mind. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jan 29, 2012 15:35:57 GMT -5
I think preferences and ego may be indirectly and linked in a very subtle way, yes (and I think I said that in my second message) But if the preferences that arise come from alignment to the greater good, whats the problem? What you are looking for is a kind of 'perfectedness' and its possible that we are in a process of being perfected, but we are not 'there' yet. So in a way, the enlightened are at peace with being imperfectly perfect. Yep. They also see that 'imperfect' is an opinion that does not exist outside the mind. Yes |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jan 29, 2012 15:41:05 GMT -5
I think preferences and ego may be indirectly and linked in a very subtle way, yes (and I think I said that in my second message) But if the preferences that arise come from alignment to the greater good, whats the problem? What you are looking for is a kind of 'perfectedness' and its possible that we are in a process of being perfected, but we are not 'there' yet. So in a way, the enlightened are at peace with being imperfectly perfect. I know what you are saying. The broken plate is a perfectly broken plate. Just not a good plate to eat out of any longer. Yes |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jan 29, 2012 15:45:30 GMT -5
I think preferences and ego may be indirectly and linked in a very subtle way, yes (and I think I said that in my second message) But if the preferences that arise come from alignment to the greater good, whats the problem?What you are looking for is a kind of 'perfectedness' and its possible that we are in a process of being perfected, but we are not 'there' yet. So in a way, the enlightened are at peace with being imperfectly perfect. Not knowing what the greater good is. How does one know the greatest good so one can become aligned to it? As we release attachment, we automatically align to it. We then CANT put the individual good first because there is no longer attachment to a belief in the individual. Its almost as if we are naturally designed to put the greater good first, but then ego comes along and we put the individual good first. As ego is released we return to the original blueprint (our natural design) |
|
