The Spiritual Splendour of the Ego

[Stosh]

It doesn't really prove anything, just provides evidence for existence.

 

(self-evident) Existence of subjective phenomena.

 

I can't affirm to you that I exist, you can only affirm to yourself that there is existence simply by thinking the question.

 

I am not sure where you are going with the edit.

[et-thoughts]

It doesn't really prove anything, just provides evidence for existence.

 

(self-evident) Existence of subjective phenomena.

 

I can't affirm to you that I exist, you can only affirm to yourself that there is existence simply by thinking the question.

I can affirm to you that I exists... I exists now know that I exists... there I have just affirmed to you that I exist...

 

of course whether my affirmation is true or false depends on wether I exist... but thats beside the issue here

:-)

[Nikolai1]

Hi et-thoughts,

 

To me its self evident that the territory exists independent of someone distinguishing its existence or having a map of it.

 

If it seems self-evident then this is the delusion of egohood. All things arise and then pass at very high speed. When they are passed they become non-existent. This is the Buddhist teaching of impermanence. There is nothing at all in existence except for what is before you right now.

 

Sometimes our here and now reality is shadowy and dim. We tend to call this 'thought'. Sometimes the here and now is bright and vivid. We tend to call this 'reality'. But actually this distinction is untenable. 'Thought' is not 'about' anything in so-called reality, but is a present here and now reality in itself. 'Thought' is therefore not subjective and reality is not objective. Insight into impermanence eradicates the subjective/objective distinction altogether.

 

Who witnesses all this 'thought' amd 'reality'? The witness is awareness itself. Awareness is the path of Tao and awakening to it is the realisation that we are not, and never were, some kind of individual ego interacting with an external territory.

 

What, then is the ego? The ego is nothing other than a kind of picture drawn by awareness. It is the sum total of our spiritual wisdom rationalised into a kind of metaphor. Once we are able to understand the ego as such - as a kind of picture drawn - then we are free to open up beyond the ego. We no longer believe in the ego nor the laws of the world that keep the ego in check. We are emancipated from selfhood into the eternal. This is the goal of all spiritual seekers.

 

It is believing in ourselves as egos that holds us back. As VMarco said

To the Buddha, nothing is harder communicating with than a mind that believes it arises from the 6 senses.

 

Best wishes, Nikolai

[Nikolai1]

Hi Stosh,

 

There seems to be some debate whether the ego is a good thing to keep or not

 

Your ego is not something that you can eradicate - it is with you whatever you do. The ego is only a bad thing (from the spiritual perspective) if it goes misunderstood. By believing in something that is non-existent we cause ourselves to suffer. Once we see the true nature of the ego we become detached from it and are then free to enjoy how wonderful it is.

 

It seems that the majority here prefers to see themselves as "GOOD" or compassionate despite the fact that such feelings are subjective, so I am confused as to whether Taoism considers that paradigm (good vs evil) as an undesirable one to keep or not.

 

I think all those with spiritual insight have moved beyound the good/evil paradigm. That said, it is good for the philosophically minded seeker to reflect on the relativity of these terms - and how something can be simultaneously good and bad depending on the perspective.

 

But spiritual security is recognising that, in a sense, all is good and there is no need to fear anything. It is only when we are free from fear that we are able to forget about good and evil. Paradoxically, when we forget about good and evil we are able to act well and compassionately. As is says in the Tao Te Ching - the sage forgets about morality so is therefore the epitome of morality.

 

But the physical events we observe with our senses are interpreted by our brains into a sort of model which we use to function in the world. (model dependent reality)

The model is not the physical reality , the true reality is always beyond our ability to observe, the model is in your head.

EX.. You cannot see ultraviolet light , and although it is there.. Ultraviolet light is not in the model you create looking at a tree, cars etc..

The subjective thought realm (subjective reality) isnt observable by anyone else at all! I might be able to read your facial muscles but I don't know what heck you are thinking, unless you bring it into the objective realm by smiling etc, and even then I cant be sure.

 

All this is based on the common sense view of the world and shows no spiritual understanding. You should read my last post to 'et-thoughts'.

 

Best wishes, Nikolai

[3bob]

Edited June 11, 2012 by 3bob

[et-thoughts]

Nikolai1,

 

I am sort of rotflol... and its in a light humorous way so I hope you will take this the right way...

 

your said "this is the delusion of ego hood"... yea it be the delusion of ego hood that holds that all things arise and then pass at very high speed. When they are passed they become non-existent. The illusion of past present future keeps many from realizing the singular infinite eternal enduring now...

 

It takes a huge ego to claim "There is nothing at all in existence except for what is before (me) right now" and ignores everything that does exist independent of that particular being... but hey if you want to go that a way thats your choice... maybe someday you will become aware of being and there other beings and other stuff...

 

Curious how you claim that "Thought' is not 'about' anything in so-called reality, but is a present here and now reality in itself". For me thought can be about so-called reality and can be a bit more... Thought be thought bound only by thought, when the thought so chooses it...

 

Who asks who witnesses all this 'thought' and 'reality'? The witness is The witness ... regardless of being aware of itself and what the witness does. IF Awareness is the path of Tao then the realisation that we are not, and never were, some kind of individual ego interacting with an external territory is the ultimate illusion to keep us from interacting with the external territory and amongst others. Oh some are free to open up beyond the ego egoless through love... and be a singular whole within the whole ...

 

What hold us back are a bunch of stuff we better let go of while we embrace what actually sustains us...

 

We do share the notion of best wishes for each other... though I do see some beliefs promote embracing the notion of becoming non-existent... and even if that where to happen I know that me being and these words will endure forevermore...

[Informer]

I am not sure where you are going with the edit.

 

"Cogito ergo sum" by Descartes paved the way for self-evident truth by providing evidence of it's existence. Before that science and religion were completely separate in European thought. By providing seemingly objective evidence that is also subjective, we can begin to correlate the subjective realm, bringing it towards objectivity or vice versa, which provides a process or basis for which to determine validity of such evidence.

 

Some may even say there is only subjectivity, which mean all reality is existent within, as others may claim that reality is only what can be found objectively. There exists a balance and bridge between the two which Descartes pointed out imo.

Edited June 11, 2012 by Informer

[Informer]

I can affirm to you that I exists... I exists now know that I exists... there I have just affirmed to you that I exist...

 

of course whether my affirmation is true or false depends on wether I exist... but thats beside the issue here

:-)

 

 

Haha, that is the issue here There is no way for "me" to know that "you" are truly questioning existence and existing. I know that you are seemingly questioning it because you are typing that you are questioning existence, which leads evidence to increase the probability of your existence.

 

But do we absolutely exist or absolutely not exists?

 

Most animals do not appear to be communicating the questioning of existence, so that decreases the probability of any subjective existence.

Edited June 11, 2012 by Informer

[Informer]

Once there is a basis and foundation on which to accumulate evidence towards truth, the collecting can begin.

 

For instance, there are many of various cultures that agree that there is a third eye. They affirm this through subjective experience, each of these differing line of consilience mount increasing evidence towards a truth. Yet in actuality you only know of its truth when you find it within and develop an awareness of the subjective phenomena to affirm that it does exist. One can only really prove anything to oneself when questing in the subjective realm of self-evident truth.

Edited June 11, 2012 by Informer

[et-thoughts]

Haha, that is the issue here There is no way for "me" to know that "you" are truly questioning existence and existing. I know that you are seemingly questioning it because you are typing that you are questioning existence, which leads evidence to increase the probability of your existence.

 

But do we absolutely exist or absolutely not exists?

 

Most animals do not appear to be communicating the questioning of existence, so that decreases the probability of any subjective existence.

 

Well

its better to believe one actually exists when one does not exits

for to believe one does not exists when one does actually exist... keeps one from doing stuff ...

 

In other words

Its better to think one can do it, seek to do it until one does it or eventually finds out one can't

than to think one can't do it and never find out one can because one never sought to do it.

[Informer]

Why would I assume that you do not exist when the probability increased for existence, when evidence was provided to the contrary of non-existence?

Edited June 11, 2012 by Informer

[et-thoughts]

Why would I assume that you do not exist when the probability increased for existence, when evidence was provided to the contrary of non-existence?

Because the tenants postulated by certain beliefs here cultivate non-existence rather than full-existence

[Nikolai1]

Hi et thoughts,

 

your said "this is the delusion of ego hood"... yea it be the delusion of ego hood that holds that all things arise and then pass at very high speed. When they are passed they become non-existent. The illusion of past present future keeps many from realizing the singular infinite eternal enduring now...

 

I can't help but invoke past present and future when I talk about impermanence, but that doesn't mean I am trapped in time. The infinite eternal enduring now is the place You are when you see all the high speed passing. When you are in it you are in it, but to talk about means to descend from it.

 

But your last post shows to me that you understand all that I have to say very well.

 

It takes a huge ego to claim "There is nothing at all in existence except for what is before (me) right now" and ignores everything that does exist independent of that particular being... but hey if you want to go that a way thats your choice... maybe someday you will become aware of being and there other beings and other stuff...

 

Yes, this is a common objection. It usually comes from people who are unable to understand the True Self and so understand terms like I, me, mine only egoically. They therefore think that I am claiming that everything passes except me, Nikolai. That is egotistical - in fact it's called solipsism and not far from a kind of mental disease!

 

I think you do understand the true self, but perhaps you don't believe that I do too - and that makes you think that I am writing egoically and that concerns you.

 

Curious how you claim that "Thought' is not 'about' anything in so-called reality, but is a present here and now reality in itself". For me thought can be about so-called reality and can be a bit more... Thought be thought bound only by thought, when the thought so chooses it...

 

What I was trying to make clear is that thought can understood as 'about' something (ie relatively, egoically) or a thing in itself (absolutely, non-egoically). Thought itself is therefore neither of these.

 

I agree with you that 'thought can only be bound by thought'. In fact exxpanding the boundaries of thought is expanding the boundaries of the ego.

 

IF Awareness is the path of Tao then the realisation that we are not, and never were, some kind of individual ego interacting with an external territory is the ultimate illusion to keep us from interacting with the external territory and amongst others.

 

Yes, and I think for some the rejection of the ego is a kind of illusion. It's called the Emptiness Trap. It's why in this whole thread I've been keen to preserve the ego. When you understand the ego truly, it is not a barrier to the spiritual life and it is not a barrier to the egoic life. That is why I have called this thread The Spiritual Splendour of the Ego!

 

We do share the notion of best wishes for each other... though I do see some beliefs promote embracing the notion of becoming non-existent

 

Those who understand this thread correctly will see that notions of existence and non-existence are completely transcended. It just happens to be the case that most spiritual seekers in this day and age need to be reminded of the emptiness of phenomena. There is a danger that emptiness and non-existence is taken as some kind of truth. Unfortunately though, people still need to hear the 'non-existence argument' in order to be able to harmonise it with their common-sense 'existence argument' and therein gain spiritual wisdom.

 

best wishes, Nikolai

[et-thoughts]

I liked how you where able to put individual quotes in your response... to me it show your savviness and the care you took in your response...

 

The infinite eternal enduring now is the place where past present and future and other possibilities and realities coexists as one ... they can be still, they can be moving, at any speed... slowly, fast, in between. "When you are in it you are in it..."... and you are always in it! everyone is in it! Yes"... to talk about means to descend from it..." though descend from it does not mean one leaves it one just descends from it into a part of it. One enters deeper into it .-) I suppose that what some mean by going within :-)

 

Glad that you say that my " last post shows to me that you understand all that I have to say very well" that means we can dialogue about the matter at hand, rather than each having a monologue on different stuff... :-).

 

Yes, this is a common objection (It takes a huge ego to claim "There is nothing at all in existence except for what is before (me) right now" and ignores everything that does exist independent of that particular being...). It usually comes from people who are unable to understand the True Self and so understand terms like I, me, mine only egoically. They therefore think that I am claiming that everything passes except me, Nikolai. That is egotistical - in fact it's called solipsism and not far from a kind of mental disease!

 

Then I am glad I did not think of that... but wait a second now that I read and thought about what you said I realize that I did think of that thanks to what you wrote well I am glad to know that I do think that that is just wrong... I am curious, do you think that my objection comes from understanding terms like I, me, mine only egoically? When I wrote the objection I was thinking that Buddha considering Buddha allegedly said it must had had a huge ego for making that claim takes a huge ego...

 

I think you do understand the true self, but perhaps you don't believe that I do too - and that makes you think that I am writing egoically and that concerns you.

what concerns me is the belief and path of seeking to make non-existent the ego rather than to work at educating the ego... Seeking the void rather than fulfilling love... cultivating what opposes life rather than what living fully. FWIIW I did not make the judgment call about your writing... I just observe something and point it out its not what I believe what you believe what others believe that concerns me it be what be... what concerns me centers holding on to what be right even if that means letting go of what I think is right and embracing the thinking that is right...

 

What I was trying to make clear is that thought can understood as 'about' something (ie relatively, egoically) or a thing in itself (absolutely, non-egoically). Thought itself is therefore neither of these.

To be a bit more precice though is both and more...

 

I agree with you that 'thought can only be bound by thought'. In fact exxpanding the boundaries of thought is expanding the boundaries of the ego.

expanding the boundaries of thought be expanding the boundaries of thought

expanding the boundaries of the ego be expanding the boundaries of the ego

 

expanding the boundaries of one may or may not expand the boundaries of the other... its a bit similar to body-mind-spirit stuff... as you sort of mention sometimes the thoughts-feelings-attitudes become a barrier and sometimes become the enablers... When one understands understanding is not a barrier to the spiritual life nor the physical life not the emotional life... in fact it is an doorway to experiences in these and other domains...

 

Thanks for the clarification why you called this thread "The Spiritual Splendour of the Ego"!

 

Those who understand this thread correctly will see that notions of existence and non-existence are completely transcended. It just happens to be the case that most spiritual seekers in this day and age need to be reminded of the emptiness of phenomena. There is a danger that emptiness and non-existence is taken as some kind of truth. Unfortunately though, people still need to hear the 'non-existence argument' in order to be able to harmonise it with their common-sense 'existence argument' and therein gain spiritual wisdom.

 

Why remind and cultivate on the emptiness of phenomena when one can remind and cultivate the fullness of phenomena? This is both a rhetorical question and one I would like you to address directly.

 

To clarify a bit what I mean by 'cultivate' here consider that each word stated holds a value and every time the word is used it adds its value to a counter and then we can look at the counter to observe what be going all... to simplify consider only three values (+ 0 -) negation would be negative. (that just took us to -2) consideration recognition would be positive (that just took us to +1 = -2+3 =+1). There are neutral words and statements that neither add nor subtract value (like this statement). You may notice that sometimes I do the exercise of reflecting back some statements while changing the words used a bit... seeking a bias towards the positive :-)

 

I find that It just happens to be the case that most spiritual seekers in this day and age already know the pros and cons of phenomena and want to cultivate the pros of good stuff even in themselves and in those who still have to learn about spiritual inclinations. Note that there is no danger of emptiness and non-existence when one is full of love, peace understanding in ones existence be it a temporal or an eternal state... people benefit when they hear about 'the existence dialogue' in order to be able to harmonize the possibilities with their common-sense 'existence argument' and therein gain spiritual wisdom... Most would find absurd the notion of focusing on evil and understating the irrational to do good rationally. most would find natural the notion of focusing on good and the rational to do good and be rational... still many focus on understanding the problem and solution rather than embracing the opportunities and cultivating the better ways to be... always...

 

Best wishes and dreams and realities for you and everyone...

[Nikolai1]

Hi et thoughts,

 

I liked how you where able to put individual quotes in your response... to me it show your savviness and the care you took in your response...

 

Thank you! And the same to you for your thoughtful replies.

 

I am curious, do you think that my objection comes from understanding terms like I, me, mine only egoically?

 

The big problem with trying to discuss spiritual insight is that we can only present one dimension of it at a time. This can give people the impression that our undestanding is incomplete. I have emphasised the emptiness of the ego - and I think you were quite rightly presenting the other side of the picture - the fullness of the ego.

 

Now if you were doing this to show that emptiness is an error and fullness is the truth then you would be acting egoically. But if you were just presenting the other side of the argument just to make sure I wasn't egoically presenting emptiness as the whole truth, I think you were wise to do so.

 

Talking about spirituality is so hazardous. If we want, for the sake of our audience, to be logical we must present one-sided but incomplete arguments. If we want, for the sake of our audience, to be truthful we must present two-sided but paradoxical arguments. Both are highly likely to be misunderstood. At the end of the day, we can only talk and trust that the wise will hear us.

 

what concerns me is the belief and path of seeking to make non-existent the ego rather than to work at educating the ego... Seeking the void rather than fulfilling love... cultivating what opposes life rather than what living fully.

 

I completely understand your concern. Teaching emptiness can certainly lead to apathy and nihilism. But you have to take the risk! And you have to make sure that you always remind people of the fullness as well. Without understanding both fullness and emptiness the true spiritual nature of the ego won't be understood anyway. Compassion and the ethical life will therefore be misguided. We won't know what is truly best for a person because we will only be able to understand other people as mortals living in time and space. We will be haunted by concerns for their physical welfare and won't therefore have the courage and the trust to do what might seem risky. True understanding gives you the trust and the confidence to do what is best for people, both spiritually and physically.

 

Why remind and cultivate on the emptiness of phenomena when one can remind and cultivate the fullness of phenomena? This is both a rhetorical question and one I would like you to address directly.

 

I realise that I've probably answered this above, but I'll elaborate. The cultivation of the fullness of phenomena is to encourage the view that we are all individuals enduring in time and space, in the company of other individuals and objects that also exist in time and space. In other words, the world view is one of multiplicity and separation - the common sense worldview.

 

Many people understand the spiritual life to be the attempt to overcome the separation by forging bonds of love, through help and compassion and though cooperation. This is how they understand how to achive the unity that many spiritual seekers crave. I don't want to criticise such noble aims - but there are many difficulties with this life.

 

Firstly, it is very difficult to know what is the right action in any given situation. What is good for one person, may be bad for the next person. Or what seems good at the time might turn out to be be harmful. Also, we might do a good deed for a person and they do not appreciate what you have done and so your spiritual aim, which is unity with this person, goes unrealised.

 

What I am saying is that we can never achieve the unity we crave as long as we are separated people attemptng to behave and act in a way to bring it about. We have to know, understand and believe in the unity already. It has to be such a conviction within us that we don't actually need to achieve it through acts. The sense of unity must be already there.

 

So how can we undertand and belive in unity? We have to see that the separation is kind of illusion. We have to see that our own individuated ego and that of others is a kind of illusion. To see this is the purpose of meditation as well as the teachings of Buddha (impermanence, dependent origination) or the philsophical scepticism of a person like Chuang-tzu. These teachings show that our separation is nothing more than a kind of opinion, and that experience itself shows that we are both unified and separate. To belief that we are only separated is like believing that the handle is on the right hand side of the cup and can in no circumstances be on the left.

 

Only when we are free from the illusion of separateness are we free to effectively help others. Until then we will be confused, and be trying to offer help to people we think are mortals. We will have to decide what os the best possible good for that person. Usually everything we will be reduced down to the attempt to promote a fellow person's health, happiness and longevity. And yet very often these things can only be achieved in one person at the expense of another's. And so we get very confused and bogged down, and eventually we become crippled by inaction anyway. But we have a true understanding of the nature of our fellow people we will not suffer any such doubt. It will laways be clear to us how to act, even if we won't be able to lay out out our behaviours in to a set of 'does and don'ts' - a system of morality. Morality is for people who don't undertsand the spiritual life - which is why it says in the Tao Te Chiing that the 'sage disregards morality and so is the epitome of morality'.

 

Thank you for reading my rather long reply!

 

Best wishes, Nikolai

[et-thoughts]

Nikolai1,

 

While reading your thoughtful response I was reminded of the difficulty I had at one time with sharing a notion...

 

At an event a long time ago when I was just beginning to learn about energy and individuals feeding it...

someone said evil is everything bad and hateful we should reject it hate what is bad and hateful.

I realized that hating evil only energizes it more

the way to counteract evil involves loving evil

the evident risk here involves some misunderstanding of what 'loving evil' means...

Now as then I opt for "love" seeking a singular presentation for one and all.

 

Now before preceding further let me just state that ... learn about energy and individuals feeding it...

Good is everything good and loving we should embrace it love it, appreciate what is good and loving...

I realized that loving energizes it more and energizes everything

the way to cultivate love involves loving good

the evident opportunity here involves some fully understanding of what 'loving' means...

Now as then I opt for "love" seeking a singular presentation for one and all.

 

Ok ... on to the notion of the challenge of presenting one dimensional claims at a time that give multiple understandings and apply equally well to all sides...

 

Lets hope people choose to get the complete understanding and impression... My intent is to focus on the truth of the matter to clearly see the matter and better choose what to do next. Presenting the other side of the picture sort of keeps the dualistic notion of stuff rather than focusing on the singular encompassing understanding.

 

if are were doing stuff to show an error we be ourselves doing erroneous stuff!

If we were doing stuff to show the truth we be ourselves doing what be correct stuff

 

presenting empty truth as the whole truth is quite different than presenting the whole truth as the whole truth :-)

 

Indeed talking about spirituality can be so hazardous... some feel their ways attacked and attack back!

For the sake of audiences, to be logical we must present one-sided and complete stands though the illogical will see this logic illogical and find the illogical to be logical... The question is how to be illogically logical with the illogic to get them to be logical while remaining logic... do this... To be truthful we must present the truth... when it involves two-sided and paradoxical arguments we present the truth and when it involves a singular-sides evident stand we present the truth. Both are highly likely to be misunderstood by those who do not understand and will be understood by those who do understand. At the end of the day, we can only talk and trust that each and everyone will get the truth and become a bit wiser...

 

Why take a risk when there is a safe way? The notion that one needs to understand both fullness and emptiness to understand the true spiritual nature still needs to transcend the dualistic notion which will be understood when one transcends it. Compassion and the ethical life may be misguided or right on the button... We may not be able to truly know what is truly best for a person though that need not keep us from doing it... Some will only be able to understand other people as mortals living in time and space and some will understand other people as mortals living in time and space existing eternally.

 

Its sort of humorous to me to see certain projection you like to hold and claim while insisting that thats the way things be... For me the world view is one of multiplicity with singular separations and unity. I like to say that our singular uniqueness is what both separates and makes us equals... We each know what the right actions in a given situation are... but often choose to ignore it for some reason we deem appropriate... If we do a good deed and others choose not to appreciate what we have done or even choose to reject us because of what we have done... thats their business...

 

The sense of unity be already there... whether we and others recognize it thats a whole different issue... so again you invite us to look at a kind of illusion... maybe even go for the wake up dream... To help people one does not need to think of them as mortals or immortals one just has to help people ... by helping them... Morality is for people who don't undertsand the spiritual life to follow the practices of the spiritual life- those who understand the spiritual life and follow the practices of the spiritual life do not need the rules to follow to follow the rules without rules...

 

hope you find this enrichening and worth your read...

 

best wishes now and always

[Nikolai1]

Hi et thoughts,

 

I realized that hating evil only energizes it more

the way to counteract evil involves loving evil

 

I agree entirely. This is what Jesus said. But understanding this and doing this is the hardest thing imaginable. I'm also sure you have terrible difficulty getting people to understand this. To people who think that the spiritual life is about eradicating evil - to love evil, and to accept it and endorse it is not only illogical - but might well be a form of evil. Many apparently spiritual people can't help but think that evil must be revealed, fought against and eradicated.

 

Only when you realise with your spiritual wisdom that you are not who you think you are, and that evil has no capacity to harm the real you (only the false you), only then will you be in a position to love evil, and ot eradicate it.

 

This thread, and my own contributions have been more about spiritual wisdom, indeed my own path as a seeker has been as a thinker as much as a meditator. What you contribute here is the path of love, a path as sure and direct to spiritual peace - but just as hard to grasp! The ideas you present are so beautiful and so true - but I'm sure you get wildly misunderstood by many people!

 

Why take a risk when there is a safe way? The notion that one needs to understand both fullness and emptiness to understand the true spiritual nature still needs to transcend the dualistic notion which will be understood when one transcends it.

 

In Zen Buddhism they say there are three stages

1) Form is form (or multiplicity is multiplicity - ie the common sense view)

2) Form is emptiness (that multiplicity is in fact unity)

3) Form is form

 

I think you are referring to the third of these stages which is the realisation that form is form when it is form and emptiness is emptiness when it is emptiness. I'm glad you poin out the need to transcend the notion of there being two perspectives - form and emptiness. You are correct to do so.

 

In my view though, the vast majority of spiritual seekers are still at stage 1 - and remain there their whole lives. It is a considerable spiritual acheivement to see that all the separation and multiplicity is also unity and togetherness. This insight is analagous to your recognition that opposing evil only increases evil. You must have noticed how few seekers acheive this perspective and merely crave it.

 

There is a danger that a stage 2 insight merely replaces the common sense stage 1 insight. When this happens people fall into the trap of apathy and nihilism that we discussed earlier. The analogy of this would be those people who reject the notion of good deeds because there is no good and bad. These people are still at stage 1, although they have swapped it with stage 2.

 

So the insight into unity is only of spiritual value of it occurs alongside, as a complement, to their common sense insight into multiplicity.

 

For these people the insight into stage automatically leads to stage 3, which is spiritual vision - beyond unity and multiplicity, as you correctly state.

 

Its sort of humorous to me to see certain projection you like to hold and claim while insisting that thats the way things be... For me the world view is one of multiplicity with singular separations and unity. I like to say that our singular uniqueness is what both separates and makes us equals

 

I didn't understand this passage too well so perhaps you could elaborate a bit, thanks!

 

Best wishes, Nikolai

[et-thoughts]

Nikolai1

 

In a way, now be the time to choose witch way to head ... in a rather simplified form:

Everyone is on the right path... everyone claims to tell the truth...

The path has a right way and a wrong way ... there is a noble and a liar...

The enlightened choose the right way - the noble tells the truth

The deceived choose the wrong way- the liar tells the lie

both claim they tell the truth and each does honor to their condition with the exact same words...

'I tell the truth the other lies' is the truth when the noble state the words and is the lie when the liar states the words

everyone knows the right way... "tell the truth"... some choose to tell it, and some, well they tell something else...

 

The situation with evil, and other stuff, good, love is that revealing it cultivates it, hiding it cultivates it, accepting it cultivates it... In a way its like karma... a closed circle loop that goes round and round. An eye for an eye, a life for a life, will makes us all blind and dead or all see and live depending on which cycle one be on. That why Jesus thought the way of divine love and instructed to love one another as He loves us...

 

To love one only has to love. Understanding this and doing this is be the hardest thing imaginable and the easiest thing imaginable depending on wether one does not know love or does know love. Its rather esoteric in that the one who need it the most are the least capable of getting it while the ones who need it the least are the ones most capable of getting it. Those who need to learn the most knowledge are the most ignorant and least capable of acquiring it, while those who need to learn the least knowledge are the most knowledgeable and capable of acquiring it.

 

I did and do have difficulty getting people to understand some stuff. Still working on effective means to accomplish this.... please note that accepting it and endorsing it as avoiding it, and opposing is quite far from the proposal I hold. I suppose that the best way to explain it would be in terms of possibilities and realities... some possibilities where intended to be possibilities always where as some of them where intended to be possibilities chosen to become realities... some choose to sow and cultivate 'the wrong' possibilities rather than 'the right' possibilities...

 

If one chooses to allow it stuff has the capacity to affect and change us... be it for good or not... We always are in a position to love... in fact we are bound to love while free to choose what to love...

 

It was curious over the fact that the three states resorted to emptiness rather than use fullness... in a rhetorical way which would you rather have emptiness or fullness? In a way emptiness is analogous to evil... for the emptiness of good is evil... now the emptiness of evil could be considered good if only it actually refrained from mentioning evil and focused on what be good the fullness of good... kind of like the cloudless sky referring to the clouds not being there rather than focusing on a clear sky which focuses on the clarity of the sky. The other day at a gathering someone began to speak and I got worried about the topic... In the past I had observed how individuals have been introduced to all sort of erroneous ways by those seeking to promote the better ways because the talk focuses on the erroneous ways rather than focusing on the correct ways... I was happily surprised that this fellow talked about the lack of faithfulness, lack of prudence, lack of rectitude lack of love and other stuff by referring to the virtues rather than focusing on the vices...

 

The notion that there is no good and bad stems from a schema where the bad seeks to negate the good or be recognized the same as the good because who would pick the bad rather than the good...

 

Will elaborate a bit on Its sort of humorous to me to see certain projection you like to hold and claim while insisting that thats the way things be... For me the world view is one of multiplicity with singular separations and unity. I like to say that our singular uniqueness is what both separates and makes us equals.

 

I will like to make two points, though will focus on just one for the moment. Imagine going from negative infinity to positive infinity. At any given point there are infinite points above and infinite points below. Thus in a way every point is just like every other point... though evidently some points are more positive than others. When everyone is a unique individual it both sets them apart from all other individuals and makes them be part of the set of unique individuals. For the other point I will wait for some occurrence where I see you are projecting something you like to hold and claim while insisting that thats the way things be... I could go look in past posts but would prefer to point it out when I see it tacking place.

[Stosh]

Nikolai1

 

In a way, now be the time to choose witch way to head ... in a rather simplified form:

Everyone is on the right path... everyone claims to tell the truth...

The path has a right way and a wrong way ... there is a noble and a liar...

The enlightened choose the right way - the noble tells the truth

The deceived choose the wrong way- the liar tells the lie

both claim they tell the truth and each does honor to their condition with the exact same words...

'I tell the truth the other lies' is the truth when the noble state the words and is the lie when the liar states the words

everyone knows the right way... "tell the truth"... some choose to tell it, and some, well they tell something else...

 

 

 

A lie is an attempt to avoid the social or personal consequence of a truth

When a liar tells the truth to enable a lie , the truth becomes part lie

when a truth teller lies to tell a truth , he becomes a liar

and then the truth is part lie.

There is no noble versus liar inherently

there is only what we choose to do and why we do it.

Just as there is no good or bad, there is only truth and the way we relate to it.

If we err , and did not attempt to evade the consequence of truth

then we do not lie , it is just error.

It is easier to trust after spotting an error, than after scenting a lie.

Stosh

[et-thoughts]

Stosh

 

Have to agree there is only what we choose to do and why we do it...

Furthermore inherently there is no noble VERSUS liar

for there is only truth and what each does determines if they be noble or a liar...

To cap it all a single lie suffices to make one into a liar and once a liar always a liar...

and that should not distract us from the nobler endeavor of telling the truth...

Indeed a single act suffices to condemn us forevermore AND a single act suffices to save us forevermore...

The key resides in embracing once and for all that which will suffice to save us forevermore ...

 

I wanted to point out that there are nobles and liars and good and bad... and a bunch of other stuff...

Yea I recon than this could get us into an interesting dialogue :-) I believe you already understand quite well what I mean though I mention this to put it on the table... who knows it may even catalyze some other interchange...

 

I liked what you wrote "A lie is an attempt to avoid the social or personal consequence of a truth"...

It seems quite related to how some attempt to avoid the truth of recognizing that they erred. To me a liar is someone who does not tell the truth... If one errs and does not claim the truth one becomes a liar... question is will one recognizes the truth and tell it or keep on telling lies... Personally I do not put to much importance in wether someone is a liar or not... is in error or not heck just about everyone is... for at some point just about everyone has told a lie in their existence... and made a mistake... OK Jesus Christ and Immaculate Mary may have never done such a thing ... Still its irrelevant whether it be the noble or the liar that made the statement... because what be relevant is the veracity of the statement... and following through with it... If someone claims to tell the truth... great followthrough and tell the truth...

 

Right now what we choose to do determines what we choose to cultivate... so it is with each instant, thought, action, feeling...

 

Facing the consequence of truth ... when we make an error... we recognize that we did make an error, and choose to embrace the corrected position through reconciliation...

 

You are correct that It is easier to trust after spotting an error, than after scenting a lie...

[Subtle]

Net of indra.

[et-thoughts]

Net of indra.

 

The reflection upon the gem surface stems both from what be out there and from the gems peculiarities ... and maybe even a bit more... lets pay close attention to the glittering surface reflections, to the surface peculiarities, to the gems constitution, creation evolution... including its formation, extraction, preparation and the digger, cutter, polisher, jeweler, bachelor and maiden that embellish and value it. Just realize that the gem is real and the reflections upon its surface be that reflections... While we are at it lets remember Indra, and the Heaven of Indra... and the Creator encompassing all...

[Birch]

Not too sure what to make of this but thought it pertinent to this thread

 

http://www.enlightennext.org/magazine/j17/self_acceptance.asp

 

Personally, I don't know what the actual case is, but I reckon I do know about what happens when different stances are taken. Part of practice (I reckon) is to willingly adopt a few of them to see what happens.

[et-thoughts]

Not too sure what to make of this but thought it pertinent to this thread

 

http://www.enlightennext.org/magazine/j17/self_acceptance.asp

 

Personally, I don't know what the actual case is, but I reckon I do know about what happens when different stances are taken. Part of practice (I reckon) is to willingly adopt a few of them to see what happens.

 

Man the first line almost got me to stop reading it... "enlightenment equal ego death" that sure is the case when the ego is dead--- but when the ego is healthy and alive enlightenment equals full aliveness... i am glad I keep at it a bit longer... "true spiritual work enables us to acknowledge, uncover and ultimately heal" certainly reflects better words, thought these still cultivate and focus on the notion of disease to heal! Acknowledge what be, uncover what can be and ultimately choose to embrace the better ways... For this one has to be willing to accept what be and the possibilities while at the same time letting it go as one chooses to embrace anew the possible reality that be better. While it is possible to take anything in the right way or the wrong way its also possible to always take what be right (even from what be wrong).

 

Your conscious nature is cooking alive and awake, so you're noticing what has made you tick in ways you never could have before. And you get more and more confident that all the stuff happening happens for a reason which enables your freedom of Being and more.

[Birch]

I figured there were a few different takes in there that seemed to cover a lot of what gets discussed on here.

Really, I don't know which of them were the 'right' one when it comes to 'enlighenment' since as far as I know, I'm not enlightened. What I do reckon is that potentially one is asking the same 'thing' to attempt different stuff on itself towards different ends, none of which (apparently) it's particularly good at (whether killing itself, accepting itself or loving itself - at least this has been my short experience so far).

 

I do wonder why a 'spiritual acheivement' would be of such little benefit to the person themselves? Or is there some 'wider' shit happening? Right now I'm thinking the gunk thrown off by the sea (foam) could be a good example.