Enlightenment: The Ego, what is it? How to transcend it.

[greybeard]

We are all one is a misnomer.
There is no we.
No subject no object.
One without a second is a very clear definition.
New age has no deep understanding of non-duality--nor enlightenment.
There is no individual left to claim self realization.
We came from One and return.
ACIM says
"There .is no place, no state where God is absent.
There is nothing to be feared"
No need to be concerned about labels, language pointing, to that which can not be described.

Chris

[greybeard]

An easier way of looking at it is we are all of one material--one consciousness--its in the video I recommended.
Chris

[onawah]

"Spiritual Materialism" is a term coined by the late Chogyam Trungpa Rinpoche, which I think is descriptive of what typically happens to people when they become very serious about their spiritual path.
(Being very serious about it is probably the first sign you have misstepped, imho.)
It's like we become collectors of spiritual teachings and experiences which we think validate our understanding and spiritual genuineness.

So what to do when in a discussion about spirituality without just adding more to the "collection"?
We can try showing how spiritual materialism is actually leading us further astray.
This is a pretty good article which describes how that works:

From: https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/b...al-materialism

"A reader asked me to expand on the notion of spiritual materialism.

Spiritual materialism is a phrase originally coined by Chogyam Trungpa Rinpoche that he used to describe the grasping after material accomplishment within the context of spiritual pursuit. His characterization is not novel; rather, it echoes a sentiment that has been addressed by spiritual teachers and the wisdom teachings for centuries.

One of the shortcomings of modern psychology, in its migration from a study of the spirit to a pseudoscientific study of the mind (1, 2), is that it focuses on the development of identity, as well as the self as an object. Even Carl Jung -- the mystic, where Freud was the scientist, Adler the humanist, and James the philosopher -- spoke of individuation as a key component of human development; a notion that demands that the "I" be regarded as a thing. This perspective is also evident even when discussing such highflown ideas as self-actualization, which, at its core, is simply a material characterization of Self-realization and/or God-realization.

Ego is what defines our roles in the material world; we are a mother, a daughter, a brother -- rich man, poor man, beggar man, thief. By defining our roles in the conscious realm, the ego is hell-bent on drawing us off our sense of the Self within the superconscious realm. The more we identify ourselves with the "I", the less we are able to identify with the Witness.

The Witness, the Dweller, Thoughts without a Thinker, the One Mind --- these are all descriptors for this superconscious state, that state which keeps us connected to the higher Self and, in this way, to our spiritual experience of whatever it is that we define as God. If we are atheistic, and do not believe in God as such, then we can consider this a description of our connection to our higher humanity, which includes our moral compass, our personal and social ethos and our altruistic investment in community.

The ego dwells in the material realm, the conscious realm. In doing so it identifies with the objects, items, relationships, trials, tribulations and triumphs of the material world. The more we are invested in This, the less we are invested in That. Here's the dilemma -- This Is That.

Spiritual materialism is that process by which the ego grasps at the accomplishments and progress of the self upon the spiritual path; an act by which its very nature denies the Self. As soon as you claim it, it is no longer yours. I had a conversation with a friend the other day who asked me,

"When you're meditating, do you ever just stop thinking?"

My initial response was, "No, we can never stop thinking."

She replied by saying, "I mean those moments when it all just stops --- that it's all just empty -- have you ever had that happen?"

And I replied, "I misspoke. Yes, those moments do happen, and that is satori or samadhi or nirvana...and that is an experience of the enlightened state."

She then said, "I get so excited when that happens."

And I responded, "Ego."

My point was not to "one down" or denigrate her taste of satori or samadhi in those moments, but rather to point out that, while this is a clear milestone toward a state of enlightenment, if you own it you lose it.

The whole conversation of material spiritualism very much hinges on what is written in the first line of the Tao Te Ch'ing --- "the Tao is that which is Nameless..." or "the Tao is that which cannot be named...". Enlightenment is like a wisp of smoke. Spiritual materialism is the ego trying to clutch at that smoke.

As soon as we cast something into a role, as soon as we put a label on it, as soon as we name it and give it life by virtue of our investment (read: ego), we take away all its power and it is nothing more than an event -- it is no longer a spiritual revelation, but simply a material experience. That is spiritual materialism at its peak."

© 2008 Michael J. Formica, All Rights Reserved

Zen eliminates those steps that actually lead away from the goal (although of course, having a goal is also actually antithetical ), such as when in the year 866, Master Linji Yixuan said "If you meet the Buddha, kill him."

https://www.thoughtco.com/kill-the-buddha-449940

What you have to ask yourself is: "Do I want to have the mastery of Yixuan, or do I want to be a collector of teachings and experiences?

[greybeard]

This thread has had over 865.000 visits.
Quite a few times I have tried to stop posting, lets face it after all these years--intellectually I get it and its very simple.

So the reason I continue is "seva" the videos are posted as a resource for busy interested people who dont have the
time to look for these kind of talks.

Most of the videos are saying the same thing in different ways.
You are "That."
Techniques, including meditation, if done looking for a result will lead one further away from the Truth.
Done out of love is different.
Jesus said "Be still and know that I am God"

Some speak of the pathless path.

The talks contain the energy of the enlightened so are uplifting for those who visit.
Many point out the futility of searching---you are already "That" which you look for.
The recommended tools are "Self inquiry" and discarding all that is not "Self" Neity Neity.
Not this Not This.

The Edgar Case talks speak of many interesting things but point out-- literally--"Love they neighbour as thyself"
When people annoy or frustrate you its an aspect of yourself, that is reacting to an element within you.
Those that get you to look at this aspect are your friends.

However your true nature is eternal, complete and perfect--it is "That" which you seek.

Chris

[greybeard]

Posted by Clear Light (here)

Posted by greybeard (here)
Do we have any choice Clear Light?
Destiny calls.
Chris

So as for being an "entity" that has freewill or choice, perhaps it may help to consider that one of the principles of Buddhist thought is that it leads to the end of suffering ... with Liberation not being "for the self" but "FROM the self" !!!

But in short, the answer to the question is an emphatic "No !"

So from your perspective, what remains when liberation from the self comes about?
Im always interested in how different persuasions express Truth.

I enjoy your posts immensely.

With respect
Chris

[Clear Light]

Posted by greybeard (here)

Posted by Clear Light (here)

Posted by greybeard (here)
Do we have any choice Clear Light?
Destiny calls.
Chris

So as for being an "entity" that has freewill or choice, perhaps it may help to consider that one of the principles of Buddhist thought is that it leads to the end of suffering ... with Liberation not being "for the self" but "FROM the self" !!!

But in short, the answer to the question is an emphatic "No !"

So from your perspective, what remains when liberation from the self comes about?
Im always interested in how different persuasions express Truth.

I enjoy your posts immensely.

With respect
Chris

Oh, that Chris, is where it gets very tricky to talk about given the inherent Duality of Language !

You've surely heard the phrase "The Tao that can be spoken is not the true Tao” ... because whatever I now assert as an answer for you, is immediately (in a way) "creating division" between the "whole" (that has no parts whatsoever) and the Concepts I verbalise about it eh ?

Truthfully, there is just "this", moment to moment, no Discursiveness, no thought required ... no hope, no fear, no self-concern.

Eating happens, sleep happens, going to work happens, "being in the world" continues but from a place of Heart-felt natural Ease and Relaxation

[greybeard]

Clear Light
Yes I get this.
You are better at "explaining" than I.
Falling into the trap of concepts its a bit llike Christ saying
"Of myself I do nothing, it is the Father within"
or life just does what it does.
The ego has a hell of a job with "I am not the doer" and will fight fight fight fight.
Its all levels of energy--the same energy.

Stephen Wolinsky says "Nothing condenses in to form, form returns to nothing" a pulsation.
Form, formless, both and neither another description of the one substance.

Thanks
Chris

[Eva2]

'the talks contain the energy of the enlightened so are uplifting for those who visit.
Many point out the futility of searching---you are already "That" which you look for.
The recommended tools are "Self inquiry" and discarding all that is not "Self" Neity Neity.
Not this Not This.'

From Lucia and Lorn Hoff: 'Enlightenment is awakening to the reality that there has never been a separate individual person here to get enlightened in the first place. You have always been universal Consciousness; unbounded, cosmic and divine'

And from their personal experience: ""Awakening" is the direct experience of the true unbounded reality of the Self, beyond individual mind, body, perceptions, emotions and personality. It is the permanent shift to being Awareness itself

"Enlightenment" is the direct expeirience of the true reality of the objects of perception as being your own SELF, and permanently living that oneness of Consciousness and Its higher states of clarity and fullness.

"Pure Awareness" is the inner essence of Being, of simple existence. It is the unbounded source of and observer of the mind. It is That by virtue of which experience can happen. ​​​​​

And, there is no "doing" in any of this.

[greybeard]

Yes Jill you got it.
Much love
Chris

[greybeard]

The End of the Game: Deconstructing the Portals to the Absolute

“The End of the Game: Deconstructing the Portals to the Absolute” is what could be the final YouTube and Swan Song, of Stephen-Narayan Wolinsky. The "End of the Game" dismantles not only the portal of light, sound, and vibration, but also emptiness, void, stillness-silence witnessing, non-duality, vibration, energy or shakti, being(ness), the I Am, the deity, consciousness and awareness.

The End of the Game demonstrates that portals are pleasant states, however they are merely temporary stations or layers or covering which, if identified with can become traps.

The Absolute (Prior to the word Absolute), can also be referred to as "The Great Without" does not have and knows nothing about the portals or states of light, sound, emptiness, energy, vibration, the deity, consciousness or awareness, being(ness), the I Am and stillness.

The last part of the YouTube points to rarely mentioned temporary states that ultimately evaporate. In "The End of the Game” the state of the Witness, Aware-er Know-er etc. are shown to also be temporary states that come and go. Moreover, as long as the silent witness, aware-er, know-er etc, are present the game continues and the Absolute, (Prior to the word Absolute), will remain a distant conceptual goal.
The Absolute, a.k.a. "The Great Without", is without Portals as well as the Witness, the know-er the aware-er, the observer, or perceiver.

As Nisargadatta Maharaj would say, the Absolute is “Prior to Consciousness.”

Finally as you read or listen to the book or You Tube please keep tucked away somewhere,
“All that is heard, (or that is about to be read seen or heard is non-existent.” Shankara

One Love
Your Mirage brother,
Stephen-Narayan

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=sUfsfuVRC80

I would point out that the video is 4 hours long.

Chris
Ps This goes a lot further than most--not for the fainthearted.

Not every part of every video i post is a reflection of my current understanding.
However this is how I learn nothing discounted and everything discounted--not this not this, beyond definition.
Ch

[greybeard]

Consciousness And The Absolute / The Final Talks - Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj - Audiobook - Part One

"Even toward the end of his life, when his body was very weak, Maharaj continued to hammer home his teachings. Nowhere is this more apparent than in his final words to us in Consciousness and the Absolute . . . All shadings of his singular wisdom are reflected during these last, poignant conversations with those who were privileged to be in his presence . . . . may you find in them blessings." Jean Dunn, Editor of Consciousness And The Absolute After completing I AM THAT, I was moved to record Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj's Final Talks. I have been blessed by his words in a unique and living way. Clay Lomakayu

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=IznBMlmcxRI

[Clear Light]

Oh, in the interests of some, how shall I say, playful "Spiritual Duelling", here's a nice short 3 minute video with J. Krishnamurti enquiring into the nature of so-called "Consciousness" ...



"The Observer is the Observed"

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=q9Ye6WbinMU

Am I different from the content of my consciousness ?

If I am different from the thing I observe in myself, then there is a division between 'me' and the thing which I enquire into.

We're going to go into a little more.

I observe in myself anger. I am angry. Or I am greedy, envious.

Is that envy different from me who is observing that reaction which I call 'envy' ?

Or that envy is me; I am not different from that envy.

So, when I observe, is there a division between the observer and the observed ? Then there is conflict.

Then I try to suppress it, control it, or run away from it, or try to wish to change it.

But if the observer is the observed, then a totally different action takes place.

Are we dissipating the mystery of it ?

Because this is very important, right from the beginning.

We are conditioned to the conflict of this division. We are conditioned to either suppress it, analyze it or run away from it. We are educated, to accept this division. But when one looks into it very, very deeply – not very deeply, it's fairly simple – one sees the observer is the observed, therefore, you eliminate all conflict.

In Dzogchen parlance, even the appearance of the ego / self is itself Rigpa (or God if you prefer) appearing as that at all times ... LOL ... the "cosmic joke" is on us, but until we cease to continually re-affirm this illusory separation our lives, I suggest, will always have its "ups and downs" so-to-speak ... You are God / Buddha but in disguise eh ?

[greybeard]

Clear Light.
Agreed. As said "The End of the game" video takes "That" to its end conclusion.
Far beyond all concepts etc.
Worth a listen for the "hardy"
The ego will be bored or in denial or scared.

Chris

[Wind]

Can anything exist apart from
your perceiving of it directly?
Everything points back to you,
the root of all perceiving.
Now, with all the power there is in you,
you must solve this mystery.
Is the source, which is your own Self,
material or immaterial?
Does it have a form?
As long as you believe
that you are primarily flesh and blood,
that you are your body and your thoughts,
you will keep travelling from experience
to experience, state to state,
because who or what you believe yourself to be
will shape your experience.
This can go on and on
if you believe you are the mind.
But if you experience that the source,
which is your real Self
cannot be perceived phenomenally,
that it is not an object
—not even the most beautiful object,
or anything produced from imagination,
you stand a chance of solving
this powerful mystery
and being forever free.

~ Mooji

[greybeard]

On Individuality & Reincarnation

If individuality is an illusion created by the mind, then who or what reincarnates?
Eckhart suggests that the answer to reincarnation can be found through observation. For example, you can observe reincarnation in yourself many times during the day when you identify with a thought. After all, the moment you completely associate your identity with the thought, you have forgotten your essential nature as consciousness and have incarnated into a thought form. Subscribe to find greater fulfillment in life: https://www.youtube.com/c/eckharttoll...

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=FVu6yU2plAo

[Clear Light]

Posted by greybeard (here)
On Individuality & Reincarnation

If individuality is an illusion created by the mind, then who or what reincarnates?
Eckhart suggests that the answer to reincarnation can be found through observation. For example, you can observe reincarnation in yourself many times during the day when you identify with a thought. After all, the moment you completely associate your identity with the thought, you have forgotten your essential nature as consciousness and have incarnated into a thought form. Subscribe to find greater fulfillment in life: https://www.youtube.com/c/eckharttoll...

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=FVu6yU2plAo

Oh, I haven't watched the video you posted Chris, but where it says "the moment you completely associate your identity with the thought, you have forgotten your essential nature as consciousness and have incarnated into a thought form" perhaps an alternative way of describing it is to say : "your essential nature as consciousness is appearing AS having incarnated into a thought form" eh ?

What "I" mean is : this may just look like "semantics" (or word games) but IF there is no "separate self" then there is no-one to have associated with a thought ... it just seems that way

[greybeard]

Clear Light
If you have time It will be appreciated if you post more on your understanding of enlightenment from the Buddhist perspective---my understanding is limited to what non-duality mystics point to.

Chris.

[greybeard]

Interview with Stephen Wolinsky from Science and Nonduality Anthology Vol.2

Non duality does not exist.

Stephen has a somewhat different way of looking at "spirituality"
He has studied in depth various ideology's.
His main topic is the teaching of Nasargadatta.
Definitely one of my favourite teachers

Chris

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=bkIKXgiKvCM

[Clear Light]

Posted by greybeard (here)
Clear Light
If you have time It will be appreciated if you post more on your understanding of enlightenment from the Buddhist perspective---my understanding is limited to what non-duality mystics point to.

Chris.

Oh, here is Adyashanti giving his answer to that very question Chris !

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=jLQD90Las5c

Many people think that enlightenment is an altered state of consciousness. Actually, what we perceive every day through the distorted lens of ego is the truly altered state -- we see things that don't exist, we believe things that aren't happening, and we live in a false world of our own creation. In this direct and practical satsang, Adyashanti opens the door into the clear seeing that is our natural state of enlightenment.

I'd say Enlightenment is already our natural Awareness that needs no alteration, no improvement, no seeking needed, nothing to attain, nothing to accomplish, nowhere to go ... it's the end of the search and the end of the illusory "separate self" too eh ?

[greybeard]

Edgar Cayce's New Age Prophecy Peter Woodbury

In this talk, Peter Woodbury will tease out Edgar Cayce’s prophecies for the New Age and what they might mean for each of us.
Peter Woodbury received his undergraduate degree in psychology from Harvard University in Cambridge, Mass., and his master’s degree in social work from Boston University.
He trained in hypnotherapy and past-life regression techniques with Dr. Brian Weiss, Dr. Allen Chips, and Dan Brown, PhD. A student of the Cayce readings for over 20 years, he is a popular presenter on key topics from the Cayce readings both at A.R.E. Headquarters and around the country
. Fluent in three languages, he is also known for his outstanding leadership of A.R.E. Tours to South America, India, and Egypt.
To see Peter in person, visit EdgarCayce.org/conferences.

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=Jw8_C0c4ARw