samadhi wrote:David,So, you object that I have no reason to enjoy enlightenment discussion other than it's my nature? I think you put too much emphasis on the mind coming up with reasons. One's nature is a given, you don't ask for it and you don't explain it. Why do I love what I love? Do I really need a reason to love? Does a reason justify love? Does love need justification? Think about it.David: As I say, your ignorance of your own motives for doing things, and your passive acceptance of this, is disturbing. It is a not good sign when a person supposedly on the spiritual path is content to remain ignorant of the deeper aspects of his ego.
samadhi: I'm not sure what you're getting at here. I haven't discussed my motives at all.
David: You stated that you had no real idea why you enjoyed engaging in discussion, even lazily concluding that it is part of your nature.
Never have I seen such a monumental fear of thought expressed so openly.
Without question, there is a whole realm inside you that you are refusing point black to look at.
samadhi wrote:Let the individual decide what is best for them. After all, there is nothing wrong with the so-called "dreamworld" if you are getting what you want.sam: All I have said is that self-inquiry as a technique is not sufficient. It takes you to the paradox of being. From there, you're on your own.
David: For sure. But if you put an end to self-inquiry too early, you will only end up remaining trapped in a dreamworld of one kind or another. Sometimes that dreamworld can consist of believing that one has reached the "paradox of being".
The consequences of losing yourself in a dreamworld can be terrible - not just for yourself, but for others as well. For example, the violence we see around us, the misery, greed and war, is all generated by people lost in their dreamworlds.
Dreamworlds aren't containable. They always spill out and wreak havoc on other people's lives.
samadhi wrote:All egos make an effort, okay. That's where everyone starts. The effort itself may begin from the level of ego but if it continues on that level, hitting the wall is inevitable. Continuing to think of enlightenment as an achievement or as an escape, locks in the ego. Do I really need to explain why?David: What about the "technique" of directing the ego to consume itself, thereby putting an end to both the technique and the ego itself?
sam: If a snake swallows its own tail, will it disappear? I don't think so.
David: If a fire consumes the fuel that sustains it, will it disappear? Yes, it will.
samadhi: You have mixed the metaphor. A fire doesn't burn itself, it burns fuel.
David: Nevertheless, it is an accurate analogy of what it means for the ego to eliminate itself.
No, you need to explain why you can't conceive of the matter in other ways. You need to explain why are you constantly locked into the idea that the seeking of enlightenment will always involve a locking in of the ego. It is a very limited point of view.
Volunteer work, - i.e. altruism - is every bit as egotistical and manipulative as lying and making money. It always involves the calculation of some future benefit - even if that benefit is as intangible as the soothing of one's conscience, or experiencing the pleasure of seeing other people happy. You're in a dreamworld if you can't see that.samadhi wrote:Nonsense. Acting from ego is a matter of manipulation, doing this in order to get that. Manipulation itself can be benign, working at a job in order to get money, or more sinister, lying to people to gain advantage, but it always involves a calculation of some future benefit to the "I". But plenty of action is initiated without that in mind, volunteer work for instance.sam: The ego doesn't get rid of itself. If you act from ego, you will remain in ego, period.
David: Then we are all doomed, since every single act initiated by an ignorant person is done from ego.
In terms of practice, the idea that enlightenment can be beneficial to you as an individual would be a sure indicator of acting out of ego. But what if practice is motivated by something else, the love of silence, the love of others, the love of harmony with one's inner nature?
These are all egotistical concerns, revolving around the egotistical need to be happy.
Oftentimes acting out of such love is of no benefit to the "I" at all. The "I" can lose everything in fact. And when it does, an awakening becomes a reality.
Nonetheless, the "I" that seeks to surrender and give up everything is doing it out a motivation for future benefit. It is an egotistical aim through and through. This negates your other assertion that an egotistical activity, no matter what it is, can only serve to lock in the ego.
You either have to admit that some forms of egotistical activity can lead to the dissolution of the ego, or else admit that a such dissolution can never occur at all. At the moment, you are promoting these two opposing ideas without seeming to be aware of it.
samadhi wrote:Again, I don't think you've really thought through what you're saying. You don't seem to understand an activity motivated out of benefit to the "I" as opposed to one that isn't.The very fact that becoming enlightened is a reality (at least for some people) means that not all egotistical activity automatically condemns us to remain in egotism.
No, the problem is that your conception of "I" is very shallow and excludes all the deeper aspects of the ego - which, again, is the area inside you that you refuse point black to look at.
The only person who acts without an I-motivation is the fully enlightened person who has thoroughly dissolved his ego. Everyone else, without exception, acts with an I-motivation, and that includes people who seek to surrender and do altruistic work as much as it does aspiring sages who seek liberation.
samadhi wrote:You agreed with Dan who said that enlightenment is spontaneity after reflection. That is where I'm getting the ideas from, you. I only took issue with your idea that enlightenment is about reflective thinking.samadhi: Spontaneity after reflection is a kind of contradiction since spontaneity itself is without reflection. It's like saying honesty is spontaneously telling the truth after reflection. But you don't need the reflection to be honest. A pure source yields pure actions. So what does the reflection buy you?
David: It prevents you from existing in a dreamworld.
samadhi: I'm not saying thinking is unnecessary in enlightenment. Just that it isn't the source of action as you are painting it. The ego sees thinking as the source but as a part of the persona, it remains just a tool.
David: I'm not painting thinking as the source of action, nor am I painting it as anything other than as a tool. I don't know where you get these ideas from.
How does "enlightenment is spontaneity after reflection" translate into "enlightenment is about reflective thinking"? There is no connection there.
samadhi wrote:But this isn't what we were talking about. You are now referring to someone on the path, not someone who has come to the end of it.The bottom line is, one is either living in a dreamworld or one isn't. If you're not sure whether you are living in a dreamworld or not, then you need to use thought to resolve the matter one way or the other. If you push thought away prematurely before this has been resolved, then it can only result in you remaining entrapped within a dreamworld - no matter how enlightened and guru-sanctioned the dreamworld appears on the surface.
A person doesn't come to the end of the path until he is absolutely certain that he is no longer living in a dreamworld. And for that purpose he needs to fully utilize his thinking ability.
-