What is enlightenment

Discussion of the nature of Ultimate Reality and the path to Enlightenment.
User avatar
David Quinn
Posts: 5708
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: What is enlightenment

Post by David Quinn »

samadhi wrote:David,
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.
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.

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:
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".
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.

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:
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.
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?

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.

samadhi wrote:
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.
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.
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.

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:
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.
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.

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:
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.
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.

How does "enlightenment is spontaneity after reflection" translate into "enlightenment is about reflective thinking"? There is no connection there.

samadhi wrote:
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.
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.

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.

-
Sapius
Posts: 1619
Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2001 4:59 pm

Re: What is enlightenment

Post by Sapius »

Sam, David is right.
Never have I seen such a monumental fear of thought expressed so openly.
Me too; it goes totally against my reasoning and values.
Without question, there is a whole realm inside you that you are refusing point black to look at.
Absolutely… a whole lot inside, especially the “I”, which most assuredly you can get rid of, for all that is not it, is illusory since the divisions are illusory, making the “I” itself illusory. Don’t take illusory separations seriously.
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.
True; there is a division between a dream-world and a real-world, but don’t take that seriously either.
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.
Yes; Seeking does not involve trying to attain or grasp IT.
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.
Exactly! But this truth does not apply to the enlightened person. It does not really make a difference to such a person if others come closer to rational thinking or not. He and his reasonings are simply thrown about like a leaf blowing in the wind, except for others of course, who have their own faults.
S: 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.

D: These are all egotistical concerns, revolving around the egotistical need to be happy.
Except for the enlightened one of course, who suggests/promotes enlightenment for absolutely no reason at all, for it does not benefit anyone, and does not really matter at all to the one promoting it.
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.
Yes! The PERSON without an I-motivation does absolutely anything purely out of no feelings or concern for others at all.

Sam, I think you better admit you are I-motivated, unlike the enlightened ones.

What can I say... it seems like an "ego-less" fight to make the same point :(
---------
User avatar
divine focus
Posts: 611
Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2007 1:48 pm

Re: What is enlightenment

Post by divine focus »

samadhi wrote:
It is all a process. Ego does not fall away all at once. The ego does not actually exist as a power or motivator.
That is a matter of perspective. For most, the ego is the only power and motivator.
Yes; but from a wider perspective, they are not the ego. They only operate within ego. They are the power, and they choose to experience as they wish for their own purposes.
There is only one self, and it is always in control of all aspects of itself.
Not sure what you mean by this. From the ordinary perspective, the ego is in control. From another perspective, there is no control.
Yes! But at the same time, there is! I use the term "direction." There is nothing to control, but there is action to direct.
The self only chooses to seek answers within rational thought exclusively and forget its vast, intuitive knowledge, creating a structure of linear response called ego. This is done purposefully, as the rational mind is very efficient for operating in our reality physically.
Okay. The point of the rational mind being in control however is not about efficiency but about identity.
Yes, but in order to develop the rational faculty to its most efficient expression, it is necessary to explore all of its facets. This is the purpose of ego: to create a purity of physical experience removed from the knowledge of the nonphysical. This creates the need to observe the mechanics of physical reality, as the self has chosen to do.
In the attempt to change its methods of operation within a rational framework, the self relies more and more on its intuitive knowledge as the basis of rationality rather than on social and personal beliefs. The rational mind of ego is based completely on beliefs derived arbitrarily from exclusively rational conclusions, and it is understandably oblivious to this basis. The ego arises from questioning due to forgetting, and to question its own foundation would defeat the purpose of the choice to create it. The self can only reconnect to its vast knowledge from where it is now physically, through the questioning of the ego. This acquaints the rational mind with the self that is its foundation.
Interesting take. Though you make it sound like the ego discovers this other "self" and makes friends with it. I don't really think that is what's going on.
No, it isn't. :) The ego does not exist as a force or action that does anything. The self through the rational mind discovers and befriends itself.

mikiel wrote:"The self only chooses to seek answers within rational thought exclusively and forget its vast, intuitive knowledge, creating a structure of linear response called ego."

The Cosmic "Self" knows, "I Am One" in all forms/individuals. When the individual realizes this it is enlightenment (not implying omniscience but realization of omnipresent Identity.). As long as the individual thinks of him"self" as a separate identity, this is ego living in the illusory personal self. The Divine never "forgets it vast... knowledge..." and never creates "a structure of linear response called ego."

The ego dreams this up as a personal illusion. In the larger sense of course, even freedom to create personal dreams, "selves" and illusions of separate identity is part of the cosmic drama. The Purpose of which is that all "parts" will eventually awaken into the One Identity in all.
mikiel
Yes, but the ego who dreams up the illusion is the self. There was never any other. The divine aspect of the self was forgotten, if a distinction in those terms must be made. It is all divine, from my perspective, though I may not take a liking to everything. It is all purposeful.
eliasforum.org/digests.html
mikiel
Posts: 588
Joined: Fri Oct 12, 2007 9:27 am

Re: What is enlightenment

Post by mikiel »

m: " The (divine) Purpose... is that all "parts" will eventually awaken into the One Identity in all."

d.f.: "Yes, but the ego who dreams up the illusion is the self. There was never any other. The divine aspect of the self was forgotten, if a distinction in those terms must be made. It is all divine, from my perspective, though I may not take a liking to everything. It is all purposeful."

Personal identity is the illusion. Enlightenment is *real*-izing the "One Identity in all." One then gets over himself as a 'separate' identity. This 'separate' identity is ego, which claims to be the 'real self.'
mikiel
samadhi
Posts: 406
Joined: Sat Dec 08, 2007 6:08 am

Re: What is enlightenment

Post by samadhi »

David,
sam: 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: Never have I seen such a monumental fear of thought expressed so openly.
lol ... and you dodged my questions too!
Without question, there is a whole realm inside you that you are refusing point blank to look at.
Whatever I'm not looking at, it doesn't mean there is an explanation for why I love enlightenment. Unless you simply think I'm using it to get something else. Of course, there is no answer to that kind of judgment, you get to believe whatever you want.

But let's put the shoe on the other foot. Why do you love it? Tell us about that realm deep inside you that you have so fully explored that no secret is left unexplained. You must think you're getting something, what is it?
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".

sam: 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.

David: 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.
Of course, but does it really help for you to tell others how to live their lives? They are free to do what they will do in any case, your lecturing notwithstanding. Teach if you want to teach but don't pretend you know what other people "should" want.
Dreamworlds aren't containable. They always spill out and wreak havoc on other people's lives.
If someone is getting what they want, who are you to say they shouldn't want it? Teaching isn't about lecturing to the masses that they need to change their lives. It is about helping those who have some interest in being helped in a manner in which you can be effective and in which they can respond.
sam: 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: 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.
Actually what I said was, seeking enlightenment locks in the ego when one seeks as a means of achievement or escape. Do you understand what that means or not?
sam: 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.

David: 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.
You are simply defining your conclusion, that all action is egoic in origin. All action certainly seeks something but individual benefit is hardly the only motivator.
sam: 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?

David: These are all egotistical concerns, revolving around the egotistical need to be happy.
They may or may not be. Your defining the conclusion doesn't make it so.
sam: 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.

David: 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.
An "I" that seeks to surrender in order to gain is acting out of ego. What if the surrender doesn't gain anything? What if it loses everything? You seem unable to imagine anyone doing anything for other than self-serving purposes. This is your limitation, don't project it onto everyone else.
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.
You are the one saying that acting from ego can lead to something other than ego. In the sense that the ego ultimately fails in its pursuits and is left either broken or defeated and thus capable of surrender, I might agree. But of course, being broken or surrendering is what counts, not the egoic actions prior to that. But I think you have something else in mind. I think you are really talking about a robust ego going for the gold and grabbing it. If so, let's hear it. How does such an ego find enlightenment?
David: 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.

sam: 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.

David: 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 blank to look at.
Deeper aspects of the ego? I'm listening.
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.
I'm not talking about perfection which is only the ego's view of enlightenment anyway. I'm just saying there is something in everyone that is not ego. It's not hard to see if you're willing to look. What do you like to do? People have things they enjoy. They don't enjoy them to get something else. They enjoy them because that's where they find themselves undivided. Besides, if you were all ego, there would never be a thought of enlightenment to begin with.
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.

sam: 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.

David: How does "enlightenment is spontaneity after reflection" translate into "enlightenment is about reflective thinking"? There is no connection there.
It's in your own definition! Sheesh.
David: 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.

sam: 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.

David: 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.
If you are so inclined to think, then think. Nothing wrong with that. Just don't pretend because it's your way, it's everyone else's too.
samadhi
Posts: 406
Joined: Sat Dec 08, 2007 6:08 am

Re: What is enlightenment

Post by samadhi »

Sapius,

Nice satire ... lol!
User avatar
David Quinn
Posts: 5708
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: What is enlightenment

Post by David Quinn »

samadhi wrote:David,
DQ: Without question, there is a whole realm inside you that you are refusing point blank to look at.
Whatever I'm not looking at, it doesn't mean there is an explanation for why I love enlightenment. Unless you simply think I'm using it to get something else. Of course, there is no answer to that kind of judgment, you get to believe whatever you want.

Firstly, I'm of the opinion that you don't have any understanding of enlightenment. Apart from anything else, what we always get from you on the subject are generic regurgitations, which tells me that your relationship with enlightenment is run through a middleman and still only second-hand in nature.

Secondly, if a person finds a thing pleasing, or attractive, or lovely, or enjoyable - no matter what the thing is - then you can be sure that there is ego involved. This is an unbreakable law. It doesn't matter if the thing involved is his relationship to enlightenment, the dynamic remains unchanged. It is a case of the ego finding sustenance, or enhancement, or security, or affirmation, or triumph, or bonding, or whatever it might be, in the thing in question.

But let's put the shoe on the other foot. Why do you love it? Tell us about that realm deep inside you that you have so fully explored that no secret is left unexplained. You must think you're getting something, what is it?

At root, it is a combination of hating suffering (ignorance, confusion, misery, etc) and enjoying greater forms of consciousness. Naturally, both of these are egotistical concerns, which only fall away in the purest form of consciousness.

samadhi wrote:
David: 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.
Of course, but does it really help for you to tell others how to live their lives? They are free to do what they will do in any case, your lecturing notwithstanding. Teach if you want to teach but don't pretend you know what other people "should" want.

I don't really care what people want. I'm still going to prod and goad people into valuing wisdom regardless.

It is in my interests to do this. I don't want some madman lost in a dreamworld to hack into my life, or hack down the cause of wisdom, so it is in my interests to prod as many people as possible into valuing wisdom and dismantling their dreamworlds.

samadhi wrote:
David: 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.
Actually what I said was, seeking enlightenment locks in the ego when one seeks as a means of achievement or escape. Do you understand what that means or not?

When you surrender, what is that you are trying to escape from?

samadhi wrote:
sam: 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.

David: 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.
You are simply defining your conclusion, that all action is egoic in origin. All action certainly seeks something but individual benefit is hardly the only motivator.

I've never said that all action is egoic in origin. I did say that enlightened people who thoroughly perceive the illusion of the ego are in a position to act without ego. At the same time, everyone else, who by definition are still under the spell of the ego, cannot help but behave egotistically.

Egotism comes in many forms. It isn't just confined to the seeking of individual benefit. It also extends to the seeking of group-benefit as well. When an unenlightened person, who by definition is still under the spell of the ego, attempts to behave altruistically, what happens is that he subconsciously incorporates the group or community into his ego. His ego becomes larger, in a sense. The group's concerns become his concerns. He identifies with the group instead of his own individual person. His ego is still as entrenched as ever; it has merely changed shape for the time being.

samadhi wrote:
sam: 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?

David: These are all egotistical concerns, revolving around the egotistical need to be happy.
They may or may not be. Your defining the conclusion doesn't make it so.

It isn't a matter of defining a conclusion. It is a matter of honestly looking into your own mind and observing what really happens.

samadhi wrote:
sam: 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.

David: 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.
An "I" that seeks to surrender in order to gain is acting out of ego. What if the surrender doesn't gain anything? What if it loses everything? You seem unable to imagine anyone doing anything for other than self-serving purposes. This is your limitation, don't project it onto everyone else.

I've already described how the enlightened person doesn't act out of self-serving purposes, so I'm obviously not dismissing the notion altogether. I'm simply dismissing your idea that surrender is a non-egotistical activity.

Perhaps you can answer this: What reason does have a person have to surrender? What was your motivation for surrendering?

-
Steven Coyle

Re: What is enlightenment

Post by Steven Coyle »

David,

What's your take on the idea of different enlightened beings (and unenlightened as well), due to their karma, requiring a host of various and unique trajectories?

Perhaps, pleasure being one of them...
samadhi
Posts: 406
Joined: Sat Dec 08, 2007 6:08 am

Re: What is enlightenment

Post by samadhi »

David,
DQ: Without question, there is a whole realm inside you that you are refusing point blank to look at.

sam: Whatever I'm not looking at, it doesn't mean there is an explanation for why I love enlightenment. Unless you simply think I'm using it to get something else. Of course, there is no answer to that kind of judgment, you get to believe whatever you want.

DQ: Firstly, I'm of the opinion that you don't have any understanding of enlightenment. Apart from anything else, what we always get from you on the subject are generic regurgitations, which tells me that your relationship with enlightenment is run through a middleman and still only second-hand in nature.
I never claimed to be enlightened. I speak from the experience gathered from different teachers, teachers who all point to the same thing. I have noticed you refer to teachers too. So why condemn me for doing what you do?
Secondly, if a person finds a thing pleasing, or attractive, or lovely, or enjoyable - no matter what the thing is - then you can be sure that there is ego involved. This is an unbreakable law.
Really? This is a joke. What is egoic about enjoying yourself? Or are you trotting out the tired fundamentalism that all enjoyment is attachment?
It doesn't matter if the thing involved is his relationship to enlightenment, the dynamic remains unchanged. It is a case of the ego finding sustenance, or enhancement, or security, or affirmation, or triumph, or bonding, or whatever it might be, in the thing in question.
Ah, the last refuge of the guru, condemning all enjoyment! You seem quite religious in your conviction on the evils of humans enjoying themselves. How fundamentalist of you.
sam: But let's put the shoe on the other foot. Why do you love it? Tell us about that realm deep inside you that you have so fully explored that no secret is left unexplained. You must think you're getting something, what is it?

DQ: At root, it is a combination of hating suffering (ignorance, confusion, misery, etc) and enjoying greater forms of consciousness. Naturally, both of these are egotistical concerns, which only fall away in the purest form of consciousness.
Your answer begs the question. Why hate suffering or enjoy consciousness? Could it be your nature to do so? Gee, aren't you saying exactly what I said while condemning me for it? Why the need to do that?
DQ: 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.

sam: Of course, but does it really help for you to tell others how to live their lives? They are free to do what they will do in any case, your lecturing notwithstanding. Teach if you want to teach but don't pretend you know what other people "should" want.

DQ: I don't really care what people want. I'm still going to prod and goad people into valuing wisdom regardless.
Then you are being the politician. Politicians like to tell people what is good for them. That's fine for politicians but you seem to have confused enlightenment teaching with politics. That's not so good.
It is in my interests to do this. I don't want some madman lost in a dreamworld to hack into my life, or hack down the cause of wisdom, so it is in my interests to prod as many people as possible into valuing wisdom and dismantling their dreamworlds.
If you want to do that, okay, but it has zero to do with enlightenment. Enlightenment doesn't goad people or cajole them into certain actions. That's what religions do, actually. It certainly is not a political agenda that you want to make it into. I am really surprised that you would consider enlightenment just another philosophy for improving behavior. That's just taking us back to the puritans.
DQ: 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.

sam: Actually what I said was, seeking enlightenment locks in the ego when one seeks as a means of achievement or escape. Do you understand what that means or not?

DQ: When you surrender, what is that you are trying to escape from?
Surrender isn't about escaping. It is the recognition that ego is not in control.
DQ: 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.

sam: You are simply defining your conclusion, that all action is egoic in origin. All action certainly seeks something but individual benefit is hardly the only motivator.

DQ: I've never said that all action is egoic in origin. I did say that enlightened people who thoroughly perceive the illusion of the ego are in a position to act without ego. At the same time, everyone else, who by definition are still under the spell of the ego, cannot help but behave egotistically.
Right, all action by the unenlightened is egoic in origin. You assume your conclusion. How do you know all action by the unenlightened is egoic? You define it that way, that's how. So, is breathing egoic? Breathing is an action, isn't it?
Egotism comes in many forms. It isn't just confined to the seeking of individual benefit. It also extends to the seeking of group-benefit as well. When an unenlightened person, who by definition is still under the spell of the ego, attempts to behave altruistically, what happens is that he subconsciously incorporates the group or community into his ego. His ego becomes larger, in a sense. The group's concerns become his concerns. He identifies with the group instead of his own individual person. His ego is still as entrenched as ever; it has merely changed shape for the time being.
An individual benefit can also accrue if one identifies with goals held by large groups and acts in accordance with those goals. The question of whether an action is rooted in ego depends on one's identification, not on numbers. For instance, if you and I were to play a game of chess, identification doesn't necessarily enter into that. It could, if one simply plays to win. But that isn't the only reason to play. Your fundamentalist approach to action as evidenced by your indiscriminate condemnation tells me you haven't really thought much about the ego and its subtleties. I would have expected more from you, given your emphasis on power of thought.
sam: 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?

DQ: These are all egotistical concerns, revolving around the egotistical need to be happy.

sam: They may or may not be. Your defining the conclusion doesn't make it so.

DQ: It isn't a matter of defining a conclusion. It is a matter of honestly looking into your own mind and observing what really happens.
Your approach is fundamentalist, not discriminating. You label all action as egotistical and then claim I am the one not doing any looking! Open your own eyes!

sam: An "I" that seeks to surrender in order to gain is acting out of ego. What if the surrender doesn't gain anything? What if it loses everything? You seem unable to imagine anyone doing anything for other than self-serving purposes. This is your limitation, don't project it onto everyone else.

DQ: I've already described how the enlightened person doesn't act out of self-serving purposes, so I'm obviously not dismissing the notion altogether. I'm simply dismissing your idea that surrender is a non-egotistical activity.
In the sense that you are describing, no, it wouldn't be. But that is because behind your idea of action there is always the idea of gain, by your definition. I have been trying to point out that there is something already present within you that isn't ego. Surrender is about getting to that place that is always being overlooked. You overlook it right now, probably because being in charge is the only way you can imagine life unfolding, which I find highly ironic given our upcoming debate.
Perhaps you can answer this: What reason does have a person have to surrender? What was your motivation for surrendering?
The ego has no motivation to surrender. You demonstrate that yourself. No motivation at all. But the question remains, is ego all there is to you? Can you find that place in you that is not about ego?

By the way, I noticed you ignored most of my questions to you. I look forward to our debate where you can't be so dodgy!
User avatar
David Quinn
Posts: 5708
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: What is enlightenment

Post by David Quinn »

samadhi wrote:David,
DQ: Without question, there is a whole realm inside you that you are refusing point blank to look at.

sam: Whatever I'm not looking at, it doesn't mean there is an explanation for why I love enlightenment. Unless you simply think I'm using it to get something else. Of course, there is no answer to that kind of judgment, you get to believe whatever you want.

DQ: Firstly, I'm of the opinion that you don't have any understanding of enlightenment. Apart from anything else, what we always get from you on the subject are generic regurgitations, which tells me that your relationship with enlightenment is run through a middleman and still only second-hand in nature.
I never claimed to be enlightened. I speak from the experience gathered from different teachers, teachers who all point to the same thing. I have noticed you refer to teachers too. So why condemn me for doing what you do?

The difference is the little matter of first-hand knowledge.

samadhi wrote:
Secondly, if a person finds a thing pleasing, or attractive, or lovely, or enjoyable - no matter what the thing is - then you can be sure that there is ego involved. This is an unbreakable law.
Really? This is a joke. What is egoic about enjoying yourself? Or are you trotting out the tired fundamentalism that all enjoyment is attachment?

Give me an example of an enjoyment and I will show you the egotism that is involved.

samadhi wrote:
It doesn't matter if the thing involved is his relationship to enlightenment, the dynamic remains unchanged. It is a case of the ego finding sustenance, or enhancement, or security, or affirmation, or triumph, or bonding, or whatever it might be, in the thing in question.
Ah, the last refuge of the guru, condemning all enjoyment! You seem quite religious in your conviction on the evils of humans enjoying themselves. How fundamentalist of you.
Calling me a fundamentalist is not going to wipe away the reality that you are in denial about the deeper aspects of ego.

samadhi wrote:
sam: But let's put the shoe on the other foot. Why do you love it? Tell us about that realm deep inside you that you have so fully explored that no secret is left unexplained. You must think you're getting something, what is it?

DQ: At root, it is a combination of hating suffering (ignorance, confusion, misery, etc) and enjoying greater forms of consciousness. Naturally, both of these are egotistical concerns, which only fall away in the purest form of consciousness.
Your answer begs the question. Why hate suffering or enjoy consciousness? Could it be your nature to do so? Gee, aren't you saying exactly what I said while condemning me for it? Why the need to do that?

The difference is that I recognize it as egotism. I don't believe in mentally blocking out whole swathes of the ego in order to bolster my ego that I am behaving without ego.

samadhi wrote:
DQ: 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.

sam: Of course, but does it really help for you to tell others how to live their lives? They are free to do what they will do in any case, your lecturing notwithstanding. Teach if you want to teach but don't pretend you know what other people "should" want.

DQ: I don't really care what people want. I'm still going to prod and goad people into valuing wisdom regardless.
Then you are being the politician. Politicians like to tell people what is good for them. That's fine for politicians but you seem to have confused enlightenment teaching with politics. That's not so good.

Well, when you finally become enlightened and have first-hand knowledge of the subject, then you can pontificate about what is enlightened behaviour and what isn't.

Trying to judge things second-hand via the filters of handed-down generic concepts of enlightenment is, shall we say, a very unreliable practice.

samadhi wrote:
DQ: 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.

sam: Actually what I said was, seeking enlightenment locks in the ego when one seeks as a means of achievement or escape. Do you understand what that means or not?

DQ: When you surrender, what is that you are trying to escape from?
Surrender isn't about escaping. It is the recognition that ego is not in control.

In other words, surrender is about trying to escape the illusion that the ego is in control.

samadhi wrote:
DQ: 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.

sam: You are simply defining your conclusion, that all action is egoic in origin. All action certainly seeks something but individual benefit is hardly the only motivator.

DQ: I've never said that all action is egoic in origin. I did say that enlightened people who thoroughly perceive the illusion of the ego are in a position to act without ego. At the same time, everyone else, who by definition are still under the spell of the ego, cannot help but behave egotistically.
Right, all action by the unenlightened is egoic in origin. You assume your conclusion. How do you know all action by the unenlightened is egoic? You define it that way, that's how. So, is breathing egoic? Breathing is an action, isn't it?

I was talking about motivated behaviour within conscious individuals. Unconscious things like lungs have no ego. Ultra-conscious Buddhas have no ego. Conscious beings inbetween these two extremes are always egotistical - that is, they are spellbound by the illusion of their own existence.

samadhi wrote:
sam: An "I" that seeks to surrender in order to gain is acting out of ego. What if the surrender doesn't gain anything? What if it loses everything? You seem unable to imagine anyone doing anything for other than self-serving purposes. This is your limitation, don't project it onto everyone else.

DQ: I've already described how the enlightened person doesn't act out of self-serving purposes, so I'm obviously not dismissing the notion altogether. I'm simply dismissing your idea that surrender is a non-egotistical activity.
In the sense that you are describing, no, it wouldn't be. But that is because behind your idea of action there is always the idea of gain, by your definition. I have been trying to point out that there is something already present within you that isn't ego. Surrender is about getting to that place that is always being overlooked.

In other words, you are seeking the benefits and gains of being in that place.

samadhi wrote:
Perhaps you can answer this: What reason does have a person have to surrender? What was your motivation for surrendering?
The ego has no motivation to surrender. You demonstrate that yourself. No motivation at all.

Usually, when a person surrenders it is to avoid a terrible fate. For example, when a soldier surrenders to an enemy army, he is doing it in order to avoid being killed. Or when a wife surrenders her will to a dominating husband, she does it to try and minimize disharmony between them. So what is your ego trying to avoid when it surrenders?

But the question remains, is ego all there is to you? Can you find that place in you that is not about ego?

I've already explained that I affirm such a place exists, but it isn't where you are currently looking. Your generic teachers have been leading you astray, I'm afraid.

-
User avatar
divine focus
Posts: 611
Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2007 1:48 pm

Re: What is enlightenment

Post by divine focus »

mikiel wrote:d.f.: "Yes, but the ego who dreams up the illusion is the self. There was never any other. The divine aspect of the self was forgotten, if a distinction in those terms must be made. It is all divine, from my perspective, though I may not take a liking to everything. It is all purposeful."

Personal identity is the illusion. Enlightenment is *real*-izing the "One Identity in all." One then gets over himself as a 'separate' identity. This 'separate' identity is ego, which claims to be the 'real self.'
mikiel
I know what you mean, but I would not say the personal identity is illusion. The illusion, which is created purposefully, is the idea that there is anything that needs to be done. This is the separate identity you mean, as the true self beyond this identity knows all is taking care of itself. This true self, however, is still distinct in its identity in different focuses. That is to say, even though the self is one and all, there are many selves; and each one is unique--as well as complete in themselves. They each personally consist of all.

David,
David Quinn wrote:Secondly, if a person finds a thing pleasing, or attractive, or lovely, or enjoyable - no matter what the thing is - then you can be sure that there is ego involved. This is an unbreakable law. It doesn't matter if the thing involved is his relationship to enlightenment, the dynamic remains unchanged. It is a case of the ego finding sustenance, or enhancement, or security, or affirmation, or triumph, or bonding, or whatever it might be, in the thing in question.
This is not the case. If ego was necessary for enjoyment, it would be necessary for life. Only humans have ego--and potentially other hyper-rational beings, also. Attraction and enjoyment is a part of all life.
samadhi wrote:Of course, but does it really help for you to tell others how to live their lives? They are free to do what they will do in any case, your lecturing notwithstanding. Teach if you want to teach but don't pretend you know what other people "should" want.

I don't really care what people want. I'm still going to prod and goad people into valuing wisdom regardless.

It is in my interests to do this. I don't want some madman lost in a dreamworld to hack into my life, or hack down the cause of wisdom, so it is in my interests to prod as many people as possible into valuing wisdom and dismantling their dreamworlds.
You have all power over your life. Your world is your own. There is no cause that is necessarily concerning of you, unless you choose this. You may choose this, not to protect yourself, actually, but for the purposes of ego experience.
samadhi wrote:The ego has no motivation to surrender. You demonstrate that yourself. No motivation at all.
Usually, when a person surrenders it is to avoid a terrible fate. For example, when a soldier surrenders to an enemy army, he is doing it in order to avoid being killed. Or when a wife surrenders her will to a dominating husband, she does it to try and minimize disharmony between them. So what is your ego trying to avoid when it surrenders?
The ego, which is simply the self tied to egoic operation, surrenders to its true nature. It's nature cannot be arrived at logically, so that in realizing it, the trusting of it could be considered surrender. It is a knowing that is ultimately unexplainable in its entirety but makes perfect sense. It is not surrender to an enemy or a threat but to knowledge of oneness and power. It happens at the level of attention or action, the level of physical emotion, and the level of thought.
eliasforum.org/digests.html
User avatar
David Quinn
Posts: 5708
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: What is enlightenment

Post by David Quinn »

divine focus wrote:
David Quinn wrote:Secondly, if a person finds a thing pleasing, or attractive, or lovely, or enjoyable - no matter what the thing is - then you can be sure that there is ego involved. This is an unbreakable law. It doesn't matter if the thing involved is his relationship to enlightenment, the dynamic remains unchanged. It is a case of the ego finding sustenance, or enhancement, or security, or affirmation, or triumph, or bonding, or whatever it might be, in the thing in question.
This is not the case. If ego was necessary for enjoyment, it would be necessary for life. Only humans have ego--and potentially other hyper-rational beings, also. Attraction and enjoyment is a part of all life.

What about repulsion and violence? Are they too a part of all life?

divine focus wrote:
Usually, when a person surrenders it is to avoid a terrible fate. For example, when a soldier surrenders to an enemy army, he is doing it in order to avoid being killed. Or when a wife surrenders her will to a dominating husband, she does it to try and minimize disharmony between them. So what is your ego trying to avoid when it surrenders?
The ego, which is simply the self tied to egoic operation, surrenders to its true nature. It's nature cannot be arrived at logically, so that in realizing it, the trusting of it could be considered surrender. It is a knowing that is ultimately unexplainable in its entirety but makes perfect sense. It is not surrender to an enemy or a threat but to knowledge of oneness and power. It happens at the level of attention or action, the level of physical emotion, and the level of thought.
You're not addressing the issue being discussed - which is whether surrendering is an egotistical activity or not. I'm saying that it is clearly an egotistical activity because it is motivated out of the ego's need to be happy. The ego sees happiness in surrendering to the "oneness", and that is what motivates it to embark upon the action of surrendering.

Such surrendering is a form of escapism and involves reaching an attainment of some kind - the very things that Sam dismisses as being ego-driven and which can only result in locking in the ego. But for some strange reason, he doesn't want to view his own surrendering in that light.

-
User avatar
maestro
Posts: 772
Joined: Wed Jul 18, 2007 1:29 am

Re: What is enlightenment

Post by maestro »

This is not the case. If ego was necessary for enjoyment, it would be necessary for life. Only humans have ego--and potentially other hyper-rational beings, also. Attraction and enjoyment is a part of all life.
I agree with DF here, pain/pleasure principle operates without implicit belief in a the centralized entity (ego). In fact most activities become more pleasurable after there is no center to defend or protect.
Also without Pain/pleasure principle there would be no life.
samadhi
Posts: 406
Joined: Sat Dec 08, 2007 6:08 am

Re: What is enlightenment

Post by samadhi »

David,
DQ: Firstly, I'm of the opinion that you don't have any understanding of enlightenment. Apart from anything else, what we always get from you on the subject are generic regurgitations, which tells me that your relationship with enlightenment is run through a middleman and still only second-hand in nature.

sam: I never claimed to be enlightened. I speak from the experience gathered from different teachers, teachers who all point to the same thing. I have noticed you refer to teachers too. So why condemn me for doing what you do?

DQ: The difference is the little matter of first-hand knowledge.
Ah, the appeal to authority. Yet if you actually had first-hand knowledge, you wouldn't need to appeal to authority, you would simply demonstrate the knowledge. That you seem unable to do that tells me what I need to know about your authority.
DQ: Secondly, if a person finds a thing pleasing, or attractive, or lovely, or enjoyable - no matter what the thing is - then you can be sure that there is ego involved. This is an unbreakable law.

sam: Really? This is a joke. What is egoic about enjoying yourself? Or are you trotting out the tired fundamentalism that all enjoyment is attachment?

DQ: Give me an example of an enjoyment and I will show you the egotism that is involved.
Eating a meal.
DQ: It doesn't matter if the thing involved is his relationship to enlightenment, the dynamic remains unchanged. It is a case of the ego finding sustenance, or enhancement, or security, or affirmation, or triumph, or bonding, or whatever it might be, in the thing in question.

sam: Ah, the last refuge of the guru, condemning all enjoyment! You seem quite religious in your conviction on the evils of humans enjoying themselves. How fundamentalist of you.

DQ: Calling me a fundamentalist is not going to wipe away the reality that you are in denial about the deeper aspects of ego.
If I were doing that, you could show me. What are these deeper aspects I am in denial of? Instead, you simply resort to a blanket condemnation of all enjoyment as being egoic in nature. That in fact is fundamentalism, a one-size-fits-all proscription where there is no room for individual judgment or reflection.
sam: Your answer begs the question. Why hate suffering or enjoy consciousness? Could it be your nature to do so? Gee, aren't you saying exactly what I said while condemning me for it? Why the need to do that?

DQ: The difference is that I recognize it as egotism. I don't believe in mentally blocking out whole swathes of the ego in order to bolster my ego that I am behaving without ego.
Uh, where have I denied my own ego? You keep leveling charges against me without the evidence. Why do you need to do that?
DQ: I don't really care what people want. I'm still going to prod and goad people into valuing wisdom regardless.

sam: Then you are being the politician. Politicians like to tell people what is good for them. That's fine for politicians but you seem to have confused enlightenment teaching with politics. That's not so good.

DQ: Well, when you finally become enlightened and have first-hand knowledge of the subject, then you can pontificate about what is enlightened behaviour and what isn't.
Oh puhleeeeze, this is so lame. Now you think enlightenment is about running egoic agendas of behavior on others. Show me a single enlightenment teacher who has based their teaching on how others should behave. Maybe you need a reminder from the Tao:

If you want to be a great leader,
you must learn to follow the Tao.
Stop trying to control.
Let go of fixed plans and concepts,
and the world will govern itself.
The more prohibitions you have,
the less virtuous people will be.
The more weapons you have,
the less secure people will be.
The more subsidies you have,
the less self-reliant people will be.

Therefore the Master says:
I let go of the law,
and people become honest.
I let go of economics,
and people become prosperous.
I let go of religion,
and people become serene.
I let go of all desire for the common good,
and the good becomes common as grass.


v.57 Mitchell translation
Trying to judge things second-hand via the filters of handed-down generic concepts of enlightenment is, shall we say, a very unreliable practice.
Again your appeal to authority falls flat. If your so-called first-hand experience is so flawed, why should we listen to you? You contravene your own teaching of using reason and logic by appealling to authority. You don't seem to have a clue about your own contradictions.
DQ: When you surrender, what is that you are trying to escape from?

sam: Surrender isn't about escaping. It is the recognition that ego is not in control.

DQ: In other words, surrender is about trying to escape the illusion that the ego is in control.
No. Listen to what I said. There is no escape. Surrendering to escape is an ego bargain. The ego says, "if I give everything away, then I will be on top." That is bargaining, not surrendering, get it?
DQ: I've never said that all action is egoic in origin. I did say that enlightened people who thoroughly perceive the illusion of the ego are in a position to act without ego. At the same time, everyone else, who by definition are still under the spell of the ego, cannot help but behave egotistically.

sam: Right, all action by the unenlightened is egoic in origin. You assume your conclusion. How do you know all action by the unenlightened is egoic? You define it that way, that's how. So, is breathing egoic? Breathing is an action, isn't it?

DQ: I was talking about motivated behaviour within conscious individuals. Unconscious things like lungs have no ego. Ultra-conscious Buddhas have no ego. Conscious beings inbetween these two extremes are always egotistical - that is, they are spellbound by the illusion of their own existence.
Already you are qualifying what actions are egoic and what aren't so obviously there is a problem saying anything done by someone unenlightened must be egoic in nature. So breathing is okay. How about walking? I am motivated to take a walk; the body needs exercise after all. Egoic? We can keep doing this. How many exceptions do you need to make before seeing how full of holes your fundamentalist pronouncement is?
DQ: I've already described how the enlightened person doesn't act out of self-serving purposes, so I'm obviously not dismissing the notion altogether. I'm simply dismissing your idea that surrender is a non-egotistical activity.

sam: In the sense that you are describing, no, it wouldn't be. But that is because behind your idea of action there is always the idea of gain, by your definition. I have been trying to point out that there is something already present within you that isn't ego. Surrender is about getting to that place that is always being overlooked.

DQ: In other words, you are seeking the benefits and gains of being in that place.
How can the ego benefit where it does not operate? What would the benefit be?
DQ: Perhaps you can answer this: What reason does have a person have to surrender? What was your motivation for surrendering?

sam: The ego has no motivation to surrender. You demonstrate that yourself. No motivation at all.

DQ: Usually, when a person surrenders it is to avoid a terrible fate. For example, when a soldier surrenders to an enemy army, he is doing it in order to avoid being killed. Or when a wife surrenders her will to a dominating husband, she does it to try and minimize disharmony between them. So what is your ego trying to avoid when it surrenders?
What you describe is bargaining. If I give in here, I'll get this in return. Egos bargain all the time, giving up something to get what they hope will be something more. Real surrender is not about getting something in return. What can you get if you are not there to get it?
sam: But the question remains, is ego all there is to you? Can you find that place in you that is not about ego?

DQ: I've already explained that I affirm such a place exists, but it isn't where you are currently looking. Your generic teachers have been leading you astray, I'm afraid.
Well, it seems you agree with me in order to disagree. I don't know what that's about but I wouldn't doubt there is an image in there in need of some ego support.
mikiel
Posts: 588
Joined: Fri Oct 12, 2007 9:27 am

Re: What is enlightenment

Post by mikiel »

mikiel wrote:
d.f.: "Yes, but the ego who dreams up the illusion is the self. There was never any other. The divine aspect of the self was forgotten, if a distinction in those terms must be made. It is all divine, from my perspective, though I may not take a liking to everything. It is all purposeful."

Personal identity is the illusion. Enlightenment is *real*-izing the "One Identity in all." One then gets over himself as a 'separate' identity. This 'separate' identity is ego, which claims to be the 'real self.'
mikiel

d.f.: "I know what you mean, but I would not say the personal identity is illusion. The illusion, which is created purposefully, is the idea that there is anything that needs to be done. This is the separate identity you mean, as the true self beyond this identity knows all is taking care of itself. This true self, however, is still distinct in its identity in different focuses. That is to say, even though the self is one and all, there are many selves; and each one is unique--as well as complete in themselves. They each personally consist of all."

The one realization common to all enlightened ones is that presonal identity is an illusion. You said that there is only one self. True, but not in the relative sense you meant it... no two "selves" (ego and "real self") in a given individual. In the universal sense, there is only one Self, the same consciousness in all parts/individuals. To know this... not just conceptually but gnostically (to "know God" as distinct from "believing in God") is enlightenment.
You say, "...there are many selves." There are many individual embodiments or local expressions of the One Consciousness. This is the "cosmic consciousness" which is considered merely a fable by the vast majority, to say the least, who live in egocentricity.

You touch this truth when you say, "They each personally consist of all." Yet the omnipresence of the One Consciousness is the "E" realization. No more "claim" to personal/separate identity, tho individual uniqueness experiences the infinitely expanded joy of realization that "this one" is the Divine experiencing locally, through this individual. And I do mean joy... en-joyment of Life in infinitely expanded capacity.

(I'll be "in the wilderness" (Center for Conscious Unity) again 'til Sat.

See y'all then.
mikiel
User avatar
David Quinn
Posts: 5708
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: What is enlightenment

Post by David Quinn »

samadhi wrote:David,
DQ: Firstly, I'm of the opinion that you don't have any understanding of enlightenment. Apart from anything else, what we always get from you on the subject are generic regurgitations, which tells me that your relationship with enlightenment is run through a middleman and still only second-hand in nature.

sam: I never claimed to be enlightened. I speak from the experience gathered from different teachers, teachers who all point to the same thing. I have noticed you refer to teachers too. So why condemn me for doing what you do?

DQ: The difference is the little matter of first-hand knowledge.
Ah, the appeal to authority.

How does stressing the importance of developing first-hand knowledge and expertise in enlightenment translate into "appealing to authority"?

You've lost me there.

samadhi wrote:
DQ: Give me an example of an enjoyment and I will show you the egotism that is involved.
Eating a meal.

Depending on the person and the situation, there is: emotional relief in conquering hunger pains, the satisfaction of gaining energy and strength, the temporary casting aside of boredom, the distraction from worries and fears which occupy the mind, the guilty pleasure of eating rich food, the satisfaction that one has earned the money to pay for the food, the satisfaction that one is eating healthily, the desire to talk to others in the future about what one has eaten, etc.

samadhi wrote:
DQ: I don't really care what people want. I'm still going to prod and goad people into valuing wisdom regardless.

sam: Then you are being the politician. Politicians like to tell people what is good for them. That's fine for politicians but you seem to have confused enlightenment teaching with politics. That's not so good.

DQ: Well, when you finally become enlightened and have first-hand knowledge of the subject, then you can pontificate about what is enlightened behaviour and what isn't.
Oh puhleeeeze, this is so lame. Now you think enlightenment is about running egoic agendas of behavior on others.
You're missing the point. If you are going to have the arrogance to claim unenlightenment, then you should at least have the humility to stop pretending to know what enlightenment is and how it manifests. It makes you look foolish.

It is essentially no different to the person who arrogantly claims to be enlightened, but then is unable to answer a single question about enlightenment or help people spiritually in any way.

Show me a single enlightenment teacher who has based their teaching on how others should behave.

Jesus, Buddha, Chuang Tzu, Lao Tzu - they all did it. Even the quote you posted by Lao Tzu is full of advising people how they should behave.

For example:

If you want to be a great leader,
you must learn to follow the Tao.
Stop trying to control.
Let go of fixed plans and concepts,
and the world will govern itself.


In other words, Lao Tzu advises those who want to be great leaders (i.e. become enlightened) should learn to follow the Tao, stop trying to control the world, and let go of fixed plans and concepts. How much more prescriptive can you get?

samadhi wrote:
DQ: When you surrender, what is that you are trying to escape from?

sam: Surrender isn't about escaping. It is the recognition that ego is not in control.

DQ: In other words, surrender is about trying to escape the illusion that the ego is in control.
No. Listen to what I said. There is no escape. Surrendering to escape is an ego bargain. The ego says, "if I give everything away, then I will be on top." That is bargaining, not surrendering, get it?

So for what reason does a person surrender? Why does he choose to surrender as opposed to, say, bashing his head against a tree trunk?

samadhi wrote:
DQ: I've never said that all action is egoic in origin. I did say that enlightened people who thoroughly perceive the illusion of the ego are in a position to act without ego. At the same time, everyone else, who by definition are still under the spell of the ego, cannot help but behave egotistically.

sam: Right, all action by the unenlightened is egoic in origin. You assume your conclusion. How do you know all action by the unenlightened is egoic? You define it that way, that's how. So, is breathing egoic? Breathing is an action, isn't it?

DQ: I was talking about motivated behaviour within conscious individuals. Unconscious things like lungs have no ego. Ultra-conscious Buddhas have no ego. Conscious beings inbetween these two extremes are always egotistical - that is, they are spellbound by the illusion of their own existence.
Already you are qualifying what actions are egoic and what aren't so obviously there is a problem saying anything done by someone unenlightened must be egoic in nature. So breathing is okay. How about walking? I am motivated to take a walk; the body needs exercise after all. Egoic? We can keep doing this. How many exceptions do you need to make before seeing how full of holes your fundamentalist pronouncement is?

Mate, it's a matter of using one's intelligence and discerning the egotism involved. Walking can indeed be egotistically motivated and usually is - for example, walking up to a guru in order to receive his blessing. Even breathing can be egotistically motivated if it involves the desperate attempt to stay alive, or to reduce feelings of panic. If there is motivation involved, whether it be conscious or sub-conscious, and if the person is ignorant of his true nature, then the ego is automatically in operation.

-
Leyla Shen
Posts: 3851
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:12 pm
Location: Flippen-well AUSTRALIA

Re: What is enlightenment

Post by Leyla Shen »

Ego is the primordial drive PLUS superego censorship (“the law”--transitional development from nature to culture). Therefore, if surrendering is the product of drives censored/diverted by superego, then surrendering is egoistic. If one were to be like an animal and “in tune with his/her nature,” there would be no subversion of these drives by superego and, thus, no ego. I believe this is essentially what is meant here by “feminine.”

Eating as enjoyment is egoistic in that there are all these cultural conventions. For instance, few of us would accept cannibalism and enjoy it.
Between Suicides
samadhi
Posts: 406
Joined: Sat Dec 08, 2007 6:08 am

Re: What is enlightenment

Post by samadhi »

David,
DQ: Firstly, I'm of the opinion that you don't have any understanding of enlightenment. ...

sam: I never claimed to be enlightened. I speak from the experience gathered from different teachers, teachers who all point to the same thing. I have noticed you refer to teachers too. So why condemn me for doing what you do?

DQ: The difference is the little matter of first-hand knowledge.

sam: Ah, the appeal to authority.

DQ: How does stressing the importance of developing first-hand knowledge and expertise in enlightenment translate into "appealing to authority"? You've lost me there.
You are dismissing me for not having first-hand knowledge which supposedly is your authority for doing so. Yet you don't demonstrate any knowledge yourself, you simply appeal to it as if you had it. Why not demonstrate it instead of appealing to it?
DQ: Give me an example of an enjoyment and I will show you the egotism that is involved.

sam: Eating a meal.

DQ: Depending on the person and the situation, there is: emotional relief in conquering hunger pains, the satisfaction of gaining energy and strength, the temporary casting aside of boredom, the distraction from worries and fears which occupy the mind, the guilty pleasure of eating rich food, the satisfaction that one has earned the money to pay for the food, the satisfaction that one is eating healthily, the desire to talk to others in the future about what one has eaten, etc.
The point isn't that you can't make it about ego if that is your intent. The point is that it isn't NECESSARILY about ego. Many people eat because they are hungry. Satisfying hunger isn't about ego. Enlightened people get hungry too.
DQ: I don't really care what people want. I'm still going to prod and goad people into valuing wisdom regardless.

sam: Then you are being the politician. Politicians like to tell people what is good for them. That's fine for politicians but you seem to have confused enlightenment teaching with politics. That's not so good.

DQ: Well, when you finally become enlightened and have first-hand knowledge of the subject, then you can pontificate about what is enlightened behaviour and what isn't.

sam: Oh puhleeeeze, this is so lame. Now you think enlightenment is about running egoic agendas of behavior on others.

DQ: You're missing the point. If you are going to have the arrogance to claim unenlightenment, then you should at least have the humility to stop pretending to know what enlightenment is and how it manifests. It makes you look foolish.
Look, this is a forum about enlightenment. We talk about it here. I would think you, having established the forum, would understand that pretty well. You are being arrogant by pretending I can't tell the difference between dogmatic religious prescriptions (please behave, I know what's good for you) and enlightenment teaching. That you would appeal to your so-called first-hand experience to get a pass on preaching dogma is pretty sad. If you want to pretend telling everyone what to do is a manifestation of enlightenment, well, compared to you, looking foolish is the last thing I'm worried about.
It is essentially no different to the person who arrogantly claims to be enlightened, but then is unable to answer a single question about enlightenment or help people spiritually in any way.
You made the claim that enlightenment is not antithetical with preaching that others behave according to your standards. That is plainly nonsense and in fact accords with what religions do based on dogma. I have all the first-hand experience I need to say that dogma isn't enlightenment. Deal with it.
sam: Show me a single enlightenment teacher who has based their teaching on how others should behave.

DQ: Jesus, Buddha, Chuang Tzu, Lao Tzu - they all did it. Even the quote you posted by Lao Tzu is full of advising people how they should behave.

For example:

If you want to be a great leader,
you must learn to follow the Tao.
Stop trying to control.
Let go of fixed plans and concepts,
and the world will govern itself.
Huh? Are you serious? How can you post the quote and miss the words right in front of your face? STOP TRYING TO CONTROL. LET THE WORLD GOVERN ITSELF.

Oh, and in case your arrogance will proclaim those words as a prescription for behavior, need I remind you of your original assertion ... I don't really care what people want. I'm still going to prod and goad people into valuing wisdom regardless.
In other words, Lao Tzu advises those who want to be great leaders (i.e. become enlightened) should learn to follow the Tao, stop trying to control the world, and let go of fixed plans and concepts. How much more prescriptive can you get?
Are you really this clueless? You say you can tell others how to behave and that conforms with not trying to control anyone? You are the one imposing your fixed plans and concepts on others. This is pretty pathetic. You need to brush up on your A=A.

Now, of course you're going to come back and say that he is telling you to stop trying to control. And guess what, that is what I was telling you too! So why were you criticizing me for it when plainly you AGREE with it!?
DQ: When you surrender, what is that you are trying to escape from?

sam: Surrender isn't about escaping. It is the recognition that ego is not in control.

DQ: In other words, surrender is about trying to escape the illusion that the ego is in control.

sam: No. Listen to what I said. There is no escape. Surrendering to escape is an ego bargain. The ego says, "if I give everything away, then I will be on top." That is bargaining, not surrendering, get it?

DQ: So for what reason does a person surrender? Why does he choose to surrender as opposed to, say, bashing his head against a tree trunk?
I already said, the ego doesn't surrender. It bargains. It wants a better deal. Surrender is about finding that place that isn't about ego. From that place there is surrender.

If you want to think about surrender in terms of ego, think about someone who has just lost everything in a fire or storm. What do you do in such a circumstance? Can the ego get a better deal than nothing? Sometimes nothing is the only deal in town and when you see that, sometimes, not always but sometimes, the liberation you never wanted and never believed in, suddenly appears.
DQ: I was talking about motivated behaviour within conscious individuals. Unconscious things like lungs have no ego. Ultra-conscious Buddhas have no ego. Conscious beings inbetween these two extremes are always egotistical - that is, they are spellbound by the illusion of their own existence.

sam: Already you are qualifying what actions are egoic and what aren't so obviously there is a problem saying anything done by someone unenlightened must be egoic in nature. So breathing is okay. How about walking? I am motivated to take a walk; the body needs exercise after all. Egoic? We can keep doing this. How many exceptions do you need to make before seeing how full of holes your fundamentalist pronouncement is?

sam: Mate, it's a matter of using one's intelligence and discerning the egotism involved. Walking can indeed be egotistically motivated and usually is - for example, walking up to a guru in order to receive his blessing. Even breathing can be egotistically motivated if it involves the desperate attempt to stay alive, or to reduce feelings of panic. If there is motivation involved, whether it be conscious or sub-conscious, and if the person is ignorant of his true nature, then the ego is automatically in operation.
Look, any action can involve ego. The point being made is that it doesn't NECESSARILY involve ego. If I go for a walk because I want some exercise, that isn't about ego. Caring for the body isn't NECESSARILY about anything other than that. Fresh air and exercise are not manipulations for some other goal. They are the goal. When you act without division, you are not acting out of ego.
Kevin Solway
Posts: 2766
Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2001 8:43 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: What is enlightenment

Post by Kevin Solway »

samadhi wrote:Many people eat because they are hungry. Satisfying hunger isn't about ego.
In the case of an unconscious, animal-type person, eating isn't about ego. They simply eat because they are hungry.

Being an animal-type person who simply eats because they are hungry doesn't have anything to do with enlightenment.
bert
Posts: 648
Joined: Fri Aug 19, 2005 6:08 am
Location: Antwerp

Re: What is enlightenment

Post by bert »

Kevin Solway wrote:
samadhi wrote:Many people eat because they are hungry. Satisfying hunger isn't about ego.
In the case of an unconscious, animal-type person, eating isn't about ego. They simply eat because they are hungry.

Being an animal-type person who simply eats because they are hungry doesn't have anything to do with enlightenment.
he might be a misologist and thereby has a great superstition about spontaneity as a way of action. first, the self-unity with the sublimation - then the courageous act.

this is all appropriate if he believes in the Eternity of Ego whether he is carnate, discarnate, reincarnate, or whatever metamorphosis he suffers. for he is change and forver ultimate however he may appear. he is all differentiations, all unities, seperatnesses and inconceivables. but his fatigue, his forgetfulness are a mystery of duality, yet this must be his way of knowing by the effort of re-remembering.
User avatar
David Quinn
Posts: 5708
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: What is enlightenment

Post by David Quinn »

samadhi wrote:David,
DQ: Firstly, I'm of the opinion that you don't have any understanding of enlightenment. ...

sam: I never claimed to be enlightened. I speak from the experience gathered from different teachers, teachers who all point to the same thing. I have noticed you refer to teachers too. So why condemn me for doing what you do?

DQ: The difference is the little matter of first-hand knowledge.

sam: Ah, the appeal to authority.

DQ: How does stressing the importance of developing first-hand knowledge and expertise in enlightenment translate into "appealing to authority"? You've lost me there.
You are dismissing me for not having first-hand knowledge which supposedly is your authority for doing so. Yet you don't demonstrate any knowledge yourself, you simply appeal to it as if you had it. Why not demonstrate it instead of appealing to it?
The demonstration of it is in the words that I write to this forum everyday.

I'm not suggesting that I am entirely without ego, but there is enough in my words to show that I speak with expertise, clarity, simplicity, and freedom of mind.

samadhi wrote:
DQ: Give me an example of an enjoyment and I will show you the egotism that is involved.

sam: Eating a meal.

DQ: Depending on the person and the situation, there is: emotional relief in conquering hunger pains, the satisfaction of gaining energy and strength, the temporary casting aside of boredom, the distraction from worries and fears which occupy the mind, the guilty pleasure of eating rich food, the satisfaction that one has earned the money to pay for the food, the satisfaction that one is eating healthily, the desire to talk to others in the future about what one has eaten, etc.
The point isn't that you can't make it about ego if that is your intent. The point is that it isn't NECESSARILY about ego. Many people eat because they are hungry. Satisfying hunger isn't about ego. Enlightened people get hungry too.

I'll say it again, if a person is fully enlightened and thoroughly free of the illusion of ego, then yes, his every single action is performed without ego, no matter what he does - eating, walking, talking, admonishing deluded posters, etc.

On the other hand, if he isn't fully enlightened and his mind is still spellbound by the ego, then his every action, without exception, is performed egotistically, no matter what he does - eating, walking, talking, admonishing deluded posters, etc.

There is never an instance where an unenlightened person performs without ego, no matter how pure he believes his actions to be.

The highest and purest action that an unenlightened person can perform is the intense searching for enlightenment with every shred of his being. Yet even this remains in the realm of egotistical activity. If, through this intense activity, he succeeds in becoming fully enlightened and completely frees himself from the illusion of ego, then yes, here, and only here, does he begin to behave without ego.

Your conceit is that you believe that you occasionally behave without ego, even though you are still unenlightened and thus still spellbound by the ego. This comes back to the fact that you are in denial about the deeper aspects of ego.

You are being arrogant by pretending I can't tell the difference between dogmatic religious prescriptions (please behave, I know what's good for you) and enlightenment teaching. That you would appeal to your so-called first-hand experience to get a pass on preaching dogma is pretty sad. If you want to pretend telling everyone what to do is a manifestation of enlightenment, well, compared to you, looking foolish is the last thing I'm worried about.

I neither put forth dogma, nor tell people what to do. You're barking up the wrong tree here. I might provoke, stimulate, attack, cajole, reason, etc, but that is an altogether different activity.

samadhi wrote:
sam: Show me a single enlightenment teacher who has based their teaching on how others should behave.

DQ: Jesus, Buddha, Chuang Tzu, Lao Tzu - they all did it. Even the quote you posted by Lao Tzu is full of advising people how they should behave.

For example:

If you want to be a great leader,
you must learn to follow the Tao.
Stop trying to control.
Let go of fixed plans and concepts,
and the world will govern itself.
Huh? Are you serious? How can you post the quote and miss the words right in front of your face? STOP TRYING TO CONTROL. LET THE WORLD GOVERN ITSELF.

Nonetheless, he is putting forth prescriptions which he strongly suggests other people should follow. If I was unkind and argumentative, I could accuse Lao Tzu of being dogmatic and fixated upon telling other people what to do, based purely on what he writes here.

Oh, and in case your arrogance will proclaim those words as a prescription for behavior, need I remind you of your original assertion ... I don't really care what people want. I'm still going to prod and goad people into valuing wisdom regardless.
I doubt that Lao Tzu really cared what most people wanted either. After all, he made it plain that he thought most people were fools.

samadhi wrote:
In other words, Lao Tzu advises those who want to be great leaders (i.e. become enlightened) should learn to follow the Tao, stop trying to control the world, and let go of fixed plans and concepts. How much more prescriptive can you get?
Are you really this clueless? You say you can tell others how to behave and that conforms with not trying to control anyone? You are the one imposing your fixed plans and concepts on others. This is pretty pathetic. You need to brush up on your A=A.

I do it no more than Lao Tzu did. If I was really interested in controlling people, I would be engaging in another career path. I would be a politician or a religious guru, for example. Like Lao Tzu, I provoke and stimulate people, without seeking to control them.

samadhi wrote:
DQ: When you surrender, what is that you are trying to escape from?

sam: Surrender isn't about escaping. It is the recognition that ego is not in control.

DQ: In other words, surrender is about trying to escape the illusion that the ego is in control.

sam: No. Listen to what I said. There is no escape. Surrendering to escape is an ego bargain. The ego says, "if I give everything away, then I will be on top." That is bargaining, not surrendering, get it?

DQ: So for what reason does a person surrender? Why does he choose to surrender as opposed to, say, bashing his head against a tree trunk?
I already said, the ego doesn't surrender. It bargains. It wants a better deal. Surrender is about finding that place that isn't about ego. From that place there is surrender.

If it is the ego which doesn't surrender, then who does?

If you want to think about surrender in terms of ego, think about someone who has just lost everything in a fire or storm. What do you do in such a circumstance? Can the ego get a better deal than nothing? Sometimes nothing is the only deal in town and when you see that, sometimes, not always but sometimes, the liberation you never wanted and never believed in, suddenly appears.
At the moment, I can't discern anything that you might have lost. You seem to engage in all the normal worldly pursuits that every Tom, Dick and Harry engages in. What exactly was the nature of your loss which led to your surrender?

Or has it even happened yet? You did say you were unenlightened, so I suppose this means that it hasn't.

-
User avatar
Carl G
Posts: 2659
Joined: Fri Aug 25, 2006 12:52 pm
Location: Arizona

Re: What is enlightenment

Post by Carl G »

Kevin Solway wrote:
samadhi wrote:Many people eat because they are hungry. Satisfying hunger isn't about ego.
In the case of an unconscious, animal-type person, eating isn't about ego. They simply eat because they are hungry.
This is false. Much unconscious, animal-type person eating is about emotional satisfaction, and all the other reasons David gave, on subconscious levels. Much eating in modern affluent countries is not about fulfilling physical hunger. Many people in these areas do not truly even know what a feeling of physical hunger is, so bloated are they with regular heavy meals and snacks and so busy are they assuaging their various hurts and desires.
Good Citizen Carl
Kevin Solway
Posts: 2766
Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2001 8:43 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: What is enlightenment

Post by Kevin Solway »

Carl G wrote:
Kevin Solway wrote:In the case of an unconscious, animal-type person, eating isn't about ego. They simply eat because they are hungry.
Much unconscious, animal-type person eating is about emotional satisfaction, and all the other reasons David gave, on subconscious levels. Much eating in modern affluent countries is not about fulfilling physical hunger.
You are correct about the behaviour of a great many people - but these people are not entirely unconscious. They have ego because they have a small amount of consciousness.

Imagine a tree consuming its daily meal. That's how a purely unconscious or animal-person would consume their food. They might be peaceful, and going with the flow, but they wouldn't be enlightened.
User avatar
divine focus
Posts: 611
Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2007 1:48 pm

Re: What is enlightenment

Post by divine focus »

David Quinn wrote:
divine focus wrote:This is not the case. If ego was necessary for enjoyment, it would be necessary for life. Only humans have ego--and potentially other hyper-rational beings, also. Attraction and enjoyment is a part of all life.

What about repulsion and violence? Are they too a part of all life?
They are a part of all free physical life to some degree. Physical life meaning life within form--denoting separation within experience--and free life meaning objective awareness of the possibility of imperfection, however slight. This possibility of imperfection creates the desire to improve or grow; but when out of balance--which can only happen physically--it creates situations where one form of life or being must dominate or control another for arbitrary purposes.
divine focus wrote:The ego, which is simply the self tied to egoic operation, surrenders to its true nature. It's nature cannot be arrived at logically, so that in realizing it, the trusting of it could be considered surrender. It is a knowing that is ultimately unexplainable in its entirety but makes perfect sense. It is not surrender to an enemy or a threat but to knowledge of oneness and power. It happens at the level of attention or action, the level of physical emotion, and the level of thought.
You're not addressing the issue being discussed - which is whether surrendering is an egotistical activity or not. I'm saying that it is clearly an egotistical activity because it is motivated out of the ego's need to be happy. The ego sees happiness in surrendering to the "oneness", and that is what motivates it to embark upon the action of surrendering.

Such surrendering is a form of escapism and involves reaching an attainment of some kind - the very things that Sam dismisses as being ego-driven and which can only result in locking in the ego. But for some strange reason, he doesn't want to view his own surrendering in that light.
I see what your saying, but it is not escapism. It is "egotistical" in that it is for self, primarily, but it is not ego-driven necessarily. Nothing is actually ego-driven, but anything chosen must be chosen in conjunction with the ego-structure while it is in operation. The self consists of all, so that what is for self is for all. That is not escapism if the self is actually recognized and trusted objectively, in contrast to ego-control.

There is a form of surrender that is escapism, but it is all par for the course.
eliasforum.org/digests.html
bert
Posts: 648
Joined: Fri Aug 19, 2005 6:08 am
Location: Antwerp

Re: What is enlightenment

Post by bert »

interruption:
david:
You're not addressing the issue being discussed - which is whether surrendering is an egotistical activity or not. I'm saying that it is clearly an egotistical activity because it is motivated out of the ego's need to be happy. The ego sees happiness in surrendering to the "oneness", and that is what motivates it to embark upon the action of surrendering.
he might say that it's part of a sword that's containing its own medicine.
he is prepared to meet the omnifarious believing, or let's say God, indeed the living truth.
does he live to spare?, no, but that the world may perish. you learn all things of yourself for representation: from your thought to become thereafter.


the modified copulations are the index of knowledge; when he finally realise this; the dualities do not obstruct with infinite complexities and education.yes, we create value where there is none. complex desire is the further creation of difference desire, not the realization of a perticular(desire).
Such surrendering is a form of escapism and involves reaching an attainment of some kind - the very things that Sam dismisses as being ego-driven and which can only result in locking in the ego. But for some strange reason, he doesn't want to view his own surrendering in that light.
the most important outcome of human effort is taht we learn to become righteous thieves: to possess more easily of others for self-advantage.

which are more filthy: they who make a profession of their morality, or they who prostitute?
who owns the Earthly Kingdom?what asses these teachers and prophets, and moralists appear now?
life is a sticky charity from which come forth friendships towards parasites.
Locked