I find the concept of Enlightenment problematic

a reply to: SystemResistor

The point therefore of enlightenment is to realise the transient nature of the "ego" and submit oneself to the "whole".

its not really submissions, because there isn't a "you" that has to submit to anything that already is...technically You, i.e. the All.

Suffering is thus caused by the fact that the ego will "die" one day and thus we cling onto an "illusion".

Suffering has a myriad of causes, ego, clinging, desires, loss, even the very nature of this temporary realm and body both as part of their nature include inevitable Suffering one way or another, if not the loss of parents, friends, jobs, money, stuff, not getting what ego wants, then the Suffering will come in old age and existential angst.

Does that really matter when it comes to purpose, does something being "impermanent" mean that it must not exist for a reason?

of course not....a leaf falling do the ground is impermanent, yet still exists...still it is part of the all as well. The discrimination of seeing "One leaf" fall happens in your own minds duality labeling system, whereas Enlightened eyes see the leaf fall within the whole with no divisions or borders/boundaries.

I see much purpose in the existence of the ego and "attachment" for although one might be "deluded", the self that we can define, for ourselves, is our meagre attempt at conceptualising what we are when we purport that we are unique.

The ego is inherently neutral, and it is the ego that decides it will look for enlightenment, though it could be said, the pull for such a cause, to end one's false self, comes from the heart...an entirely different matter. Still when it is seen that this ego isn't you, and I mean a true seeing which creates a massive shift that there is no coming back from, it can never be unseen. 99.9999% of people are hypnotized by this mechanism, which isn't even who they truly are.

I do not regret having an "ego" because I have realised that I want to be different, it is a choice that I have made, and I continue to pursue it.

and you prove my last sentence perfectly, a 99 percenter speaks. That whole philosophy in your above quote, is the ego's attempt to cleverly perpetuate itself. It is the Ultimate trickster.....and yet at the times that you can see it, see its reactions, its labeling, its wants, its choices......shows that there is a seer (subject) and that which is seen (object/ego)....then two are not One.

Click here to see your own ego:
You want to see your ego?

The way I see it, the more interesting we become as individuals, the greater extent we can experience the fun of being individuals, by interacting with each other and sharing our experiences. Otherwise, just rolling together like a giant snowball and becoming "whole" would only serve to standardise us all and really we only can define purpose to our lives when we have our own individual paths - and individualities.

The Individuality project is over, and everything, at its very core, yearns to return home. Individuality is a programmed illusion that society creates and instills upon you, the "Me" generation, is all about "I", but these trends die out quick, 5-10 years max.

On top of that, choosing Individuality over Enlightenment has extremely deep eternal consequences. But hey, if you exist to play the game of individuality, you'll do it eternally over and over again in endless cycles until you figure it out, or not. But since your asking questions about Enlightenment anyway, it shows that you have the "itch" and you're starting to question reality, existence, why are you are, why is everything the way it is, why is there suffering and evil.......you're started to question, everything except yourself.....because this self is god, to you.....

keep going though, lest you miss out

a reply to: dominicus

Before I start here, I have defined the ego as ones "self concept" however, perhaps the "ego" according to enlightenment doctrines is a program.

The idea is that the "ego" constitutes what we pose to be unique about ourselves, however, what if the "ego" is just another construct, another "program" that works hand-in-hand with "enlightenment" - that is to say, enlightenment is also a "program" that lets us observe what we have chosen to define about "ourselves" - through interaction with the "ego" program...

When we try to define the self, then, I think, the "ego" is activated:

In a way, we have personalities and behaviours that are all "coded" by the program, so that we can "fit" within society. Perhaps there is still a "self" that exists that makes us different, however, perhaps the "ego" attempts to standardise our individualities and when we reject or destroy the ego, we are taking what we thought about ourselves with it. Perhaps when an "ego" dies, it is really "released" and the "program" encodes it in such a way that we are able to observe (what we have defined about) ourselves in action.

Thus, if you did not have an "ego" "in the first place" then you could not surpass it either - and neither could you attain "enlightenment" without destroying it.

Perhaps there are many individuals that do not have the program of the "ego" installed, yet are still individual entities.

Perhaps the "ego" exists only if we question what we are, and can only respond to the questions that we ask of ourselves, and can only operate according to the programmatic "definitions base" that the ego needs to function.

To be free of it is simply not to have an "ego construct". To graduate from the "school subject" of "ego" is to attain the accolade of "enlightenment" - a prize like any other.

When it comes to individuality, what if you came up with a thought, that had never been thought before, would not this thought constitute part of your "individuality" as being something unique in all existence?

i.e. like a username on the Facebook of the universe.

Would not that "name" be "you" because it is a consequence of what you have thought?

Your very own "plot" in the landscape of all infinite possibility?

a reply to: Emma3

a misconception perhaps?

does not the naming of the object in your own beliefs already express the biases you have towards such beliefs?

a word of caution, don't get too caught up in words

what does it mean to be god? what does it mean to walk in the light/body of christ?

what does it mean to have the kingdom of god here now within us? not there, or then, but here... always here...

drop the beliefs and see what humanity has always been attempting at, what was there to begin with always

a reply to: SystemResistor

as we find ourselves here we exist between being and non being

all of us are in a 'giant snowball' except the individual sounds we make are just the parroting crying out while we roll down the hill

yet, there is a bit of a power in the will of an individual

but, what is this individual?

we can take the expanse of the ocean and lay it out in a line molecule by molecule, but you see, it is an expanse which rolls upon itself, which ebbs and flows according to itself

the mind is not much different; it moves according to itself, its in motion throughout its existence here

its a big build up, down the hill the snowball gains momentum, gains gravity through accumulation of self

look closer and you will see everything that exists to be able to label a self is arising in co-relation to everything else

one cannot be without the other, so you're already stuck in the middle of it, this 'individuality' isn't so individual, isn't so independent

is it better to be a human, a god, or awake?

originally posted by: preludefanguy
a reply to: Emma3

a misconception perhaps?

does not the naming of the object in your own beliefs already express the biases you have towards such beliefs?

a word of caution, don't get too caught up in words

what does it mean to be god? what does it mean to walk in the light/body of christ?

what does it mean to have the kingdom of god here now within us? not there, or then, but here... always here...

drop the beliefs and see what humanity has always been attempting at, what was there to begin with always

No, it doesn't. I'm objective when I'm looking for answers, and that's what I did with my research, I considered all perspectives in an objective way and I'm too familiar with new age ideas, thank you. What makes you think I was a Christian when I started my research? Because I wasn't. No bias whatsoever.

a reply to: Emma3

never said you were

you used the label though

in any case, a person from another age in another place would probably not even know that label

my point is that in doing such we have already revealed which thoughts and archetypes prevail in our consciousness

this is right, that is wrong, bad label, good label, dangerous label

if there is any purity to be had, it is in the purity that we can have in our own heart, through the teachings of anyone or anything or without by investigation

it isn't jesus that makes me love, it is by the power of my heart, tricked into action by the teachings and investigation

the difference is that a child needs stories to tell them what to believe in

a fully grown person accepts that what causes to become exists within their own heart, peers through the stories they've heard, and use their wisdom and discernment to bring light into the world by way of understanding their heart and mind

there are hindrances in every path... satan/jesus/god all exist within us, in realized positions or not, it is up to our individual willpower to cultivate what we want to cultivate

so, the finger that points out, points in too, if only we take more than the moment it takes to call another wrong to see what it is we are getting caught up in

a reply to: preludefanguy

Yeah, yeah, yeah... I've heard all of that a million times. Save your new age preaching for another person.

a reply to: SystemResistor

I don't think its possible for any person who has tasted enlightenment, to want to return to choosing limited and illusuory individuality afterwards.

Its the same as Plato's allegory of the Cave. Would you want to return to a dark cave-like prison with no light and limited space, after having stepped outside into the warm light and fresh outdoors? I doubt it. No one consciously wants to return to prison, as any felon.

a reply to: dominicus

It is so but more so I have known that upon the destruction of the veil no ignorance or limitation can even be forced. Its like how Master Jesus said “No one sews a patch of unshrunk cloth on an old garment. Otherwise, the new piece will pull away from the old, making the tear worse. And no one pours new wine into old wineskins. Otherwise, the wine will burst the skins, and both the wine and the wineskins will be ruined. No, they pour new wine into new wineskins”

True enlightenment does not add to an individuals preexisting sense of self or its beliefs for if it is so it is not true enlightenment. Instead it is the absolute rebirth of self, a pristine flawless existence as the All. Everything takes on its true appearance and the individual sense of self is rent asunder. Once enlightened one cannot exist as others do, its impossible to conceptualize with words. But I know you are aware of this Dominicus

a reply to: preludefanguy

Your words are utmost in truth but to feed diamonds to swine will not convince them they are divine. Your efforts are greatly appreciated

a reply to: EviLCHiMP

stared !!!!

a reply to: dominicus

You could be right, I am quite "isolated" and sometimes I have "tasted" what it is like to be a part of "everyone" - and it almost shattered me. Although being part of a collective mind state fosters a sense of security and belonging, I do not want to conform to societal norms or become increasingly interdependent upon others.

I feel as if I have been an "individual" and pursuing it for a very long time, and so far, yes, there has been much "suffering" however I still think that it is possible to be an individual "entity" that stands alone, one that lives in their own reality.

I believe that, enlightenment invalidates the individual, yet I believe that pursuing individuality is a natural thing, just another choice that one can make out of the myriad of other choices, enlightenment just being another state of experience, not one's inevitable "fate" of "returning" to the "source" as it is posed.

The key of course is suffering, and I think that if one wants to be an individual, then he must go though much suffering in order to break away successfully. Obviously, to deserve as such requires one to work on their selves, and to experience the gradual "disconnection" from others until something like an original thought occurs to the individual, a final "rebellion" where they "break apart" and become a separate entity.

Or, one could "return" to the "whole" if they have given up their pursuit of independence.

The argument is that the "self" is an illusion when the reality of "everybody" is known, however, that is a belief, and if one does not believe themselves to be an illusion, then, I do not think that they are.

a reply to: SystemResistor

You are absolutely right in your assessment but you're incorrectly applying it to your physical body when in truth it applies to your true Self, the totality of existence. Your perceived individuality is who you really are but that sense of individuality is the same individuality that all forms and beings experience because in truth there is only the one individual, only one you, only one I, only one Creator.

This entire existence was created by you for yourself in order to experience your individuality through an endless appearance of forms. You don't have to believe this to be true because you already are it and inevitably at one point in your spiritual progression you will remember this.

You created this experience for the sole purpose of self realization and self realization will be experienced when you're ready for it.

a reply to: SystemResistor

Whether one believes himself to be an individual or not is inconsequential. He still nonetheless has an idea of himself, and will use whatever fluffy terms he can use to describe it, usually erring on the terms that makes him look better to others, and most likely himself.

The declaration of "I am enlightened" is exactly what it sounds like: "I am enlightened, you are not"; "I know all, you do not". What knowledge they are referring to when asserting this is their own knowledge, circular reasoning. That is basically all it amounts to—a competition to see who can sound the most profound, and consequently, who can spit the most confusing rhetoric with little to no reality. It's an attempted installation of a hierarchy through purely rhetorical means, where he who tries to implement it sees himself at the top. Of course, in practice, no such hierarchy is apparent, and their enlightenment fades away as soon as they stop claiming they are.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: SystemResistor

Whether one believes himself to be an individual or not is inconsequential. He still nonetheless has an idea of himself, and will use whatever fluffy terms he can use to describe it, usually erring on the terms that makes him look better to others, and most likely himself.

The declaration of "I am enlightened" is exactly what it sounds like: "I am enlightened, you are not"; "I know all, you do not". What knowledge they are referring to when asserting this is their own knowledge, circular reasoning. That is basically all it amounts to—a competition to see who can sound the most profound, and consequently, who can spit the most confusing rhetoric with little to no reality. It's an attempted installation of a hierarchy through purely rhetorical means, where he who tries to implement it sees himself at the top. Of course, in practice, no such hierarchy is apparent, and their enlightenment fades away as soon as they stop claiming they are.

and what do you believe in, in terms of attaining what one might call a "profound grasp" of existentiality?

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: SystemResistor

Whether one believes himself to be an individual or not is inconsequential. He still nonetheless has an idea of himself, and will use whatever fluffy terms he can use to describe it, usually erring on the terms that makes him look better to others, and most likely himself.

The declaration of "I am enlightened" is exactly what it sounds like: "I am enlightened, you are not"; "I know all, you do not". What knowledge they are referring to when asserting this is their own knowledge, circular reasoning. That is basically all it amounts to—a competition to see who can sound the most profound, and consequently, who can spit the most confusing rhetoric with little to no reality. It's an attempted installation of a hierarchy through purely rhetorical means, where he who tries to implement it sees himself at the top. Of course, in practice, no such hierarchy is apparent, and their enlightenment fades away as soon as they stop claiming they are.

Who are you to judge others when you can't even see the foolishness of your own words? Anything you have to say in judgment reflects no truth of the external world. Your words come from within you and are therefore a projection of yourself. Possibly if you weren't so judgmental of others you wouldn't be so judgmental of yourself.

There is wisdom to be shared with those who desire it, just because you're blind to it does not make it wrong or rhetorical.

If you perceive anything wrong in others its only because there is something wrong with you. The external world is a reflection of our internal world, do you know this fact? If you do not then I recommend you to do some soul searching. Peace.

a reply to: TzarChasm

Youth. We eventually grow out of it.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: TzarChasm

Youth. We eventually grow out of it.

so you are saying that coming to terms with life and love and the universe is a youthful whimsy and unrealistic?

a reply to: EviLCHiMP

If what you say in judgement reflects no truth of the external world, I suppose I can disregard your judgement, like you should mine. Yet your response shows maybe there is a little truth to what I've said.

a reply to: TzarChasm

Is that what I wrote?