The enlightened ego.

[marksircus]

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]

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]

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]

Posted by Shabd_Mystic (here)
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]

Posted by Shabd_Mystic (here)
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]

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]

Posted by greybeard (here)
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," 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]

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

[GreenGuy]

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]

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]

"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]

I've just seen this in the Daily Mail today.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/ar...ling-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.

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=q6iF4GVLnrI

Tony

[Milneman]

Posted by Shabd_Mystic (here)
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]

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]

Posted by Milneman (here)

Posted by Shabd_Mystic (here)
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]

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]

Posted by Milneman (here)

Posted by Shabd_Mystic (here)
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 ...

[Camilo]

There is no such thing as an enlightened ego, as the moment it becomes enlightened, it ceases to be.

[Agape]

Posted by Camilo (here)
There is no such thing as an enlightened ego, as the moment it becomes enlightened, it ceases to be.

Like a fire-cracker ?

[Tony]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencete...s-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