For Bindi, non-dualists, and myself

[old3bob]

I'd say it ego ends, ends when it is no longer is getting energy to continue its program(s).

[doc benway]

4 hours ago, stirling said:

 

In Zen it is commonly known that in the intervening period (years usually) between being newly awakened and complete stability of "no-self" there will often end up being a new "self" constructed around the awakening realization, creating an illusory "enlightened self". It is also called "Zen sickness". It is usually an early feature, and actually feels terribly dry and uncomfortable, so it is usually realized and dropped, or pointed out by a teacher. It is entirely developmentally appropriate, and a good case for someone to have a teacher to get them into doing some compassion training which usually clears up the matter.

 

The ego IS very tricky... it feels like it is in danger of extermination, but this is a misunderstanding, it is never exterminated but instead simply seen for what it has always been.

 

My teacher often refers to the more sophisticated and subtle layers of ego in the advancing practitioner as the "smart ego."

It's more wily than the more gross and obvious inner voices.

It is endlessly fascinating to become aware of deeper and subtler layers of this onion in practice and in life. 

 

[doc benway]

5 hours ago, dwai said:

It is not a case of "diminishing" or "dissolving" but more about incomplete knowledge/understanding. For example, if one only reads "Brahma Satyam Jagat Mithya," translated as "Brahman is real, the world is unreal," one can conclude that the "unreal" implies that the world is being dismissed as being illusory. That is, of course, not what the teaching is about. It is a pointer to the ephemeral nature of the world juxtaposed against the backdrop of the unchanging Brahman (which can also trigger Buddhists into mistaking it as a reification - a strawman argument used in many Advaita Vedanta/Buddhist debates by Buddhists). 

 

I've observed it to be a case of diminishing and dissolving for some teachers and practitioners. To be clear, I'm not referring to anyone here. In Bön teachings this is often identified as a common error on the path of which we should be cognizant, hence the quote from The 21 Nails warning us not to misconstrue the energetic display of the base as somehow deficient.

 

5 hours ago, dwai said:

I think "grasping" is a natural step in nondual inquiry. Why? The parable of the ten friends crossing a river demonstrates that. It is not that it is necessary, but more or less inevitable, given how our minds function in the subject-object paradigm. 

 

Agreed, it is the mind's nature to reify and grasp.

 

5 hours ago, dwai said:

In many cases, I think the "arrogance" is just a symptom of unripe practitioners more than anything. The ego is very tricky in that it latches on to identity. Likes and dislikes are not neutralized after realization. In AV we have the concept of krtopasati (realization after proper cleansing of the mind)  vs akrtopasati (realization before proper cleansing of the mind) - mostly the non-traditional nondualists tend to fall in the latter camp (in my experience). 

 

I agree here as well, in part. Beyond the tricky ego, the non-dual experience can be extraordinarily powerful and transformative, as you well know. I think that the profound degree of confidence and certainty that arise from such realization can come across as arrogant and dismissive, particularly for people who don't have a relatable frame of reference. I learned this lesson personally from a close friend who is open and confident enough to be direct with me when I rub him the wrong way. I think this is one of several reasons why some non-dual traditions strongly discourage discussion of the subject outside a closed cohort.

[Antares]

2 hours ago, Bindi said:

the entire spectrum of ideation and emotion are seen as the manifestation, or dynamic ornamentation, of the base and the direct realization of this depth and breadth of integration in an active and lived sense is the fruition. In this paradigm, it is the very differentiation of self and other which is the fundamental impediment to integration, so the work is done at this level of differentiation, as opposed to at the level of the multitude of experiences, emotions, and ideas that occur to the source of differentiation, the self

Honestly I tried to understand what these word mean but I did not succeed. It is better to use daoist terminology to describe the process. The devil is in details. The base you talk about can be post heaven shen (heart - mind).
I cant really understand what you are trying to achieve. But I believe that methodology is more important than philosophy in this case.
The latter matters but practice is more crucial here

[Bindi]

16 minutes ago, Antares said:

Honestly I tried to understand what these word mean but I did not succeed. It is better to use daoist terminology to describe the process. The devil is in details. The base you talk about can be post heaven shen (heart - mind).
I cant really understand what you are trying to achieve. But I believe that methodology is more important than philosophy in this case.
The latter matters but practice is more crucial here

The below quote is a quote from doc benways post. I didn’t write it, doc benway wrote it, I tried to understand it myself, I believe it is his understanding of nonduality. 

“the entire spectrum of ideation and emotion are seen as the manifestation, or dynamic ornamentation, of the base and the direct realization of this depth and breadth of integration in an active and lived sense is the fruition. In this paradigm, it is the very differentiation of self and other which is the fundamental impediment to integration, so the work is done at this level of differentiation, as opposed to at the level of the multitude of experiences, emotions, and ideas that occur to the source of differentiation, the self”
 

In my post where I responded to doc benway I did also give my perspective about the nature of reality, using my dream to explain my perspective.