Clarity and Illusion

[Quinn]

Andy,
I really enjoyed that. It's a well thought out piece (pardon the irony).

Two things occurred to me as I read. One is about the groups or tribes forming and how that encouraged development of a 'self-identity'. That would explain why solitude (meditation, walks in nature) is so helpful to waking up. And why some people, myself included, found it difficult to be around others in the beginning stages of this journey. And still feel nourished by alone time.

The other thing is - to take it a little step further - we are in a media-age. We're surrounded by images and sounds, influences on what that 'person who fits in' or that 'person who is respected' is all about. There is even more pressure now to assume an identity for the good of the community (family, town, country, etc.). A very specific identity. In my grandparents' generation, it seems to me there were a lot more 'characters'. But now the box is getting very small and tight. Maybe that has something to do with the growing impetus to wake up. Why people like Tolle are actually being read on a large scale, and why Buddhism is flowering in the West.

Just some meandering thoughts.

[Sighclone]

Thanks, Quinn. And your extension is spot on. "Banker," "fireman," "hottie single," "power babe," "nerd" etc... The pressure to be "cool" is strong. And it's all about appearances, of course, and the ego in us has finely discriminating senses. I remember reading an article about 30 years ago about a young man discussing all his dates with a female friend. They would come up with one word to discount the date, such as "mai tai" (suggesting that was not cool to order) "daddy" ( too attached to her dad), "hairspray" (wore a little too much) etc, etc.... These were reasons to reject the person. Sorta cool, but not quite.

And believe me, when I was single, I bought into all of that crap, with serial girlfriends until I was 39. Then I married someone who my mother liked more than I did. I am not holding up the single Sighclone as a posterboy for intelligent, sensitive, awakened young men. Long sad story, and aftershocks still surface...but no blame.

Andy

[great2be]

You say the ego is false, please tell me a) how that was ascertained, and b) how the ego came into existence?

For a) I think ET does a pretty good job on explaining the illusion and falsity of the ego in both of his books, and also John Welwood in "Toward a Psychology of Awakening, first third. For b), below is a small piece I wrote about a year ago -- just my theorizing...

Ahem....... I asked if you would like to go into the garden to pick some fresh salad for lunch, but instead you rush home and defrost an enormous (1600+ words) inedible stew in the microwave!

[Sighclone]

Sorry you couldn't digest that, great2 be...I'll re-write it someday.

But I am repeatedly reminded of something as I review this thread -- we are in agreement about concepts and their great deficiency.

Before awakening, "enlightenment" is a concept, and "Andy" or "Great2be" is real. After awakening, unity consciousness and Self or pure awareness is real and "Andy" is a concept, artfully (or inartfully) constructed from experiences, family, memories, inertia, habits, ego, superego, id, libido, neuroses, hobbies, skills, body parts, brain, mind, etc.

Andy

[great2be]

Before awakening, "enlightenment" is a concept, and "Andy" or "Great2be" is real. After awakening, unity consciousness and Self or pure awareness is real and "Andy" is a concept, artfully (or inartfully) constructed from experiences, family, memories, inertia, habits, ego, superego, id, libido, neuroses, hobbies, skills, body parts, brain, mind, etc.

Andy, there's an elephant in the room, which cannot be ignored for much longer.
You have a flawed concept of enlightenment, as a result, much of what you say about it is flawed. You may be repeating what some 'teachers' are saying, but that is no real authority.

Enlightenment is living without a false self.
Your flawed understanding of how that false self came about shows that you yourself are not free.

We don't need to go back to prehistoric man to understand what went awry. The error is re-created in virtually each and everyone of us as a child.

The ego system is not a function of survival, this is a huge misleading mistaken belief.
The ego system is purely a dysfunctional psychological phenomena, and as such has no physical benefits whatsoever!

Thinking about myself creates an image which we take as real.
In the physical world this works fine, and we have mistakenly carried this over to the psychological.
We only think about ourselves because we have memory of dysfunctional psychological states and so feel the need to control/secure our future.
Those experiences of psychological disorder were actually a result of being told as a child to be other than we were, or that we were 'bad'. It created the notion of a split in us and we have been ever reaping the results of that mistake since.
The fact is that we are what we are, and any idea about what we should be is a split, a division, a duality.
Any attempt to act upon myself psychologically creates a split between what I am and what I should be. This split is the source of ALL psychological dysfunction.

[Sighclone]

Enlightenment is living without a false self.
Your flawed understanding of how that false self came about shows that you yourself are not free.

Really!?! Ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny -- exhaustively documented. Just because I suggested a bio/sociological theory regarding the source of the illusion of an egoic self, I am not free? I am happy to discard any theories of history which can be shown to be false...has nothing to do with my own spiritual experiences -- they are just theories...true or false, just dust in the wind.

(I do detect a need to find fault with me and many others in this forum in most of your posts...could that not be the operation of the dreaded ego?? Or perhaps the even more dreaded "holier than thou" spiritualized ego!!! Even then, It's no problem if it is, so long as respect is shown...)

I'm in complete agreement with your comments about the moment-by-moment delusion created by the pschyological phantom the ego, and the source in infancy etc. And of course, there are no longer any physical benefits per se. (Sure someone could argue that an egoic muscle-builder is stronger...yada yada) My point was that historically it had some physical benefits before there was a collective consciousness which created language and social cooperation, and the sneaky consensus of group ego development.

What's important, of course, is that it is false, self-protective, clever, elusive, and, hopefully, in all of us, moribund...

Andy

[great2be]

Really!?! Ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny -- exhaustively documented. Just because I suggested a bio/sociological theory regarding the source of the illusion of an egoic self, I am not free? I am happy to discard any theories of history which can be shown to be false...has nothing to do with my own spiritual experiences -- they are just theories...true or false, just dust in the wind.

Why would you suggest an inaccurate bio/sociological theory regarding the source of the illusion of an egoic self?
Why wouldn't you just ellucidate the truth as you were best able to?

(I do detect a need to find fault with me and many others in this forum in most of your posts......)

If I see fault in statements I do sometimes point them out..... I hold back more and more, as many forumites take offence.
I have no need, but the implicit purpose of this forum is clarity.
Do you have a reason to exaggerate? "many other in most of your posts", or would you care to list the 'many' and show the greater than 50% to be true?

What's important, of course, is that it is false, self-protective, clever, elusive, and, hopefully, in all of us, moribund...

When something is an illusion, how can it have characteristics?
To illustrate your faulty apprehension, I'll quote you from a recent post
"but perhaps its arising now is a kind of last desperate gasp of your ego"
Ego's don't exist, just the mistaken idea that they do. How can an illusion have a 'last gasp'?
We've discussed this quite a bit in this thread, using the rope/snake analogy.
If one is applying attributes to the 'snake', then it's clear that they don't see it truly as it is, a rope.

[Marcel Franke]

> How can an illusion have a 'last gasp'?

Urm.... perhaps it can act as if it is having one ?

Oooh God I is dying, bye bye cruel world, farewell dear Forumites, aarrrrrgggghhh......

[Kutso]

great2be: You do seem to have a tendency to point out that people are wrong. But really, there is no "right" and "wrong". You know that. Maybe it's time to stop playing superior almighty?

[gen6]

(I do detect a need to find fault with me and many others in this forum in most of your posts...could that not be the operation of the dreaded ego?? Or perhaps the even more dreaded....... "holier than thou" SPIRITUALIZED EGO!!!

I'm sorry, I just couldn't hold myself If you want delete this post.
Suddenly when I read it, I imagine Andy like a detective from a crime story finding the truth and showing the killer where are his mistakes and what he actually done in front of everybody , where everybody is listening and they are like - OOOoh so this is what actually happened !! And the intense moment before the big TRUTH is very important!!!!
On the other side is Great2Be :



p.s.
no offence both of you, just can't stop my imagination.

[great2be]

p.s.
no offence both of you, just can't stop my imagination.

You may not be able to stop imagination, but do you have a choice over whether you post or not?

I'm not offended, how could I be? It's all about you after all.
Haven't you heard that terrific Byron Katie quote?
"OK, so you love me, what's that got to do with me?"

great2be: You do seem to have a tendency to point out that people are wrong.

I also point out when people are right - no-one seems to have a problem with that - what's the difference?

But really, there is no "right" and "wrong".

So is this statement true or false?

Maybe it's time to stop playing superior almighty?

Oh, is that what we're playing, you could've told me. If I'd have known, I'd have given you a head start.

[Kutso]

I also point out when people are right - no-one seems to have a problem with that - what's the difference?

The difference is that people seem to have a problem with you pointing out that they are wrong. Also, there seems to be more pointing wrong than right from you part.

So is this statement true or false?

You tell me. You are the one prone to pointing out those sort of things.

Oh, is that what we're playing, you could've told me. If I'd have known, I'd have given you a head start.

I did tell you, didn't I?

[Sighclone]

gen6 - funny pics, no problem.

great2be -

inaccurate bio/sociological theory

Please tell my why it is inaccurate -- as I said, it's just a theory, fully subject to revision based on better analysis.

Just because something is an illusion doesn't mean it can't have impact, texture, subtlety, evolution and, in extreme manifestations, cause murders and suicides. Movies are illusions, but people get caught up in them all the time. And the ego is an illusion only from the perspective of Brahman/Self. When you are up to your neck in alligators, it ain't that easy to notice that you are really Superman.

I'm not going to go through the math to count your posts, but many of them start out with a harsh and abrupt judgement about someone's effort to say something meaningful. Sort of seems like you are threatened by strong minds and quick to stomp on apparently weaker ones...all the time ringing the tired old bell about the illusion of ego...while what many of us seem to hear is your ego, loud and clear.

Not that egos are "bad." And not that we all have to be "ego cops" (like Bogey) -- we just have to own them when they erupt, and not hide behind "the effort to reach clarity." Even Adya says his ego leaks out now and then...illusory though it might be...

Andy

[arel]

This argumentative exchange with sore vibe behind it is due to what often annoys me on this forum and in general. People expressing their point of views and unique experiences as if they are universal truths. I believe absolutely nothing we can talk about is an absolute truth. I would think it would be too obvious on this forum, but I guess not. If everything is stated as a personal point of view, arguments like this would have a fun rather then sore vibe to them, I believe.

[great2be]

Why would you suggest an inaccurate bio/sociological theory regarding the source of the illusion of an egoic self?
Why wouldn't you just ellucidate the truth as you were best able to?

Forget the inaccurate for the time being, that's a whole different discussion.
Why didn't you answer the questions above?

Just because something is an illusion doesn't mean it can't have impact, texture, subtlety, evolution and, in extreme manifestations, cause murders and suicides. Movies are illusions, but people get caught up in them all the time. And the ego is an illusion only from the perspective of Brahman/Self. When you are up to your neck in alligators, it ain't that easy to notice that you are really Superman.

But I was asking you, who says he's free of the illusion.
How can you apply attributes to an illusion?
It's like saying that the snake doesn't exist and then start describing it's colouring...... what is going on?

all the time ringing the tired old bell about the illusion of ego

Seeing the illusory nature of the thought projected self is the central issue.
When that is seen, all psychological problems are solved.