|
|
 |
|
| Author |
 Topic  |
|
|
Eddie33
USA
120 Posts |
 Posted - Nov 29 2007 : 12:18:50 PM
|
I was wondering what people would think about this brief teaching that I found a couple of months ago. I read it again today and I thought people here woudl appreciate it. I got it from this site: http://purifymind.com/DeathEgo.htm . It's a teaching from the teacher Aziz Kristof who I mention here and there.
"Enlightenment does not annihilate the ego. Why would someone want to annihilate something so useful and extraordinary? It has not been by chance that we have mentioned many times how important the mind and ego are as the creative force of our intelligence. We need to dissolve this dangerous spiritual conditioning that has taken deep root in our habitual way of thinking. Irresponsible psychological language has caused a lot of harm to those on the Path. The ego concept needs to be defined in a way that relates to our everyday experience, and to all those complicated processes in meditation and on the spiritual Path.
In the case of people without insight into the nature of consciousness, the mental activity is in the center of consciousness. Every thought creates a new center, a new identification which is the ego -- there is nothing else there. We cannot talk about "one" ego but rather about a flow of conscious or semi-conscious events, being capable of operating in a relatively integrated way. This is the function of the ego.
When Enlightenment takes place, the Presence becomes the center, and there is the feeling that all the thoughts are only witnessed objects-events on the periphery of consciousness; they are guests coming and going, having nothing to do with the stillness of our being. For that reason, it is easy to conclude that there is only Witnessing, and the rest is irrelevant, impersonal and objective. But this popular conclusion is one-dimensional and is not able to grasp the dynamics of human consciousness. Thoughts are being witnessed and observed. The center is empty and uninvolved. Is that all? Not fully. Although the thoughts are witnessed, the intelligence which is using them represents also a parallel center of relative consciousness - it is also the "Me."
We can speak about two centers within us, as manifested beings: one is the Witnessing Consciousness -- a constant flow of presence, and the second is the moving self-conscious center of our personality. When we see this clearly, there is no doubt that the thoughts, which are being witnessed, are simultaneously an indivisible part of Me, and it is Me who is thinking them! In the case of an Enlightened being, although thoughts have a different quality, still they remain as a function of consciousness and as a functional self-relating center, which we interpret as "me." The absolute Me and the relative me are one. Being and self-conscious expression are one.
The ego concept refers not only to the gross level of thinking or to the gross will. We have already spoken about the fact that to divide our consciousness into thinking and not-thinking is far too simplistic. Consciousness is extraordinarily rich. There is intuitive knowing, feeling, gentle checking and being attentive to what is happening in our consciousness and surroundings. This movement of intelligence has a quality of self-referral which is also what we call -- the ego. The personality without Presence is ignorance of course, but Presence without the personality is like a tree without fruit, the sun without rays or a flower without fragrance. They are one organic whole. When we fully understand that ego is "good," the whole issue of eliminating it drops off by itself. But this is not yet the end. We are coming now to the next complicated problem: what kind of ego should we have?"
|
|
|
Scott
USA
969 Posts |
Posted - Nov 29 2007 : 12:44:54 PM
|
| I like him, and it's a good quote. I do have to say though, reading about enlightenment and trying to understand it is almost always misleading to someone who hasn't experienced it. Practice is key, not understanding. The truth isn't contained in words, no matter how truthful those words are! |
 |
|
|
emc
2072 Posts |
Posted - Nov 29 2007 : 5:00:10 PM
|
| Thank you, Eddie, great quote! |
|
|
|
bewell
1275 Posts |
Posted - Nov 30 2007 : 8:56:11 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Eddie33
"Enlightenment does not annihilate the ego...
Thanks for the quotation, Eddie. I read it a few times and I think I get what he is saying. I agree with his point of view, bearing in mind that what is is talking about is an enlightened condition, not "annihilation of the ego." |
|
|
|
Eddie33
USA
120 Posts |
Posted - Dec 01 2007 : 12:28:48 AM
|
| oh yeah i kind of didn't think about it. the whole thing was actually a small part of a bigger essay that was put together under the title ego death. his part was at the end of it. i think the conclusion of it was that ego death itself is a dulaistic notion. i think there are experiences that can definitley be percieved as having a big part of you feel like you are dying but in reality something different is happening "so to speak". who knows |
|
|
|
bewell
1275 Posts |
Posted - Dec 01 2007 : 3:18:02 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Eddie33
...can definitley be percieved as having a big part of you feel like you are dying but in reality something different is happening "so to speak". who knows
Perception is what I'm talking about. |
|
|
|
Eddie33
USA
120 Posts |
Posted - Dec 01 2007 : 4:19:04 PM
|
| what is perception? |
|
|
|
emc
2072 Posts |
Posted - Dec 02 2007 : 02:51:09 AM
|
Perception is the process of acquiring, interpreting, selecting, and organizing sensory information. Everything you take in from your senses - physical from outside body information (eyes, ears, skin), physical from inside body information (pain, sense of where limbs are located, itching etc), energetical from your etherical/astral body, and my last suggestion is also that on a higher level stillness, oneness, love etc also is percieved, although that will probably be debatable!  It might be that some would wish to claim that we don't "perceive" anylonger at that level - we just are that... |
|
|
|
bewell
1275 Posts |
Posted - Dec 02 2007 : 1:08:26 PM
|
Yes, what emc said is pretty much how I understand "perception." Except I try my best to distinguish perception and interpretation.
The enlightened state described in your quotation can be perceived by the ego experiencing it.
By contrast, annihilation, as I understand it, can only be perceived in the contrast between what came before it and after it. When one is annihilated, perceptions are annihilated. That is a relatively narrow definition of ego death.
I "died" once. Now I'm alive. I don't remember being "dead" but I do remember passing away and reviving. And in the first moments of reviving, my condition was curiously close to what your quotation describes as "enlightenment." I did not stay in that condition with clarity for long, but it is a way of being me, and through the practices, it seems I approximate something of that way of being more and more steadily. Still, I have a ways to go to feel solid in it.
I'm a philisophical dualist: when my body returns to dust, I figure, I am no more. But the world goes on turning and God is still good. And I interpret Christian resurrection or spiritual embodiment or paradise as a condition available, by grace, now.
|
Edited by - bewell on Dec 02 2007 1:45:13 PM |
|
|
|
Eddie33
USA
120 Posts |
Posted - Dec 07 2007 : 10:13:38 PM
|
| how do concepts relate to experience? |
|
|
|
hopeless meditator
United Kingdom
38 Posts |
Posted - Dec 08 2007 : 4:08:34 PM
|
I have been worrying for a while now about the need to annihilate the ego to gain enlightenment. I found Eddie's question, and the quotation he posted, echoed the concerns I have. Dante said that:- "Everything superfluous is displeasing to Nature and God."
I feel that the Universe is basically neutral and will simply echo - and possibly amplify - whatever intentions and aspirations we manifest in our daily lives.
But, in fairness to Dante, I honestly can't see why we would all be created with an ego if ego was superfluous, or unnecessary, or something we needed to be rid of!
So, Aziz Kristof's question: "Why would someone want to annihilate something so useful and extraordinary?" resonated strongly with me.
Thank you for posting this teaching. |
|
|
|
Eddie33
USA
120 Posts |
Posted - Dec 08 2007 : 6:00:28 PM
|
No problemo, i would say that this kind of thing is my main spiritual interests. i'm a questioner and i got to come to terms with that. for now the focus is on stability, but only so i can come back with the questions at full force. I already have a notebook wth about 60 questions that i'm gonna get ansered someday. should have more. will have more. but letting them be for the most part for now.
yeah how can it be not nessecary. isn't that in itself a dualistic statement. maybe it makes sense for him and has an impact on others but htere comes a point where the mind can't take the dualism anymore, and the energy that it had in the statement is no longer effective.
you should read more Aziz or now i should say Anadi (he just came back from not teaching for 5 years and changed his name,but you didn't hear this from me, lol. btw retreat in feb - contact for more info)
He tries to really make sense out of a lot of the pseudoauthoritative nonsense that exists in spirituality, dogmatic thinking, doubts, etcetera.
It's jsut more complicated than the simplistic statements some teachings hand out at the drop of a hat sometimes.
Seeya |
|
|
|
yogibear
409 Posts |
Posted - Dec 10 2007 : 12:58:02 PM
|
Hi Eddie,
quote:
Eddie wrote:
In the case of an Enlightened being, although thoughts have a different quality, still they remain as a function of consciousness and as a functional self-relating center, which we interpret as "me." The absolute Me and the relative me are one. Being and self-conscious expression are one.
He is exactly correct. This is my experience. You are you no matter what, always. No use bothering about it.
Best, yb. |
|
|
|
Eddie33
USA
120 Posts |
Posted - Dec 10 2007 : 1:30:35 PM
|
| latley I been getting that feeling of oneness. It feels like my I expanded, no need to get dramatic about it though. |
|
|
|
Eddie33
USA
120 Posts |
Posted - Dec 11 2007 : 6:28:00 PM
|
I would also like too add that even though at first Anadi (Aziz) teaches to distance yourself from thoughts and not "got lost in scenery", he says eventually you have to own those thoughts in a new kind of way. So it's like a circle. I kind of intuitivly understand what he means, but in my arrogance i try to own thoughts way too soon. I think first you need to cleanse your mind and what not then finally some back to your mind in a different way, and a whole lot of complicated mumbo jumbo in between.
|
|
|
|
yogibear
409 Posts |
Posted - Dec 12 2007 : 12:22:15 PM
|
quote:
From the link supplied by Eddie:
http://purifymind.com/DeathEgo.htm
At issue are the boundaries of the Self as a symbolized entity. There is a clear sense of the relationship between awareness of death and a delineated Self. The second is impossible without the first. Even prior to the disturbing syllogism, "If death exists, then I will die," there is an earlier one: "Since 'I' was born and will die, 'I' must exist."
If we can realize that there is no delineated Ego-self which is alive now, the problem of life-and-death is solved. And such is the Buddhist goal: to experience that which cannot die because it was never born.
The problem is not realizing that there is no delineated ego self.....the problem is the delineated ego self realizing that it is immortal spirit.
Never the spirit was born
the spirit shall cease to be ever.
Never was time it was not
end and beginning are dreams.
Birthless, deathless and changeless
remaineth the spirit forever.
Death hath not touched it at all
dead tho the house of it seems.
From Yogi Ramacharaka
This poem is referring to me and you, not something else.
This is my point of view, anyways.
Best, yb.
|
|
|
|
anama
1 Posts |
Posted - Dec 29 2007 : 11:30:23 AM
|
hi,
could you give me more details on anadi's up coming february retreat. would like to go & don't know where to start.
Thx
quote:
Originally posted by Eddie33
No problemo, i would say that this kind of thing is my main spiritual interests. i'm a questioner and i got to come to terms with that. for now the focus is on stability, but only so i can come back with the questions at full force. I already have a notebook wth about 60 questions that i'm gonna get ansered someday. should have more. will have more. but letting them be for the most part for now.
yeah how can it be not nessecary. isn't that in itself a dualistic statement. maybe it makes sense for him and has an impact on others but htere comes a point where the mind can't take the dualism anymore, and the energy that it had in the statement is no longer effective.
you should read more Aziz or now i should say Anadi (he just came back from not teaching for 5 years and changed his name,but you didn't hear this from me, lol. btw retreat in feb - contact for more info)
He tries to really make sense out of a lot of the pseudoauthoritative nonsense that exists in spirituality, dogmatic thinking, doubts, etcetera.
It's jsut more complicated than the simplistic statements some teachings hand out at the drop of a hat sometimes.
Seeya
|
|
|
| |
Topic |
|
|
|
| AYP Public Forum |
© Contributing Authors (opinions and advice belong to the respective authors) |
|
|
|
|
Ego Death
