The enlightened ego.

[Tony]

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..........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 it is that you cannot get on!
So sometimes, silence is golden!



Tony

[Hazel]

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]

Posted by recap1 (here)
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]

[mahalall]

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]

Just found it.
It's a little rough, but you get the idea.

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=ZmwQRe5xrvM

[Tony]

Posted by mahalall (here)

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

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]

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]

Posted by pie'n'eal (here)
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]

Posted by Shezbeth (here)

Posted by pie'n'eal (here)
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… 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]

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]

Posted by GreenGuy (here)
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 ) 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]

Posted by pie'n'eal (here)
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]

Posted by Shabd_Mystic (here)

Posted by pie'n'eal (here)
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]

Posted by GreenGuy (here)
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]

A good piece on "enlightened egos" -

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

[Tony]

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]

Posted by pie'n'eal (here)
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]

"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]

.

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

~ Adyashanti