|
Post by andrew on Jan 29, 2012 15:49:13 GMT -5
I like seeing these these little . Is that an attraction, attachment, or a preference? ;D I cant see it because my notebook screen is too small But off the top of my head I would say an attraction.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jan 29, 2012 15:57:53 GMT -5
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) It doesn't work for me that way. What I mean is I still see an individual but I put others first anyway out of faith. Although I still don't have lots of attachments the few I do have are very powerful. I still see individuals too. It would be a difficult world to function in if we didnt. You put others first out of faith in what? Seems to me also that you only have a few attachments. Sometimes I think its almost as if you are attached to proving that there is no such thing as enlightenment....that the whole thing is a big lie.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jan 29, 2012 16:02:30 GMT -5
I cant see it because my notebook screen is too small But off the top of my head I would say an attraction. Attractions are based in ego, correct? Even thou Hawkins calibrates attractions in the 500s (level of love) they are still based in ego? As I said, I might be a bit odd in the way I see things because I do see the potential of a human life that is free from attraction and aversion altogether. Currently though I think that some degree of attraction and aversion is inevitable and this manifests as preferences. Those who have released a lot of ego naturally make choices that are aligned to the greater good.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jan 29, 2012 16:30:37 GMT -5
I still see individuals too. It would be a difficult world to function in if we didnt. You put others first out of faith in what? Seems to me also that you only have a few attachments. Sometimes I think its almost as if you are attached to proving that there is no such thing as enlightenment....that the whole thing is a big lie. Just trying to get to the real thing. I believe a person can KNOW. They can KNOW enough. They can be unattached enough to honestly do spontaneous right actions. That might require the ego to be reprogrammed. I don't know. But I believe I can KNOW. And I don't believe greedy people are doing that. They can say "I don't know" So they can have an excuse to do whatever it is that they want. See the thing is money is the most powerful symbol in this earth-plane. So it is a good yardstick to make accurate observation on teachers. That's what I see in this world left and right. For people who have given up, but with enough spiritual knowledge to fools the gullible people. I agree that spontaneous right action is possible, however, the enlightened still say both 'yes' and 'no'. I dont see it as a 'knowing', I see it as more of a 'trust'. The money thing again.....way I see it is that even if you were enlightened, you still probably wouldnt be like Eckhart Tolle and whoever else is charging for seminars. I can well believe that the money he charges is to cover expenses, but I get the sense that you are 'naturally' very discordant with the clumsiness of money as a form of exchange, and therefore even when you are enlightened, your way of being of service will be different and wont involve money really. But I dont think that just because he charges money he is necessarily greedy though. I might be wrong, but what I see you thinking is that enlightened people are all the same in their sensitivities and their proclivities and their behaviours, when enlightened people are just as different as unenlightened people. In the same way that all babies are different. What the enlightened share is a similar way of experiencing and perceiving, but that doesnt mean they resonate entirely with each other. I dont care how enlightened I become, I doubt I will ever be a 'sit in a cave and meditate' kind of guy. Some are though.
|
|
|
Post by nobody on Jan 29, 2012 16:34:46 GMT -5
Attractions are based in ego, correct? Even thou Hawkins calibrates attractions in the 500s (level of love) they are still based in ego? Freejoy. I love this thread. You are starting to ask some great questions, buddy. Before we start asking questions about whether or not thoughts are egoic, it's important to be clear on what the ego is. Don't you think? My question to you would be, what is the ego exactly? Not what society told you the ego is, because they are clueless. In non-duality (or spirituality), what is it that is referred to as ego? I'll give you a hint, it's not what you think it is.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jan 29, 2012 17:11:45 GMT -5
I agree that spontaneous right action is possible, however, the enlightened still say both 'yes' and 'no'. I dont see it as a 'knowing', I see it as more of a 'trust'. The money thing again.....way I see it is that even if you were enlightened, you still probably wouldnt be like Eckhart Tolle and whoever else is charging for seminars. I can well believe that the money he charges is to cover expenses, but I get the sense that you are 'naturally' very discordant with the clumsiness of money as a form of exchange, and therefore even when you are enlightened, your way of being of service will be different and wont involve money really. But I dont think that just because he charges money he is necessarily greedy though. I might be wrong, but what I see you thinking is that enlightened people are all the same in their sensitivities and their proclivities and their behaviours, when enlightened people are just as different as unenlightened people. In the same way that all babies are different. What the enlightened share is a similar way of experiencing and perceiving, but that doesnt mean they resonate entirely with each other. I dont care how enlightened I become, I doubt I will ever be a 'sit in a cave and meditate' kind of guy. Some are though. It would be sweet indeed to find one enlightened who was manifesting Godliness with their money. They could really make a difference in this world. I believe world hunger can be ended in a very short time and people can all have shelter. And the enlightenment message brought to all people. You have people like Tolle with millions and millions. He might be kind of enlightened. But he doesn't seem to help people. I wonder if everything he has now is not enough for him to stop charging money and set an example? What more does he need? Why don't the enlightened people take over this world? In order to do that seems to me we would have to have more enlightened people. And how are you going to get more enlightened people by charging money. $600 for one week siting. Come on. Do the math, 10 people X $600 in one week. 50 people X $600 in one week = greed. How many get to go free? Yeah FREE. I might not be looking at things incorrectly, if so please enlighten me. Well...first I think that Tolle is pointing a hell of a lot of people in the right direction. He is not someone I would particularly recommend, but even so, at least he is pointing in the direction of peace. Im also not sure at all that he does have millions. In one way, enlightened people are limited by their surrender. They are surrendered TO their proclivities and sensitivities. If in their surrender they are moved to work directly towards helping more people to eat, then great, and to be fair, there may well be enlightened people doing that. You will probably be quite different to the enlightened masters that you currently read, even though you will share the same way of experiencing as them. What they are really teaching you is how to find, and be at peace with, YOUR way in the world. You might find that you are a hands on kind of guy rather than a satsang or seminars kind of guy. You might find that you are moved to work with the homeless or the sick. Equally you might find that you ARE actually a jacuzzi kind of guy ;D (but I doubt it). The thing is that I think you think that going with your natural proclivities would not be doing God's will, right? So your goal is not so much to be surrendered to your natural blue print, but to become someone who has no proclivities.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jan 29, 2012 17:40:04 GMT -5
So we're all in agreement that attachment is always about self image or position of status, and that perfection refers to a perfectly broken plate?
|
|
|
Post by freddy on Jan 29, 2012 17:48:35 GMT -5
@ Freejoy
I think the problem is, that you think there are enlightened people out there and you can see their enlightenment from their behaviour. This is the typical dogma of Stephen Hawking, who calibrates the enlightenment of 'persons' jugding on their behaviour and their appearance in the world out there.
But this is a deep misconception. Even a murder could be enlightened and in fact enlightening is already the case in every 'person'. A murder still murders if this is 'his' story.
Enlightenment doesn't mean that the story stops and the 'person' can now make choices which are typical for an enlightened person.
Even Bill Gates could be enlightened and you would never know it.
|
|
|
Post by nobody on Jan 29, 2012 18:03:10 GMT -5
Freejoy. I love this thread. You are starting to ask some great questions, buddy. Before we start asking questions about whether or not thoughts are egoic, it's important to be clear on what the ego is. Don't you think? My question to you would be, what is the ego exactly? Not what society told you the ego is, because they are clueless. In non-duality (or spirituality), what is it that is referred to as ego? I'll give you a hint, it's not what you think it is. That's one reason for this tread was to find out exactly what the ego is. Cool man. You obviously have an idea of what the ego is, everyone does. A good place to start would be to lay out what you think the ego is so the others can help clarify. Clear out the pipes so to speak. If they tell you what the ego is, you are just going to layer what they tell you on top of what you think. Then freejoy's idea of ego becomes, freejoy+enigma+andrew+etc's idea of ego, and not what ego actually is, and you remain in the dark.
|
|
|
Post by nobody on Jan 29, 2012 18:17:40 GMT -5
If I hear you correctly, you believe that there are egoic people, and non-egoic people. In other words, you equate ego to morality.
Ego is not a characteristic. Ego is not an adjective. It's not a noun either.
It's a verb.
The next question I'd have for you is, are you willing to let go of you idea of ego? Or do you want to keep your idea of ego even though it may not be true?
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jan 29, 2012 19:00:26 GMT -5
@ Freejoy I think the problem is, that you think there are enlightened people out there and you can see their enlightenment from their behaviour. This is the typical dogma of Stephen Hawking, who calibrates the enlightenment of 'persons' jugding on their behaviour and their appearance in the world out there. But this is a deep misconception. Even a murder could be enlightened and in fact enlightening is already the case in every 'person'. A murder still murders if this is 'his' story. Enlightenment doesn't mean that the story stops and the 'person' can now make choices which are typical for an enlightened person. Even Bill Gates could be enlightened and you would never know it. His name is David Hawkins, and while there are define boundaries to his scale, it also has it's value. It's not really referring to how enlightened you are or aren't, though that's what everybody wants to know, but rather what it means to be aligned with the truth of your being. There are various intellectual and devotional positions that one may find oneself in, and it can be useful to get an idea what's going on. As far as I know, it has nothing to do with behavior or appearance or judgment. I'm not one of those who says everybody is already enlightened. I'm one of those who says nobody ever gets enlightened.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jan 29, 2012 19:06:22 GMT -5
If I hear you correctly, you believe that there are egoic people, and non-egoic people. In other words, you equate ego to morality. Ego is not a characteristic. Ego is not an adjective. It's not a noun either. It's a verb. The next question I'd have for you is, are you willing to let go of you idea of ego? Or do you want to keep your idea of ego even though it may not be true? No ego is not about morality. Morality is a set of rules. Rules are something that has to be remembered. It is mind. If you show me I'm wrong I will correct my view of ego, sure. So you are saying ego is an action. Okay. That sounds reasonable. So all one has to do to get rid of ego is not act?
|
|
|
Post by therealfake on Jan 29, 2012 19:10:30 GMT -5
It doesn't work for me that way. What I mean is I still see an individual but I put others first anyway out of faith. Although I still don't have lots of attachments the few I do have are very powerful. I still see individuals too. It would be a difficult world to function in if we didnt. You put others first out of faith in what? Seems to me also that you only have a few attachments. Sometimes I think its almost as if you are attached to proving that there is no such thing as enlightenment....that the whole thing is a big lie. When we use our eyes to see the world, we see separate things. When we use our vision to see the world, we 'see' ourselves.
|
|
|
Post by nobody on Jan 29, 2012 19:21:32 GMT -5
First of all, the words mind, person, self, I, me, you are synonymous with the word ego. The ego is not an action per se. It's a movement of self-referencing thought. This is very basic. But there's been some talk on this thread about preferences. Preferences arise in response to things that we come into contact with. The mind says, "I like" or "I don't like" when we see a a random person on the street. Maybe all of a sudden we start thinking about the a**hole in high school (in the past) who remind us of this person. This is an automatic process. Another basic example of this process is when we get hungry. As soon as hunger is felt, the mind takes ownership of it. It says, "I am hungry". Now maybe we start thinking about our next meal (in the future). Again, this is automatic. When you asked the question about aversion, desire, and attachment being ego related. The answer is yes because it is part of the process of self referencing thought. The mind is entirely mechanical, and the process of mind/ego is often fueled by aversion and desire, all of which are conditioned. We did not come out of the womb liking and disliking stuff. We were taught. Part of what is being asked of us is to observe this whole process, to break identification with the mind, and start questioning this thing called "I" (which I mentioned arises automatically). Here's a pretty nifty video on the basics: www.youtube.com/watch?v=SSdmtE83pPgAnyways, that's all I got. Good luck to ya!
|
|
|
Post by nobody on Jan 29, 2012 19:27:51 GMT -5
Do y'all see where I'm stuck? I can't say that I see where you're stuck. But I notice a common trend in your posts. And that is your tendency to talk about the selfish, the rich, and finances. It's neither right or wrong, it's just part of your conditioning, and you identify with it a great deal. If I were to make a suggestion, I might say to say watch the dynamic of that thought process. Since it's so repetitive, it should be an easy process to watch. It's all automatic dude. If you were to do that, I think you'd be well on your way (if you're not already).
|
|