Enlightenment Finally

[Diebert van Rhijn]

I asked you how you defined it [ego] and you didn't answer the question! Now it appears it doesn't matter what the definition is, whatever works for you. Well then why have a discussion about your idea at all? Whatever indeed ...

No, I'd like to be more clear so I'll repeat some of the stuff I already posted but will flesh it out.

The way I defined ego is very similar to where the term originally came from: Freud's theories about ID, ego and super-ego. Ego being nothing but the Latin for I or "I myself".

In Buddhism we have the self described as Ātman which constitutes the Skandhas: senses, sensing, cognition, forms and consciousness. Again it's not as if sensing and cognition can be dropped: ones clinging is dropped and with that amongst others the belief in the sum being something more (inherent) than the parts or its many causes.

I realize some have linked the word 'ego' with the clinging to self or belief in inherent existence. This can be confusing at times when mixed with the Freudian concepts, so I propose more clarity on the issue.

Then we have the concept of Anatta often translated as 'no-self' which is more like an orientation away from the self, which occurs when the relation to everything and self is grasped. It signifies the end of clinging to self, including attachment to the unavoidable world birthed by it. The end of 'selfish orientation'. It doesn't try to announce some 'end of Atman' as it would contradict how (most of) Buddhism defines that in the first place.

sam: Those who have realized seem perfectly able to relate. So on what are you basing your opinion?

Diebert: In my opinion, they are able to relate because they have still a constructed identity or ego. And they're still creating a universe out of thin air. Fair enough, not?

You are assuming the conclusion. Is that the best you can do?

It seems you're not getting what I meant. They still see mountains, no?

I once stuck out my leg and let Maharishi Yogi trip when he walked by us. My god, we had a good laugh!

Funny. So you have no background, that's what I suspected.

Zen is not your strongest point, I see.

Yes, we all have to find out for ourselves, so what? It doesn't mean the experience of others is irrelevant to the point you were making. So why not look at it?

Then be more specific whose experiences you're currently using as inspiration and why. Don't assume I never did because I'm conservative in throwing them at you.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

I suggest a simple "This is who I am" as a functional definition based on each person's whole life of conditioning/programing. Next, have you personally ever experienced a radical departure from the above sense of personal identity? (A sincere question hoping for a direct answer.)

Yes. But these experiences can happen in several ways. In case of an initial weak sense of self, one will often have trouble forming and maintaining a clear sense of personal identity throughout ones life to the point of losing that sense quite easily at times. Such people end up often at a therapist or a Gurdjieff center, marrying a strong personality or entering a community with a strong identity. They need first a careful building up to be able to survive the 'onslaught' of the world full of self-centered egos around them.

So in itself a departure from the sense of personal identity doesn't equal spiritual progress when it doesn't include an understanding of what that self is and how its illusion exactly works. Or when it doesn't include the discovery of the essence of suffering.

One could even claim a departure of personal identity points to a dysfunctional ego, an utter display of weakness, slave or 'feminine' mentality'. It's no wonder many spiritual interpretations are given to this losing of self-sense.

It's no effort to lose something that wasn't really there in the first place. So first one builds identity, ego and consciousness. Then on the power of that wave these things are transcended but not discarded.

[Carl G]

"And if you can't verify the irrational nonsense that I spout, then it means you still have some way to go before you can be considered awake".

-

Irrational nonsense.

[clyde]

The ego or a permanent center does not exist at all. It is an implicit belief which hinders the mind, therefore it has to go.

I think you are refering to the other thread, where I was discussing an interesting possibility raised by Gurdjieff. The permanent self being created there is quite a different beast than the ego. It is a combination of right thinking and constant awareness.

maestro;

How is self "a different beast than the ego"? It seems to me that both self and ego believe in their own (illusory) eternality; the ego believes it is a "permanent center" and the self believes it is "constant awareness".

clyde

[sue hindmarsh]

David Quinn wrote:

maestro: I forgot to add the constraint of intact consciousness, thus drugs etc are also out.

Unshakable religious belief can put an end to mental suffering.

Also men that marry: that is, discard consciousness. They reportedly live 10 years longer than non-married men.

So, consciousness lessens the quantity of your life, but increases its quality. No choice really - quality wins out every time.

[Leyla Shen]

How is self "a different beast than the ego"? It seems to me that both self and ego believe in their own (illusory) eternality; the ego believes it is a "permanent center" and the self believes it is "constant awareness".

Only if you define them that way and, when you do, what you have is more or less a schizophrenic:

Ego, believing itself to be the “permanent centre”: No, I am, you stuffing sod! I’ll show you… [symptom, symptom, symptom]

Self, believing itself to be “constant awareness”: Ouch, ouch, ouch!! See, doc, I never get any peace…

I don’t think self has any beliefs. It’s just plain self. No bells. No whistles. And it certainly doesn’t need notions of eternity or mortality in order to exist.

[Leyla Shen]

I guess you can tell by seeing how early infants avoid pain and seek pleasure, though then you have to ask to which degree is this unconsciously done. I don't think we can tell for sure how conscious an infant is of pain and pleasure before it's able to speak

Alright. So, can you tell for sure how conscious of pain and pleasure a speaking adult is? What is your yardstick?

[sue hindmarsh]

If Faust's "yardstick" for women is their crying - he'd be stuffed - for they joyfully cry when sad, or happy, or frightened, or tired, or hurt, or lonely, or jealous, or excited, or hormonal, or...!

[maestro]

How is self "a different beast than the ego"? It seems to me that both self and ego believe in their own (illusory) eternality; the ego believes it is a "permanent center" and the self believes it is "constant awareness".

Clyde according to my definition ego is the false inherent belief that there is a center in the body mind which can direct it. Thus the ego does not believe/does anything but the mind believes in a false notion.

In my definition awareness is an ability to be able to perceive inside. This perception is not just about thoughts, but also about the physical sensations and the cause and effect relationships.

Constant means that awareness is present at all waking times, just like you constantly see visually when you are awake.

[clyde]

How is self "a different beast than the ego"? It seems to me that both self and ego believe in their own (illusory) eternality; the ego believes it is a "permanent center" and the self believes it is "constant awareness".

Only if you define them that way and, when you do, what you have is more or less a schizophrenic:

Ego, believing itself to be the “permanent centre”: No, I am, you stuffing sod! I’ll show you… [symptom, symptom, symptom]

Self, believing itself to be “constant awareness”: Ouch, ouch, ouch!! See, doc, I never get any peace…

I don’t think self has any beliefs. It’s just plain self. No bells. No whistles. And it certainly doesn’t need notions of eternity or mortality in order to exist.

Leyla;

I was using maestro's definitions, not my own. I like your analysis, but wonder how you define "just plain self" and who (or what) is it that has beliefs.

clyde

[clyde]

How is self "a different beast than the ego"? It seems to me that both self and ego believe in their own (illusory) eternality; the ego believes it is a "permanent center" and the self believes it is "constant awareness".

Clyde according to my definition ego is the false inherent belief that there is a center in the body mind which can direct it. Thus the ego does not believe/does anything but the mind believes in a false notion.

In my definition awareness is an ability to be able to perceive inside. This perception is not just about thoughts, but also about the physical sensations and the cause and effect relationships.

Constant means that awareness is present at all waking times, just like you constantly see visually when you are awake.

maestro;

It seems that, as you define them, both ego and self arise from the mind.

And "constant awareness" is not constant at all, but comes and goes.

OK.

clyde

[maestro]

Indeed but the mind is clear about what is happening in one case and not in the other. To be precise constant here means almost constant.

[clyde]

To be precise constant here means almost constant.

maestro;

To be precise, it comes and goes. As I understand your usage of "constant awareness", it is consciousness; there when you are awake and not there when you are asleep.

clyde

[maestro]

Yes, in to sleep everything must be let loose. The observing process has to be shut while sleeping just as the eyes are. If you keep it open you will not be able to sleep.

It is not consciousness in the common sense of the term, but clear awareness of the insides.

[mikiel]

I suggest a simple "This is who I am" as a functional definition based on each person's whole life of conditioning/programing. Next, have you personally ever experienced a radical departure from the above sense of personal identity? (A sincere question hoping for a direct answer.)

Yes. But these experiences can happen in several ways. In case of an initial weak sense of self, one will often have trouble forming and maintaining a clear sense of personal identity throughout ones life to the point of losing that sense quite easily at times. Such people end up often at a therapist or a Gurdjieff center, marrying a strong personality or entering a community with a strong identity. They need first a careful building up to be able to survive the 'onslaught' of the world full of self-centered egos around them.

So in itself a departure from the sense of personal identity doesn't equal spiritual progress when it doesn't include an understanding of what that self is and how its illusion exactly works. Or when it doesn't include the discovery of the essence of suffering.

One could even claim a departure of personal identity points to a dysfunctional ego, an utter display of weakness, slave or 'feminine' mentality'. It's no wonder many spiritual interpretations are given to this losing of self-sense.

It's no effort to lose something that wasn't really there in the first place. So first one builds identity, ego and consciousness. Then on the power of that wave these things are transcended but not discarded.

I spent my first 8+ years as a psychotherapist as a "crisis counselor" dealing with dysfunctional egos as you describe above.
My last 14 years have been in the relatively new field of transpersonal psych, in which the key concept is ego-transcendence.
Traditional psych encourages building "good ego strength" to cope with life. Granting that a "healthy ego" is a good base for ego-transcendence, the latter is a quantum leap beyond all attachments which trigger fear and anger, the usual miasma in which ego is mired.

Do you recognize a difference between breakdown and breakthrough vis-a-vis ego? And what do you think of the "selflessness" quotes I offered you in the link above?
mikiel

[Leyla Shen]

clyde:

I was using maestro's definitions, not my own.

Yes, I know, and whilst my little offering was about your conception of maestro’s meaning, that meaning--that understanding, or knowledge--still belongs to you, as it also now belongs to me. How many self/others are contained in this proposition and where is the supposed requisite belief in “permanency”?

I like your analysis, but wonder how you define "just plain self" and who (or what) is it that has beliefs.

So, you’re asking me to give self form for you? If it has some permanent/absolute form, why don’t you simply tell me what it is--then you can make it a thing (a “what” or a “who”--even an ego, maybe), which can contain other things---much like we say a cup may contain or be empty of fluids.

[clyde]

Leyla;

Sorry, I thought you had some notion when you used the phrase "just plain self" and I was wondering what it was.

clyde

[Leyla Shen]

I did. :) Namely, "just plain self." Do you feel it's lacking something?

[clyde]

Leyla;

I do not know your view or usage of "self", so "just plain self" lacks nothing, but adds nothing to my understanding of your view or usage of "self".

I have not been a regular visitor here and you probably have made your view known to others. Thank you anyway.

clyde

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Traditional psych encourages building "good ego strength" to cope with life. Granting that a "healthy ego" is a good base for ego-transcendence, the latter is a quantum leap beyond all attachments which trigger fear and anger, the usual miasma in which ego is mired.

Nothing to disagree with here. Then the issue remains a leap to what? Forward or backward.

Do you recognize a difference between breakdown and breakthrough vis-a-vis ego? And what do you think of the "selflessness" quotes I offered you in the link above?

I did read the link called " My Journey to Awakening". While you certainly appear to have gone through various transformations it seems light years away from what I consider to be spiritual. You write with so many words, dreamy symbols, incoherent thought and references to family attachments that it's hard to imagine how you could really have leaped beyond basic attachment and its mostly subconscious hold. Where's the crisis, the rebellion, the darkness and struggle of your story? It's like you're still in dreamland at times falling from one orgasmic state into another. Your connection with truth seems to occur mostly through colorful vague concepts that translate to feelings more than any reason or logic applied.

Then again, I do like your 'off the grid' approach. If only you could become as self-sufficient and sober in your philosophical expression, then we'd have a discussion.

[mikiel]

Traditional psych encourages building "good ego strength" to cope with life. Granting that a "healthy ego" is a good base for ego-transcendence, the latter is a quantum leap beyond all attachments which trigger fear and anger, the usual miasma in which ego is mired.

Nothing to disagree with here. Then the issue remains a leap to what? Forward or backward.

It is a leap from the illusory "separate self identity" into cosmic consciousness, identity in unity... I Am One.
It is not a linear leap but one from illusion into reality.

Do you recognize a difference between breakdown and breakthrough vis-a-vis ego? And what do you think of the "selflessness" quotes I offered you in the link above?

Again, the "breakdown" of egocentricity is the requirement for the "breakthrough" into enlightenment, as above.
Here again is the "selflessness" link which I asked you about.
http://www.centerforsacredsciences.org/ ... l#selfless

I did read the link called " My Journey to Awakening". While you certainly appear to have gone through various transformations it seems light years away from what I consider to be spiritual. You write with so many words, dreamy symbols, incoherent thought and references to family attachments that it's hard to imagine how you could really have leaped beyond basic attachment and its mostly subconscious hold. Where's the crisis, the rebellion, the darkness and struggle of your story? It's like you're still in dreamland at times falling from one orgasmic state into another. Your connection with truth seems to occur mostly through colorful vague concepts that translate to feelings more than any reason or logic applied.

The biographies of all "journeys" into awakening are unique to each individual. That you don't like my particular style of writing is of no consequence here. So please focus your critique on the substantive issues.
"Where is the crisis?" Did you miss the part where I floated in the ocean for several hours, just kicking to stay afloat as potential live shark food, and drifted in nearly dead having lost all ego-programing at sea?
..."the rebellion"? My whole life has been a rebellion against authority. Even my "Journey" account goes into the basic stupidity of Christian worship of Jesus and explains the univesality of "I and the Creator are One"... i.e.,, not "me, Jesus" but the cosmic "I Am" in all.
..."the darkness and struggle"? You would not want to read a full account of my 25 years (9,000+ hrs) of meditation prior to my "breakthrough." I struggled with the chattering 'monkey mind' like most meditative journey-men do, for instance. But my major confrontations with "the forces of darkness" are just battle stories. They are written up in my spiritual autobyography, however, which is not (yet) published.
But the essential outcome of the Journey is stated clearly in my site intro, "Liberation!" http://www.consciousunity.org/Liberation.html


Then again, I do like your 'off the grid' approach. If only you could become as self-sufficient and sober in your philosophical expression, then we'd have a discussion.

Again, I read this as merely "I don't like your style of communication."
How about some real feedback on what I presented in the "selflessness" link or "Liberation" as a nutshell version of enlightenment?
mikiel

[Diebert van Rhijn]

How about some real feedback on what I presented in the "selflessness" link or "Liberation" as a nutshell version of enlightenment?

Since you ask so kindly. It's not easy to read with all those colors on my screen though. Why just not be more sober here and produce simple contrast rich text pages which then all people with whatever device, software or visual handicap can easily read or at least not get distracted? Wouldn't that be the greater service?

Again, it seems as if I'm only dissing your style but I think I do raise a more subtle point. It's in everything you write, from every capitalized word to the Great Pyramid Prophecy. It's all still amazingly submerged into Samsara. As such I don't know where to begin if I'd have to give further feedback.

[mikiel]

m: "How about some real feedback on what I presented in the "selflessness" link or "Liberation" as a nutshell version of enlightenment?"

DvR: "Since you ask so kindly. It's not easy to read with all those colors on my screen though. Why just not be more sober here and produce simple contrast rich text pages which then all people with whatever device, software or visual handicap can easily read or at least not get distracted? Wouldn't that be the greater service?"

Congratulations! You are the first ever (since my site went up in '00) to complain about the colors. The vast majority complain that my site is so aesthetically un-interesting... being just text with none of the usual cool whistles and bells and artistic visual embellishments. Oh well, "you can't please 'em all."
If the colors on the Liberation! page were too challenging for you to read, you can find the same text, slightly edited on this site as my opening thread, "Liberation.'

DvR: "Again, it seems as if I'm only dissing your style but I think I do raise a more subtle point. It's in everything you write, from every capitalized word to the Great Pyramid Prophecy. It's all still amazingly submerged into Samsara. As such I don't know where to begin if I'd have to give further feedback."

Petty, petty! I capitalize (and use quotes) for various unorthodox reasons. Sorry it throws you off so badly. Not too interested in content, huh? More in the "correcting my paper" mode, as I've encountered here recently from others.

I've studied the Great Pyramid in depth since '75 and written three manuscripts on it... also taught it in adult ed. classes at our local community college. There is a long history of scholarly study of the monument... probably the most studied and published monument in world history. Diss it if you must, but it only shows your lack of familiarity with the subject. If you have any specific criticism of that page, bring it on.

As to your "amazingly submerged into Samsara"... if you want to debate substance or dialogue toward the "truth of the matter" of enlightenment, please be specific. Such statements of negative judgement with no specific argument behind it is, like Dan's empty rhetoric and dramatic anger outbursts,... simply hot air, not worthy of a 'Discussion of the nature of Ultimate Reality and the path to Enlightenment"... which I had hoped (in vain) that this site would live up to.
ed: "too" to "to"...still a "dangling participle", I know, for those of you with pedantic red correction pen ready... but... fuck it.
mikiel

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Congratulations! You are the first ever (since my site went up in '00) to complain about the colors. The vast majority complain that my site is so aesthetically un-interesting... being just text with none of the usual cool whistles and bells and artistic visual embellishments. Oh well, "you can't please 'em all."

If I ever would have encountered any of your pages in any other context I'd have not given it three seconds on the screen, lets alone filling out a comment. And I can assure you many people are doing the same thing as me. The lack of certain feedback can mean many things, you know. The people asking for whistles are the ones you don't want there anyway!

As to your "amazingly submerged into Samsara"... if you want to debate substance or dialogue toward the "truth of the matter" of enlightenment, please be specific.

I was quite specific in that it lacked any substance and was too worldly to be of interest to me. Most important of all it doesn't challenge much in the way of attachment or common perception of things. But you have your own road to follow of course, I do respect that. Good luck!

[Carl G]

Well, I second the comment about the colors on the site. Very off-putting.