GENIUS FORUMS

As I said, tho you were not hearing it, I am not speaking of the *idea of enlightenment* but enlightenment itself... not the concept which hangs you up. I am beginning to see that you have no experiential context for knowing the difference since you appear to "live" only in the world of concepts and ideas with no grasp of reality beyond your own apparent solipsism.

Enlightenment itself, is merely an idea.

"Enlightenment is essentially the same as Ego itself"

Your ignorance is astounding! Enlightenment is transcendence of ego.

Enlightenment is an imaginary cure, to an imaginary problem.
Like how Christian Salvation is the cure to Sin.

People who subscribe to such myths will inevitably face more problems.

You have obviously no grasp of this truth, as your concept of enlightenment is in the same boat with your concept of ego, and it is **all** in your head with no reality check as in even a preview of transcendence of your personal ego, so stuffed with these concepts.
No room left for awakening.
You are a progogramed robot. I have no idea how your patethic life situation conditioned to believe there is no transcendence of the ego-full-of-concepts which rules your life.
Just a tip. It may be just a seed which germinates after you despair of this bullshit your head is buried in. Maybe not in your lifetime.

See, your frustration to defend such a concept is not impressive and doesn't help your case at all...actually it illustrates my point very well.

Relax, and try again. Or not, up to you.

Ave:"See, your frustration to defend such a concept is not impressive and doesn't help your case at all...actually it illustrates my point very well."
You may still live in a world of frustration But I do not... your projection only. You continue to judge others falsly, projecting "you" where to say "I" wold be honest.

Radical honesty in confronting egocentricity like yours is like a lazer, A focused light with a powerful burn. But I see I see it's wasted on you, and I have no need to get you over your illusion of self and its projection on others.

I will leave you with this qoute from Ken Wilber, which captures my style of teaching perfectly (i.e. in regard to really hard-shelled egocentrics such as you):
------------------
" If you want encouragement, soft smiles, ego stroking, gentle caresses of your self-contracting ways, pats on the back and sweet words of solace, find yourself a Nice Guy or Good Girl, and hold their hand on the sweet path of stress reduction and egoic comfort. But if you want Enlightenment, if you want to wake up, if you want to get fried in the fire of passionate Infinity, then, I promise you: find yourself a Rude Boy or a Nasty Girl, the ones who make you uncomfortable in their presence, who scare you witless, who will turn on you in a second and hold you up for ridicule, who will make you wish you were never born, who will offer you not sweet comfort but abject terror, not saccharin solace but scorching angst, for then, just then, you might very well be on the path to your own Original Face."
-------------

That's all I've got for you.
mikiel

What do you teach mikiel?

But if you want Enlightenment, if you want to wake up, if you want to get fried in the fire of passionate Infinity, then, I promise you: find yourself a Rude Boy or a Nasty Girl

The state of mind he is selling you is the same typical state of mind: one that craves, desires, and struggles ---

And Wilber wants you to add Enlightenment to your list of desires, heh...

Average: "What do you teach mikiel?"
See my "Liberation" thread, now on page two.
m

Some of what you said is similar to what I've been saying.

you said in one part: "there is no I to be enlightened"

which is what I have been saying as well, and have gone further.

"You can not enter the gates of nirvana because the gates are imaginary, just like you."


Just how "I" is a case of mistaken identity, illusion, so is the case of Enlightenment, it is another illusion...even more removed than "I" since by far less people are possessed by it.

average wrote:Some of what you said is similar to what I've been saying.

you said in one part: "there is no I to be enlightened"

which is what I have been saying as well, and have gone further.

"You can not enter the gates of nirvana because the gates are imaginary, just like you."


Just how "I" is a case of mistaken identity, illusion, so is the case of Enlightenment, it is another illusion...even more removed than "I" since by far less people are possessed by it.

It turns out, through direct real-I-zation, that there is only One "I" in all forms/individuals.... the Reality (not the little mental concept) of consciousness which transcends all "things" that awareness is *aware of*. The "separate 'i'" is an illusion. The Omnipresent "I" (cosmic consciousness) is absolute reality transcending (yet aware of* all manifestation. The individual who awakens (into enlightenment) *knows* this Reality. The philosopher who is spinning his wheels in the limited field of the relative/manifest does not.
"The gates of nirvana" is conceptual, metaphorical language. The actual awakening, as above is real transformation from the finite concept "me," the illusion, into the infinite Identity in all, the One "I."

mikiel

mikiel wrote:

average wrote:Some of what you said is similar to what I've been saying.

you said in one part: "there is no I to be enlightened"

which is what I have been saying as well, and have gone further.

"You can not enter the gates of nirvana because the gates are imaginary, just like you."


Just how "I" is a case of mistaken identity, illusion, so is the case of Enlightenment, it is another illusion...even more removed than "I" since by far less people are possessed by it.

It turns out, through direct real-I-zation, that there is only One "I" in all forms/individuals.... the Reality (not the little mental concept) of consciousness which transcends all "things" that awareness is *aware of*. The "separate 'i'" is an illusion. The Omnipresent "I" (cosmic consciousness) is absolute reality transcending (yet aware of* all manifestation. The individual who awakens (into enlightenment) *knows* this Reality. The philosopher who is spinning his wheels in the limited field of the relative/manifest does not.
"The gates of nirvana" is conceptual, metaphorical language. The actual awakening, as above is real transformation from the finite concept "me," the illusion, into the infinite Identity in all, the One "I."

mikiel

what is the point of replacing a finite illusion with an infinite illusion?

"what is the point of replacing a finite illusion with an infinite illusion?"

This is the dumbest!.....
So you think its all illusion. You illustrate my point. You clearly don't know the difference between illusion and reality. You clearly didn't comprehend my last post.

Total denial of objective reality is solopsism... the philosophy of self absorbed "idealism" (to at least grant you your category... in the august company of Berkely, Hume, et.al.)

In The common vernacular, this is "head up the ass" philosophy... One can only "see" his own shit... in total denial of "the world/cosmos."
"What head up what ass?" ... you might argue. Or "I had no real parents and have no real body... it's all illusion."
No one is typing on these illusory keys, etc....

Like I said the absolute epitome of absurdity... "dumbness."
I swear (almost) that I am done wasting my time on you.

Not only is the cosmos "real", so is "Kosmos", and that is the One Consciousness Whose body is cosmos... in which our little world is minutia in the comic hologram... resonating in Identity with the Whole.
(Maybe it will sprout later if the hard ground ever gets some tilth... some organic soil into your life to support the seeds of enlightenment.... maybe not. I don't care anymore.)
mikiel

mikiel wrote:"what is the point of replacing a finite illusion with an infinite illusion?"

This is the dumbest!.....
So you think its all illusion. You illustrate my point. You clearly don't know the difference between illusion and reality. You clearly didn't comprehend my last post.

When you figure out why you replaced one illusion with another, let me know.

Not only is the cosmos "real", so is "Kosmos", and that is the One Consciousness Whose body is cosmos... in which our little world is minutia in the comic hologram... resonating in Identity with the Whole.

mikiel

... "the One Consciousness Whose Body is cosmos in the comic hologram resonating in the Identity of the Whole" is just your own idea.

It doesn't actually exist anywhere outside your imagination.

On the other hand Miki, Average seems to be saying something profound on which you seem to be projecting your own world.

Average: How did you come upon your profound realization, did you follow meditation? How many years did it take.

BTW the dissolution of the I and clear vision of the mental processes is enlightenment and so your statement that there is no enlightenment does not make sense, but only that the grandiose conception of it does not.

maestro wrote:On the other hand Miki, Average seems to be saying something profound on which you seem to be projecting your own world.

Average: How did you come upon your profound realization, did you follow meditation? How many years did it take.

BTW the dissolution of the I and clear vision of the mental processes is enlightenment and so your statement that there is no enlightenment does not make sense, but only that the grandiose conception of it does not.

Why do you think I have had a profound realization?

I am guess-estimating based on your responses in this thread. And I am pretty sure you also think this is true.

maestro wrote:I am guess-estimating based on your responses in this thread. And I am pretty sure you also think this is true.

My realization was simply a matter of becoming conscious of that which was already realized.

average wrote:
My realization was simply a matter of becoming conscious of that which was already realized.

I don't consider it profound at all...and certainly nothing was attained.

By already realized you mean already extant?

Well something was attained, not every attainment is material, the clarity of vision is a supreme attainment.

I was just curious about your path, I guess it was meditation (not the sitting eye closed variety either).

maestro wrote:
By already realized you mean already extant?

Yep.

I was just curious about your path, I guess it was meditation (not the sitting eye closed variety either).

The only path that worked for me, was no-path.
The only type of meditation I find constructive, is no-meditation.

And how about the defilements (for example greed anger lust jealousy hurt pride). Have they disappeared with the ego?

maestro wrote:And how about the defilements (for example greed anger lust jealousy hurt pride). Have they disappeared with the ego?

The notion of ego disappeared, as did the notion of defilements.

average wrote: The notion of ego disappeared, as did the notion of defilements.

You are just giving wiseacre responses. The ego is just a notion because nothing corresponds to it on closer scrutiny. However the phenomenon I listed as defilements are definitely tangible. Just because you do not have a notion about something does not make it disappear.

They are experienced, but they are not defilements.

average wrote:

mikiel wrote:"what is the point of replacing a finite illusion with an infinite illusion?"

This is the dumbest!.....
So you think its all illusion. You illustrate my point. You clearly don't know the difference between illusion and reality. You clearly didn't comprehend my last post.

When you figure out why you replaced one illusion with another, let me know.

Not only is the cosmos "real", so is "Kosmos", and that is the One Consciousness Whose body is cosmos... in which our little world is minutia in the comic hologram... resonating in Identity with the Whole.

mikiel

... "the One Consciousness Whose Body is cosmos in the comic hologram resonating in the Identity of the Whole" is just your own idea.

It doesn't actually exist anywhere outside your imagination.

Well, in spite of my earlier intention to quit wasting my time with you... I'm up for a little more cat 'n mouse (guess which is which in my game!) on a fine T-day afternoon.
You continuslly avoid my challenges but I'll ask a few more direct questions anyway.

Do grok "solipsism"... "idealism"... That the Berkely/Hume school is 'head up the ass' philosophy... total denial of objective reality?...

In which case, where did this illusion of "Average" come from? Not born to real parents in the natural manner of procreation or what? Or in the immediate, illusory fingers typing on an illusory keyboard into an illusory forum in an illusory internet. There is no end to the absurdity of your assertions in this regard... and that doesn't even touch the "consciousness" issue as to what awareness is *aware of* all these "illusory phenomena" in the supposedly objective world, which you deny.

When I was in college some 40 yrs ago, my philosophical buddies and I used to stay up all night contemplating the "depths" of the philosophy of idealism... (which turned out to be "shallows!") It was "cool" and we were sophomores smoking pipes and wearing beatnik berets. It finally "dawned on us" and we got over it.

Go ahead and answer my questions if you have the guts for it. Your avoidance of my challenges here is not likely fooling anyone here but maestro, and he is avoiding the challenge just like you are.

Yes, I know the difference between illusion and reality. My ego-identity was illusion. The One Identity in all is Reality, Omnipresent Consciousness itSelf. These are not just concepts, tho that's all you seem to know. The reality of "Liberation" from "ego's dream" is universal among all enlightened mystics. Just because you have no clue does not mean that all testimony of all enlightened ones... and/or mine... is bullshit.
(When you awaken from a dream, do you see the difference in "reality quotient" or do you deny this difference, common to us all, also?)
Get over yourself, kid. Grow up. Maturity may bring the "dawn" for you too... but only when you can see what absurd bullshit you are spreading in this forum.
mikiel

...

xerox wrote:If only the ego could take its own advice, instead of pointing out the errors of others, then, maybe, the irony would disappear, along with ego and the light might actually go on.

Maybe if you read the thread there xerox, you could get a handle on my approach to Average here. The Ken Wilber quote above might put it in context for you. I take to this style like a fish to water when it comes to confronting hard shelled egocentricity nested in a deep pocket of solopsism.
If, btw you have anything of substance to say about the latter or the general sense of the debate here... have at it.

mikiel

mik wrote:
Do grok "solipsism"... "idealism"... That the Berkely/Hume school is 'head up the ass' philosophy... total denial of objective reality?...

I'm familiar with those philosophies, but I'm not sure what you are asking here.

In which case, where did this illusion of "Average" come from?

Up to you.

Yes, I know the difference between illusion and reality. My ego-identity was illusion. The One Identity in all is Reality, Omnipresent Consciousness itSelf. These are not just concepts, tho that's all you seem to know. The reality of "Liberation" from "ego's dream" is universal among all enlightened mystics. Just because you have no clue does not mean that all testimony of all enlightened ones... and/or mine... is bullshit.

The fact that you still feel the need to identify with something is still present.
All identification is illusory.

Get over yourself, kid. Grow up. Maturity may bring the "dawn" for you too... but only when you can see what absurd bullshit you are spreading in this forum.
mikiel

:)

average wrote:

mik wrote:
Do grok "solipsism"... "idealism"... That the Berkely/Hume school is 'head up the ass' philosophy... total denial of objective reality?...

I'm familiar with those philosophies, but I'm not sure what you are asking here.

The obvious denial. I asked if you grok the meaning. Endorse or reject. Respond as to how you see your's as different, if you do...
The usual in dialogue... actual response to points made!

In which case, where did this illusion of "Average" come from?

Up to you.

Actually I don't give a shit about your denial of your own objective existence. Just pointing out the absurdity of it again. Did you have parents? Do you have a head and an ass? Fingers, keyboard??
My answer to all the above, for myself is "yes." You?

Yes, I know the difference between illusion and reality. My ego-identity was illusion. The One Identity in all is Reality, Omnipresent Consciousness itSelf. These are not just concepts, tho that's all you seem to know. The reality of "Liberation" from "ego's dream" is universal among all enlightened mystics. Just because you have no clue does not mean that all testimony of all enlightened ones... and/or mine... is bullshit.

The fact that you still feel the need to identify with something is still present.
All identification is illusory.

Your "fact" about what I feel illustrates your projection of your own shit onto everyone else, as per your thread title.
I feel no "need" to "identify with something." Omnipresent Conscioujsness is Reality, same Identity in all. Separate identity is an illusion.... (Maybe repetition will get your attention, tho the operation to get your head out of your ass is very risky in your case. Without your myopic fixation and denial of objective reality, you would, I assume just disappear... no loss here or there of any realiity anyway.

Get over yourself, kid. Grow up. Maturity may bring the "dawn" for you too... but only when you can see what absurd bullshit you are spreading in this forum.
mikiel

:)

I am getting bored with you tho.
mikiel

mikiel wrote:
The obvious denial. I asked if you grok the meaning. Endorse or reject. Respond as to how you see your's as different, if you do...
The usual in dialogue... actual response to points made!

I don't subscribe to those philosophies, or reject them.

Actually I don't give a shit about your denial of your own objective existence. Just pointing out the absurdity of it again. Did you have parents? Do you have a head and an ass? Fingers, keyboard??
My answer to all the above, for myself is "yes." You?

Ok.
Identify with a body, if that pleases you.

I feel no "need" to "identify with something."

Yet earlier you identified with a body, and also with a notion of a Cosmic Omnipresent Consciousness...interesting.

(Maybe repetition will get your attention, tho the operation to get your head out of your ass is very risky in your case. Without your myopic fixation and denial of objective reality, you would, I assume just disappear... no loss here or there of any realiity anyway.

If we are all the same Cosmic Omnipresent Consciousness, then telling me I have my head up my ass and am myopic is like telling yourself that.

So please, insult me more, if you think you deserve it.