PDA

View Full Version : The enlightened ego.



Tony
29th December 2013, 11:52
The Enlightened Ego
It's easy to forget that a stick has two ends...

An enlightened ego is a scholarly mind that has learnt the right words and definitions,
but is still caught up in a 'me'. In Tibetan Buddhism there are six psychological profiles
of humans: Hell, Hungry Ghosts, Animal, Human, Jealous Gods, and Gods, known as
the six realms. Each corresponds to a neurotic state of mind, an emotion
(see the video at the end for a rough idea).

Enlightened ego deals with the realms of 'gods' or 'jealous gods' where pride and
jealousy are dominant.

There are two truths: relative and ultimate truth. One is the truth of our relative,
impermanent human existence, known samsara in sanskrit (the vicious cycle of
existence that is driven by our emotions). The other, nirvana, is our true, ultimate
nature which is non-dual. The vital point is that these are seen as a unity, and not
separate. By virtue of one, the other is known. The two ends of the stick!

With this understanding of the two truths, this impermanent life can be very workable,
uncovering our ultimate nature by the removal of layers of neuroses acquired through
incalculable incarnations. This work is beyond mere repetition of words, and lies in
actual experience.

Our ultimate being is pure awareness, or we could use the words 'pure perception'.
Pure perception is not the same as perception. All creatures use perception:
it's part of our primitive brain...fight, flight or freeze. Every creature perceives in the
mind through the senses. We then refer to memory, judge the situation and react.
That is a precise description of samsaric existence, where we are caught up in the
vicious cycle of reactions. Because of this, we lack true compassion and empathy.

We can fall into the trap of separating the two truths, downgrading our relative side
(duality) and leaping onto ultimate truth alone (non-duality). When we claim that we
are pure awareness, we mistake clarity of mind for clarity of essence. It is true that
we are non-duality, but first we have to recognise our dualistic complexity, as there
is still work to be done. It's a little like a professional pianist telling a beginner to
“just play” - this merely leaves the beginner feeling guilty and worthless, not knowing
where to begin. Or an art teacher telling us to just make marks... These are personal
agendas which are spreading throughout all walks of life.

Our problem is that we believe the stick to be real. We have to set fire to the stick
in order to destroy both ends (all fixations)...and it will hurt! In that hurt will be the
memory of empathy and compassion for others.

"The devil's best trick is to persuade you that he doesn't exist”!
The Buddha said, “Test my teachings as you would pure gold. Don't take my word for it!
” My teacher also said, “Test the teachers too!”



Tony



There six psychological neurotic realms that we live in as sentient being.
During a day we may pass in and out of them without noticing.
We may also find that we get stuck in one for a lifetime.

Let's use 'acquiring knowledge' as an example. This may reveal what type of person we are.

Hell realms: It's never right.

Hungry ghosts: Want it desperately but cannot digest it.

Animal realm: They acquire it and store it, but never look at it.

Human realm: They indulge in it, but get frustrated because it never quite satisfies.

Jealous gods: They collect it and use it as a weapon.

Gods: They have knowledge and enjoy it, but cannot keep it.


Not to worry, as always there are the opposite qualities of the wisdoms:


God/Animal.........ignorance........all encompassing space

Hell....................anger.............mirror-like wisdom

Hungry ghost...... pride..............wisdom of equanimity

Human................passion..........discriminati ng wisdom

Jealous god..........envy.............all accomplish wisdom

The point is if we can identify someone's patterning, we can understand
where they are coming from...and why it is that you cannot get on!
So sometimes, silence is golden!



Tony

Hazel
29th December 2013, 13:10
Tony you mentioned a video at the end..
but it seems not to be posted.

Thank you the illustration of the 2 ends of the stick
it has been very helpful.

Tony
29th December 2013, 14:07
Tony you mentioned a video at the end..
but it seems not to be posted.

Thank you the illustration of the 2 ends of the stick
it has been very helpful.


Hello recap1

I seemed to have deleted it on youtube….or they did it…dun dun dahhhhhh!

Tony

panopticon
29th December 2013, 15:08
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/ce/Transparent.gif

mahalall
29th December 2013, 15:16
pie 'n' eal: Our problem is that we believe the stick to be real. We have to set fire to the stick
in order to destroy both ends (all fixations)...and it will hurt! In that hurt will be the
memory of empathy and compassion for others.

Hold on a minute, prehaps i'm missing the point, but when we see the stick as an illusion of preception why should one set fire and react to an illusionary object?

one could specualte that in moments of dark boredom in the cave one could create a stick to invoke memories of truama in order to motivate the pursuit of truth, but why do that when you can recognise that the moment of dark boredom is an illusion state of the nature of impermance.

Tony
29th December 2013, 15:33
Just found it.
It's a little rough, but you get the idea.

ZmwQRe5xrvM

Tony
29th December 2013, 15:57
pie 'n' eal: Our problem is that we believe the stick to be real. We have to set fire to the stick
in order to destroy both ends (all fixations)...and it will hurt! In that hurt will be the
memory of empathy and compassion for others.

Hold on a minute, prehaps i'm missing the point, but when we see the stick as an illusion of preception why should one set fire and react to an illusionary object?

one could specualte that in moments of dark boredom in the cave one could create a stick to invoke memories of truama in order to motivate the pursuit of truth, but why do that when you can recognise that the moment of dark boredom is an illusion state of the nature of impermance.

Hello Mahalall

The stick is our collection of concepts. First we have to identify the concepts in order to let them go. This is working on a relative level: we don't need to generate anything deliberately, as we've already created the dream and are living in it!

The "setting fire" to an illusory object is not a reaction: it is the recognition of its true nature, which is the illusory concept of self around pure being. Our reaction to the perception dissolves in that moment, and we rest in our true nature. However, because of habit, we recreate the reactions to the object again in the next moment :o

The continuity of letting be simply requires practice, and out of compassion and love, we respect the dream because this is where we work. It appears real - but it is not true. When someone says they are lonely, or depressed, or hurt, we know what that is like and so can feel empathy. We may know that, on a higher level, this is not true, but we must respect that suffering because, in the relative world, it is real. If we forget this, we are in danger of becoming elitist, and separating ourselves from other beings.

The beauty of the illusion is in realising its innate nature - emptiness - which is the same as all emotions and concepts.

It is the Buddha in the mud.

Tony

Tony
29th December 2013, 19:12
You don't have to be academic to know

Realising the nature of mind is merely recognising that which recognises the reflections.
The mind comes in all shapes, sizes and has its own special needs, and so there is a
need for information and knowledge to suit different minds.

We may know the Dharma makes sense, but are not totally convinced. Or, the mind may
be sluggish, over-excited, lazy or too keen. Or, you might be in the wrong place at the
wrong time, through karma...which means that you are probably in the right place at
the right time!

My wife and I entered a Shedra at Ka Nying Shedrup Ling monastery in Bodhanatha, Nepal.
It was a four year course, and we lasted two weeks...it was extremely academic.
The abbot, Chokyi Nyima Rinpoche told me, “You don't have to be a scholar to realise
the nature of mind.” I didn't quite believe him (I had special needs :-))...I do now!

There is a story about a monk called Shabkar, who waited on the lamas attending a teaching.
He overheard these teachings and instantly recognised the nature of mind: he just looked and saw.
He became known as 'Big Nose', and went on to write “The Flight of the Garuda” with such clarity:
this is an incredible account of realisation (we received a month long intensive teaching on this very
text, and it was mind blowing!).

The Dharma teachings are extensive - very extensive - and cater for all shapes, sizes and special needs.
The teachings have to be kept alive through both through word of mouth and practise (experienced).

The realising of the nature of mind, or rather the nature of essence, is very simple. It is awareness,
pure awareness. But the mind may not be convinced so easily, as it has everything to lose!
That's all the things it has ever held onto.

To function as a human, we need certain information and knowledge, but when we get too involved
in the art and science of being human, we can mistake our spiritual connection with 'something' else.
At the death of the body, art and science are of no use, whereas recognising one's true nature is.

When we look, we see, and then drop any concept of what is seen...there is nothing, just see-ing,
recognis-ing, realis-ing, know-ing, be-ing*.

No words.
No mental images.
No intellectualisation.
Just clear intelligence compassionate wisdom.

Why change a good thing?





* ing denotes something taking place.





Tony

Shezbeth
29th December 2013, 20:34
To function as a human, we need certain information and knowledge, but when we get too involved
in the art and science of being human, we can mistake our spiritual connection with 'something' else.
At the death of the body, art and science are of no use, whereas recognising one's true nature is.

I agree. This is why all manner of arts and sciences of the body are properly tended to while the body functions. A time and place for everything as it were.

Having said (and I am deliberately asking for your opinion on this), what of one who indulges in the recognition of one's nature at the expense of the arts and sciences of the body?

Further, cannot one do both?

Tony
29th December 2013, 21:20
To function as a human, we need certain information and knowledge, but when we get too involved
in the art and science of being human, we can mistake our spiritual connection with 'something' else.
At the death of the body, art and science are of no use, whereas recognising one's true nature is.

I agree. This is why all manner of arts and sciences of the body are properly tended to while the body functions. A time and place for everything as it were.

Having said (and I am deliberately asking for your opinion on this), what of one who indulges in the recognition of one's nature at the expense of the arts and sciences of the body?

Further, cannot one do both?


I understand what you are saying, and agree with the sentiment. The moment we indulge in our being,
we are in the world of concepts. We actually oscillate between pure perception and everyday perception all the time,
but don't notice it (I can explain that more fully if needed).

There is a uniqueness about our being - both in a relative and absolute sense. We, as relative beings,
have temperaments and capacities and talents which can be used for the benefit of all sentient beings.
It seems that on a level of enlightenment, beings manifest different qualities: Christ embodied devotion,
whereas the Buddha embodied wisdom. They are different expressions of the same thing.

In Tibetan Buddhism, and especially in the tradition I am in (Dzogchen), that which is called empty essence
is named rigpa or dharmakaya and it is dry because it is empty by nature. The next stage from that is expression essence,
and that is what compassion is: one works in the world and a "mere I" is introduced in order to benefit sentient beings
- and have fun! You could call it the Juice of Love…:o There are many instances of individuals spontaneously achieving something
in music/art/sport etc which is carefree and unique - and seemingly selfless. That is part of the natural oscillation between
pure perception and everyday perception. As these individuals are, in general, not spiritual practitioners, they will tend to
claim this and can puff themselves up (such achievements could simply be due to karma of perhaps having done an activity
before so there is a deep affinity with it).

This next bit is a little tricky to talk about…there are different levels or approaches and one can easily make a mistake
because of this, and end up talking at cross purposes. Not everyone comes into this incarnation with the same experiences
and degree of development ie practice in previous incarnations. So before one can say that everything is an illusion,
one would have had to introduce the understanding of impermanence. That's why taking things step by step is so important,
and this can't be done on a forum - a forum can only provide a general overview as there are many routes to the top of the mountain
(this of course means from the ultimate point of view that you are already at the top, but to be told that can be very annoying…;)

To answer your question simply, yes, people can show off! And yes, one can do both!

GreenGuy
29th December 2013, 22:21
It seems to me that when the ego becomes enlightened it dissolves. There is no enlightened ego because an enlightened ego is no ego at all. Forrest Gump taught me that.

Tony
30th December 2013, 08:35
It seems to me that when the ego becomes enlightened it dissolves. There is no enlightened ego because an enlightened ego is no ego at all. Forrest Gump taught me that.

Hello GreenGuy

You could say that an enlightened ego is one that recognises it doesn't exist - but here, it is referring to an ego that is completely fixated with itself. In the dharma, this is known as being a grand master of samsara.

Such beings constantly protect themselves (this is the jealous god aspect) and there is no way to communicate with them: the only thing that comes back to you when engaging with them is academia. They may be very clever, but lack empathy. For example I once witnessed a "video guru" (one who is often quoted n this forum :o) telling a woman who was in distress, "It is as it is," - and to every question he merely shrugged and repeated, "It is as it is". Sometimes, they try to apply what is known as "crazy wisdom", but this has to be done to the right person at the right time: if this is done without wisdom, there can be damage, and cause obstacles to that person's progress.

Not all beings are at the same level at the same time, and a teacher must talk to each person on his or her level. This is empathy. This is compassion. The whole idea of pacifying is to show that there is no big problem. You show it - not tell it...and much can be said with a smile and a nod - and especially a warm heart.

With compassion, we take ourselves out of the picture, and learning something ourselves. And there is much to learn. And there is much to learn about how to express that which we learn!

Tony

Shabd_Mystic
30th December 2013, 18:06
Because of this, we lack true compassion and empathy.


It's funny that you mentioned these 2 things together because I've been thinking about starting a thread on this very subject but could never get motivated enough. I guess this will be the motivation ...

A lot of people tend to tie compassion and empathy together. Some even believe they are the same thing. I used to wonder myself. I now realize they are very different things.

The difference is that the "me" is still very present with empathy whereas it isn't with compassion. With empathy you are able to put yourself in another's shoes. With compassion there is no "self" and no "another."

Tony
30th December 2013, 18:15
Because of this, we lack true compassion and empathy.


It's funny that you mentioned these 2 things together because I've been thinking about starting a thread on this very subject but could never get motivated enough. I guess this will be the motivation ...

A lot of people tend to tie compassion and empathy together. Some even believe they are the same thing. I used to wonder myself. I now realize they are very different things.

The difference is that the "me" is still very present with empathy whereas it isn't with compassion. With empathy you are able to put yourself in another's shoes. With compassion there is no "self" and no "another."

I would agree with that, Shabd Mystic. As you say, empathy is on a relative level, and very relevant to the human condition. Compassion is a kind of motivation behind the empathy, and could be said to arise from an absolute viewpoint.

Saying that, compassion can manifest in various ways: if I was to talk from a Buddhist point of view, it could manifest as pacifying, magnetising, enriching or destroying ego's games - all arising from absolute compassion.

Empathy and compassion are a positive energy, and leave no aftertaste.

Tony

Shabd_Mystic
30th December 2013, 18:17
It seems to me that when the ego becomes enlightened it dissolves. There is no enlightened ego because an enlightened ego is no ego at all. Forrest Gump taught me that.

That is a widely held belief but it is incorrect as the scores of people with blogs talking about their enlightenment shows. It always amazes me how badly newly enlightened people want the world to know they "got the big prize." Of course, their minds convince them that they merely want to help others, lol, but the mind can convince us of anything.

Shabd_Mystic
30th December 2013, 18:32
A good piece on "enlightened egos" -

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread706675/pg1

Tony
30th December 2013, 18:46
We know.
Our essence is clear, and our mind is clear. If our mind was not clear, we couldn't function as a human being! So we have the potential of perfect (subtle) body, speech and mind (many of our feelings arise as a residue in our subtle body - when we are not at ease, we find an energy welling up and get a bit "hot under the collar").

When the truth is told to us, it is obvious, and recognise…re-cognise. We know. Our only problem is that we are constantly being distracted by the contents of our mind. We identify with these, and so remain in a fixed view. Letting go is merely allowing clarity and space - which are already there - to occur. We are unfamiliar with this clarity and space because of our obsession with the contents of our mind. And so we doubt everything, creating a coarse energy which rattles around, exaggerating everything.

Spiritual practice is merely being clear, noting appearances in the mind and letting be - while still functioning as a decent human being. It's that simple!

Tony

Shabd_Mystic
30th December 2013, 19:11
We know.
Our essence is clear, and our mind is clear. If our mind was not clear, we couldn't function as a human being! So we have the potential of perfect (subtle) body, speech and mind (many of our feelings arise as a residue in our subtle body - when we are not at ease, we find an energy welling up and get a bit "hot under the collar").

When the truth is told to us, it is obvious, and recognise…re-cognise. We know. Our only problem is that we are constantly being distracted by the contents of our mind. We identify with these, and so remain in a fixed view. Letting go is merely allowing clarity and space - which are already there - to occur. We are unfamiliar with this clarity and space because of our obsession with the contents of our mind. And so we doubt everything, creating a coarse energy which rattles around, exaggerating everything.

Spiritual practice is merely being clear, noting appearances in the mind and letting be - while still functioning as a decent human being. It's that simple!

Tony

That's true, but so is what I said. One does not explain nor contradict another. Many people (if not most) who are "enlightened" are ruled by their egos. But because their sense of self is toned down they mistakenly believe their egos have vanished. And in some cases that results in people like Osho, Adi Da or Andrew Cohen.

Shabd_Mystic
30th December 2013, 19:18
"If you start playing the game of being an "enlightened somebody," the true teacher is going to call you on it. He or she is going to expose you, and that exposure is going to hurt. Because the ego will be there, standing in the light of Truth, exposed and humiliated. Of course, the ego will cry "foul!" It will claim that the teacher made a mistake and begin to justify itself in an effort to put its protective clothing back on. It will begin to spin justifications with incredible subtlety and deceptiveness. This is where real spiritual sadhana (practice) begins. This is where it all becomes very real and the student discovers whether he or she truly wants to be free, or merely wants to remain as a false, separate, and self-justifying ego. This crossroad inevitably comes and is always challenging. It separates the true seeker from the false one. The true seeker will be willing to bare the grace of humility, whereas the false seeker will run from it. Thus begins the true path to enlightenment, granted only to those willing to be nobody. Discovering your "nobodyness" opens the door to awakening as beingness, and beyond that to the Source of all beingness."

~ Adyashanti

Shabd_Mystic
30th December 2013, 19:38
.

"If you don't believe that the ego can exist in very advanced states of consciousness, think again."

~ Adyashanti

marksircus
30th December 2013, 19:59
Our ultimate being is pure awareness....my mentor Christopher Hills used the words pure consciousness to describe God which was flowing through us 24/7. And it is my perception that the pathway to this pure space is through the heart that has conquered the mind/ego which spends so much time thinking of itself. In my work HeatHealth I define the heart as the vulnerability of being so that is what I cherish and work with when in close proximity with others. When I was young I was a most self obsessed person so my enlightenment was to forget about myself. What a load off my back but I never liked the word enlightenment because it kinds of leads people to think they have arrived and there is no arriving in pure awareness since you are there already and there is no where to go but ever forward into the evolutionary light. Personally the battle for me is to apply my highest consciousness to my own health in my new and almost too late pursuit of perfect health. It seems us doctors have an easier time doing that for others than we do for ourselves!!!

Shabd_Mystic
30th December 2013, 20:09
But if there is no ego, what motivates one to come on to an Internet message board to tell people they are enlightened? Is Adyashati wrong? Are others wrong? Or could the human mind be very skilled at delusion?

Tony
30th December 2013, 20:16
The word "ego" is merely a description of consciousness clinging to ideas about itself and thus creating an "I". When consciousness, or awareness, or perception, lets go of that concept, becomes pure consciousness, pure awareness, pure perception. As long as we mention the word "I" there is ego involved - an "I contamination" is present.

What is important is your realisation, and not the realisation of others.

Tony

greybeard
30th December 2013, 20:21
But if there is no ego, what motivates one to come on to an Internet message board to tell people they are enlightened? Is Adyashati wrong? Are others wrong? Or could the human mind be very skilled at delusion?

Adyashanti, Mooji and others are correct.
As for using a forum --well Adya and others use u-tube-- so for me the teaching is the important thing-- accepting that there is an energy underlying the teaching coming from a true "master"
Truth is only Self is--.
Chris

Tony
30th December 2013, 20:26
But if there is no ego, what motivates one to come on to an Internet message board to tell people they are enlightened?

It's ego ;) ! Yes, the human mind is tricksy...

Only the individual can know this for themselves, but someone can respond from their ordinary mind:
this will be the response of a philosopher who may be very scholarly. That could be a full ego.

However, it is possible to reflect from emptiness, and through a "mere I" or a "mere ego", interact with
the phenomenal world. This is mingling the relative and absolute realities.

And this is due to the second part of the equation of enlightenment - conduct. Conduct is the continuity
of the meditative state, which, through non-habitual reaction, does not create karma, but rather, exhausts it.
It's all very well to talk about "pure being" or "pure consciousness" but we still have a storehouse in the mind of "I" identities.

Tony

greybeard
30th December 2013, 20:51
I think its fair to say that the teaching of Ramana is correct.
Adyashanti said that The form and persona of the enlightened is unique to them however in the formless they are identical--not an exact quote.
When enlightenment occurs persona remains.
True enlightenment is ego-less.
Dr David Hawkins said there are levels of enlightenment and there can be a period where this matures--more of Truth is revealed.
Those are my words and not accurate.
Any abiding enlightenment seems complete.
Abiding and non abiding are terms used by Adya.
His enlightenment had two separate phases--years apart-- though both were permanent.

Hawkins said there is a final door where the residue of the ego dies.
It is possible up till then for the sleeping ego to awaken.
Many are the Gurus who crashed out of enlightenment--they used their position to seduce devotees.
They believed their own press so to speak.

As Tony said only your personal enlightenment really counts.

I still have an ego but at least I know that.

Chris

Shabd_Mystic
30th December 2013, 23:53
Adyashanti, Mooji and others are correct.
As for using a forum --well Adya and others use u-tube--
Chris

I think Adya still has an ego though not nearly pronounced as others. All I know is that he has turned enlightenment into a business (though not to the level of Eckhart Tolle) and if you believe that a "messenger of God" would use such teachings for worldly gain then I suggest you might want to read up on some spiritual greats (and if you believe that the fact that he does it under the cloak of a non-profit organization covers him then I guess you feel the same way about Scientology).

As for the rest who use YouTube, they are the same as those who have blogs or go on message boards to tell everyone they are enlightened. Everyone is blown away by enlightenment and rarely see past it. It becomes just the latest in a long line of desires. And it's desires that keep us trapped in the cycle of birth and death.

Enlightenment is the most clever of all such traps because people are convinced that it's the ultimate and that it will get them off the "karmic wheel." Once they get a sniff of enlightenment it becomes their life's focus. It becomes their greatest desire even when they sometimes fail to see that it's a desire.

Enlightenment used to be incredibly rare but is becoming more common every day. People's minds have convinced them that's because we are heading toward a new Golden (Yuga) Era but the world doesn't transition from the Kali Yuga (which we are now in) to the Golden Yuga without complete destruction first.

We get a whiff of enlightenment and see how frequently it's happening and nobody ever stops to ask why this is. If it's realized that enlightenment would be the ultimate "trick" to ensnare us here as the Kali Yuga dwindles down, we convince ourselves that couldn't be true and that "God" would never do that. We have no problem though with the fact that "God" kept us all here this long before supposedly suddenly deciding to let countless people become enlightened.

Nobody ever thinks that this god who gives them enlightenment could actually be what the Buddhists call "Mara," the Gnostics called "the Demiurge (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demiurge)," Sant Mat calls "Kal," or the Bible referred to as "the god of this world."

"Ye are of God, little children, and have overcome them: because greater is he that is in you, than he that is in the world."
~ John 4:4

"In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them."
~ 2 Corinthians 4:4

"The whole world is under the control of the evil one."
~ 1 John 5:19
But that's the mind. The mind is in full control of "the god of this world." It's his greatest tool. He usually ensnares us with that and its greatest "program," the ego. Second he relies on "desires." As the end of the Kali Yuga arrives he pulls out "enlightenment" for those who would no longer be kept down by desires and the such. And once again, his greatest ally is the ego. And with enlightenment he convinces us that ego has been dissolved so that we will stop "seeking."

After all, the enlightened "earned" their enlightenment and couldn't possibly be tricked by a vastly superior "god." Their ego is now gone so they would never fall for such a thing. Yup, okay. Keep clinging to that belief.

Oh well, no need to worry. You're now "merged with God" so you have finally escaped that wheel of birth and death. ;)

Shabd_Mystic
31st December 2013, 01:48
One of the best articles I've ever read on the topic of the Gnostic's "Demiurge" and shows how close it is to Sant Mat's "Kal." -

A Brief Summary of Gnosticism (http://gnosis.org/gnintro.htm)

GreenGuy
31st December 2013, 03:42
I'm sure it's quite obvious to one and all that I'm NOT enlightened and I have an ego. Nevertheless, I've learned that the path toward happiness is marked by learning to set the ego aside in favor of others. I cannot even imagine what it would be like to lose the ego completely, and I'm not sure it's possible. Selfless giving is what's called enlightened self-interest by some, so perhaps the enlightened ego is the one that can express itself through helping others.

Tony
31st December 2013, 08:10
Fed up with hearing about compassion?

If we find ourselves fed up with hearing about compassion, compassion, compassion, then our
motivation, motivation, motivation is not pure, and is still ego-dominated.

If we are fed up with hearing about ego, ego, ego - which is merely a mistaken identity,
a mental projection we have created - then we are still trapped in an ego-orientated projection.

If we want higher teachings, first we need pure motivation - love for others more than for ourself.

If we think all this talk about compassion is boring, then we will never understand the higher teachings,
and they will remain an intellectual mystery.

If we do not try to develop a pure motivation, we might as well give up spiritual endeavours
and live an ordinary life, and be kind whenever we fancy it.

The internet is a spiritual supermarket: make sure your digestion is ready for it!
Cherry picking will not sustain us.
The root of all spiritual teachings is an altruistic motivation.
It doesn't matter how good we think we are, we are still
playing the leading role in the play of life.

Confidence comes from pure... knowingness, awareness, perception, consciousness.
When ancient text talking about love, they mean unconditional.
There is no personal gain, because that has been given up...
we know! we know!

These are teachings handed down from my teacher, from his teacher, from his teacher...

greybeard
31st December 2013, 08:26
"Be kind to all life including your own, no matter what"
that was the advice of Dr David Hawkins--He said that is the priority on the path to enlightenment.
Nasargadatta said that there is always an agenda until enlightenment--even if its the feel good factor from helping others.
However we all do as best we can, given our circumstances and conditioning.
Dr Hawkins said "If people knew better they would do better"

Chris

Tony
31st December 2013, 09:16
I've just seen this in the Daily Mail today.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2531260/Being-angry-really-DOES-make-hot-headed-sadness-leaves-limbs-feeling-weak.html


This is a subtle body problem, where the energy, or lower wind
rises, and we feel tension in the body due to the emotions.

Traumas leave feeling as a residue in the subtle body, and when
our 'button' gets pressed…up those feeling come again.

The subtle body are the winds, channels and energies within
the physical body.

A very simple 'gentle breath' exercise can bring this energy down
to where it should be - four finger widths below the navel.

I'll put on a video to illustrate it.

In this 'speedy' modern world our lower wind is up most of the time,
creating imbalances in the mind and body.

If you find it difficult to meditate, this will also help.

q6iF4GVLnrI




Tony

Milneman
31st December 2013, 09:52
But if there is no ego, what motivates one to come on to an Internet message board to tell people they are enlightened? Is Adyashati wrong? Are others wrong? Or could the human mind be very skilled at delusion?

Who's to say that bodhisattva's don't have computers. ;)

TraineeHuman
31st December 2013, 10:00
You could say the ego is a certain way of seeing things. It's much more like an adverb than a noun. In fact, it's like one of the physical senses except it's not physical. It's the quasi-sense "organ" that sees or creates (psychological/emotional) suffering particularly. And also, particularly, a huge (supposed) separation between the individual and the world/universe. Plus the incessant point of view that there is a problem, and sorrow, with your very existence itself, at least in your situation right now.

I would say the big news about the ego is that there are simply better ways of seeing reality than how the ego sees. It's a little like the way light and sound make up only a tiny part of the electromagnetic spectrum. If we just had a way to see what's happening right here on more electromagnetic frequencies, all at once, then we'd have a fuller picture, a better way of seeing. No big deal, provided we find a way to do it. Similarly, someone can become free of the ego if -- and only if, and as -- they happen to learn a better way of seeing. That alternative way of seeing will have to involve somehow having at least the attitude and belief that one is basically free from having any problem with existence itself, and to a considerable degree at least within the practicalities of existence even in a limited world.

The egoistic way of living needs to be transformed, and come to accord with a greater, less limited truth. The ego doesn't need to be lost so much as transformed, matured into something much broader. Did Adyashanti or whoever lose his grip and fall back into temptation? Who cares? If he's acquired the broader vision, he'd have to be an idiot not to use the broader vision more and more. Maybe not in all situations at first or for some time, but what does it matter? If he's got the broader vision, he's got that vision. And with that vision he can see that the Universe and Source don't orbit around him. Once he's seen that properly, he's seen it permanently, by the way.

greybeard
31st December 2013, 11:37
But if there is no ego, what motivates one to come on to an Internet message board to tell people they are enlightened? Is Adyashati wrong? Are others wrong? Or could the human mind be very skilled at delusion?

Who's to say that bodhisattva's don't have computers. ;)

Indeed--some have day jobs too--apart from chopping wood and fetching water.
The teaching that flows through them help greatly in the duality world.
I am indebted and grateful for the pointers.
Chris

greybeard
31st December 2013, 11:45
What is good is that an increasing number of people are now aware of the ego and doing something to reduce the selfish, me first, aspects of it.
I come across more generous, considerate and compassionate people than ever before.

Chris

Agape
31st December 2013, 15:28
But if there is no ego, what motivates one to come on to an Internet message board to tell people they are enlightened? Is Adyashati wrong? Are others wrong? Or could the human mind be very skilled at delusion?

Who's to say that bodhisattva's don't have computers. ;)

Bodhisattvas have nothing to call their own , no homeland , no homeland security , no computers .
But WHEN they get on computers they DO THEIR JOB ...


:peep:

Camilo
31st December 2013, 15:34
There is no such thing as an enlightened ego, as the moment it becomes enlightened, it ceases to be.

Agape
31st December 2013, 17:57
There is no such thing as an enlightened ego, as the moment it becomes enlightened, it ceases to be.

Like a fire-cracker ? :rapture:

Tony
31st December 2013, 17:59
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2531594/Love-really-DOES-make-warm-inside-weak-knees-disgust-turns-stomach.html


These diagrams show the effect of temporary emotions on the body.
(When it illustrates love, this is not the compassionate sort)

Notice our demonic side:

Researchers have found we can take pleasure in the pain of others – particularly those we envy.
According to a study published in October, tests showed the feeling of joy at seeing someone else fail or suffer –
known as schadenfreude in German – to be so commonplace that scientists believe it must be a basic biological response in humans.

Professor Susan Fiske, of Princeton University and her former PhD student Mina Cikara, now of Carnegie Mellon University,
measured the electrical activity of cheek muscles with an electromyogram.
This captures the electrical activity when an individual smiles and thus experiences pleasure.

Participants were shown photographs of individuals associated with different stereotypes: the elderly (pity); students (pride);
drug addicts (disgust); and rich professionals (envy).
These images were then paired with everyday events such as: ‘Won five dollars’ (positive); ‘Got soaked by a taxi’ (negative);
or ‘Went to the bathroom’ (neutral). Participants were asked how this would make them feel, and their facial movements were recorded.
The results showed people took genuine delight in the misfortune of those they envied – the rich professionals.

‘Because people don’t like to report envy or schadenfreude, this was the best method for gathering such responses,’ said Professor Fiske.
‘And in this experiment we were able to viscerally capture malicious glee.
‘We found that people did smile more in response to negative than positive events, but only for groups they envied.’




Tony

Tony
31st December 2013, 18:11
Compassion is wisdom being expressed.
Wisdom, our empty essence, cannot be broken.
It can neither gain nor lose.

:o

Wisdom is the continuity of wisdom
ready for the next step.

;)

Happy new year





Tony

Agape
31st December 2013, 18:21
It's a very important article , thanks Tony . But ...

''BIOLOGICALLY PROGRAMMED TO TAKE PLEASURE IN THE PAIN OF THOSE WE ENVY''

Not too smart . I think there's natural awareness of the Law of Cause-Effect in play . Why would some deserve to be successful, rich, supported on behalf of others, have so much better conditions than everyone else while they're never satisfied , have never enough .. and the rest of us is not considered worthy to receive what we need .

I have to speak of myself when I say 'there's nothing to envy anyone' . And I certainly wish no harm, no matter how well off are they . Neither I've noticed any of my friends beggars around India wishing me harm for not keeping party with them,
actually .

They have to be doing these experiments with lower case criminals, me thinks.


;)

Tony
31st December 2013, 18:33
It's a very important article , thanks Tony . But ...

''BIOLOGICALLY PROGRAMMED TO TAKE PLEASURE IN THE PAIN OF THOSE WE ENVY''

Not too smart . I think there's natural awareness of the Law of Cause-Effect in play . Why would some deserve to be successful, rich, supported on behalf of others, have so much better conditions than everyone else while they're never satisfied , have never enough .. and the rest of us is not considered worthy to receive what we need .

I have to speak of myself when I say 'there's nothing to envy anyone' . And I certainly wish no harm, no matter how well off are they . Neither I've noticed any of my friends beggars around India wishing me harm for not keeping party with them,
actually .

They have to be doing these experiments with lower case criminals, me thinks.


;)



Maybe like attracts like. We may be blessed by Mara or the Awakened Ones.

Tony

mahalall
31st December 2013, 19:35
pie'n'eal: However, it is possible to reflect from emptiness, and through a "mere I" or a "mere ego", interact with
the phenomenal world. This is mingling the relative and absolute realities. And this is due to the second part of the equation of enlightenment - conduct. Conduct is the continuity of the meditative state, which, through non-habitual reaction, does not create karma, but rather, exhausts it.
It's all very well to talk about "pure being" or "pure consciousness" but we still have a storehouse in the mind of "I" identities.

this is so important, but remember that serpent self can delude the subtle nature of ones light into viewing their is no reaction but the reaction is occuring beyond the light. So thereore is it not better to create the other qualities of perfection (paramis) rather than the pursuit of uppekka (non-habitual reaction)

just a thought with new years resolutions on the cards

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P%C4%81ramit%C4%81

Shezbeth
31st December 2013, 19:48
In my opinion and experience, the Ego is like the operating system for a computer, a computer representing the body.

One can certainly run the computer in "Safe" mode all the time (comparable to constantly perceiving the existential oneness), but the computer was designed to have an operating system; The OS however is both fallible and emergent. There are new versions and updates and upgrades that can be applied, and an individual computer can at times have its OS tampered, corrupted, or otherwise maligned. The programmer (the mind) must tend to the OS to see that the computer runs effectively, efficiently, and conducively.

Ultimately however, the OS enables different computers to operate amongst one another, when properly tended to.

My understanding of computers however is limited, and that metaphor might not fly if drawn out further.

Shabd_Mystic
31st December 2013, 19:55
There is no such thing as an enlightened ego, as the moment it becomes enlightened, it ceases to be.

We're getting into semantics because if you buy the idea that there are different stages of enlightenment then the earlier stages, where the ego still survives, disprove that. If you are only talking about the ultimate stage then that is true. I just listened to an Adyashanti lecture on this very thing in which he was saying just the opposite. Here it is:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oPG4MMkkb9U

Tony
31st December 2013, 20:07
pie'n'eal: However, it is possible to reflect from emptiness, and through a "mere I" or a "mere ego", interact with
the phenomenal world. This is mingling the relative and absolute realities. And this is due to the second part of the equation of enlightenment - conduct. Conduct is the continuity of the meditative state, which, through non-habitual reaction, does not create karma, but rather, exhausts it.
It's all very well to talk about "pure being" or "pure consciousness" but we still have a storehouse in the mind of "I" identities.

this is so important, but remember that serpent self can delude the subtle nature of ones light into viewing their is no reaction but the reaction is occuring beyond the light. So thereore is it not better to create the other qualities of perfection (paramis) rather than the pursuit of uppekka (non-habitual reaction)

just a thought with new years resolutions on the cards

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P%C4%81ramit%C4%81


We are on the same page, Mahalall ;)

In the first instance is spontaneous presence: there is merely space and non-reaction.
From that, we express conduct, which is the continuity of that space. As you say, we express the 6 or 10 paramis.

We come from different traditions, so the way in which we use language may vary slightly but it's the same meaning. Below is a description from the Dzogchen tradition that I cam coming from, which may be of interest to other readers.

*Rigpa Generosity. Generosity here is non-fixating and so there is no clinging. Non-fixation is the practice of generosity. Rigpa generosity is not the generosity of giving away, which is the conceptual generation of merit: when it is included in Rigpa, it belongs to wisdom – it is transcendent generosity. So we are practising generosity at the relative level and the absolute level at the same time, as they are inseparable. The essence of generosity is non-clinging.

Rigpa Discipline. In Rigpa, there is no attachment, and that is the paramita of discipline. In keeping discipline, one may become conceited and attached. Discipline has the function of binding your negative actions so that you can remain in a virtuous state. But it has side effects – you can become conceited because you are so pure…this can result in the creation of a social “I”. This can also happen with the view – one can become attached to this view also. The essence of discipline is non-attachment.

Rigpa Patience.
While you are in the continuity of rigpa there is no fear, and that absence of fear denotes the paramita of patience. The essence of patience is fearlessness.

Rigpa Perseverance.
In rigpa there is no effort, and so therefore there is no perseverance. When you are distracted you make effort. The essence of perseverance is effortlessness.

Rigpa Meditation. This is not being distracted. The essence of meditation is effortless remaining.

Rigpa Transcendent Knowledge. This is Rigpa. It is wisdom itself – pure awareness. Wisdom resting in the ground in its innateness. The essence of Rigpa is clear view.

Within Rigpa, conduct is meditation in action - the six paramitas. Our mind does not leave the clear view. Conduct is the 6 paramitas being automatically expressed, without effort. You will be naturally generous etc.

To summarise, there are the paramitas that are practised with effort, and those that are practised without effort, and which come automatically out of the view (known as the all-sufficient king). It is like a healing coming from within: if we are doing something wrong, when Rigpa is remembered, it will have an effect on our outer behaviour = CONDUCT!

*Rigpa means emptiness, but not the complete emptiness of Dharmakaya: there are two others stages in between (expression and display).

Tony

Tony
31st December 2013, 20:13
Everyone is right...and it can always be refined ;)

Tony

Shabd_Mystic
31st December 2013, 21:18
I think what we have with many people who rush out to let the world know they are now enlightened are cases of people in various stages of the "Intermediate Zone" which is where so many get stuck, such as those I mentioned earlier - Odho, Adi Da, Andrew Cohen and so many others. The fact is that if one had achieved true, full-blown God Realization, they wouldn't want to tell the world about it and certainly wouldn't be on an Internet message board trying to convince others that they were enlightened. We would never even know about them. That is what true humility is about.

From "Paul Brunton's Notebook" -


The Intermediate Zone

1 (http://wisdomsgoldenrod.org/notebooks/para/20882)
The pathway of the mystical goal is strewn with human wreckage. Why? Several reasons would be needed to give a complete answer but one of the most important is this: Between the state of ordinary man and the state of the matured mystic there lies a perilous and deceptive psychological region which has been given various names in mystical literature. It has been called the astral plane, the intermediate zone, the hall of illusion, and so on. The early efforts of all aspirants in concentration, meditation, self-conquest, and study, bring them into this region. But once here their egoism becomes stimulated by the subtle forces they have evoked, their emotional nature becomes more sensitive and more fluid, their imaginative power becomes more active and is less restrained. The consequence of failure to negotiate these changes properly is swollen vanity, superstitious credulity, emotions run riot, and imagination gone wild. The safeguards against all this are first, submission to the philosophic discipline and second, submission to competent guidance.
2 (http://wisdomsgoldenrod.org/notebooks/para/20883)
During the early stages of the meditator's career, ecstasies, visions, and messages may manifest themselves. He may accept the encouragement they bring to his feelings, but he should not accept the communications they make to his mind without screening them severely. It is easy for the ego to fall into self-flattering moods as a consequence of such experiences, and to pass from them into spiritual pride and vanity. But even if he succeeds in critically judging them, he must still remember and keep in mind that they, and even the emotional raptures, pertain only to these early stages and that he must become indifferent to and detached from them in the later ones. Otherwise, they will hinder his further development and cause him to stagnate.
3 (http://wisdomsgoldenrod.org/notebooks/para/20884)
These powers are latent in all men but active in few. To seek them before we have sought the divine Soul itself is a premature, unwise, and often dangerous enterprise.

6 (http://wisdomsgoldenrod.org/notebooks/para/20887)
It is natural for beginners to become excited or enthusiastic about the psychic phenomena but to let them be overvalued or misunderstood is dangerous to further progress.

28 (http://wisdomsgoldenrod.org/notebooks/para/20909)
Before we can reach the reality we have to cross a world of fanciful imagination and time-wasting delusions.

46 (http://wisdomsgoldenrod.org/notebooks/para/20927)
Humility is willing to question the reality of the figures it thinks it is seeing, but conceit is not.

More here. (http://wisdomsgoldenrod.org/notebooks/16/12)An even more famous description of this is the one that introduced the term, Sri Aurobindo -

Sri Aurobindo's The Intermediate Zone (http://intyoga.online.fr/intzone.htm)

Sample:


... Very easily he is carried away by the splendor and the rush, and thinks that he has realized more than he has truly done, something final or at least something sovereignty true. At this stage the necessary knowledge and experience are usually lacking which would tell him that this is only a very uncertain and mixed beginning; he may not realize at once that he is still in the cosmic Ignorance, not in the cosmic Truth, much less in the Transcendental Truth, and that whatever formative or dynamic idea-truths may have come down into him are partial only and yet further diminished by their presentation to him by a still mixed consciousness. ...Many sages over centuries, such as Rumi, Nanak, Kabir, etc., have mapped out what these two describe. Of course, if what people here are calling "enlightenment" is not the same as what these two are describing I believe it would be wise to question why that is. Did "God" suddenly change everything or could it be that "enlightenment" isn't what the mind portrays it to be?

I refer once again to the last line of the first section:


Humility is willing to question the reality of the figures it thinks it is seeing, but conceit is not.

Is anyone here actually questioning what they believe is happening or are they too busy chasing the "enlightenment train?"

greybeard
31st December 2013, 21:30
Questioning is essential after all one is trusting ones spiritual progress to a teaching.
Linage was so important--you knew where you were with that.
Ramana was one of my first also Yogananda. I am back to Ramana mainly and Mooji who is of the linage of Ramana.
In fairness there are western teachers who's message I trust.

Chris

Shabd_Mystic
31st December 2013, 22:38
Questioning is essential after all one is trusting ones spiritual progress to a teaching.
Linage was so important--you knew where you were with that.
Ramana was one of my first also Yogananda. I am back to Ramana mainly and Mooji who is of the linage of Ramana.
In fairness there are western teachers who's message I trust.

Chris

We are very different in that respect because although I like both Ramana and Yogananda I see them both as very "low achieving" yogis. I won't bore you with an explanation that would be too massive for this space. I'll just say that those two, according to Sant Mat teachings, are no more than "first level" achievers (basically what all enlightened beings are). They don't specify those two by name but if you understand the teachings you can tell they fit it perfectly.

There are countless yogis who have achieved the first, second or rarely even the third levels (or third heaven as Paul describes it in The Bible), but few are those who went beyond the 3rd level (where the "universal mind" is) and thus escaped the cycle of birth and death (even those achieving the third level will, after a long stay there, have to be reborn).

Only a few, such as Jesus, have attained the higher levels. That is the reason why he was so different from the "enlightened sages" of today and why his message was so different (and no, Christianity cannot get you where Christ was taking his disciples). It always makes me smile when I hear people like Adyashanti talk about Jesus as if they were both traveling the same path. It's amazing how the mind makes us see things, lol.

Shabd_Mystic
1st January 2014, 00:25
"The funny thing about enlightenment is that when it is authentic, there is no one to claim it. Enlightenment is very ordinary; it is nothing special. Rather than making you more special, it is going to make you less special."

~ Adyashanti

greybeard
1st January 2014, 04:21
Questioning is essential after all one is trusting ones spiritual progress to a teaching.
Linage was so important--you knew where you were with that.
Ramana was one of my first also Yogananda. I am back to Ramana mainly and Mooji who is of the linage of Ramana.
In fairness there are western teachers who's message I trust.

Chris

We are very different in that respect because although I like both Ramana and Yogananda I see them both as very "low achieving" yogis. I won't bore you with an explanation that would be too massive for this space. I'll just say that those two, according to Sant Mat teachings, are no more than "first level" achievers (basically what all enlightened beings are). They don't specify those two by name but if you understand the teachings you can tell they fit it perfectly.

There are countless yogis who have achieved the first, second or rarely even the third levels (or third heaven as Paul describes it in The Bible), but few are those who went beyond the 3rd level (where the "universal mind" is) and thus escaped the cycle of birth and death (even those achieving the third level will, after a long stay there, have to be reborn).

Only a few, such as Jesus, have attained the higher levels. That is the reason why he was so different from the "enlightened sages" of today and why his message was so different (and no, Christianity cannot get you where Christ was taking his disciples). It always makes me smile when I hear people like Adyashanti talk about Jesus as if they were both traveling the same path. It's amazing how the mind makes us see things, lol.


Dr David Hawkins had a calibration map of consciousness in which the highest possible for this heavy density earth is 1000
Christ and The Buddha were at that level. Ramana and Nasargadatta 750 --Gandhi 700 Yogananda less.
Dr Hawkins more or less implied that he calibrated high and his last spiritual book very high.
His teaching is very good but I have no opinion on calibration.
His "The highest level of enlightenment" cd on Pirate Bay is good--he also did one seminar a month on various spiritual subjects (ten I think) for several years.
very clear in depth information. The earliest series best
His life story very interesting.
Some negative press but that's normal.
He died last year.

http://veritaspub.com/about_us.php?osCsid=30910b40ab37d9b2d190e949b3b99d 31

Chris

Shabd_Mystic
1st January 2014, 05:16
Questioning is essential after all one is trusting ones spiritual progress to a teaching.
Linage was so important--you knew where you were with that.
Ramana was one of my first also Yogananda. I am back to Ramana mainly and Mooji who is of the linage of Ramana.
In fairness there are western teachers who's message I trust.

Chris

We are very different in that respect because although I like both Ramana and Yogananda I see them both as very "low achieving" yogis. I won't bore you with an explanation that would be too massive for this space. I'll just say that those two, according to Sant Mat teachings, are no more than "first level" achievers (basically what all enlightened beings are). They don't specify those two by name but if you understand the teachings you can tell they fit it perfectly.

There are countless yogis who have achieved the first, second or rarely even the third levels (or third heaven as Paul describes it in The Bible), but few are those who went beyond the 3rd level (where the "universal mind" is) and thus escaped the cycle of birth and death (even those achieving the third level will, after a long stay there, have to be reborn).

Only a few, such as Jesus, have attained the higher levels. That is the reason why he was so different from the "enlightened sages" of today and why his message was so different (and no, Christianity cannot get you where Christ was taking his disciples). It always makes me smile when I hear people like Adyashanti talk about Jesus as if they were both traveling the same path. It's amazing how the mind makes us see things, lol.


Dr David Hawkins had a calibration map of consciousness in which the highest possible for this heavy density earth is 1000
Christ and The Buddha were at that level. Ramana and Nasargadatta 750 --Gandhi 700 Yogananda less.
Dr Hawkins more or less implied that he calibrated high and his last spiritual book very high.
His teaching is very good but I have no opinion on calibration.
His "The highest level of enlightenment" cd on Pirate Bay is good--he also did one seminar a month on various spiritual subjects (ten I think) for several years.
very clear in depth information. The earliest series best
His life story very interesting.
Some negative press but that's normal.
He died last year.

http://veritaspub.com/about_us.php?osCsid=30910b40ab37d9b2d190e949b3b99d 31

Chris

Thanks. I'll check it out. But unless he has some incredible qualifications to make such judgements (such as having traveled to inner higher planes himself) his opinion is no more valid than yours or mine.

The question I have is where does he place all of those people on the inner planes. Is he saying that Jesus and Buddha attained higher realms than the others? And if so, how does he know this? Did he go to the level of Jesus and Buddha and saw them there? If so then he is at their level spiritually, so why haven't we heard about him? If not it's just wishful thinking that just so happens to help him sell books.

GreenGuy
1st January 2014, 07:37
I think the ego has been exhaustively defined. Enlightenment is probably a bit harder to pin down.

Tony
1st January 2014, 10:56
When Thoughts Become an Echo

When we (pure essence) cling to ideas, this clinging is known as ego – ego-clinging.
The pure essence of light has turned into darkness. This ego-centric activity clouds
pure essence which forgets its true nature, and that of everyone else.
And so we argue about this and that.

We all know that ego clinging is what keeps us trapped, and that detachment is beneficial.
However, we are still trapped! Most of the time we fixate on ideas about ourselves and
the world we choose to live in: we are driven by desires. We cling so strongly to these
ideas that they become a personality...a jolly good fellow – the life of the party!
We become trapped in a social “I”, caught up in the sticky tangle of others' projections.

When essence gets attached to ideas, essence becomes ego. Instead of seeing clearly,
we “see through a glass darkly”. Essence is still clear, but it is focusing on something other!
It's like dirt in water: the water is clear but muddied … we just have to separate them again...or do we?!

If we look closely, we find that thoughts are clattering around in the mind all the time..
.they are echoes from previous experiences...a bit like dreams. A residue, a remnant, an echo.
We may mistake thoughts being in the mind as clinging: it is not.
Thoughts merely come and go - sometimes not even complete thoughts
(there is sometimes an abstract feeling before the thought actually forms).
They are a background noise. However, when we talk to another person, see how quickly
we (and they) latch on to the half-baked ideas :-)

To an enlightened mind, thoughts come and go - they come to pass. With enlightened clarity
at essence's disposal, a thought is appreciated as soon as it arises (or before) and is left to
pass on. Gradually, through practice or familiarisation, thoughts become more transparent,
not so solid, faint echoes. There are still flare-ups, but that is not a bad thing...that flare-up is light!

Emotions are now seen as wisdom: they brighten the mind for a moment.
The ordinary mind will get carried away, whereas the enlightened mind merely appreciates and
re-cognises to return to emptiness. This is spontaneous.

This bring us to...“or do they?”

When mind and essence are clear, if thoughts now arise they are inseparable from essence.
A dot on this screen . is there by virtue of the empty screen. The two cannot be separated!

One's being is not troubled by trivia, and so whatever arises has significance. Every thing is empty essence.
From a Dzogchen perspective, empty essence is us, so we are Dzogchen.
There is nothing to do but recognise this fact.

From a Dzogchen point of view, there are three other aspects to essence: expression, display and ornament.
Essence becomes essence expression...essence love. Then essence becomes effulgent, radiating joy or
goodness...essence display. Finally it (we) become 'ornament' - brilliant clarity…
the sanskrit word is Dharmakaya – complete emptiness.

It's good to know where you are! The echo is a mere reflection of Dharmakaya, our true nature.




Tony

Wind
1st January 2014, 13:39
puQPj_9Yy5o

mahalall
1st January 2014, 16:23
pie n eal: Rigpa generosity is not the generosity of giving away, which is the conceptual generation of merit
eeby
reminds of an encounter in yorkshire

Shabd_Mystic
4th January 2014, 18:00
Here Adyashanti says the very same thing I have said in several threads but am usually laughed off or ignored, and that's that the "enlightened ego" or sense of superiority is "very common" and that many such people run out to proclaim to the world that they are now enlightened (or close to so being). Which the Internet is full of, including this very board. He says such people can't even see what is so blatantly obvious to everyone else (of course such people will never watch this because they believe it's not talking about them, lol) -


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=caFefqZPSOc

greybeard
4th January 2014, 18:59
Hi Shabd-Mystic
The trouble is that there is a big difference between an enlightened experience, there is still a me having the experience, and the genuine abiding enlightenment.
With the genuine article there is no me left to report it.
There is no personal identification with what arises and subsides in life.
It was an extremely rare event--maybe a few dozen in the whole world.
Now Adyashanti is claiming he knows of hundreds.
The late Dr David Hawkins pointing out the rarity in the recent past said now that the chance of enlightenment occurring is now 1000 time greater.

There is a massive difference between awakening and enlightenment---awakening is part of the process and an important part.
Anything that fluctuates is not it--Ramesh called that flip flop.

I cant see why anyone would laugh at you expressing your thoughts Shabd-Mystic.
The transcending the ego/enlightenment thread has been saying similar for years and there have been very few contra views and almost 1000 people visit that thread every month.
Why worry what people think--just post what you believe.

Chris

Shabd_Mystic
4th January 2014, 22:24
Hi Shabd-Mystic
The trouble is that there is a big difference between an enlightened experience, there is still a me having the experience, and the genuine abiding enlightenment.
With the genuine article there is no me left to report it.

I might be wrong but I believe Adyashanti says that is a typical response used by the very people who are unaware of what is driving them. Of course, as he said, those who have this problem are very hard to help because they believe this way.

As to the laughing at me, that is just an expression to describe the attitude that is likely for those who read what I say and then shrug their shoulders and move to the next post. What I say might not generate an actual snicker but the reaction is the same - he can't mean me because I have no ego.

I'm at a state where I see ego all the time and I have been for a while. I rarely even mention it except when it's with people like here who believe they or others might not be affected by ego but they clearly are, or when it's people on a spiritual path where the goal is ego destruction yet they are thumping their chests.

I often tick off people because they think I am acting superior to them but I'm not doing anything of the sort. I'm my own worse critic and see my own ego even clearer. The ego needs to be vanquished but that doesn't fully happen until you are able to see it clearly in yourself. You can't kill what you don't think exists.

As Adyashanti says, there are tons of enlightened people running around thinking their egos have dissolved and those very same people are going to come up short of true enlightenment because their own ego will never allow them to see it.

greybeard
4th January 2014, 22:53
Hi Shabad- Mystic.
You are correct re what Adyashanti says though there are paradoxes in what he says.
He went trough two stages of enlightenment---at first he thought the original was it--then a voice in his head said "Keep going"
It took years for the next stage to complete.
There was a lot of Kundalini movement associated with this.

Ramana is very clear---there is no seeker left and no mind---there never was.
He describes a thoughtless awareness---the fourth state.--the only state.


Everyone is affected by their ego to a greater or lesser degree until there is no person left to have an ego.
An enlightened "being" can seem very authoritarian because they are coming from absolute Truth.
I honestly dont worry about others ego I have enough of a problem with mine--laughing.

There is famous Zen picture of herding cattle---the numbers diminish as they are "trained"
Any reduction in ego is good.
However as you are probably aware Adyashant said that some with large egos are actually ready for enlightenment and some with well disciplined harmonious egos are not. My words.

Chris

Shezbeth
4th January 2014, 23:19
Shabd, I agree with your words and the experience they allude to, and perceive to have experienced much of what you describe. My experience is thus:

On one end of the spectrum, you have the adherents/pursuants who are either working at the same goals and not knowing it, or are working at cross purposes while alleging that they are seeking the same direction so to speak. In any of those examples, one is endemically going to experience encounters involving condescent, derision, dismissal, or ignorance as pertains to suggestions that may contest or question predispositions. As you have said (inherently if not literally) predisposition is the venue of the Ego, but woe to any who might suggest so to the 'Enlightened'!

The problem is that once a group develops as pertains to any topic, a hierarchy begins to form. Individuals naturally identify more or less with one another, and over time this identification can progress into a familiarity/favoritism. At the basic level this is how cliques develop sociologically and - left unchecked - develops into a full blown establishment of preferential bias; Towards individuals, towards ideas, and especially as develops toward group perspective/direction.

On the other end of the spectrum are those who are deliberately not seeking to exalt themselves in any way other than materialistically, sociologically, egotistically, etc. In those I have found that one will unintentionally remind people of the multitudinous things that they are deliberately not doing. I'm disinterested in why this would produce an adversarial response in people, but the phenomenon is consistent.

An extensive vocabulary is likely to induce others (not all) to assume that the person thinks that they are 'better/smarter' than those who choose not to, though this is not (necessarily) the case. Likewise with any perception/concept/pursuit of anything resembling enlightenment, the perception soon forms that the person wants to be better (is dissastisfied w/ themselves?), or even just be seen as better. It doesn't help that esoterics/existential progress is viewed as nonsense by (at least) a simple majority; Anyone who has been looked at askance for reading a book is familiar with this to a lesser degree.

Any given hierarchy is built around what is - by consensus - deemed relevant/important, and going against that has its consequences; Then, so does following the herd.

Ultimately, show me someone who's body is still operable (not in a coma) and I'll show you someone with an Ego.

What I would like to know is why there is this overwhelming urge/motivation to subjugate, kill, or otherwise malign the Ego? Am I the only person who has made friends/allies with it??

Edit: Spiritual teachers can be particularly insidious. It is assumed by one's adherents that one in such a position would not abuse it, either consciously or not. The problem is that teachers are still students (and not just in the "I learn from teaching you" sense) and are equally subject to peaks and plateaus in progress as anyone. To an unwary student, a teacher can unintentionally pass along the same failings and limitations that they subject themselves to, and in some cases both parties will perceive that the student (in emulating the teacher) is making progress.

Sammy
5th January 2014, 15:06
On one end of the spectrum, you have the adherents/pursuants who are either working at the same goals and not knowing it, or are working at cross purposes while alleging that they are seeking the same direction so to speak.

Maybe I am just lucky. I am 56 and have income from several sources (not a pile but enough that I do not stress how I will pay rent or buy food tomorrow).

The "thinking mind" tells me this is why I don't work at anything.

I live free, do whatever I do when I do it often without any thought.

I don't chop wood. I don't carry water. Wood gets chopped, water carried.

It seems that until one finds themselves "mindlessly aware" it would drive them mad to have to be in a world with clowns like me.

But something suggests that if one finally indeed goes "mad," the first big door has suddenly flown open.

Tony
5th January 2014, 15:19
Bad karma, good karma, all have to be exhausted, then one is clear.
No more madness;)

Shabd_Mystic
6th January 2014, 23:23
From an enlightened man (his Web site - http://www.shiningworld.com/top/) -





"I was not unaware of my ego and its arrogant tendencies. I would have suffered almost anything to rid myself of it once and for all, but that is not how it is. Ego is a superimposition on the Self, a false personality built up over lifetimes, a carefully constructed edifice of fear and desire designed to protect oneself from the aggressions and cruelties of the world. No spiritual dynamite can reduce it to rubble in a matter of seconds. And if it is reduced to rubble, it miraculously reconstitutes itself in seconds. Unlike an atrophied limb, it cannot be surgically removed but has to be patiently dismantled thought by thought over a long time."




~ James Swartz

DeDukshyn
6th January 2014, 23:42
Bad karma, good karma, all have to be exhausted, then one is clear.
No more madness;)

Indeed,

My view is, Karma is just the Universal balancer of action, that applies before unconditional Love is found and spread though our every thought, word and action. Once true unconditional Love is found, the actions that spring from that well are directly in line with the will of the Universe (God's will), therefore balancing becomes irrelevant at this point as it is not required. That said, what many people think "unconditional Love" actually is, isn't even close ;)

Shabd_Mystic
7th January 2014, 00:07
What I would like to know is why there is this overwhelming urge/motivation to subjugate, kill, or otherwise malign the Ego? Am I the only person who has made friends/allies with it??

I don't know about others but for me it is because permanently losing the ego is a major goal of the path I follow. When the ego is (permanently) killed you have reached a state of God realization and for the first time the mind becomes an ally, a tool. Before that happens the mind is our greatest foe (in myriad ways).

The path I follow has produced countless books over many years, but they rarely ever point directly to enlightenment. I just got a new book where they said this:

"Without the practice of meditation, our minds remain possessed by worldly passions and attachments, and our soul, deprived of its best potential ally-an enlightened mind-travels without support through the experience of being human in this most dangerous of planes."

~ From the book, "Living Meditation"
With almost all people, or paths, true "enlightenment" is the ultimate goal. Few ever know there's more to attain. The goal of the path I follow is to get beyond "mind" (some call it the "universal mind") where you are forever removed from the cycle of birth and death. Even those who reach the highest state of enlightenment will only achieve a long "vacation" in some higher level before their "good karma" is paid off and they have to return to endure the pain and suffering of numerous lifetimes.

But to get to the highest possible state you first need to attain full enlightenment (the killing of the ego). Any state you attain until you reach that highest level, no matter how wonderful, is really nothing as long as the ego lives. And unfortunately, the world is full of people who have attained a degree of enlightenment where their egos have been sublimated and they have no idea that their ego isn't yet dead.

That's why I try to point out that supposedly ego-less people have no "need" to come on message boards, blogs, Web sites or in books to tell everyone they are enlightened. Doing that is motivated by ego even though the mind will convince you that you are just being compassionate and "helping people." The "spiritual ego" is the worst and the toughest one to overcome.

Even those who do manage to attain full enlightenment will not be able to escape the wheel of karma and will one day have to be reborn. But there are tons of people who are convinced their ego is gone who are going to find that they blew any chance they had of attaining true enlightenment. But they will find out - after it's too late - that the mind's "job" (purpose) is to keep you locked into the cycle of birth and death and it's best if it can do that without first even having to allow you to escape "for a while."

It's no fun being able to see ego, believe me. It's much more comforting being deluded and thinking you have no ego. But it's actually a true blessing and is needed in order to be able to rid yourself of it.

.

Shezbeth
7th January 2014, 01:40
From an enlightened man (his Web site - http://www.shiningworld.com/top/)

:pound:

Thank you for making my point for me (and yours, and yours,...). I got a good laugh out of the 'correct' answers in his Enlightenment quiz too so double thanks.


I don't know about others but for me it is because permanently losing the ego is a major goal of the path I follow. [... Which] has produced countless books over many years

And you are welcome to your path and to further adopt your path's opinion/disposition, but writing books has nothing to do with authority*, in spite of (rather, corroborated by) any/all receiving the works positively.


The goal of the path I follow is to get beyond "mind" (some call it the "universal mind") where you are forever removed from the cycle of birth and death. Even those who reach the highest state of enlightenment will only achieve a long "vacation" in some higher level before their "good karma" is paid off and they have to return to endure the pain and suffering of numerous lifetimes.
[...] Even for those who do manage to attain full enlightenment will not be able to escape the wheel of karma and will one day have to be reborn.

:twitch:

So what you seem to be saying is, you really don't know but are convicted? Why didn't you say that in the first place? Much of this could have been avoided in that event!


That's why I try to point out that supposedly ego-less people have no "need" to come on message boards, blogs, Web sites or in books to tell everyone they are enlightened.

I agree, though that which is extant will extand regardless of what is or isn't said/expressed. Though, I rather think they would involve themselves in forums etc. depending on circumstances.

Would I be correct in observing that there just happens to be a correlation between:
- the proposed 'destination/emergence-point' of the path you are describing (ego-murder, etc.)
- the people you describe as being enlightened displaying the characteristics described by your path as enlightenment (i.e. the path says "this" is enlightenment and these people act "this" way, ipsofacto must be enlightened,... even their followers say so!)?

(Pay no mind to the gunpowder layering that question) :biggrin1:


It's no fun being able to see ego, believe me. It's much more comforting being deluded and thinking you have no ego. But it's actually a true blessing and is needed in order to be able to rid yourself of it.

I'll admit to having thought so once, but no longer. Rather, I find the opposite to be more apt.

* - When I refer to authority, I am referring to A. the creative propensity and B. the logistical/technical skill/knowledge from which one can be adequately perceived as an authority. A master plumber for example can be said to be an authority on many/all things plumbing, whereas a plumber's apprentice is authorized to work in the field of plumbing, but this is not universal. When I refer to masters and apprentices, I am referring to actual expression beyond titles and labels; There are 'masters' who really don't know what they are doing, and there are apprentices who know precisely. Authorization without authority is the route of the authoritarianism I am so oft on about.

REALLY looking forward to continuing this. ^_^

P.S. I haven't had this much fun in a long time, and I hope that any participants/observers are likewise enjoying. That is THE overall purpose of all this contesting after all (despite me coming off as such a richard).

Shabd_Mystic
8th January 2014, 14:45
From an enlightened man (his Web site - http://www.shiningworld.com/top/)

:pound:

Thank you for making my point for me (and yours, and yours,...). I got a good laugh out of the 'correct' answers in his Enlightenment quiz too so double thanks.


I don't know about others but for me it is because permanently losing the ego is a major goal of the path I follow. [... Which] has produced countless books over many years And you are welcome to your path and to further adopt your path's opinion/disposition, but writing books has nothing to do with authority*, in spite of (rather, corroborated by) any/all receiving the works positively.


The goal of the path I follow is to get beyond "mind" (some call it the "universal mind") where you are forever removed from the cycle of birth and death. Even those who reach the highest state of enlightenment will only achieve a long "vacation" in some higher level before their "good karma" is paid off and they have to return to endure the pain and suffering of numerous lifetimes.
[...] Even for those who do manage to attain full enlightenment will not be able to escape the wheel of karma and will one day have to be reborn. :twitch:

So what you seem to be saying is, you really don't know but are convicted? Why didn't you say that in the first place? Much of this could have been avoided in that event!


That's why I try to point out that supposedly ego-less people have no "need" to come on message boards, blogs, Web sites or in books to tell everyone they are enlightened. I agree, though that which is extant will extand regardless of what is or isn't said/expressed. Though, I rather think they would involve themselves in forums etc. depending on circumstances.

Would I be correct in observing that there just happens to be a correlation between:
- the proposed 'destination/emergence-point' of the path you are describing (ego-murder, etc.)
- the people you describe as being enlightened displaying the characteristics described by your path as enlightenment (i.e. the path says "this" is enlightenment and these people act "this" way, ipsofacto must be enlightened,... even their followers say so!)?

(Pay no mind to the gunpowder layering that question) :biggrin1:


It's no fun being able to see ego, believe me. It's much more comforting being deluded and thinking you have no ego. But it's actually a true blessing and is needed in order to be able to rid yourself of it. I'll admit to having thought so once, but no longer. Rather, I find the opposite to be more apt.

* - When I refer to authority, I am referring to A. the creative propensity and B. the logistical/technical skill/knowledge from which one can be adequately perceived as an authority. A master plumber for example can be said to be an authority on many/all things plumbing, whereas a plumber's apprentice is authorized to work in the field of plumbing, but this is not universal. When I refer to masters and apprentices, I am referring to actual expression beyond titles and labels; There are 'masters' who really don't know what they are doing, and there are apprentices who know precisely. Authorization without authority is the route of the authoritarianism I am so oft on about.

REALLY looking forward to continuing this. ^_^

P.S. I haven't had this much fun in a long time, and I hope that any participants/observers are likewise enjoying. That is THE overall purpose of all this contesting after all (despite me coming off as such a richard).


I'm pointing at the moon but all you see is my finger.

Shezbeth
11th January 2014, 17:32
I'm pointing at the moon but all you see is my finger.

You've got it all wrong. I see you, I see you pointing, I see your finger, I see the Moon, I see the theoretical other readers, and I see myself with a perplexed look wondering why you're pointing somewhere you've never been.

To wit, how can person A claim to person B that person C (random Guru #7) is enlightened without inferring that they - person A - are enlightened? Would not someone attempting to qualitatively make such claims need to possess a degree of authority on the matter?

Isn't that like saying "That person is enlightened. I'm certain because I'm enlightened."

It would be foolish in the least to assume that individuals like myself don't 'get' what is being said because they don't agree or continue to contest; Quite simply, what you are saying doesn't fly with me. You may be absolutely right but your method of conveyance does not belie such, even if it is the case.

Sammy
11th January 2014, 19:10
I'm pointing at the moon but all you see is my finger.

You've got it all wrong. I see you, I see you pointing, I see your finger, I see the Moon, I see the theoretical other readers, and I see myself with a perplexed look wondering why you're pointing somewhere you've never been.

To wit, how can person A claim to person B that person C (random Guru #7) is enlightened without inferring that they - person A - are enlightened? Would not someone attempting to qualitatively make such claims need to possess a degree of authority on the matter?

Isn't that like saying "That person is enlightened. I'm certain because I'm enlightened."

It would be foolish in the least to assume that individuals like myself don't 'get' what is being said because they don't agree or continue to contest; Quite simply, what you are saying doesn't fly with me. You may be absolutely right but your method of conveyance does not belie such, even if it is the case.

I remember when Chester lived in his mind. That guy would agree with your view 100%.

That guy dissolved.

I can imagine how difficult it must be to see that "moon" as long as identity (physically or conceptually at any level the mind can derive).

Chester was able to.

Shezbeth
12th January 2014, 01:36
Oh, Chester dissolved did he?

Whom am I speaking to now then?

Shabd_Mystic
12th January 2014, 05:02
I'm pointing at the moon but all you see is my finger.

You've got it all wrong. I see you, I see you pointing, I see your finger, I see the Moon, I see the theoretical other readers, and I see myself with a perplexed look wondering why you're pointing somewhere you've never been.

To wit, how can person A claim to person B that person C (random Guru #7) is enlightened without inferring that they - person A - are enlightened? Would not someone attempting to qualitatively make such claims need to possess a degree of authority on the matter?

Isn't that like saying "That person is enlightened. I'm certain because I'm enlightened."

It would be foolish in the least to assume that individuals like myself don't 'get' what is being said because they don't agree or continue to contest; Quite simply, what you are saying doesn't fly with me. You may be absolutely right but your method of conveyance does not belie such, even if it is the case.

You prove my point ...

greybeard
12th January 2014, 07:20
One of the first books on spirituality I read quoting an Indian sage said " I am the totality, all of it"
I didnt get it.
Many years later I read "We are form, formless, both and neither"
I kinda get that.
It explains the paradox of persona remaining and interacting with the world yet not "being" an individual person.
At a mind level we could discuss thus forever but seemingly when one" has this state" (there is no individual left to claim any state) its undeniable and much more real than the unenlightened state.
Unenlightened just means ignorance of our true nature.

Chris

Tony
12th January 2014, 07:48
As long as we are still talking about me, there is a ego present.
Ego is consciousness clinging to an self identity.

However saying that, to dissolve this illusory image we must first
identify it! "There I go again!"

There is a difference between "I know" and "knowingness".

When essence rests within itself - no "I" can be present.
Any feeling of "I am present" is immediate dualism. A separation.

However, to function as a human being, we need a "mere I" - a little ego - which can say "I am".
When we do this, we move into time. In essence, there is no time.



Tony

greybeard
12th January 2014, 07:55
The ego is not the enemy it was necessary for survival-- however humans are an evolutionary species and it would seem we are moving to a point where the ego is becoming progressively redundant.

Chris

Shabd_Mystic
12th January 2014, 12:01
As long as we are still talking about me, there is a ego present.
Ego is consciousness clinging to an self identity.

The term "ego" is thrown around here a lot and there is a lot of confusion as to what it means in terms of mysticism. Most people think of ego in psychological terms and they are right when they say we need an ego in order to live.

But that isn't the same ego that is talked about when discussing ego "mystically." It isn't a "sense of self" as so many people try to define it when claiming to have lost their ego.

I read something the other day that does a great job of explaining the difference and it is available online as a 10-page PDF here:

Nitin Trasi, M.D. - What Is Enlightenment (http://www.nickroach.co.uk/NT/What%20is%20Enlightenment.exp.pdf)

The "sense of self" is a much different thing than the ego that needs a boost from coming on a message board to let everyone know how "special" they are because they are now enlightened. Or the ego that makes them write books or articles or blogs declaring their "specialness."

It's when THAT ego vanishes that one is truly enlightened. Until then they are merely "awakened." Examples of that are people such as Osho or Adi Da. I like to call them "ego-less egomaniacs." They lost their "sense of self" but lived in devotion to their self.

You won't ever see a truly enlightened person on here. They would have no interest in it. When ego is gone there is no desire for recognition. Until then chest pounding can also assume fairly humble-looking forms, but it is chest pounding none-the-less.

Tony
12th January 2014, 12:05
When talking about spiritual matters, we cannot really speak about absolute.
Absolute is beyond talking. It can only be experienced.

In the relative existence in which we dwell, our path is that which clarifies our own confusion.
On some points we can agree (more or less), and on others our understanding
may be different. This is natural.

At the stage of philosophy, we can discuss, but on a practical level we choose what
works for us.

At some point we have to give up the idea of 'Oneness' and arrive at 'Zero-ness'.
Only then will we genuinely agree. Realising 'Zero-ness' we can still function
through a “mere I” - we just don't need to obsess.

Ego is clinging to an idea of self.


Tony

AlaBil
12th January 2014, 14:04
As long as we are still talking about me, there is a ego present.
Ego is consciousness clinging to an self identity.

The term "ego" is thrown around here a lot and there is a lot of confusion as to what it means in terms of mysticism. Most people think of ego in psychological terms and they are right when they say we need an ego in order to live.

But that isn't the same ego that is talked about when discussing ego "mystically." It isn't a "sense of self" as so many people try to define it when claiming to have lost their ego.

I read something the other day that does a great job of explaining the difference and it is available online as a 10-page PDF here:

Nitin Trasi, M.D. - What Is Enlightenment (http://www.nickroach.co.uk/NT/What%20is%20Enlightenment.exp.pdf)

The "sense of self" is a much different thing than the ego that needs a boost from coming on a message board to let everyone know how "special" they are because they are now enlightened. Or the ego that makes them write books or articles or blogs declaring their "specialness."

It's when THAT ego vanishes that one is truly enlightened. Until then they are merely "awakened." Examples of that are people such as Osho or Adi Da. I like to call them "ego-less egomaniacs." They lost their "sense of self" but lived in devotion to their self.

You won't ever see a truly enlightened person on here. They would have no interest in it. When ego is gone there is no desire for recognition. Until then chest pounding can also assume fairly humble-looking forms, but it is chest pounding none-the-less.

Shabd_Mystic... That is an absolutely great article! The author has authored a complete book on this,The Science of Enlightment, which can be ordered from amazon here... http://www.amazon.com/SCIENCE-ENLIGHTENMENT-Nitin-Trasi/dp/8124601305/ref=sr_1_4?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1389534151&sr=1-4&keywords=The+Science+Of+Enlightenment Only 6 reviews but all 5 star.

Thanks for bringing this guy to my attention.

Shabd_Mystic
12th January 2014, 18:31
[QUOTE=Shabd_Mystic;783464]
Shabd_Mystic... That is an absolutely great article! The author has authored a complete book on this,The Science of Enlightment, which can be ordered from amazon here... http://www.amazon.com/SCIENCE-ENLIGHTENMENT-Nitin-Trasi/dp/8124601305/ref=sr_1_4?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1389534151&sr=1-4&keywords=The+Science+Of+Enlightenment Only 6 reviews but all 5 star.

Thanks for bringing this guy to my attention.

That really was a good one. I've read more than 50 books and papers about enlightenment and that was the most informative so far. I knew about him writing a book but had yet to check it out. Thanks for the link!

Sammy
12th January 2014, 18:32
Oh, Chester dissolved did he?

Whom am I speaking to now then?

"Whom" is involved in an exchange?

You may see me as one of the "who" whereas my view is that "Chester" is simply an instrument through which the Self expresses (as I also see the human being, Shezbeth to actually be).

As well, there are various instruments involved when viewed from the level of the matrix. "Chester, the human being" is one of those components. And then there is the Ineffable which some refer to as the Self. It is that which is behind the exchange... but again understand my response comes from within maya (from the point of view generated from within), which is made of illusory form.

The Self "gnows" this (gnosis is not "knowing" through some mind... it is an abiding).

Realize the Self, and then the debate will dissolve as well as the individual identities of those perceived as separate debaters... the addiction to anything of form, whether it be of what is called physical form or whether it be conceptual forms within the limited, constantly comparing mind... one finds those "things" dissolve.

One then find their instrument (the body/mind) - as "Chester" has done - "engaging within the illusion yet experiencing that engagement no differently than reading a novel or watching some movie...

...its all just a movie."

EDIT: As I finished this, on came an advertisement (during this SF/Carolina playoff game) for something called IpadAir. In the ad they state this is all a play, all a drama, yet... in true top notch marketing form, they then state its all about the individual's "identity" within the drama.

When are we going to see this? Simple misdirection. Get the masses to focus upon and value the silliest aspect of the illusion - something that constantly changes, something that you can never take with you... all an addiction of the individual mind and no wonder we all (well... almost all) find ourselves divided and conquered? Hahaha

Shezbeth
12th January 2014, 19:44
You won't ever see a truly enlightened person on here. They would have no interest in it. When ego is gone there is no desire for recognition. Until then chest pounding can also assume fairly humble-looking forms, but it is chest pounding none-the-less.

You are welcome to this opinion. Is the sole purpose of Avalon (et al.) to chest-pound and ego-gratify?


"Chester, the human being" is one of those components. And then there is the Ineffable which some refer to as the Self. It is that which is behind the exchange... but again understand my response comes from within maya (from the point of view generated from within), which is made of illusory form.

So if Chester the human is one of the components, it seems that to say he has dissolved is a misnomer. Does a car dissolve when the driver is not fixated on it? The driver is behind the exchange,....


Realize the Self, and then the debate will dissolve as well as the individual identities of those perceived as separate debaters... the addiction to anything of form, whether it be of what is called physical form or whether it be conceptual forms within the limited, constantly comparing mind... one finds those "things" dissolve.

Again with inferences. It seems you are assuming - despite my caveat - that because I continue to contest or express myself from a different standpoint that I am/have in some way neglecting/ed the realization/perception of the self.

This suggests to me that Chester thinks he grasps the purpose of this exchange (my contention), but is neglecting to recognize the effects that are brought about by it. :ohwell:

I have said before and I will say again. There are stages of development that occur beyond the point of emergence referred to as Enlightenment.

When individuals run on a track, it is assumed that the person in front is leading. The careful observer however will have the opportunity to recognize that the person in front is about to be lapped.


"...its all just a movie."

I rather think of it as the most fantastic video game given the dynamics, but I don't disagree,....


during this SF/Carolina playoff game

You claim your ego has dissolved,... but you're watching football? Just sayin',.... :tongue1:

Sammy
12th January 2014, 20:59
It appears until one "gets" the paradox... which one then can see which of the two is real and which is illusory, then one is stuck in the illusory and only sees that as real. Been there - not fun...

¤=[Post Update]=¤



You claim your ego has dissolved,... but you're watching football? Just sayin',.... :tongue1:

Football is being watched... again - you get it or...

greybeard
12th January 2014, 21:38
I remember reading Dr David Hawkins saying that ---something is happening then the ego claims authorship.
"The thought "I am the doer" is the biggest obstacle" Ramesh Balsekar quote.
According to the late Dr Hawkins everything is expressing its own potential,--- perfection --moment by moment.
There is no cause and affect as such.
The marigold seed is the perfect marigold seed it may become a flower but whatever happens its perfect.
It is true that it needs suitable environment to thrive but the environment does no cause the seed to sprout.
Action can happen without the ego being involved.
Chester can be aware that the football game is being watched.
Watching football may be a preference--that continues--but there is no self identification regarding the result--its not "MY team"
There may be a preference that a team wins.
The wheel of persona does not stop just like that.

However after enlightenment there is often a period where it matures, some can no longer function as they did before, Dr Hawkins had to leave his practise and spent years virtually in solitude on his own-- most of the time in Sat Chi Ananda--- deep bliss.

One can get a Phd doing a dissertation on an orange without ever having tasted one.

Chris

Shabd_Mystic
12th January 2014, 21:53
It appears until one "gets" the paradox... which one then can see which of the two is real and which is illusory, then one is stuck in the illusory and only sees that as real. Been there - not fun...

¤=[Post Update]=¤



You claim your ego has dissolved,... but you're watching football? Just sayin',.... :tongue1:

Football is being watched... again - you get it or...

Couldn't have said it better myself, lol. I'm not sure where watching football has anything to do with ego if you just happen to like a team or be from that area, though I myself have never made any statements about my own ego so I know that wasn't directed at me. A father who has no ego will still watch his son play football.

I do know that ego used to play a big role in my "fandom" as I, like many do, was greatly affected by wins and losses, but now I can watch a "big" game and be unaffected by a loss, though I still prefer a win in the playoffs (life-long Patriots fan) because it means I'll have something to watch next week. :o

Shezbeth
13th January 2014, 00:36
So am I to assume that the ego has been suppressed and it is the self that is seeking entertainment?

I can say "I am not the doer" for any of the things 'my body' does, and it may seem true to my subjective perspective. Ask my spouse who is doing them though and the answer will likewise be true, yet totally different. IMO it is abject foolishness to maintain this "I am not the doer" disposition, though any/all are welcome to disagree and entertain it and themselves with it. It is important, crucial even to recognize and be aware of one's inherent nature if one seeks to further develop one's self. However, to attempt to maintain that anything has changed beyond the individual's understanding (i.e. in the mind) is base nonsense.

Still, I appreciate the admission that there is a paradox, because such go hand in hand with hypocrisy.

Shabd_Mystic
13th January 2014, 03:33
So am I to assume that the ego has been suppressed and it is the self that is seeking entertainment?

You seem pretty obsessed with this. What I can tell you for certain is that it is the ego that is obsessed with being "right" and trying to appear smarter than everyone else.

JohnEAngel
13th January 2014, 04:29
The Dharma does not recognize an ego but it does recognize attachments. the mind creates attachments. these attachments result in anger, craving, jealousy and ultimately suffering. we must practice and apply the teaching to free ourselves from samsara, the impure cycle of rebirth.

Shezbeth
14th January 2014, 01:18
You seem pretty obsessed with this. What I can tell you for certain is that it is the ego that is obsessed with being "right" and trying to appear smarter than everyone else.

I would seem more relenting if individuals would cease dodging my questions with condescent. I never claimed to have subjugated/killed/dissolved/etc. my ego, rather I am quite fond of it. This is the thread for it, in a manner of speaking,....

Besides, there is a greater purpose to my/your/everyone's ego that I've yet to see expressed. Soon though. ^_~

Tony
14th January 2014, 07:59
“Know thy self”...both of them!

There are two aspect to all of us, relative and absolute.
Our absolute being is our true nature.
Our relative being obscures the recognition of our absolute nature.

Our absolute nature never changes. But what of the relative side? Our relative side,
although obscuring our true nature, is our vehicle for recognising our absolute nature.
All that is needed is to recognise this relative nature - this 'self in the mirror'.

Most of the time our relative nature manifests as self-interest. However, it also has
qualities that can serve as a reminder of the true nature of the relative, and it will be
of benefit to others, especially when the absolute nature is recognised.
Although this relative nature has no true existence, its reaction brightens the mind in
its own unique way.

We do not have to act spiritual.
We can still be ourselves,
manifesting compassion.

Without compassion we are apathetic, and not empathetic. The statement “Know thy self”
has two aspects: to know our absolute nature, and to know our relative nature. In knowing
our relative nature we can be happy with who we are, and how we are. We are not trying to
be like someone else...or better! That would merely exchange one relative state for another.

As long as we just accept how we are and not remain addicted to this relative 'dust in the mirror',
the relative is workable. Our lot in life may be high or low, eventful or plain, educated or uneducated
- but we can still “Know thy self”...both of them!

We all have unique qualities,
expressing the nature of mind.
The path to enlightenment
is knowing and letting be.


PS. Sometimes we have to live with traumas from our past, and even from childhood.
So although we may understand the Dharma and be compassionate, feelings still arise,
but we don't act on them.

I was once at a meeting with beginners. Even though I knew some Dharma,
the beginners were nicer people than me.





Tony

greybeard
14th January 2014, 08:10
You seem pretty obsessed with this. What I can tell you for certain is that it is the ego that is obsessed with being "right" and trying to appear smarter than everyone else.

I would seem more relenting if individuals would cease dodging my questions with condescent. I never claimed to have subjugated/killed/dissolved/etc. my ego, rather I am quite fond of it. This is the thread for it, in a manner of speaking,....

Besides, there is a greater purpose to my/your/everyone's ego that I've yet to see expressed. Soon though. ^_~

Depends how you define ego Shezbeth.
Anyway your signature is a finger pointing--like a zen koen --and is true.

Chris

Shezbeth
14th January 2014, 22:21
In all honesty I am not certain that the ego can be defined. The threshold of what constitutes an ego seem to vary from person to person with limited consistency. In this case, when I refer to ego I am referring to the individuated personality with it's non-essential (life-supporting) elements. The self does not want.

I could argue for example, that my own fascination with eloquence, ninjas, philosophy, etc. are empowering and enable a general exaltation of my existence, as it is a means by which I can surpass previous limitations. This would be true in a sense, but I am also aware that it is an artificial preconception and intellectual construct and is as much a obstacle as it is a boon. I agree that an unchecked ego can be and mostly is a non-conducive phenomenon, but so too (IMO) is an ego that isn't given any latitude. Passion, for example, is a derivate of the ego, and while I wouldn't find/suggest quality in a person yielding entirely to their passion, neither would I find/suggest quality in one who restrains them/it entirely.

The underlying joke is that there is really no difference (aside from perception) between an ego that has been dissolved or restrained and an ego which has been "made friends/allies" with, as the ego no longer 'does' or is allowed to negatively impact a person's experience.

Simply put then, when I refer to the ego I am referring to the inherent artifice of the individual. Artificial does not necessarily mean something is not useful, and the usefulness of something is more dependent on the individual and their ability/want to find a purpose/use for something than on a thing's inherent usefulness and/or intended purpose.

The point I have been driving at is that there is always another way of perceiving things and that no perception is more true or correct than another. What matters is the effect it has on the individual perceiving. Additionally, there is no greater test of knowledge, perception, understanding, and the ability to convey such than the contest or challenge. I perceive that (with a few exceptions) that which is unchallenged is likewise unrefined, while that which has been challenged, tested, and is otherwise victorious (in a sense) through difficulty and conflict is more solid and possessing of veritas. Moreover, a lack of contest leads almost inexorably to stagnation and authoritarianism.

Again, I am not indicating that what I say is universal or uncontestable, I am indicating that all things are, though depending on the subject there are more and less consistent results of the contest.

Besides, my ego likes to intellectually scrap in certain circumstances. I could - if I were want - be rid of this behavioral penchant, but freely recognize that I would only be replacing one with another. Besides, I find quality and enjoyment in the exercise, and recognize/observe additional causes and effects that are generally non-injurious and largely beneficial to myself and others.

In regards to the self, I find that I have experienced that which could reasonably be called the self, but that to give name/description is barely an allusion as (what I perceive as) the self is beyond comparison, definition, or description. As such, I find want to contest any attempt to describe/compare/define as it can be misleading and/or trend toward dogmatism. There area many 'directions' from which one can 'approach' the self, and the method I have come to is one not often (ever?) proposed.

Paraphrasing Bo Burnham - "The self is incomparable, like a,...."

I rail against Mooji and other gurus - who I will admit to having spent a lengthy time following the work of - as beyond a certain threshold they can become redundant and limiting. The purpose of their actions is to teach a person to teach themselves, and that a truly unlimited perspective is one that is increasingly expanding and/or exposing it's self. I recognize that any following he or others may have is a result of their iconification by others, not necessarily from any intent/desire/agenda they may have.

I think that about sums it up. Tony put it well - not exhaustively nor cursorily - with his latest and I am confident that my contribution has been, if not appreciated then certainly comprehended.

greybeard
14th January 2014, 23:18
Well put Shezbezh and yes I appreciate your contribution.
Chris

Sammy
15th January 2014, 05:21
You seem pretty obsessed with this. What I can tell you for certain is that it is the ego that is obsessed with being "right" and trying to appear smarter than everyone else.

I would seem more relenting if individuals would cease dodging my questions with condescent. I never claimed to have subjugated/killed/dissolved/etc. my ego, rather I am quite fond of it. This is the thread for it, in a manner of speaking,....

Besides, there is a greater purpose to my/your/everyone's ego that I've yet to see expressed. Soon though. ^_~

I am happy as to your fondness of your ego. If Chester had never ending income, a rotating harem and a Lear jet that I could fly all over the world only living in the worlds finest hotels, odds are it may be harder to recognize how my ego leads me to suffering. Strangely though, I know the man whom I have just described and guess what else? He is one of the coolest folks I ever knew and I have never seen his ego erupt in a manner that caused him suffering. Could it be he transcended that little bugger?

At times your questions have implied a point of view that maintains assumptions I don't share, so its impossible for me to respond other than attempting to point to the ineffable.

Chester remembers when Chester made the same arguments as you have but Chester was fortunate that he hit rock bottom. Unwilling to return to the lies that previously propped Chester up... Chester let go, Chester surrendered.

I saw all attachments as the same, none any bigger or smaller than another as an attachment is an attachment. I saw the attachments were like clothing to my "identity" or what is also known as the individual self.

In large part to the emptiness generated through this surrender, Life emerged. The Universe began to communicate through incredible synchronicities with that meless me. These were observed and considered by my individual mind, yes... "I" was still here, still embodied, still some strange dynamic but that individual that had to make it big in this world, had to make my mark, had to make a name for myself, had to leave a lasting legacy... that guy was gone and so far, still gone.

And the Universe is one eternal Living Being of which I as well as us all, Shezbeth too, greybeard too, tim too, Tony too, Shabd_mystic too and on and on and on with the birds and trees and wind and planets and stars and the physical space between them and the immeasurable, unbound to time and space link we can only with words point to is all this amazing, Living Being.

Regardless of whether you believe these words, if I was told today I had 2 months to live (although that would be pretty hard to happen as I don't do doctors) I would feel the same bliss I feel at this very moment, why? Because it is a physical body that is changing to a state where Life no longer resides but as long as there is Life, I am alive.

I make the odds that high that life is eternal and I bet on Life. If I am wrong, what have I lost? But if Life is eternal, and I don't bet on it... what a waste of time my existence becomes.

Sammy
15th January 2014, 05:30
You seem pretty obsessed with this. What I can tell you for certain is that it is the ego that is obsessed with being "right" and trying to appear smarter than everyone else.

I would seem more relenting if individuals would cease dodging my questions with condescent. I never claimed to have subjugated/killed/dissolved/etc. my ego, rather I am quite fond of it. This is the thread for it, in a manner of speaking,....

Besides, there is a greater purpose to my/your/everyone's ego that I've yet to see expressed. Soon though. ^_~

Depends how you define ego Shezbeth.
Anyway your signature is a finger pointing--like a zen koen --and is true.

Chris

Was exactly my thought as to Shezbeth's signature which was why I immediately said, YES! another who gets it!

Funny too that I see everyone at some level "get's it" (and it would seem they have to to at least a tiny % or would we experience them?) but then sometimes they express fighting it...

Where do I put myself on the lovely relative scale of getting it? Closer to 100% but not 100%... I would say Turiya mostly these days even though there are times it seems Turiyatita and then... I notice the ego arise (the ego has arisen for this portion of this post to be written... undeniably), I notice an attachment has me a teensie tinsee bit twisted... but there is definitely no going back.

No Way.

EDIT: - I just wrote this and then went up to read the next post which was #93.

What a great post, Shezbeth... Thank you very much.

Strange how we all got a little twisted... and why I walked away for some days as I saw an attachment to wanting to "be right" emerging and its never worth it anymore...

"No perception is truer than another." agree, agree agree...

Shabd_Mystic
15th January 2014, 22:57
"There are even warnings about the traps of enlightenment within esoteric literature, where it is said that no one who has had truly enlightening experiences ever claims to be enlightened."

~ From "The Guru Papers: Masks of Authoritarian Power"

Shezbeth
16th January 2014, 01:54
"There are even warnings about the traps of enlightenment within esoteric literature, where it is said that no one who has had truly enlightening experiences ever claims to be enlightened."

~ From "The Guru Papers: Masks of Authoritarian Power"

!!!!!!!!!!!!

One of the greatest books of all time IMO. ^_^

Tony
19th January 2014, 09:45
The six realms.

In Tibetan Buddhism there are six psychological profiles of sentient beings. Because of our karma (our propensities),
we drift - or are driven - into these states throughout the day. Our whole lives may be dominated by one or other o
f these realms. It is said that there 84,000 types of disorders, but they may be broken down into these
six disturbing emotions: hatred, aversion, ignorance, desire, jealousy and pride.

This is part of the Chenrezi puja (a prayer to the lord of compassion) wishing all sentient beings to be reborn into higher psychological realms.

From the power of bad karma accumulated from beginningless time, beings experience, as a result of the force of hatred, the suffering of hot and cold by being born into a (psychological) hell realm.

From the power of bad karma accumulated from beginningless time, beings experience, as a result of the force of miserliness, the suffering of hunger and thirst by being born into a (psychological) hungry ghost realm.

From the power of bad karma accumulated from beginningless time, beings experience, as a result of the force of ignorance, the suffering of stupidity by being born into a (psychological) animal realm.

From the power of bad karma accumulated from beginningless time, beings experience, as a result of the force of desire, the suffering of excessive activity and frustration by being born into a (psychological) human realm.

From the power of bad karma accumulated from beginningless time, beings experience, as a result of the force of jealousy, the suffering of dispute and quarrelling by being born a (psychological) jealous god realm.

From the power of bad karma accumulated from beginningless time, beings experience, as a result of the force of pride, the suffering of decline and fall by being born into a (psychological) god realm.



The god realm of pride is obviously the enlightened ego: we claim everything to ourself.
In time, we will find ourself back in the other realms, as nothing lasts!


Tony

Tony
19th January 2014, 09:53
SORTING YOURSELF OUT


There six psychological neurotic realms that we live in as sentient being.
During a day we may pass in and out of them without noticing.
We may also find that we get stuck in one for a lifetime.

Let’s use ‘acquiring knowledge’ as an example. This may reveal what type of person we are.

Hell realms: It’s never right

Hungry ghosts: Want it desperately but cannot digest it.

Animal realm: They acquire it and store it, but never look at it.

Human realm: They indulge in it, but get frustrated because it never quite satisfies.

Jealous gods: They collect it and use it as a weapon.

Gods: They have knowledge and enjoy it, but cannot keep it.





Not to worry, as always there are the opposite qualities:



God/Animal.. =ignorance…= all encompassing space

Hell…………….=anger……….= mirror-like wisdom

Hungry ghost.= pride………= wisdom of equanimity

Human………..= passion…..=discriminating wisdom

Jealous god….=envy……….=all accomplish wisdom



The point is if we can identify someone’s patterning, we can understand where they are coming from…and why,
you cannot get on! So sometimes, silence is golden!






Tony

Tony
22nd January 2014, 17:31
THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS AN EGO


I’ve always had a real tussle with this, mainly because I thought that if Awareness is present,
I assumed that ego is as well. Well it is…and it isn’t!

Ego is Awareness without Emptiness/pure empty essence/uncontaminated being.

Awareness on its own clings, grasps, and holds onto an idea of every thing being real and solid…
this is called “ego clinging”. Empty Essence is knowing the true nature of everything as being
an illusional reality. There is no thing called ego: it is a made up expression which has become
a thing in people’s minds.

Awareness – when forgetting Empty essence – goes straight to perception (this not pure perception)
in the mind, and then into its usual routine of naming and judging…and sticking to that!

It is the sticking to judgements that turns Awareness into what is called Ego.
Ego just does not… NOT… exist. Awareness has merely dimmed and held on to something!
When Awareness is united with the Empty Essence, Awareness is bright and lucid…this is pure perception.

So when people say, “I need my ego to function!” this is ludicrous and limited.
It does make one wonder how this idea of ego came about! Was it just to make people feel guilty,
and therefore control them? Hmm…? We can see that getting people to identify with an idea,
makes them both prisoner and prison officer.

However, being relative creatures we still have preferences – likes and dislikes.
I like grilled tomatoes on toast, but do not care for caviar (true, I have very little sophistication!)
We have a body and have to care for it, and maybe because of our upbringing, we have cultural preferences.
The body quite often tells us what it needs. If we do not obsess on this, there is no clinging…no ‘ego’ clinging!

Not obsessing is due to a feeling of spaciousness, of carefreeness, of Empty Essence being present.
We all get glimpses of this freedom, when we are not bothered one way or another,
and we are happy to fall in with others’ wishes. The preferences of others have no effect on us.

“The meek shall inherit the earth” is not saying the weak shall inherit the earth.
As spiritual warriors, the strong serve the weak: the weak are those who do not know their true nature.

Until we are Enlightened, there will always be some sense of an “I”, but we can have a mere “i”.
As we proceed, we develop a feeling of one taste.
Flowers smell, manure smells – it is all just smell…then we make a decision about that smell!
Getting obsessed about flowers or manure may obscure the function of creation.


Tony

Shezbeth
23rd January 2014, 19:05
As always, you are welcome to your opinion, as I am welcome to disagree. Also as always, what follows is NOT a statement of fact, it is a statement of perception and possibility including a working hypothesis that is consistent with personal experience and evidence.

I agree that negative or non-conducive manifestations of ego are rooted in attachment, but I find the statement that ego is a result of - or has anything to do with - awareness to be unsupportable and quite contestable.

The ego - IME - operates and originates in the mind. It is the program that keeps emotional records of past experiences - positive and negative - and is primarily intent on maintaining/perpetuating/repeating the experiences which the emotions experience as positive and preventing/circumventing/ceasing the experiences which the emotions experience as negative.

The awareness on the other hand lacks the capacity for attachment. It has no memory, no 'tally of experiences' nor the means to develop either. There isn't even a past or future to the awareness, only the now; How can something be judged without a frame/point of reference? Naming and judging are likewise properties of the mind as it involves reason and the capacity/want to compare and contrast. The awareness is not concerned with comparing or contrasting, nor even concernable with any such process.

Likes, dislikes, preference, these are all the results of a mind that is weighing/measuring past experience toward attempted influence of future stimuli.

I've never interacted with anyone who claims to need their ego to function, but neither have I met anyone who was without an ego (Oh they try ever so hard to make it appear so though!). I won't discount the possibility of someone being without an ego, but I will observe the inverse probability.


THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS AN EGO [...] I’ve always had a real tussle with this

This statement seems to attempt to validate the general thesis but without addressing it, inferring that since one had difficulty with an/the idea and one does not now have difficulty with the idea that the idea is correct.

Such is both a logical fallacy, and a rhetorical device. Specifically, it implies comprehensive analysis which one has 'completed' and from which the 'correct' perception has resulted; Contests to this perception are implied as stemming from incomplete analysis.

Tony
24th January 2014, 08:08
The difficulty of meeting of minds.

This is best done in silence!:o

Words are not the experience. When we use words we have to use a little ego to communicate.
An ego (awareness clinging to concepts) will be around until the moment of enlightenment.

Spiritual communication is a tricky business - especially on forums: it's like living in the Asura realms!
We use language differently due to our understanding and backgrounds.
Unless we are on the same path we have to generalise ...and even then it is tricky!
Even when on retreat, people still argue about the word emptiness.

For some, the use of the terms 'consciousness', 'perception' and 'awareness' are seen as absolutes.
Others see these words as still being in a relative state, unless the word 'pure' is put in front of them ("pure" in the sense of uncontaminated emptiness, which comes from the word Shunyata in Sanskrit meaning emptiness).

From the tradition I follow. the word 'awareness' is a relative state. Emptiness would be the absolute non-state.

They are seen as a unity - the two truths in union - as in empty essence and cognisant nature.
Arising from this unity is unconfined compassion.

That compassion is the meeting of minds!


Tony

Shezbeth
24th January 2014, 20:05
Little ego, big ego, enlightenment, empty essence, words in Sanskrit, general dispositions and decided traditions,....

All are preferences; From the ego.

IMO.

greybeard
24th January 2014, 21:00
Little ego, big ego, enlightenment, empty essence, words in Sanskrit, general dispositions and decided traditions,....

All are preferences; From the ego.

IMO.

Yes that's so.
However the ego, being acquisitional, thinks it is going to get some thing, be special, be an enlightened ego.
Its signing its own death warrant you could say.
The outer guru pushes the inner guru pulls.
One teacher said--Your destiny is pulling you otherwise why would you go to satsang or read the books?
The bottom line is that you are complete, perfect, eternal---its just a case of discovering That which has always been (Awareness)
Regardless of the tools that one "prefers" to use. Some work/study action has to take place, even if ultimately it is not a me that is the doer.
Spirituality is full of paradox--- something can be untrue but works.
That can be down to a strong personal belief which over rides untruth or some technique which would not work without devotion.

Chris