Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 16, 2023 11:02:43 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. What I mean by ego is simply the I principle. That which identifies as I. You may recall me in the past talking about manonasa which is destruction of the mind after SR. I got a lot of objections about this because destruction of the mind implies you turn into some kind of zombie. These were the words Ramana Maharshi used. He explicitly said the the mind is destroyed after realization. But what does it mean. Well I'll tell you exactly what it is. Before manonasa you would say MY mind. After manonasa you no longer think this is MY mind. Yet individuality as ego still appears. But it has been liberated from the notion that it is somehow separate or different from what is not ego. That's why it's ego that gets enlightened because from then on there is no interest in such a topic. There is only Life. |
|
|
|
Post by inavalan on Sept 16, 2023 13:38:34 GMT -5
Maybe the most important "realization" is that you have to ask the right questions in order to get useful answers. Your questions have your bias built in. Then, you have to properly interpret that answer, being aware that wording inherently induces distortions.
I believe that asking about what happens to the "ego" after "realization", even if you firstly had defined what those are, can't provide useful answers.
|
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Sept 16, 2023 13:39:44 GMT -5
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. What I mean by ego is simply the I principle. That which identifies as I. You may recall me in the past talking about manonasa which is destruction of the mind after SR. I got a lot of objections about this because destruction of the mind implies you turn into some kind of zombie. These were the words Ramana Maharshi used. He explicitly said the the mind is destroyed after realization. But what does it mean. Well I'll tell you exactly what it is. Before manonasa you would say MY mind. After manonasa you no longer think this is MY mind. Yet individuality as ego still appears. But it has been liberated from the notion that it is somehow separate or different from what is not ego. That's why it's ego that gets enlightened because from then on there is no interest in such a topic. There is only Life. Yes, the iPrinciple! iCan’t remember what book it was. iThink one of WWW’s books, where he actually called the iPrinciple the root of all evil. iAgree. People think destroying their iPod, iPhone, iMac, iPad will do the trick, but they forget the most iMportant obstacle– the iPrinciple! That has to be annihilated, iRreversibly! Or else, the next day, they will find themselves back at the iStore again. |
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Sept 16, 2023 14:03:24 GMT -5
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. What I mean by ego is simply the I principle. That which identifies as I. You may recall me in the past talking about manonasa which is destruction of the mind after SR. I got a lot of objections about this because destruction of the mind implies you turn into some kind of zombie. These were the words Ramana Maharshi used. He explicitly said the the mind is destroyed after realization. But what does it mean. Well I'll tell you exactly what it is. Before manonasa you would say MY mind. After manonasa you no longer think this is MY mind. Yet individuality as ego still appears. But it has been liberated from the notion that it is somehow separate or different from what is not ego. That's why it's ego that gets enlightened because from then on there is no interest in such a topic. There is only Life. Thanks for explaining what you mean by "ego" because most of us probably think about that word somewhat differently. In the past most of us were suggesting that becoming detached from the mind, and no longer identifying with the idea of being a SVP is a more applicable way of thinking about life after awakening rather than destruction of the mind. Clearly, the mind/intellect remains functional post awakening, but its functionality and usage is then understood quite differently--more like a useful servant than a ruthless master. THIS/Source manifests as individual humans, so it is THIS that wakes up to ITSELF when a human wakes up. If ego is the "I-principle," then it seems odd to say that a principle can wake up or do anything else. I suspect that most of us would say that there is only one doer, and THAT does whatever is done via its myriad manifestations. Ramana once told a seeker that there is no such thing as an ego, but if "ego" is defined as one's True Self, then it sort of eradicates the conventional idea of ego as "self-centeredness," "self importance," "selfhood," and/or the sense of being a separate volitional entity. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 17, 2023 0:23:01 GMT -5
What I mean by ego is simply the I principle. That which identifies as I. You may recall me in the past talking about manonasa which is destruction of the mind after SR. I got a lot of objections about this because destruction of the mind implies you turn into some kind of zombie. These were the words Ramana Maharshi used. He explicitly said the the mind is destroyed after realization. But what does it mean. Well I'll tell you exactly what it is. Before manonasa you would say MY mind. After manonasa you no longer think this is MY mind. Yet individuality as ego still appears. But it has been liberated from the notion that it is somehow separate or different from what is not ego. That's why it's ego that gets enlightened because from then on there is no interest in such a topic. There is only Life. Thanks for explaining what you mean by "ego" because most of us probably think about that word somewhat differently. In the past most of us were suggesting that becoming detached from the mind, and no longer identifying with the idea of being a SVP is a more applicable way of thinking about life after awakening rather than destruction of the mind. Clearly, the mind/intellect remains functional post awakening, but its functionality and usage is then understood quite differently--more like a useful servant than a ruthless master. THIS/Source manifests as individual humans, so it is THIS that wakes up to ITSELF when a human wakes up. If ego is the "I-principle," then it seems odd to say that a principle can wake up or do anything else. I suspect that most of us would say that there is only one doer, and THAT does whatever is done via its myriad manifestations. Ramana once told a seeker that there is no such thing as an ego, but if "ego" is defined as one's True Self, then it sort of eradicates the conventional idea of ego as "self-centeredness," "self importance," "selfhood," and/or the sense of being a separate volitional entity. Ramana also said the ego is not destroyed after SR, but resembles the skeleton of a burnt rope which I think is a very good metaphor. It still looks like a rope after it's burnt. It has the same shape, but Ramana said it has no power. It's just the remnants of ego since what you really are transcends ego, but at the same time this ego shadow cannot be separate from the one indivisible reality. In the same way your body casts a shadow on the ground when struck by sunlight you wouldn't say you are the shadow yet you would have to recognize the shadow is somehow generated because of your body. So ego is this kind of shadow that is projected by consciousness. Taking the shadow to be real is ignorance, but recognizing it as just a projection is knowledge. And that's not saying the ego doesn't exist as many non-duality theorists claim. But then we come back to the possibility of making a statement such as I am awake, I am realized, and that is obviously the ego recognizing that it is awake. The shadow can speak! This is where we get to the limits of conceptual thinking since it's also legitimate to say there is no individual entity even though this individual proclaims I am awake in that specific moment. Then what? The mind ruminates over this, trying to resolve these paradoxes of both being an individual and the unchanging, unbounded witness. It will never be resolved intellectually. Then there is just silence...... And all is well. There is acceptance of what is. |
|
|
|
Post by inavalan on Sept 17, 2023 0:49:00 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by zazeniac on Sept 17, 2023 9:06:35 GMT -5
Can there be a "mind" without thought? Is the mind a product of thought or vice versa? Ramana used the term "mind" and "ego" interchangeably. He talked of destroying the mind, but as a concession to the seeker's intellect, because he said if you look for the mind, you will not find it. In traditional advaita Brahman is the source of Maya, but it is not Maya. The faith in the concept of a mind or a person is what sustains the delusion of a something engaging other things when we are no-thing. But talking this stuff is just window dressing. Y'all gots to purify! Hahahaha.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 17, 2023 9:54:26 GMT -5
Did you notice all the contradictory statements? In one quote ego doesn't exist but in another quote it's acknowledged as existing. Those contradictions are inevitable depending on context. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Sept 17, 2023 10:28:10 GMT -5
Did you notice all the contradictory statements? In one quote ego doesn't exist but in another quote it's acknowledged as existing. Those contradictions are inevitable depending on context. Yes, exactly. I read all the quotes. I kept thinking, but who is he talking to? A single quote tells you almost nothing, exactly, you have to have the context. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Sept 17, 2023 11:08:57 GMT -5
Can there be a "mind" without thought? Is the mind a product of thought or vice versa? Ramana used the term "mind" and "ego" interchangeably. He talked of destroying the mind, but as a concession to the seeker's intellect, because he said if you look for the mind, you will not find it. In traditional advaita Brahman is the source of Maya, but it is not Maya. The faith in the concept of a mind or a person is what sustains the delusion of a something engaging other things when we are no-thing. But talking this stuff is just window dressing. Y'all gots to purify! Hahahaha. I don't know two people here, two ND people, who see things in the same way, everybody has a slightly different view, or a more than slightly different view. Why would that be? There is only one set of facts in the actuality of what occurs. So for some reason there is not a seeing clearly what actually is. What's the reason for the differences, the distortions in fact? Ego. That seems pretty obvious. There is a glitch in the Matrix, the whole picture. SR or TR seems to be seeing through the illusion of a separate self. But then all these people who have seen through this illusion, say it's OK to continue living through the distorting lens of self. See how that does make sense to sdp? It's all good because even ego is a part of All That Is. See how that doesn't work for sdp? Bingo on this, and it is significant, and I don't think many people know this, that Brahman formed Maya. There is a similar idea from the Christian mystics, that God lives in a cloud of unknowing. And on this, it seems suspect that what can eliminate the distortions, is preached against, as irrelevant, or is preached as not necessary. Explain that one to me. (No, don't, you can't). Been considering a thread: Let's not go to the circus, but say we did. (And old girlfriends used to use this regularly, let's not do _______ (something), but say we did). And Jesus told a story. There were these two guys, one said he would go work in the field, but didn't. The other said he wasn't going to go, but ended up going. ....And there is the good ole standby: If it quacks like a duck, swims like a duck, waddles like a duck, looks like a duck, it's statistically probably a duck. And there's even Forest Forest Gump: Stupid is as stupid does. |
|
|
|
Post by inavalan on Sept 17, 2023 13:28:57 GMT -5
Did you notice all the contradictory statements? In one quote ego doesn't exist but in another quote it's acknowledged as existing. Those contradictions are inevitable depending on context. I think that it would be interesting to take one such example of contradiction, and discuss it. I believe that even in context, people might have different interpretations of the same text, according to their own individual beliefs. |
|
|
|
Post by inavalan on Sept 17, 2023 15:36:53 GMT -5
Did you notice all the contradictory statements? In one quote ego doesn't exist but in another quote it's acknowledged as existing. Those contradictions are inevitable depending on context. Yes, exactly. I read all the quotes. I kept thinking, but who is he talking to? A single quote tells you almost nothing, exactly, you have to have the context. To me, a quote is a symbol, a means for me to intuitively interpret, as deep as I am able at the moment, to draw some lesson or guidance. The lesson and guidance don't come from the quote, nor from the author's intended meaning, but from my own individual inner source, which attracted my attention through that quote. So, the quote itself doesn't directly tell me much, and at its face-value it might even be misleading, as it reflects its author / translator / quoter's beliefs, competence, level at some moment. The question " who is he talking to?" is irrelevant to me, too. Better question: "what does this quote mean to me?" |
|
|
|
Post by zazeniac on Sept 17, 2023 16:10:28 GMT -5
Can there be a "mind" without thought? Is the mind a product of thought or vice versa? Ramana used the term "mind" and "ego" interchangeably. He talked of destroying the mind, but as a concession to the seeker's intellect, because he said if you look for the mind, you will not find it. In traditional advaita Brahman is the source of Maya, but it is not Maya. The faith in the concept of a mind or a person is what sustains the delusion of a something engaging other things when we are no-thing. But talking this stuff is just window dressing. Y'all gots to purify! Hahahaha. I don't know two people here, two ND people, who see things in the same way, everybody has a slightly different view, or a more than slightly different view. Why would that be? There is only one set of facts in the actuality of what occurs. So for some reason there is not a seeing clearly what actually is. What's the reason for the differences, the distortions in fact? Ego. That seems pretty obvious. There is a glitch in the Matrix, the whole picture. SR or TR seems to be seeing through the illusion of a separate self. But then all these people who have seen through this illusion, say it's OK to continue living through the distorting lens of self. See how that does make sense to sdp? It's all good because even ego is a part of All That Is. See how that doesn't work for sdp? Bingo on this, and it is significant, and I don't think many people know this, that Brahman formed Maya. There is a similar idea from the Christian mystics, that God lives in a cloud of unknowing. And on this, it seems suspect that what can eliminate the distortions, is preached against, as irrelevant, or is preached as not necessary. Explain that one to me. (No, don't, you can't). Been considering a thread: Let's not go to the circus, but say we did. (And old girlfriends used to use this regularly, let's not do _______ (something), but say we did). And Jesus told a story. There were these two guys, one said he would go work in the field, but didn't. The other said he wasn't going to go, but ended up going. ....And there is the good ole standby: If it quacks like a duck, swims like a duck, waddles like a duck, looks like a duck, it's statistically probably a duck. And there's even Forest Forest Gump: Stupid is as stupid does. Don't know if I'd label myself an ND person. Don't know about differences. I'd say almost everyone agrees the ego or individual self is illusory. There's some debate about whether it stays somewhat intact after SR. I mean we still play the roles. Nurse Ratched and Nurse Ito still traipse around. Maybe not as malignantly. I don't know and won't find out listening to this discussion. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Sept 17, 2023 20:22:18 GMT -5
I don't know two people here, two ND people, who see things in the same way, everybody has a slightly different view, or a more than slightly different view. Why would that be? There is only one set of facts in the actuality of what occurs. So for some reason there is not a seeing clearly what actually is. What's the reason for the differences, the distortions in fact? Ego. That seems pretty obvious. There is a glitch in the Matrix, the whole picture. SR or TR seems to be seeing through the illusion of a separate self. But then all these people who have seen through this illusion, say it's OK to continue living through the distorting lens of self. See how that does make sense to sdp? It's all good because even ego is a part of All That Is. See how that doesn't work for sdp? Bingo on this, and it is significant, and I don't think many people know this, that Brahman formed Maya. There is a similar idea from the Christian mystics, that God lives in a cloud of unknowing. And on this, it seems suspect that what can eliminate the distortions, is preached against, as irrelevant, or is preached as not necessary. Explain that one to me. (No, don't, you can't). Been considering a thread: Let's not go to the circus, but say we did. (And old girlfriends used to use this regularly, let's not do _______ (something), but say we did). And Jesus told a story. There were these two guys, one said he would go work in the field, but didn't. The other said he wasn't going to go, but ended up going. ....And there is the good ole standby: If it quacks like a duck, swims like a duck, waddles like a duck, looks like a duck, it's statistically probably a duck. And there's even Forest Forest Gump: Stupid is as stupid does. Don't know if I'd label myself an ND person. Don't know about differences. I'd say almost everyone agrees the ego or individual self is illusory. There's some debate about whether it stays somewhat intact after SR. I mean we still play the roles. Nurse Ratched and Nurse Ito still traipse around. Maybe not as malignantly. I don't know and won't find out listening to this discussion. For me, if ego still makes an appearance, ego is still in control. Ego is the fulcrum. Archimedes said if he had a lever long enough and a place to put it, he could move the Earth. Archimedes was a very smart guy. The positions need to change. Ego is that which needs to be moved. So needed, is a new lever, and a new fulcrum. Just look out over the earth, look at the headlines every day, Ukraine, Russia. That's ego. The dude that killed his girlfriend in front of her kids, and escaped jail, and eluded the police for 13 days, that's ego. And none of us are out-from-under the thumb of ego, to one extent or another. Ego is very illusive, very good at hiding. If certain pressure were applied, ego would show up, ego is reactionary. Patience is not endless. I'll just stop there... |
|
|
|
Post by inavalan on Sept 17, 2023 22:01:35 GMT -5
Here there is a "controversial" Ramana quote: - "Bhagavan: Everything is predetermined." Chapter II, From Theory to Practice, "The Teachings of Bhagavan Sri Ramana Maharshi in His Own Words", edited by Arthur Osborne, 6th Edition 1993
Here there's the context: - Chapter II
From Theory to Practice
"As was shown in the previous chapter, the theory that the Maharshi taught was intended only to serve as a basis for practice. However, the demand for practice brought in another branch of theory, that of free-will or predestination, since people were not lacking who asked why they should make any effort if everything was predestined, or if all men returned to their Source in any case.
A visitor from Bengal saiD: Shankara says that we are all free, not bound, and that we shall all return to God from whom we came, like sparks from a fire. If that is so, why should we not commit all sorts of sins?
Bhagavan's reply showed him that that cannot be the point of view of the ego.
B: It is true that we are not bound. That is to say, the real Self has no bondage. And it is true that you will eventually return to your Source. But meanwhile, if you commit sins as you call them, you have to face the consequences. You cannot escape them. If a man beats you, can you say: 'I am free. I am not affected by the beating and feel no pain. Let him continue beating'? If you can really feel that, then you can do what you like, but what is the use of just saying in words that you are free?
Bhagavan did sometimes make pronouncements which seemed superficially like affirmations of complete predestination. When he left home in his youth, already established in Self-realisation, his mother sought and at last found him. He was maintaining silence at that time; therefore, on her request to return home with her, he wrote out his reply instead of replying verbally:
The Ordainer controls the fate of souls in accordance with their prarabdha karma (destiny to be worked out in this life, resulting from the balance sheet of actions in past lives). Whatever is destined not to happen will not happen, try as you may. Whatever is destined to happen will happen, do what you may to prevent it. This is certain. The best course, therefore, is to remain silent.
He sometimes also made such statements to devotees.
All the activities that the body is to go through are determined when it first comes into existence. It does not rest with you to accept or reject them. The only freedom you have is to turn your mind inward and renounces activities there.
With reference to Bhagavan's reply to Mrs. Desai on the evening of January 3, 1946, I asked him: Are only the important events in a man's life, such as his main occupation or profession, predetermined, or are trifling acts also, such as taking a cup of water or moving from one part of the room to another?
B: Everything is predetermined.
I: Then what responsibility, what free will has man?
B: Why does the body come into existence? It is designed for the various things that are marked out for it in this life.... As for freedom, a man is always free not to identify himself with the body and not to be affected by the pleasures and pains consequent on its activities.
Actually, however, the question of free will or predestination does not arise at all from the point of view of non-duality. It is as though a group of people who had never heard of radio were to stand round a wireless set arguing whether the man in the box has to sing what the transmitting station tells him to or whether he can change parts of the songs. The answer is that there is no man in the box and therefore the question does not arise. Similarly, the answer to the question of whether the ego has free will or not is that there is no ego and therefore the question does not arise. Therefore Bhagavan's usual response to the question would be to bid the questioner find out who it is that has free will or predestination.
D: Has man any free will or is everything in his life predetermined?
The same question as above, but the answer differs according to the needs of the questioner. In fact, if one does not bear in mind what has just been said about the unreality of the ego it seems to be quite contradictory.
B: Free will exists together with the individuality. As long as the individuality lasts, so long is there free will. All the scriptures are based on this fact and advise directing the free will in the right channel.
Is this really a contradiction of the reply given earlier? No, because, according to Bhagavan's teaching, individuality has only an illusory existence. So long as one imagines that one has a separate individuality, so long does one also imagine its free will. The two exist together inevitably. The problem of predestination and free will has always plagued philosophers and theologians and will always continue to do so, because it is insoluble on the plane of duality, that is on the supposition of one being who is the Creator and a lot of other, separate omnipotent and omniscient - he does not know what will happen, because it depends on what they decide; and he cannot control all happenings because they have the power to change them. On the other hand, if he is omniscient and omnipotent he has the fore-knowledge of all that will happen and controls everything, and therefore they can have no power of decision, that is to say no free will. But on the level of advaita or non-duality the problem fades out and ceases to exist. In truth the ego has no free will, because there is no ego; but on the level of apparent reality the ego consists of free will - it is the illusion of free will that creates the illusion of the ego. That is what Bhagavan meant by saying that "as long as the individuality lasts, so long is there free will.'' The next sentence in his answer turns the questioner away from the theory of practice.
Find out who it is who has free will or predestination and abide in that state. Then both are transcended. That is the only purpose in discussing these questions. To whom do such questions present themselves? Discover that and be at peace."
|
|
