|
|
 |
|
| Author |
 Topic  |
|
lucidinterval1
USA
193 Posts |
 Posted - May 25 2007 : 9:30:51 PM
|
I am under the impression that the ego dissolves when enlightenment is attained. At this point we do not speak words that divide, judge or cause harm. Everything is spoken from a love perspective.
|
|
|
Kyman
530 Posts |
Posted - May 25 2007 : 10:48:48 PM
|
| A river attains its natural flow when the dam is removed? |
 |
|
|
david_obsidian
USA
2602 Posts |
Posted - May 26 2007 : 01:25:33 AM
|
I am under the impression that the ego dissolves when enlightenment is attained
Well, the meanings of words are not pre-given, and it all depends on what you mean by 'ego' and 'enlightenment'. Within certain meanings of the word 'ego', ego certainly doesn't dissolve at enlightenment. It doesn't dissolve until you are dead.
|
|
|
|
Chiron
Russia
397 Posts |
Posted - May 26 2007 : 02:20:28 AM
|
| If ego is the individual consciousness and enlightenment is the infinite consciousness then ego dissolves when enlightnment is attained. Imagine being simultaneously conscious of all beings in all of the universes the same way you are conscious of your own body-mind right now. If all beings are your own self then ofcourse you wouldn't speak words that divide, judge or cause harm to yourself (the self that is the non-self?!). |
|
|
|
Balance
USA
967 Posts |
Posted - May 26 2007 : 12:35:05 PM
|
Boy, I just can't leave these Masters' quotes alone
Here's a good one by Sri Nisargadatta (I'm sure you wouldn't have guessed):
"You are neither the limited dream objects nor the limited dream ego. In relativity, you are the totality of the dream, you are the consciousness through which all manifestation appears. But in truth, you are that which remains when this consciousness and all its busy-making disappears. Only when the false is seen as false and is removed, will the truth shine forth. Eliminate the false and what remains is true."
|
|
|
|
david_obsidian
USA
2602 Posts |
Posted - May 26 2007 : 1:28:27 PM
|
Chiron said:
If all beings are your own self then ofcourse you wouldn't speak words that divide, judge or cause harm to yourself (the self that is the non-self?!).
Well, I think a human being actually having 'infinite' consciousness is mythical (within the useful meanings of the word 'infinite'). But that aside, examples will make it clear that it is appropriate to do things to restrain people sometimes that they very much don't want and even harms them (like when they are directly engaged in doing wrongs) all for the greater good; and that these actions of restraint are even duties. I don't believe that as human beings become more evolved, it is time for them to shirk these particular duties.
|
|
|
|
NagoyaSea
424 Posts |
Posted - May 26 2007 : 2:37:37 PM
|
Paul said:
“I am under the impression that the ego dissolves when enlightenment is attained. At this point we do not speak words that divide, judge or cause harm. Everything is spoken from a love perspective.”
I love this thought. Being far from enlightened myself, I can at least attempt to live the qualities embodied in that statement: to not speak words that divide, judge or cause harm, and to speak from a perspective of love, of love for another, even when their actions are not what we consider right actions.
Paramahansa Yogandanda and his teacher before him used to say “Learn to Behave”. He said, “Let us create inner dwellings of beautiful qualities, erecting them in valleys of humbleness where gather the rains of God’s mercy…” and also “Whatever you want others to be, first be that yourself. Then you will find others responding in like manner to you.” Off topic a bit, I know, but Paul’s statement made me remember this and with it came a smile. 
Kathy
|
|
|
|
david_obsidian
USA
2602 Posts |
Posted - May 26 2007 : 4:52:05 PM
|
Oooops, sorry, I've been butting in here like a geek at a spiritual poetry convention. What we are all saying is all good and true, but I'm talking in the wrong place at the wrong time. Thanks for you patience. I'll kindly remove myself right now.
|
Edited by - david_obsidian on May 26 2007 4:54:54 PM |
|
|
|
kadak
79 Posts |
Posted - May 27 2007 : 03:49:43 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by david_obsidian
[ Well, I think a human being actually having 'infinite' consciousness is mythical (within the useful meanings of the word 'infinite').
No, it is not. Omiscience is omniscience, but it is VERY rare on this planet. And maybe you don't know, but when you come close to buddhahood, your physical body dissolves. The masters say that other people still can see you, but your body is a body of light and you have to concentrate hard to keep it. And finally it dissolves into a rainbow body (the five elements dissolve in the source). You can resorb your physical body before your death (like some "immortals") or after your death (like the Christ).
Anyway, at this point, ego is dissolved since a long time. Buddhas are not "human", it is even said that they are no more "beings".
|
Edited by - kadak on May 27 2007 04:40:39 AM |
|
|
|
david_obsidian
USA
2602 Posts |
Posted - May 27 2007 : 09:50:56 AM
|
Oh no. Now I am being pulled back into the thread.
Kadhak said:
No, it is not. Omiscience is omniscience, but it is VERY rare on this planet. And maybe you don't know, but when you come close to buddhahood, your physical body dissolves.
Kadhak, I'm at loss to respond because I don't know how to pursue any discussion with you on this. I'm telling you what I believe about something for which there is no clearly-available evidence, and you are coming in with a strong corrective pronouncement that, no, it is the way you believe it to be instead. Where am I supposed to take the discussion from there? Ask you for your evidence? Argue with you? Or merely say, 'Yes it is!' to your 'No it isn't'?
|
Edited by - david_obsidian on May 27 2007 6:52:31 PM |
|
|
|
NagoyaSea
424 Posts |
Posted - May 27 2007 : 11:49:18 AM
|
Another example of one of the reasons I rarely speak. We can’t actually ‘know’ anything until we experience it ourselves. We can think, conjecture, study, ponder and opine but these things are not necessarily the underlying reality of what is. And even when we do begin to grasp new layers of understanding, conveying the information using language is difficult at best.
David, I didn’t see any hauteur in Kadak’s thoughts. And no hostility either, although I don’t think you were referring to his statements, but rather the statements of others. He was just sharing his opinion. But your point is very well taken—we can express our thoughts without stating them as reality.
Am sincerely hoping I have not offended.
in light and love,
Kathy |
|
|
|
Balance
USA
967 Posts |
Posted - May 27 2007 : 12:55:59 PM
|
Paul said:
"I am under the impression that the ego dissolves when enlightenment is attained. At this point we do not speak words that divide, judge or cause harm. Everything is spoken from a love perspective."
|
|
|
|
NagoyaSea
424 Posts |
Posted - May 27 2007 : 1:37:24 PM
|
David, it looks as if you or someone else deleted your last reply to me. I'm very sorry to have offended you with my comments. I really did not mean to do so. I have a great respect for you and your comments in this forum!
Perhaps I am "oblivious". I'm not particularly deep or knowledgeable. And I know this.
It is such a beautiful clear day. I'm going to go putter in my garden, and soak in the silent melody of my flowers and spices...
light and love,
Kathy
|
|
|
|
david_obsidian
USA
2602 Posts |
Posted - May 27 2007 : 6:10:41 PM
|
David, it looks as if you or someone else delete
Thanks Kathy, you are kind. I wasn't actually offended at all, don't worry -- and I deleted it myself, largely because I knew it was a risky post for not coming across well.
Sometimes it is fine to be 'oblivious' -- in the right way and at the right time. I suppose 'oblivious' means overlooking some things. Being 'oblivious' to the faults of others is not necessarily a bad thing. 'Oblivious' the the faults which are not worth picking up on is probably good -- or at least, oblivious until they are worth addressing.
Enjoy your garden!
|
|
|
|
kadak
79 Posts |
Posted - May 28 2007 : 12:04:12 AM
|
Hi
quote:
Originally posted by david_obsidian
Kadhak, I'm at loss to respond because I don't know how to pursue any discussion with you on this. I'm telling you what I believe about something for which there is no clearly-available evidence, and you are coming in with a strong corrective pronouncement that, no, it is the way you believe it to be instead. Where am I supposed to take the discussion from there? Ask you for your evidence? Argue with you? Or merely say, 'Yes it is!' to your 'No it isn't'?
That's quite simple. First you think that human condition cannot be transcended. Second, I come and I say something opposite, giving you a thread to follow, in case you were interested.
So :
- either your statement is an emotional statement and you're not interested to find opposite evidence, end of story
- either you begin to think that maybe there is an interesting possibility within it, and you search by yourself, searching in every tradition evidences of possible omniscience or immortality. Of course you will find, but maybe you will say that this was in ancient times, and now all is different. So maybe you can listen to living masters, ask questions to them. And you may even find that you have a friend who can learn you something about it.
So, evidence is not the most difficult to find. The most difficult to find is the courage to face it. The courage to see that we're little worms on the earth, and that, just under our nose, there are some great beings. Of course there is no difference in nature, but there are highly realized beings, very close to real omniscience, and we just have to open our eyes to see them. If you want a name, just go and see Amma. And ask people about her. You will find a bunch of fools, of course, but you will find clever and healthy people too.
Now, I would understand if you say that your present belief is more comfortable, but it doesn't make it true...
Anyway, it is all in your hands. |
|
|
|
david_obsidian
USA
2602 Posts |
Posted - May 28 2007 : 12:01:01 PM
|
Kadhak, you have many interesting things to say and is better for all if we are disposed towards listening to you rather than either ignoring you or bickering with you. Understand that your behavior was being addressed by me, not your beliefs or mine.
I'm giving you feedback about your behavior, which was a little 'off'. Mind you, my feedback signals are imperfect just as your behavior is. So don't feel alone in your imperfection. We all -- well, most of us -- there are some saints here like Kathy and Katrine ha ha -- make messages that are a little 'off' more than, say 1% of the time. Even our host Yogani, has occasionally made a message that he came to believe was a little 'off'. I do it a little more than most.
Look, when someone says they believe something, coming in and saying, 'No, it is otherwise in case you don't know', when that thing is completely unprovable and the world is full of contradictory beliefs about it, is just no way to conduct a conversation of any level of depth anywhere. That kind of thing just doesn't work. It's just a recipe for bickering and sectarian fighting.
To use an analogy, if contributing on a forum is to be likened to travelling on a bus, it doesn't work, just like coming into a bus and pulling someone out of their seat and taking it, doesn't work. What follows usually (on forums) can be a continued fight over the seat -- which can go on for hours. Online forums are full of that. Alternatively, the person who was pulled out of the seat can go and sulk and never travel with that person again. Alternatively, the person who was pulled out of the seat can say 'Look, that is not a good way to behave on a bus/[forum]', and go off to sit on their own. That's one of the best possible outcomes and you should be thankful for it. To tell you the truth, I could have used more of that kind of direct message, especially in my earlier days of 'travelling in this bus' and probably still can.
Better to just take the message and enjoy the ride. If you take the message well, the ride will be smoother for it.
Enjoy AYP!
|
Edited by - david_obsidian on May 28 2007 1:30:24 PM |
|
|
|
Alvin Chan
Hong Kong
407 Posts |
Posted - May 29 2007 : 10:36:46 AM
|
Just want to add that those "guru" are always using words that are greatly mythical. The meaning of words like "infinite" (which we are supposed to "merge with" or "attain") is not clear in their words. If it refers partially to the ability or the supposedly enlightened beings, then it's obviously unnessarily exaggerated, since those saints are obviously ignorant in many aspects, and understand very little beyond their own teaching. If it refers to the state (largely subjective one) they attained, which is what I believed to be the case, then their statement may be true but it's kind of strange and misleading to call some inner state (with very little new ability) "infinite".
I'm not trying to dismiss that state of enlightenment, which I myself is seeking. I just want to warn against the exaggerations and misunderstandings the spiritual community imposed on the subject, which will only hinder the grow the spirituality in the educated group. Afterall, it is usually the educated and rational guys who are controlling the political and financial resources useful for the popularity of spirituality. And people tend to follow those guys, too. |
|
|
|
david_obsidian
USA
2602 Posts |
Posted - May 29 2007 : 4:41:41 PM
|
Say it Alvin, say it!! Better for us to have both enlightenment and keep our rational minds in good shape than to have only one and lose the other.
Wherefore benefits it a man and his society if he gains enlightenment but loses his rational mind and its clarity?
|
|
|
|
weaver
832 Posts |
Posted - May 29 2007 : 5:07:57 PM
|
Wherefore benefits it a man and his society if he gains enlightenment but loses his rational mind and its clarity?
Interesting question.
So, what will determine if, when s/he gains enlightenment, a man (or woman) loses his rational mind and its clarity or not? |
|
|
|
david_obsidian
USA
2602 Posts |
Posted - May 29 2007 : 6:01:44 PM
|
Well, I'm making a serious point but stating it in a wry way. My point is really, that a clear rational mind, with keen rational insight, is a very good thing and is very beneficial to society. Most of the improvements in society that I know of are directly attributable to he honing of rational powers over the last few hundred years on many different levels.
Any 'philosophy' for world-improvement ideally is whole, and takes the extraordinary power, and importance, of Science and the intellect into account, as well as the importance of 'enlightenment' insofar as general or common enlightenment is possible.
Generally the culture and traditions of Yoga and enlightenment (in its current form) do not. I would claim that the traditions simply developed among those who simply did not know about Rationality, Science, the Information Age and who-knows-what-next. They were simply ignorant of these things. How can you stress the importance of rationality when you know nothing about it? The minds of the 'realized' in these traditions were not at all infinite in all dimensions. They had merely become well-developed in certain dimensions, and stood out among their fellows for it.
So, as I see it, the possibility of people becoming 'spiritually' enlightened in this age, and at the same time being well-developed in the particular strengths of this age, is very promising.
So, what will determine if, when s/he gains enlightenment, a man (or woman) loses his rational mind and its clarity or not?
Well, I can't really answer the question except partially, and in the negative. I've seen eminent enlightenment-teachers in the 20th-21st century who I think also kept strong rational minds -- Gopi Krishna, Ramana Maharshi (surprise?), Osho, and others.... and recently, Adyashanti. For others, I think the outcome was less happy. I don't want to name names, but I believe some others just either lost, or threw away their rational minds, or never developed them. And partly that can be from not valuing the rational mind.
Just as it is hard to say what enlightenment is, and easier to say what it isn't, it is hard to say what keeping your rational mind is, but easy to point out (not necessarily on this forum) when it has been lost -- or just isn't keeping up with the age of reason.
|
|
|
|
Kyman
530 Posts |
Posted - May 29 2007 : 6:41:22 PM
|
Ego ego, where for art thou ego?
I'm curious as to how ancients derived their information? They seem to have had access to things we are just discovering. Did they have to pursue the irrational in order to know what we are just discovering today?
The irrational serve to organize and move energy in ways the rational cannot. The irrational seems to serve some purpose.
A child who plays make believes comes by discoveries honestly and genuinely, though to the parent it is irrational.
I'm not sure to approach the dialog, so I'm just adding some thoughts to the mix. |
|
|
|
david_obsidian
USA
2602 Posts |
Posted - May 29 2007 : 8:55:36 PM
|
Yes I do agree. It's about having the right place for the right thing. Everything in its place. I would say dancing, singing, poetry and art all have their place and their out-of-place. Just like everything.
Boy, this thread wants to move around. :)
|
|
|
|
Alvin Chan
Hong Kong
407 Posts |
Posted - May 29 2007 : 9:25:36 PM
|
quote:
The irrational serve to organize and move energy in ways the rational cannot. The irrational seems to serve some purposes.
The same would be true if the word "irrational" is replaced by "rational", and vice versa. Except that "some" should be changed to "more" then
For those who are still in doubt about the importance of rational minds over the "irrational" (actually, "non-rational" is a better term), just look at the countries which were built under the guidance of rational thoughts, or where science is emphasized.(mainly the european countries, I'm afraid. Or US, at least until some years ago.) Compared those countries with, say, India. Don't compare the ideologies, but the lives of their people. Where would you find more crimes, evils?
We, living in the former cities, tend to be bombarded with articles and thoughts about the crisis of our era. Much of them make sense. These make us envy the spirituality in India or China. But do you really know the places? Or are you just looking at the philosophical, and ideological Ivory tower of the scriptures, forgetting about how little they have done for those countries? The reflections upon our own defects is a GREAT GREAT GREAT attribute and custom of the rational minds, a pinnacle of the scientific culture. Unfortunately this constant discovery of defects is often misconstrued as a proof of the incapability of science or rational minds.
Chinese and India have deep and rich cultural aspects for us to discover. But they are useless if the rational minds are absent. Or we will merely be talking about spirituality on a devilish place, with no hope of moving the soceity forward. |
|
|
|
Balance
USA
967 Posts |
Posted - May 29 2007 : 9:33:03 PM
|
"Boy, this thread wants to move around. :)"
That's funny! Just like ego, always moving to another concept or grasping onto an idea to continue its apparent identity as an entity in control of a little world of manifestation. I see the ego as a bundle of a patterning of images with which the human mind tries to continue to validate its existence as a separate being. I also see it like fingers grabbing handful after handful of sand, or fog. I think ego is the current state of human mind and that awareness itself is original mind in which the ego plays its story. Just my current human-mind thoughts 
|
|
|
|
Alvin Chan
Hong Kong
407 Posts |
Posted - May 30 2007 : 12:04:34 AM
|
David wrote:
quote:
Say it Alvin, say it!! Better for us to have both enlightenment and keep our rational minds in good shape than to have only one and lose the other.
The rational arguments are usually dismissed in the spiritual community, including this forum. Like you've pointed out, a discussion with no common ground will not lead to any useful conclusion. I could hardly get my point across that finally I give up, only making remarks occasionally. I feel like I have to switch to a spiritual channel, and limit my posts on certain topics which are not too provocatively scientific .
You're a bit different, that you're fluent in their terminology (and in English!!), which I think will make your point much easier to get across.
quote:
I've seen eminent enlightenment-teachers in the 20th-21st century who I think also kept strong rational minds -- Gopi Krishna, Ramana Maharshi (surprise?), Osho, and others.... and recently, Adyashanti.
I have given up reading enlightenment-teacher's book after only 1 or 2 terrible experience. Now I limit myself to more practical books concentrated on practices with no nonsense. Do you mean these teachers' works are more rational? I may have a look then, since I think I do need some spiritual books to fuel my bhati. |
|
|
|
weaver
832 Posts |
Posted - May 30 2007 : 12:07:58 AM
|
I think the rational mind is an important tool that we need to successfully solve tasks that require logic and analytical thinking. But there are other important aspects of the human being than the rational mind. Examples are capability to experience love, emotions, creativity, empathy and intuition. A person with these functions lacking, and with only the rational mind working, would just be like a smart robot with self-programming capability.
It is true that in the Western culture great emphasis has been put on developing the rational mind, even from early school years. The result has been a civilization with great material comfort and development. Can material comfort make humans completely happy and fulfilled? I don't think so. Even in the West people have spiritual needs and questions which can not be met by material comfort and material science. This is one reason we have religion and quest for enlightenment. (This is not saying that the rational mind should be neglected either, because then we will suffer materially.)
I don't believe that enlightenment will affect the rational mind very much in itself. Enlightenment takes the conscious awareness beyond the rational mind. It's a higher state of consciousness. So, a person who becomes enlightened can still use his rational mind. But he doesn't identify himself with the rational mind or see it as important as he may have before, so he may not choose to use it as much as before. Enlightenment brings communion with aspects of reality that are not useful to the rational mind, so an enlightened person will only choose to use the rational mind for the tasks it was designed for, namely to solve tasks of a logical nature in the material world. This could possibly explain why enlightened people may sometimes seem to act irrationally.
Is there a reason that Zen koans are irrational? They are designed to confuse the rational mind so that the practitioner can break through it to become aware of what is beyond. Some have said that it is harder for people with a strong rational mind to become enlightened. I don't think that has to be the case, as long as they are capable and willing to suspend the use of it when needed.
I think that AYP meditation also is a (great) tool to help us go beyond the rational mind, which we do in inner silence. In inner silence we can choose to use the rational mind or not. |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
| AYP Public Forum |
© Contributing Authors (opinions and advice belong to the respective authors) |
|
|
|
|
The Ego
