|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 15, 2023 5:38:20 GMT -5
I'm not the source of either one of these. Those two members of this forum will almost certainly recognize these ideas, and it would be really cool if they want to lay claim to them, but if not, that's fine too.  The first idea, is, in my opinion, incorrect. That one is that "it is the ego that becomes enlightened". This is not to cast aspersions on the guy who wrote it, for whom I do have great respect and affection. Even though I find it to be incorrect, there is another way to look at it. That it's sort of the flip-side to "if you meet the buddha ...". And that dichotomy and apparent contradiction has value, contextually, and in it's own way. Which I'll refrain from elaborating on for now. The second idea seems to me to be quite original, and, in context, rather profound, to say the least. Now, caveat: this is my interpretation of it: "The personal ego is the cutting edge of creation". This doesn't mean that the personal ego isn't an illusion. It is. There's no need to reconcile this with pointing from either Ramana about ego-death, or Tolle about "watching the thinker" (watching the ego). There is none. Thinking mind will make a contradiction, that is what it is. Both of those pointers are pure gold. What it does mean is that life unfolds very differently before and after having penetrated that illusion. "What penetrates the illusion?". As ZD would say .. well, we all know what ZD would say!  As I say .. that question is self-inquiry. Good. Now ... isn't it just glorious what happens next? Whatever that might be? |
|
|
|
Post by lolly on Sept 15, 2023 6:00:51 GMT -5
ZD: This
I can't see how the first idea makes sense. I don't see much sense in the second idea either. I think the pointers are great. The one that observes the breath is the one who is aware. It's the self you already know as 'the witness'. Just gotta discern between what's really happening and the stuff you're imagining. It's surprising how much we take-to-be-true is only a figmint.
|
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Sept 15, 2023 8:11:26 GMT -5
::narcissistically wondering if either of those positions are mine:: There's not many positions I won't take, but it would be an odd thing for me to say that the 'ego' is enlightened. While I could formulate an argument for it (I would have to define 'ego' very carefully), it is hard for me to imagine a context in which it would be useful to take that position. Even when I see people turn ego into an enemy, or go to war with ego, I don't think I would be inclined to address that by saying that 'ego gets enlightened'. With that said, there might be a time when I say individuals are enlightened. For me there's a level of lived reality to this idea....can't speak of Tolle, Katie, UG, Niz etc without talking about individuals. But I understand the relevance of pointing away from the idea of 'enlightened individuals' and in this case, am fine to talk about the 'appearance of individuality'. The second idea is interesting and appeals to me. Sounds sound of Abe-Hicks ish, and Reefs springs to mind. And not just conceptually, for me there is a level of 'lived reality' to this idea. |
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Sept 15, 2023 8:14:58 GMT -5
ZD: This I can't see how the first idea makes sense. I don't see much sense in the second idea either. I think the pointers are great. The one that observes the breath is the one who is aware. It's the self you already know as 'the witness'. Just gotta discern between what's really happening and the stuff you're imagining. It's surprising how much we take-to-be-true is only a figmint. Agreed. Ignoring for a moment Ramana's statement to a seeker, "There is no ego," which this individual body/mind organism agrees with, there do seem to be differences in the way selfhood is experienced, how the sense of selfhood can collapse or be seen through, and what happens afterwards. I've mentioned this before, but some people have what I call "a hard-core sense of selfhood." For those people it literally feels as if they are little guys or gals inside the head looking out at an exterior world. I suspect that their default mode neural network results from strongly identifying with their interests and activities, and they regularly look "inside" to see what they think or feel about things. For those people the collapse of the thought structure, or DMNN, is quite stunning because when they attempt to look "inside" there is no longer anything there--no "me" and also no "inside." The illusory boundary between inside and outside has totally vanished, and what used to be "inside" is now totally empty. There is simply nothing there to see. It then becomes obvious that there never was a "me" or any kind of separation other than as a product of imagination. They then feel free, and life then feels like a flow of being one with "what is." For other people this obviously happens differently, particularly for people who are "feelers" more than "thinkers" and who have repressed or internalized lots of negative thoughts about themselves or other people. Many of the people in that category describe an extended period of time during which they have to feel the suppressed feelings and thereby release them. I can only write about people in the first category, and what happens afterwards, and it is not so much "integration" or "embodiment" that occurs as it is the sudden occurrence of other minor realizations that make things increasingly clear. Simply put, life becomes simple, direct, down to earth, and quite ordinary. There is no sense of specialness because it's seen that everyone and everything is an aspect of the same unified infinite field of being, and the old sense of selfhood and the old dichotomy of inside/outside remains absent. There is no conflict, no regrets, no resentments, no idea about how things should be--just acceptance of whatever is happening. This is speculation, but I suspect that whether the old DMNN, and the sense of a separate "me," returns probably depends upon how significantly habits of mind have changed. For long-time meditators and people who have regularly shifted attention away from thoughts to "what is" the mind does not regain dominance, but there are definitely some people who fall back into the mind as the habit of incessant thought, or heavily self-referential thought, returns. For those who stay focused on whatever is happening "as it is" there doesn't seem to be any end to what can be realized, and Hakuin comes to mind in this regard because he claims that his deepest seeing into his true nature occurred several years after freedom was attained/realized. This is why many Zen Masters do not regard SR as a stopping point. From most of the people I've met who appear to be free the words "I" and "me" are more like placeholders for usage in conventional language with other people. It feels more accurate to use terms like "this character" or "this body/mind organism" in reference to one's individuality as a human, but those terms are too cumbersome to use regularly in ordinary conversation. One knows that the body is an individuated aspect of THIS and has a name, but there is no sense of being a SVP in the prior sense. One does not feel wise or anything remotely like that. The primary difference is that there is no longer attachment to ideation, and when listening to other people talk about life, one is often tempted to say, "That would be a good idea to let go of." FWIW, David Bingham has some excellent videos on YouTube, and a good one to watch is his interview with Renate McNay on Conscious TV. I think it's titled something like "David Bingham effortless being interview with Renate McNay on Conscious TV." It's no accident that his website is titled nonconceptualawareness.com. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 15, 2023 8:27:33 GMT -5
Invaluable, as ever zd, thanks for taking the time to write that. From my experience, there are many opportunities for the informing of mind there. Among other possibilities. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 15, 2023 8:49:10 GMT -5
::narcissistically wondering if either of those positions are mine:: There's not many positions I won't take, but it would be an odd thing for me to say that the 'ego' is enlightened. While I could formulate an argument for it (I would have to define 'ego' very carefully), it is hard for me to imagine a context in which it would be useful to take that position. Even when I see people turn ego into an enemy, or go to war with ego, I don't think I would be inclined to address that by saying that 'ego gets enlightened'. With that said, there might be a time when I say individuals are enlightened. For me there's a level of lived reality to this idea....can't speak of Tolle, Katie, UG, Niz etc without talking about individuals. But I understand the relevance of pointing away from the idea of 'enlightened individuals' and in this case, am fine to talk about the 'appearance of individuality'. The second idea is interesting and appeals to me. Sounds sound of Abe-Hicks ish, and Reefs springs to mind. And not just conceptually, for me there is a level of 'lived reality' to this idea. Well considered andy, as always, and I have to say, in this instance, quite practical. "There are no enlightened people", but, "there are people pointing to self-realization". Thinking is not only not useful here, but counter-productive. This is true both "prior-to-SR", and, as I alluded to by the potential informing of mind to ZD, "post-SR". Now usually, when the topic of the limit of mind comes up, I like to add that emotion is just as useless as thought. And that's definitely true, especially when one's head is in the tiger's mouth. But not really in this instance. This dichotomy, this paradox, if you will, in this instance, comes down to your orientation to the pointing from the person who is pointing. I don't think I have to tell you, but I'll write it anyway. Just trust your gut. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 15, 2023 9:03:15 GMT -5
ZD: This I can't see how the first idea makes sense. I don't see much sense in the second idea either. I think the pointers are great. The one that observes the breath is the one who is aware. It's the self you already know as 'the witness'. Just gotta discern between what's really happening and the stuff you're imagining. It's surprising how much we take-to-be-true is only a figmint. Ok, so let me translate my understanding of the second idea into relative, material, secular humanist terms. This is sort of besides the point of it, and while perhaps might be interesting to some folks, isn't the profundity I was alluding to, not by a long shot. That was referring to it from a .. different perspective, and in a completely different mode of consideration that involves what I could easily describe as a form of meditation. My understanding of the second idea is that it's a broad view on the fact that the existential illusion came to happen in the first place. You can trap even relatively smart animals such as a cat with a simple foot bait in a cage. Think about the damage a herd of buffalo could do if they had responded to predation by revenge stampedes, and not just while a kill was going on, but days or years later whenever they smelled humans. If we consider the notion of ego in the context of the model of evolution, then it obviously has some survival advantages to the species as a whole. This was true for as long as the footprint of human beings was small compared to the Earth overall. The potential of a full-blown exchange of weapons seems to mark a sort of limit to that. So we can frame this idea in relative, material, secular humanistic terms thusly: the illusion of personal ego naturally emerged from the process of evolution as it rendered an advantage at the level of the species. As human beings are the only instance that we can be sure of to have expressed it, it's the "cutting edge of evolution". |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Sept 15, 2023 10:36:25 GMT -5
Really curious who it would be that maintains it is the ego that gets enlightened. That seems an odd stance.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 15, 2023 12:27:05 GMT -5
I have explicitly stated on many occasions that it is the ego that gets enlightened.
Awareness doesn't need to get enlightened because it already is. The ego realizes it is enlightened by removing the veil of ignorance which obscures the truth that there is no difference or separation between the limited individual and the unbounded infinite. The ego assumes the same infinite cosmic value as awareness because there is no longer any difference. After realization they are not seen as different because there is nothing that is not the Self. There is only Unity. There is nothing that is not the reality. The seeker is told to withdraw from the senses and world and treat them as unreal or illusory and go within to discover unchanging awareness only to discover that everything is awareness including the person. When Buddha was stopped on the road he proclaimed "I am awake". He said that as an ego which was not separate or different from the totality.
It doesn't make any sense to claim the ego disappears because that claim is made by the ego which clearly hasn't disappeared.
It's as if the person is in a dark room in a state of ignorance but when the lights come on the person is still there to see that all is illuminated including himself as ego.
|
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Sept 15, 2023 13:56:16 GMT -5
There's not many positions I won't take, 
To Much information |
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Sept 15, 2023 13:59:37 GMT -5
The first idea, is, in my opinion, incorrect. That one is that "it is the ego that becomes enlightened". This is not to cast aspersions on the guy who wrote it, for whom I do have great respect and affection. Even though I find it to be incorrect, there is another way to look at it. That it's sort of the flip-side to "if you meet the buddha ...". And that dichotomy and apparent contradiction has value, contextually, and in it's own way. Which I'll refrain from elaborating on for now. Well anything that can become anything would be mindful . What becomes enlightened therefore would be what we are that is mindful . You kant just have awareness becoming enlightened without the thought of what you are that is . That has to encompass the ego because the whole process of being and understanding oneself filters through a thought of oneself . |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 15, 2023 14:08:58 GMT -5
I have explicitly stated on many occasions that it is the ego that gets enlightened. Awareness doesn't need to get enlightened because it already is. The ego realizes it is enlightened by removing the veil of ignorance which obscures the truth that there is no difference or separation between the limited individual and the unbounded infinite. The ego assumes the same infinite cosmic value as awareness because there is no longer any difference. After realization they are not seen as different because there is nothing that is not the Self. There is only Unity. There is nothing that is not the reality. The seeker is told to withdraw from the senses and world and treat them as unreal or illusory and go within to discover unchanging awareness only to discover that everything is awareness including the person. When Buddha was stopped on the road he proclaimed "I am awake". He said that as an ego which was not separate or different from the totality. It doesn't make any sense to claim the ego disappears because that claim is made by the ego which clearly hasn't disappeared. It's as if the person is in a dark room in a state of ignorance but when the lights come on the person is still there to see that all is illuminated including himself as ego. he is! |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 15, 2023 14:09:21 GMT -5
There's not many positions I won't take,
To Much information Whatever you do, don't search a risque website for the "positionless position" ... |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 15, 2023 14:18:53 GMT -5
The first idea, is, in my opinion, incorrect. That one is that "it is the ego that becomes enlightened". This is not to cast aspersions on the guy who wrote it, for whom I do have great respect and affection. Even though I find it to be incorrect, there is another way to look at it. That it's sort of the flip-side to "if you meet the buddha ...". And that dichotomy and apparent contradiction has value, contextually, and in it's own way. Which I'll refrain from elaborating on for now. Well anything that can become anything would be mindful . What becomes enlightened therefore would be what we are that is mindful . You kant just have awareness becoming enlightened without the thought of what you are that is . That has to encompass the ego because the whole process of being and understanding oneself filters through a thought of oneself . Right, so you're re-stating what I referred to as that potentially useful dichotomy. On one hand, "if you meet the Buddha ...", and then on the other hand, here you are, having written before that "there is only what you are", so there's someone writing a nonduality pointer. That's the issue from the personal, relative perspective of someone potentially interested in self-inquiry. As I wrote to andy, it's best not to apply thinking mind to this, as thinking mind finds only confusion. After self-inquiry is over, events still happen, and as zd points out, there's no internal "little-guy-in-the-head" for them to happen to (never was) or to set goals and pursue dreams like before. But the taxes still come due. It's all still going on. Conflict can still arise. It all unfolds quite differently though. |
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Sept 15, 2023 15:20:08 GMT -5
Well anything that can become anything would be mindful . What becomes enlightened therefore would be what we are that is mindful . You kant just have awareness becoming enlightened without the thought of what you are that is . That has to encompass the ego because the whole process of being and understanding oneself filters through a thought of oneself . Right, so you're re-stating what I referred to as that potentially useful dichotomy. On one hand, "if you meet the Buddha ...", and then on the other hand, here you are, having written before that "there is only what you are", so there's someone writing a nonduality pointer. That's the issue from the personal, relative perspective of someone potentially interested in self-inquiry. As I wrote to andy, it's best not to apply thinking mind to this, as thinking mind finds only confusion. After self-inquiry is over, events still happen, and as zd points out, there's no internal "little-guy-in-the-head" for them to happen to (never was) or to set goals and pursue dreams like before. But the taxes still come due. It's all still going on. Conflict can still arise. It all unfolds quite differently though. Yes. Maybe we ought to refer to the state of mind afterwards as "body/mind organism referentiality" rather than "ego-centered referentiality" or "self-referentiality." There are many differences between the pre and post condition, but they're hard to explain. Here are a few examples to give the flavor of what's being pointed to: 1. You have some activity planned, but if a significant other, or a friend, or even a stranger, asks you to do something for them, you drop your plans and do whatever is asked for because there's no attachment to the initial idea of what you planned to do. You're simply looser and more patient than before, and unless what was planned was extremely important and necessary, the initial plans are ignored. There's no SVP at the center of whatever is happening. 2. There's no pride in anything that's accomplished because it's been realized that Reality is the only actor on the scene rather than a SVP. A friend asks you to apply for some award, and you decline because there's no interest in recognition and you know that your friend, who needs recognition, doesn't understand. 3. One primarily does what's fun and enjoyable and virtually everything that one does is fun and enjoyable. Tasks that were once thought of as unenjoyable are no longer viewed like that, and one can "get fully into" whatever one does. One is happy doing whatever is done without reflecting about being happy or "checking" one's state of mind regarding anything that's done. Activities that have no appeal are simply ignored. 4. More time is spent looking and listening in silence rather than thinking. 5. There's no psychological resistance to whatever is happening. One either acts or doesn't act in whatever way seems appropriate or applicable even if others don't like one's response. Actions in this respect are "empty." 6. Goals may be set, but there's no attachment to the goals. Life is change, and one responds directly to whatever change occurs. It's like being in an auto accident; all previous plans go out the window as one directly responds to the situation at hand. |
|
As I say .. that question is self-inquiry. Good. Now ... isn't it just glorious what happens next? Whatever that might be? 
