|
|
Post by lolly on Sept 15, 2023 20:15:55 GMT -5
Thanks ZD, so well said!
Like Bingham, I'm not one who believes SR is 'the end of the road'. I heard a zen story once where a monk goes to the master and says, 'I achieved enlightenment.' The master replied, 'That's great, but don't let it interfere with your meditation.'
It was an interesting interview which reminded me of my general thrust on the purification thread about subtler levels of experience and the body being able to take more - and his emphasis on determination appeals to me.
It reminds me of my days playing in rock band. You find a pocket in which you can stop trying and just play, but to find it you have to really concentrate and listen with all your focus. You don't really notice a shift or anything, but at some point you notice it's all coming naturally and you don't have to try, but the paradox is you have to try your hardest for that to happen.
I like his closing remarks about equality and self-sovereignty as well, so I was very agreeable all the way through.
|
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Sept 15, 2023 22:26:12 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. I'd say the only problem we have is a definition of terms. For me you are describing living through True Self, essence. For sdp, ego is a kind of echo, the wake of a boat, a copy of actuality. I don't think that's what you mean, you mean authenticity. If I'm wrong, correct me. Ego is a kind of avatar, not-the-actual-"operator", a kind of pretense. I'd say satch has dropped all pretense, all need of pretense, even any conception of pretense. For sdp, (the meaning of) ego is all pretense, and most people, ego still operational, don't even know this is the case. Some people think they are good at pulling the wool over our eyes. They're not. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Sept 15, 2023 22:47:43 GMT -5
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. . I'll agree with lolly, very good post. And say the same as I said concerning satch, for sdp this is a description of living from essence (authentic individuation, the *purpose* of being- in-a-mind-body), no pretense lives here. And even the description of living as after an accident is appropriate. Most people have a set of pre-conditions they operate from, unconsciously. But an accident puts them in a situation for-which they don't have a pre-programmed role, so they are left with-only authenticity. (Most) people think, because that-is-of-which-they-consist. Ego-oriented people even think, constantly, because it reinforces what-they-are. I still know people who talk like this. My sister has to go to sleep at night listening to a TV because she can't turn her brain off. She goes to sleep listening to TV, to turn her own brain off. In '75 and early'76 I got so f-ing weary of thinking I wanted to die, a lot of the time. I just got weary of my-self. It was superbly nice to get some relief, from my-self (ego). (That's partly a note to sN, it took me a few days to answer you, I figured you'd disappear, no problem, that's just sN). |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Sept 15, 2023 23:07:29 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? You don't have to be that delicate and shy. Just speak plainly. The first idea obviously refers to what Satch said and the second idea to what I have been saying. So as for the first idea, Satch my actually refer to the jiva concept, which, as Watts has explained, is tricky. It doesn't correspond well to our spiritual and psychological vocabulary in the West, which means it doesn't really mean ego, it doesn't really mean soul, self may be the best translation, but it could be all of it together as well and beyond, depending on context. As for the second idea. Was there a question for clarification of something? |
|
|
|
Post by siftingtothetruth on Sept 15, 2023 23:11:12 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? I'd argue enlightenment is a lot like a term "X" in an equation that is secretly defined as something divided by zero. Now, a divide by zero in mathematics is undefined. It can't be used in normal equations; it breaks the system. So what happens is that we pretend that enlightenment is an "event" that "happens" and that there is a "before" and "after"... but the very "event" of it is precisely what reveals that it breaks that perspective. So I'd argue that any talk of post-realization ego is, strictly speaking, gibberish. Nothing wrong with speaking gibberish of course (if we admit that we are speaking at all ). Though come to think of it, any talk of pre-realization ego may fall into the same category...  ... but at least it has a (supposed) purpose? |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Sept 15, 2023 23:14:49 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? You don't have to be that delicate and shy. Just speak plainly. The first idea obviously refers to what Satch said and the second idea to what I have been saying. So as for the first idea, Satch my actually refer to the jiva concept, which, as Watts has explained, is tricky. It doesn't correspond well to our spiritual and psychological vocabulary in the West, which means it doesn't really mean ego, it doesn't really mean soul, self may be the best translation, but it could be all of it together as well and beyond, depending on context. As for the second idea. Was there a question for clarification of something? . You just have to get used to and accept other people's language. ego and Ego don't mean the same (I'd say). By Ego, for sdp, satch means authentic individuality. |
|
|
|
Post by lolly on Sept 15, 2023 23:21:29 GMT -5
Ego is the one who pretends to be me (and I believe it). Since it's only a wound up ball of rage and frustration, It can't realise anything, and I am not one with or the same as it. When it's revealed, it's impossible to consider that 'myself'. There is another thing I call the great outpouring, which when revealed you can say 'I am That', but even that is a not-thing, and the lasting impression is still I am not the not. I often have the sense that there is no self at all, but there is still a sense of, like, 'of course', and it all makes perfect sense.
|
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Sept 15, 2023 23:25:42 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? For sdp I can only say, this isn't even wrong. For sdp it reads (should read): Essence (as authentic [mind-body] individuation) is the cutting edge of creation. But then, too, you have to accept how other people use language (explained somewhat above). For sdp ego means always and only, a copy of an authentic occurrence, merely a copy. So for sdp ego means the wake of a boat, so can never mean the cutting edge. I'd say ZD is precisely correct, it would be more-useful to get away from the use of the word ego in any context of TR or SR (or for sdp self-remembering). |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Sept 15, 2023 23:32:10 GMT -5
Ego is the one who pretends to me (and I believe it). Since it's only a wound up ball of rage and frustration, It can't realise anything, and I am not one with or the same as it. When it's revealed, it's impossible to consider, that, ' myself'. There is another thing I call the great outpouring, which when revealed you can say 'I am That', but even that is a not-thing, and the lasting impression is still I am not the not. I often have the sense that there is no self at all, but there is still a sense of, like, 'of course', and it all makes perfect sense. x Infinity. Yes, Likewise. |
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Sept 16, 2023 7:44:21 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. Peeps can argue what becomes enlightened in a personal or impersonal way all day long, butt when there is this change that occurs it doesn't happen globally, collectively among other terms. So we have to localise experiences had or realisations had, whether it be S.R. or enlightenment or whatever word suits. When Ramana was in deep sleep there were other's on the rampage without any awareness of themselves beyond themselves. So in a way it is self evident that there is an individual field of self awareness that can perceive what they are in as many ways as there are individuals . I have spoken a bit on what constitutes the individual peep that isn't separate from all there is butt it doesn't seem to encourage anyone to speak about it lol .. I say what I say because if peeps just think they are appearances only, yada yada yada, blah, blah, blah, then enlightenment cannot actually be experienced at all . One cannot live a life having realised what they are beyond the persona either .. |
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Sept 16, 2023 7:45:36 GMT -5
To Much information Whatever you do, don't search a risque website for the "positionless position" ... For some reason I am now visualising princess playing twister. Left foot on blue square. Right hand on red circle. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 16, 2023 9:24:39 GMT -5
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. Thanks again ZD. I can relate to much of what you write here, but not all of it. I've read enough of this forum over the years to short-circuit any mind-hooks to the possibility that there's "something yet left to realize", 'cause .. uh-uh, ain't gonna' be that guy! Anyways, the difference for me is what we can refer to with the word .. challenge. As we're speaking of what comes and goes, then the illusion of "inside/outside" comes into play, but only in the sense that I take you to mean "this body/mind". If I recall correctly, Reefs like to use the distinction between "person" and "individual". So "challenge" here, in terms of the experience of this body/mind is somewhat similar to what Tyler described in dealing with his vassana's, although I've had Arjuna-type moments at many different junctures long before Tolle. What there is, are these conditioned patterns of action/reaction, stimulus/response that occur, and when they're painful they're really easy to discern for what they are as they happen, and I like to use the distinction between pain and suffering to point to what that type of "seeing" is like, in the moment. Funny thing about Tyler's story as it rezzes with mine is that I do work in the legal field now - despite never having been to law school - and that's actually picked up over time. As is my habit, I'll use a film/media metaphor, and I'll borrow your lingo for a sec. There are no limits to the situations THIS can encounter at the point of realization. I'm reminded of the story of the guy who cried out "you can't fool me!" as the guards dragged him to his execution -- as just one example. In the experience that I had, the patterns of internal resistance centered on self-referential thinking and emotions completely ceased. Most of the really negative ones never recurred, some of them started creeping back, some of that was noticed, sometimes I'll even spontaneously resort to a moment of alertness to "witness". So, the media metaphor that comes to mind is this one : The conditioning is what it is, as are the conditions extant at the point of realization. "It is what it is" .. but deep deep water, so to speak. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 16, 2023 9:35:44 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? You don't have to be that delicate and shy. Just speak plainly. The first idea obviously refers to what Satch said and the second idea to what I have been saying. So as for the first idea, Satch my actually refer to the jiva concept, which, as Watts has explained, is tricky. It doesn't correspond well to our spiritual and psychological vocabulary in the West, which means it doesn't really mean ego, it doesn't really mean soul, self may be the best translation, but it could be all of it together as well and beyond, depending on context. As for the second idea. Was there a question for clarification of something? Yes, as far as the first is concerned, I find a striking similarity as I consider this dialog between the constructions of satch', tenka, and to some degree zd. Now, I find zd's to be the most nuanced - but that has to be gleaned from reading the material over time. As far as your notion is concerned, just shootin' the breeze.  Vibing appears in terms that are always going to fool a people-peep into potentially reinforcing the illusion. But as said before a few times, there are many very well-aligned people peeps, so far be it from me to insult them! Creation will continue. Hey, I can make a tenkology out of that . Before Tolle, this body/mind was at war with the world, and whether or not it was winning at any given, the fight kept it above the median of the emotional scale. Our of necessity! These days, it's really quite fascinating to watch it play out the way it plays, and even moreso as some of the old energy of impetus flows back into the process. This movie was fun, tickled an old pattern, but those old patterns never come back, can never replay the same way they used to. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 16, 2023 9:43:24 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? I'd argue enlightenment is a lot like a term "X" in an equation that is secretly defined as something divided by zero. Now, a divide by zero in mathematics is undefined. It can't be used in normal equations; it breaks the system. So what happens is that we pretend that enlightenment is an "event" that "happens" and that there is a "before" and "after"... but the very "event" of it is precisely what reveals that it breaks that perspective. So I'd argue that any talk of post-realization ego is, strictly speaking, gibberish. Nothing wrong with speaking gibberish of course (if we admit that we are speaking at all ). Though come to think of it, any talk of pre-realization ego may fall into the same category... ... but at least it has a (supposed) purpose? sifty sighting! Excellent metaphor. The singularity. Well played sir.  |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 16, 2023 9:45:44 GMT -5
Whatever you do, don't search a risque website for the "positionless position" ... For some reason I am now visualising princess playing twister. Left foot on blue square. Right hand on red circle.  |
|
As I say .. that question is self-inquiry. Good. Now ... isn't it just glorious what happens next? Whatever that might be? 
... but at least it has a (supposed) purpose?
Vibing appears in terms that are always going to fool a people-peep into potentially reinforcing the illusion. But as said before a few times, there are many very well-aligned people peeps, so far be it from me to insult them!