What is enlightenment

[samadhi]

Hey, I missed my own play on words! lol ...

[divine focus]

Enlightenment is really a milestone in the growth of an individual that could be placed at various stages of development. The word itself has no set definition. The earliest stage it could be applied to is that where enjoyment is pursued for the sake of enjoyment. There is still ego at this stage, but the structures and habits are in place that will lead to steady and even accelerated growth. The health and enjoyment of the self becomes primary. Without enjoyment, there is no health.

Another later stage you might deem "ENLIGHTENMENT!!!" is the end of thought-based fear--the last of all fears. This entails the end of identification with the rational mind, resting on a deeper or wider mind one might call the Godself or Tao. All anxiety and restlessness, though, believe it or not, once enjoyed, is given up as the Godself provides all that is desired. Enjoyment moves from planning and implementing to...living.

Growth without end. Amen.

[David Quinn]

Sam: I simply enjoy the discussion.

Dan: Why do you enjoy it?

Sam: It seems to be my nature. Why that is so, I don't know.

I find this disturbing. A person shouldn't be pontificating on the limits of self-inquiry if he has not reached those limits himself.

-

[David Quinn]

I define enlightenment as the end of mental suffering. I propose that this enlightenment can be achieved by observing the mind, locating the source of suffering and ending it. I would like to hear what others believe is the thing or state on which to put the label enlightenment on.

Mental suffering arises in concert with the ego so to propose an end of one implies the end of the other. However when you put forward a mental technique as a means to that end, what you are really saying is, the ego implements a technique, by and for the ego, that results in the end of the ego. Just think about that, okay? It shouldn't take you too long to see the contradiction.

What about the "technique" of directing the ego to consume itself, thereby putting an end to both the technique and the ego itself?

In any case, maestro's conception of enlightenment clearly involves too much work. If you are having to work at dealing with mental phenomena as they arise in each moment, then it can hardly be called liberation. Rather, it's a case of normal awareness being directed more inwardly than usual. Better than what the average person does with his consciousness, for sure, but still a long way short of the highest goal.

As Dan said in the femininity debate, enlightenment is spontaneity after reflection. Or as Chuang Tzu put it, enlightenment is "rambling in the vacancy of untroubled ease, finding food in the fields of indifference, and standing in gardens which had not been borrowed." What you're describing, meastro, is the reflection part, or at least an aspect of it.

Your technique involves trying to deal with the mayhem after the horses have bolted from the stable, so to speak. It misses the point entirely. In enlightened people, this mayhem never arises in the first place. They are enlightened because they have laid the karmic groundwork in the years beforehand and now enjoy the fruits of their labour without a care in the world.

-

[maestro]

Your technique involves trying to deal with the mayhem after the horses have bolted from the stable, so to speak. It misses the point entirely. In enlightened people, this mayhem never arises in the first place.

No when the technique is perfected it is dealt with after the initial feeling arises (without any expenditure of energy, just as I explained in the cycling analogy). It is never allowed to become the mayhem. Really guys it is splitting hairs, whether the observational circuitry is fast enough to prevent the feedback, or that the feedback loop is extinct, the results are the same anyways.

[maestro]

I would also like to point out that the realization that the self is illusory is not enough to finish the suffering. For this you need to clean up the mental habits. What do you guys propose can one do to clean up the mind?

[samadhi]

David,

sam: I simply enjoy the discussion.

Dan: Why do you enjoy it?

sam: It seems to be my nature. Why that is so, I don't know.

David: I find this disturbing. A person shouldn't be pontificating on the limits of self-inquiry if he has not reached those limits himself.

Understanding the limits of self-inquiry is pretty straightforward. But you don't have to believe me. Just look around and see how many people practice and how many become enlightened and draw your own conclusion.

maestro: I define enlightenment as the end of mental suffering. I propose that this enlightenment can be achieved by observing the mind, locating the source of suffering and ending it. I would like to hear what others believe is the thing or state on which to put the label enlightenment on.

samadhi: Mental suffering arises in concert with the ego so to propose an end of one implies the end of the other. However when you put forward a mental technique as a means to that end, what you are really saying is, the ego implements a technique, by and for the ego, that results in the end of the ego. Just think about that, okay? It shouldn't take you too long to see the contradiction.

David: What about the "technique" of directing the ego to consume itself, thereby putting an end to both the technique and the ego itself?

If a snake swallows its own tail, will it disappear? I don't think so. The ego has no interest in "getting rid of" itself. To pretend otherwise is nonsense. Self-inquiry is about discovering what isn't ego.

In any case, maestro's conception of enlightenment clearly involves too much work. If you are having to work at dealing with mental phenomena as they arise in each moment, then it can hardly be called liberation. Rather, it's a case of normal awareness being directed more inwardly than usual. Better than what the average person does with his consciousness, for sure, but still a long way short of the highest goal.

I agree that it is simply a technique for dealing with thoughts and feelings. In other words, maybe a place to start but not the end of the journey.

As Dan said in the femininity debate, enlightenment is spontaneity after reflection. Or as Chuang Tzu put it, enlightenment is "rambling in the vacancy of untroubled ease, finding food in the fields of indifference, and standing in gardens which had not been borrowed." What you're describing, meastro, is the reflection part, or at least an aspect of it.

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?

Your technique involves trying to deal with the mayhem after the horses have bolted from the stable, so to speak. It misses the point entirely. In enlightened people, this mayhem never arises in the first place. They are enlightened because they have laid the karmic groundwork in the years beforehand and now enjoy the fruits of their labour without a care in the world.

The technique is a start, everyone has to start somewhere.



maestro,

I would also like to point out that the realization that the self is illusory is not enough to finish the suffering. For this you need to clean up the mental habits. What do you guys propose can one do to clean up the mind?

You don't have to "clean up your mind" to be enlightened. The very idea that there is something wrong that needs fixing is what samsara is about. It is how the ego deals with its reality. When you take that approach, fixing one problem simply gives room for another to arise. What if the "problem" in fact was the identification of any situation as a problem? Who would you be without all yours ideas of trying to "fix" yourself?

[maestro]

You don't have to "clean up your mind" to be enlightened. The very idea that there is something wrong that needs fixing is what samsara is about.

Yes Sam, I know this standard new age teaching that everything is just fine if you do not think about it. It is complete bollocks.

[samadhi]

You don't have to "clean up your mind" to be enlightened. The very idea that there is something wrong that needs fixing is what samsara is about.

Yes Sam, I know this standard new age teaching that everything is just fine if you do not think about it. It is complete bollocks.

Of course it is bollocks to the ego! The ego wants to be in charge. "I will fix things! I have a method! Let me teach it to you! I will show you the way!" Isn't that the very nature of the ego, to take charge and start dishing its answers to anyone who will listen, itself included?

Here's a quote from Nisargadatta: "There is no goal nor way to reach it. You are the way and the goal, there is nothing else to reach except to yourself." Do you see what he is pointing to? It's perfectly okay if you want to go out and fix things. That's what everyone is already doing and have been doing for the past ten millennia. All it gets you is more fixing. There is no end to samsara other than to see what is already present in this moment right now. You don't have to fix yourself, you only have to be yourself.

This isn't an argument to kick back, crack a beer, turn on the TV and go unconscious. It is pointing to not being unconscious but what is ALREADY conscious and overlooked. It is the unconscious part of you that squirms and fidgets and tries to make things just right. That which is conscious is already right. What is that? Can you just stop for a moment and see it?

[David Quinn]

A person shouldn't be pontificating on the limits of self-inquiry if he has not reached those limits himself.

Understanding the limits of self-inquiry is pretty straightforward. But you don't have to believe me. Just look around and see how many people practice and how many become enlightened and draw your own conclusion.

Perhaps you are looking at people who themselves have not pushed self-enquiry as far as it can go.

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.

David: What about the "technique" of directing the ego to consume itself, thereby putting an end to both the technique and the ego itself?

If a snake swallows its own tail, will it disappear? I don't think so.

If a fire consumes the fuel that sustains it, will it disappear? Yes, it will.

The ego has no interest in "getting rid of" itself. To pretend otherwise is nonsense. Self-inquiry is about discovering what isn't ego.

If a person, out of a love of truth, were to generate enough momentum in his attack on the foundations of his own ego, he may soon find that he no longer has any means of stopping it. What his ego then thinks about the matter is irrelevant.

As Dan said in the femininity debate, enlightenment is spontaneity after reflection. Or as Chuang Tzu put it, enlightenment is "rambling in the vacancy of untroubled ease, finding food in the fields of indifference, and standing in gardens which had not been borrowed." What you're describing, meastro, is the reflection part, or at least an aspect of it.

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?

It prevents you from existing in a dreamworld.

-

[samadhi]

A person shouldn't be pontificating on the limits of self-inquiry if he has not reached those limits himself.

Understanding the limits of self-inquiry is pretty straightforward. But you don't have to believe me. Just look around and see how many people practice and how many become enlightened and draw your own conclusion.

Perhaps you are looking at people who themselves have not pushed self-enquiry as far as it can go.

Obviously some go further than others. Self-inquiry, as I said somewhere on this thread or the other, has many levels. Some approaches are more in-depth than others.

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.

I'm not sure what you're getting at here. I haven't discussed my motives at all. 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: What about the "technique" of directing the ego to consume itself, thereby putting an end to both the technique and the ego itself?

samadhi: 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.

You have mixed the metaphor. A fire doesn't burn itself, it burns fuel. The ego doesn't get rid of itself. If you act from ego, you will remain in ego, period.

samadhi: The ego has no interest in "getting rid of" itself. To pretend otherwise is nonsense. Self-inquiry is about discovering what isn't ego.

David: If a person, out of a love of truth, were to generate enough momentum in his attack on the foundations of his own ego, he may soon find that he no longer has any means of stopping it. What his ego then thinks about the matter is irrelevant.

I have no doubt that there are ways to become enlightened. Acting out of ego however is not one of them. It may be where you (meaning everyone) start, but it isn't where you end.

David: As Dan said in the femininity debate, enlightenment is spontaneity after reflection. Or as Chuang Tzu put it, enlightenment is "rambling in the vacancy of untroubled ease, finding food in the fields of indifference, and standing in gardens which had not been borrowed." What you're describing, meastro, is the reflection part, or at least an aspect of it.

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.

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.

[maestro]

David/Dan I am still waiting for your answer to my question, about suffering and the realization of no self.

[David Quinn]

Are you suffering?

:D

[David Quinn]

I would also like to point out that the realization that the self is illusory is not enough to finish the suffering. For this you need to clean up the mental habits. What do you guys propose can one do to clean up the mind?

First you discern the habits that lead to suffering and then you stop engaging in them.

-

[David Quinn]

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.

I'm not sure what you're getting at here. I haven't discussed my motives at all.

You stated that you had no real idea why you enjoyed engaging in discussion, even lazily concluding that it is part of your nature.

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.

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".

David: What about the "technique" of directing the ego to consume itself, thereby putting an end to both the technique and the ego itself?

samadhi: 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.

You have mixed the metaphor. A fire doesn't burn itself, it burns fuel.

Nevertheless, it is an accurate analogy of what it means for the ego to eliminate itself.

The ego doesn't get rid of itself. If you act from ego, you will remain in ego, period.

Then we are all doomed, since every single act initiated by an ignorant person is done from ego.

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.

David: If a person, out of a love of truth, were to generate enough momentum in his attack on the foundations of his own ego, he may soon find that he no longer has any means of stopping it. What his ego then thinks about the matter is irrelevant.

I have no doubt that there are ways to become enlightened. Acting out of ego however is not one of them. It may be where you (meaning everyone) start, but it isn't where you end.

That goes without saying.

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.

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.

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.

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.

-

[divine focus]

First you discern the habits that lead to suffering and then you stop engaging in them.

It's not about stopping engagement, but engaging a different action. The focus shouldn't be on what you want to stop but the new action you are developing.

In any case, maestro's conception of enlightenment clearly involves too much work. If you are having to work at dealing with mental phenomena as they arise in each moment, then it can hardly be called liberation. Rather, it's a case of normal awareness being directed more inwardly than usual. Better than what the average person does with his consciousness, for sure, but still a long way short of the highest goal.

There is no highest goal. Enlightenment does not exist in these terms. What is "too much work" is necessary at a certain point, until the "work" becomes habit. Liberation comes after the work, as the work sets the foundation. The "work" never stops; it simply becomes easier and easier.

Your technique involves trying to deal with the mayhem after the horses have bolted from the stable, so to speak. It misses the point entirely. In enlightened people, this mayhem never arises in the first place. They are enlightened because they have laid the karmic groundwork in the years beforehand and now enjoy the fruits of their labour without a care in the world.

It is not karmic; it is structural and based on new habits. It's not something that happens simply because of past experiences. It happens based on what you are doing now. Attention is action.

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.

I'm curious about your use of the word "dreamworld" and what you consider to be illusion. Do you consider the dream state illusory?

You don't have to "clean up your mind" to be enlightened. The very idea that there is something wrong that needs fixing is what samsara is about. It is how the ego deals with its reality. When you take that approach, fixing one problem simply gives room for another to arise. What if the "problem" in fact was the identification of any situation as a problem? Who would you be without all yours ideas of trying to "fix" yourself?

You are misunderstanding what maestro is putting forth. It is not a method of fixing but a method of growth. To say there is suffering in samsara but no problem in samsara creates a discord. Mental and emotional suffering are a problem; the "all is fine" area exists outside of this state. Alleviating this form of suffering can be considered a "fix;" this creates a desire for growth. The perspective changes once growth is occuring; what was a problem becomes a challenge. It becomes not so much about solving but overcoming.

[maestro]

First you discern the habits that lead to suffering and then you stop engaging in them.

Who is the you who will stop engaging in them? David are you bringing in the self from the back door? Or if you say that the thinking mind analyzes which are the bad habits and stop them: that is impossible as there is no time for the thinking mind to respond, when a habit is kicked off.

As an example sufferers of obsessive compulsive disorders know (logically) clearly that their compulsions lead to suffering but they are unable to stop them.

[samadhi]

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.

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.

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?

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. 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? 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.

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.

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.

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.



divine focus,

samadhi: You don't have to "clean up your mind" to be enlightened. The very idea that there is something wrong that needs fixing is what samsara is about. It is how the ego deals with its reality. When you take that approach, fixing one problem simply gives room for another to arise. What if the "problem" in fact was the identification of any situation as a problem? Who would you be without all yours ideas of trying to "fix" yourself?

df: You are misunderstanding what maestro is putting forth. It is not a method of fixing but a method of growth. To say there is suffering in samsara but no problem in samsara creates a discord. Mental and emotional suffering are a problem; the "all is fine" area exists outside of this state. Alleviating this form of suffering can be considered a "fix;" this creates a desire for growth. The perspective changes once growth is occuring; what was a problem becomes a challenge. It becomes not so much about solving but overcoming.

Okay. maestro however was talking about ending suffering by "cleaning up your mind." I'm not saying that one can't strive for a well-adjusted ego, everyone is doing that right now. But to imply that a well-adjusted ego is what ends suffering misses the point of what suffering is. It isn't about rearranging thoughts and feelings according to what the ego considers ideal. That may be a fine goal for egos but suffering arises from the IDENTITY with those thoughts and feelings. No matter how much you rearrange them, suffering will arise when you identify with thoughts and feelings that change. As long as suffering is seen as something out there that "I" need to fix, it will always find a way through your door.

[Sapius]

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?

No, I don’t think that needs explaining, especially if you call that “grasping’ at enlightenment”, as David likes to put it.

[divine focus]

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.

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.

There is no end!!!

divine focus,

Okay. maestro however was talking about ending suffering by "cleaning up your mind." I'm not saying that one can't strive for a well-adjusted ego, everyone is doing that right now. But to imply that a well-adjusted ego is what ends suffering misses the point of what suffering is. It isn't about rearranging thoughts and feelings according to what the ego considers ideal. That may be a fine goal for egos but suffering arises from the IDENTITY with those thoughts and feelings. No matter how much you rearrange them, suffering will arise when you identify with thoughts and feelings that change. As long as suffering is seen as something out there that "I" need to fix, it will always find a way through your door.

It is all a process. Ego does not fall away all at once. The ego does not actually exist as a power or motivator. There is only one self, and it is always in control of all aspects of itself. 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.

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.

[Carl G]

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.

“To work on oneself one must know every screw, every nail of one’s machine—then you will know what to do.”

G. I. Gurdjieff

[maestro]

Correct, one must go in depth to the very end. Otherwise whatever you leave unexplored will trap you.

[samadhi]

divine,

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.

df: There is no end!!!

I was speaking relatively, of course.

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.

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.

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.

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.


Carl,

To work on oneself one must know every screw, every nail of one’s machine—then you will know what to do.

If that's what you're interested in, that's what you'll do. Good luck with it.


maestro,

Correct, one must go in depth to the very end. Otherwise whatever you leave unexplored will trap you.

Or you'll simply get lost. There is no end to the ego from the level of ego. There will always be another thought or desire to pursue. Self-inquiry in terms of a path is not about unraveling each and every thought or desire. It is about what you are that isn't thinking or desiring.

[Carl G]

Carl,

To work on oneself one must know every screw, every nail of one’s machine—then you will know what to do.

If that's what you're interested in, that's what you'll do. Good luck with it.

And what the fuck you're interested in you'll do, too. Guess we have that all figured out now.

[mikiel]

Enteresting thread. There ought to be a 'Zine of this title, WIE!! Oh... there is!... a color/glossy presentation of Enlightenment as a product all gift-wrapped for the average consumer!
I'll jump in in reply to divine focus in this paragraph:

"It is all a process. Ego does not fall away all at once. The ego does not actually exist as a power or motivator. There is only one self, and it is always in control of all aspects of itself. 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."

From the context it is apparent that divine focus knows not what he said in the sentence:

" There is only one self, and it is always in control of all aspects of itself."

In the absolute, universal sense, indeed!... there is ony one Self!... not a zillion separate selves! Call the One "God"... or not. Cosmic Consciousness... same One in all.

But divine focus' context betrays the error of belief in "separate, personal self/identity." But maybe I misunderstand the next sentence:

"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