A word on Enlightenment

I've always liked a part of the 'Prayer of Thanksgiving' in the Nag Hammadi which illustrates a more balanced approach to the esoteric and exoteric and so on and so forth...and ofcourse our subject Enlightenment:

"And if there if there is sweet and simple Instruction,
it grants us Mind, Word, and Gnosis:
Mind, that we may Understand You,
Word, that we may Interpret You,
Gnosis, that we may Gnow You."

I also like that Zen saying, "Before enlightenment chop wood and carry water, after enlightenment chop wood and carry water." It demonstrates enlightenment as part of 'What Is' rather than puts in a realm of seperation and idoltry (as an object to be sought rather than as an aspect of 'What Is' (inner-outer above-below, etc.)).

Originally posted by BlueMule
Somewhere along the way you picked up an expectation that enlightened people can't ever make comments you percieve to be cheesy.

I admit that it was all just a perception of mine - based on what I see on this board, I continue to think you are full of yourself. In my opinion enlightened people would never be 'full of themselves.'

Just admit it and release people (and Arizona) from the burden of your expectations and judgments. You'll find that releasing others frees you too. To have, give all to all.

I am speaking on true fact, that other people from other states noticed the exact same things without me mentioning them when I was studying for years. This is upsetting because it is an example of the world rejecting those individuals who were abducted by aliens, you have a traumatic thing happen and just because someone doesn't believe or conceptualize reality means they have to argue like children - I have to watch out now.

Anybody can argue over misperceptions for years, try saying something useful and positive.

Originally posted by greyer

I admit that it was all just a perception of mine - based on what I see on this board, I continue to think you are full of yourself. In my opinion enlightened people would never be 'full of themselves.'

Arrogance is insecurity; confidence is peace of mind. I have peace of mind, and so I don't mind of you think I'm 'full of myself'. I'm not offended. Arrogance is needy; confidence is free. I need nothing. Including your approval. Confidence can look like arrogance. You won't find people more confident than the enlightened.

Enlightenment is a process. Jung called it the Individuation process. One of the dangers according to Jung is ego-inflation. It's like a symptom of enlightenment. When an enlightened person is ego-inflated, it doesn't mean they aren't enlightened. It just means they aren't done becoming. Like I said earlier, it isn't a one-time deal.

When Neo was first liberated from the Matrix, was he all done becoming 'the One'? Of course not. Would someone still trapped in the Matrix, a skeptic, have been able to persuade Neo that he was not liberated? That he was delusional and full of himself? Of course not. Might that trapped skeptic think Neo was full of himself? Sure.

In your opinion enlightened people would never be 'full of themselves.' That means you have a lot to learn about enlightenment. You could learn from me, if you weren't so full of yourself.

I think we've reached the end of productive conversation. I think it's just going to turn into a pissing contest, so I'm going to wish you well and take my leave now.

reply to post by BlueMule

Enlightenment is a process. Jung called it the Individuation process. One of the dangers according to Jung is ego-inflation. It's like a symptom of enlightenment. When an enlightened person is ego-inflated, it doesn't mean they aren't enlightened. It just means they aren't done becoming. Like I said earlier, it isn't a one-time deal.

Carl Jung knew nothing of 'enlightenment'. With the chance to meet Ramana Maharshi, a truly recognized 'enlightened' human, he avoided him. Yet, later he would write about Ramana that he was "... genuine and, in addition to that, something quite phenomenal." He spent 11 months traveling around India, refusing multiple offers to be introduced to this supposed "phenomenal" man. Why? Because he went around speaking as an authority figure on psychological health and enlightenment, yet he knew he himself was psychologically sick and unenlightened. He was afraid Ramana's words might completely destroy his ego, which he had been developing for decades as a psychologist and authority of the mind. So Jung, of course, described enlightenment as a process, and of course he said "ego-inflation" is not a sign of being unenlightened, because he was unenlightened and ego-inflated. When a disciple told Ramana about this man named Carl Jung and how he refused to come and see him, Ramana simply smiled and said, "He is welcome. Whenever he is ready, I am available."

Moral of the story, set aside this foolish bickering about who is enlightened and who is not, and go and seek what the enlightened masters sought.

reply to post by LifeIsEnergy


You've got it all wrong. Jung knew that the archetypes of the collective unconscious, which were activated in his psyche and in Ramana, take different forms in the East than they do in the West.

"The historical development of our Western mentality cannot be compared in any way to the Indian. Anyone who believes that he can simply take over Eastern forms of thought is uprooting himself, for they do not express our Western past, but remain bloodless intellectual concepts that strike no chord in our inmost being". -Carl Jung

He simply didn't want to uproot himself. He spent a lot of time and effort walking his road. He had archetypes in his head that were activated, the same archetypes as in Ramana Maharshis head but the forms were different. Meeting Ramana, who was undoubtably considered psychic by Jung, might have forced him back to the beginning of the road to Individuation. "If You Meet The Buddha On The Road, Kill Him."

reply to post by BlueMule


Of course, I've got it all wrong, predictable response. It isn't that Jung's "Western mind" couldn't understand Ramana's "Eastern thought-forms", it's that Jung didn't want to understand them because they would have annihilated his ego, which as you stated he worked so hard to establish. His desire to separate Eastern and Western thought is not because he saw inherent differences which could not be reconciled, rather because as William James once stated, he knew that if the West were to get a taste of what these Eastern mystics were saying they would do away with all the nonsense and forced intellectualizing that psychologists like Jung in the West were so preoccupied with. Jung was interested in writing books and becoming an 'expert' in the field of psychology, quite the opposite of the simple life Ramana lived. As you state, Jung feared being uprooted, while Ramana did away with all perceptions of their even being roots at all. How could you uproot a man with no roots?

reply to post by LifeIsEnergy


I wish you luck on your own road to Individuation. Take care.

reply to post by Theophorus


You're simply afraid that you cannot handle the infinite/universal being.. The energy that you are. That's why most religions tell you not to try and figure It out, It can drive many to the brink and over the cliff of insanity. Just enjoy your life. We'll handle ours.

reply to post by ticklemytweeder


ticklemytweeder,

What kind of username is that? I think it's kinda cheesy. I'm not gonna tickle squat. In my opinion, an enlightened person would never use a cheesy name like that. :p

Originally posted by BlueMule
Arrogance is insecurity

Oh yes? That's why attractive girls see arrogance in a young man as desirable, which leads to love, which gives spiritual security. So before you try to label things you should think of how broad humanity really is.

I think it's just going to turn into a pissing contest, so I'm going to wish you well and take my leave now.

Again you might as well be a homosexual if you are male and thought I was male, because I just don't see a reason to write that down, not if you were enlightened.

"You cannot grasp it; Nor can you get rid of it. In not being able to get it, you get it. When you speak, it is silent; When you are silent, it speaks."

- Alan Watts

I think it can be detrimental to the Work however when we look at the ego as a kind of thorn in our side. A majour part of the process of our Alchemical Work involves recognizing the ego not as an enemy but as a fragmented aspect of our consciousness that has further fragmented and that needs to be dissolved, reconstituted and reintegrated (as part of the Wholeness). Recall how Osiris was fragmented and how Isis gathered him and how he was reborn through Isis, them together becomming Horus. You spoke of the Dark Night of the Soul (part of the Black Phase) BlueMule, which you noted as reaching into dark places. It's the Darkest Night which can take us into dark and very dangerous places and is that make or break moment for transitioning out of the Black Phase and Spiritizing the Nigredo who lies lifeless and decomposed, and cultivating that into the Ferment.
So I think the ego is sometimes incorrectly given a bad press as it is not necessarily a negative, depending...infact, it can be a powerful tool in our Ultimate Act of Alchemy here on Earth.

Edit to add: You know who does some beautiful archetypal type work is William Blake.

reply to post by Arles Morningside

"Edit to add: You know who does some beautiful archetypal type work is William Blake."

Certainly did. You know who else did in similar fashion? Carl Jung. In addition to his work in archetypal psychology, turns out the man was a brilliant artist. There was an ATS thread sometime back on a book of his that was previously unreleased until very recently called Liber Novus:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

The book is teeming with artwork, and a good selection of them are in that thread.

Originally posted by Arles Morningside
I think it can be detrimental to the Work however when we look at the ego as a kind of thorn in our side. A majour part of the process of our Alchemical Work involves recognizing the ego not as an enemy but as a fragmented aspect of our consciousness that has further fragmented and that needs to be dissolved, reconstituted and reintegrated (as part of the Wholeness). Recall how Osiris was fragmented and how Isis gathered him and how he was reborn through Isis, them together becomming Horus. You spoke of the Dark Night of the Soul (part of the Black Phase) BlueMule, which you noted as reaching into dark places. It's the Darkest Night which can take us into dark and very dangerous places and is that make or break moment for transitioning out of the Black Phase and Spiritizing the Nigredo who lies lifeless and decomposed, and cultivating that into the Ferment.
So I think the ego is sometimes incorrectly given a bad press as it is not necessarily a negative, depending...infact, it can be a powerful tool in our Ultimate Act of Alchemy here on Earth.

Edit to add: You know who does some beautiful archetypal type work is William Blake.

edit on 23-6-2012 by Arles Morningside because: Edited a second time to correct spelling.

I like the way you think.. or be Blake is great. What you resist persists.. I think somewhere along the lines modern(western) man decided the ego was in the way and needed to be destroyed if enlightenment was to be obtained. So Western man set out to destroy his ego with his ego.

People (including myself) would do well to remind themselves what the purpose of their seeking is.. if there is one at all. Desiring enlightenment is fine. Seeking it.. Working at it. Enlightenment is entirely pointless and without effect to the soul, ego, spirit etc.

I think many would do well with a simpler practice of honesty.. if positive, understandable and applicable effect was the goal. Many people, including myself, seek or sought for some relief to the brittle denial they live under. Enlightenment becomes some kind of secret escape code.. A mental exercise whereby the initiate can bypass the pain of honesty and skip ahead to the front of the line. It's a giant crock of turd.

Being honest with oneself about oneself, their relationships.. reality.. That`s the practice without end. The harder the ego is hit with a hammer the harder and more brittle it becomes. Honesty loosens it up, turns it into something malleable, light, elastic..

Not a single ego has been destroyed in the history of man. Some may argue. But i cannot see how it`s possible. One without an ego is one without a body.

Originally posted by BlueMule
reply to post by ticklemytweeder

 

ticklemytweeder,

What kind of username is that? I think it's kinda cheesy. I'm not gonna tickle squat. In my opinion, an enlightened person would never use a cheesy name like that. :p

edit on 23-6-2012 by BlueMule because: (no reason given)

Google me then.. It's simply an online-ego..

Originally posted by Theophorus
This goes out to all you New agers.To be enlightened is to be aware. To have an awareness of something, one must have KNOWLEDGE of the existence of that something. In this case that something being enlightenment or awareness which in turn can only be boiled down to knowledge itself.Now, People are finite beings meaning we have limited boundaries. The knowledge we gain is also finite. Point being made is that in our finite state enlightenment is un-obtainable.Anyone looking into there finite self to find infinite knowledge is just kidding themself.

The Fist step toward attaining Enlightenment is to admit you really don't know the Big Picture. This also includes understanding that any professed teachers of enlightenment you may have...have not a clue either.

True enlightenment comes from understanding that with your limited abilities and knowledge....there is always room to learn more and to try to be Happy that you are alive as to WASTE A LIFE SEEKING THAT WHICH IS UNOBTAINABLE....is a true sadness and that time can never be recovered. Split Infinity

reply to post by rwfresh

What you resist persists...

Very true.

Not a single ego has been destroyed in the history of man. Some may argue. But i cannot see how it`s possible. One without an ego is one without a body.

Now, this just completely confuses me. In one regard you are correct, it is not possible to destroy the ego because such a 'thing' is non-existent. The illusion, how can you destroy it? You resist it, it will persist. However, what if it is seen to have never existed?

Then, in another regard, it is very much real because it is believed to be real, or rather, the certain things we believe to be real, which are not, cause it to be real. In other words, the mind is fragmented due to wrong perception and this fragmentation is the ego. The fragmentation is the "I" thought separated from, held onto tightly and given special authority over all the other thoughts. This "I" thought, and the thoughts it attaches itself too, is then misidentified as our self. Once this is seen to be the cause of all our fragmentation, thus conflict and suffering, the ego is no more. So again, the illusion, how can you destroy it? You resist it, it will persist. However, what if it is seen to have never existed?

This is why I do not understand your above comment. Maybe it would be best to understand what you mean by ego though. What is ego?

Originally posted by LifeIsEnergy
reply to post by rwfresh

 

What you resist persists...

Very true.

Not a single ego has been destroyed in the history of man. Some may argue. But i cannot see how it`s possible. One without an ego is one without a body.

Now, this just completely confuses me. In one regard you are correct, it is not possible to destroy the ego because such a 'thing' is non-existent. The illusion, how can you destroy it? You resist it, it will persist. However, what if it is seen to have never existed?

Then, in another regard, it is very much real because it is believed to be real, or rather, the certain things we believe to be real, which are not, cause it to be real. In other words, the mind is fragmented due to wrong perception and this fragmentation is the ego. The fragmentation is the "I" thought separated from, held onto tightly and given special authority over all the other thoughts. This "I" thought, and the thoughts it attaches itself too, is then misidentified as our self. Once this is seen to be the cause of all our fragmentation, thus conflict and suffering, the ego is no more. So again, the illusion, how can you destroy it? You resist it, it will persist. However, what if it is seen to have never existed?

This is why I do not understand your above comment. Maybe it would be best to understand what you mean by ego though. What is ego?

There is no doubt that there are two worlds for me. One Real. And One that is entirely illusion. I am illusion. No part of me is real. So when i say no ego has ever been destroyed i mean it. Where there is a body their is an ego. As far as I'm concerned. AND if anything persists after death it is what i would associate as ego as well. Albeit a "lighter", "freer" version (spirit, soul). So yes. Everything is illusion in any world we perceive.

I do not believe it is possible for any part of this non-reality that is recognized as self can be associated, turned into, realized as what is Real.. It is not possible. What is not real cannot be real. If someone meditates for 60 years and is perceived by others in any way.. what we know of them is what persists as ego. Doesn't matter if they can walk on water, heal the sick, die and come back to life, teleport themselves, travel to and from different universes or dimensions. All of that as far as I'm concerned is not Reality. These things, states, may definitely "exist" in non-reality.. anything is possible is something without substance.. but none of it is Reality or Truth.

That's my belief. But again.. don't take it from me because i am honestly delusional in the context of Reality.

The illusion is almost infinite. It's infinite nature is also illusion. You can infinite wake up to deeper and deeper illusion. The onion has no core. You can peel it "forever".. It is like the devil's staircase in music. Realization is an experience of what i consider ego. An experience inside illusion.

I could be wrong. But show me the one who is in Reality, who is True and that one is definitely my God. I've done my share of seeking. I'm familiar with the current candidates. Met one or two. But.. awakening is a skill.. no more "Real" than gymnastics, business acumen, car racing, instrument playing. In the illusion there is a benefit to waking up to delusion. But it does not lead to Reality. My belief..

Originally posted by deometer
reply to post by Arles Morningside

"Edit to add: You know who does some beautiful archetypal type work is William Blake."

 

Certainly did. You know who else did in similar fashion? Carl Jung. In addition to his work in archetypal psychology, turns out the man was a brilliant artist. There was an ATS thread sometime back on a book of his that was previously unreleased until very recently called Liber Novus:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

The book is teeming with artwork, and a good selection of them are in that thread.

edit on 23-6-2012 by deometer because: (no reason given)

Yes, I recall that thread and enjoyed it. I hear, Liber Novus is a masterpiece. I'd love to really sit down with it and study it but I havn't had the time

Originally posted by rwfresh

Originally posted by Arles Morningside
I think it can be detrimental to the Work however when we look at the ego as a kind of thorn in our side. A majour part of the process of our Alchemical Work involves recognizing the ego not as an enemy but as a fragmented aspect of our consciousness that has further fragmented and that needs to be dissolved, reconstituted and reintegrated (as part of the Wholeness). Recall how Osiris was fragmented and how Isis gathered him and how he was reborn through Isis, them together becomming Horus. You spoke of the Dark Night of the Soul (part of the Black Phase) BlueMule, which you noted as reaching into dark places. It's the Darkest Night which can take us into dark and very dangerous places and is that make or break moment for transitioning out of the Black Phase and Spiritizing the Nigredo who lies lifeless and decomposed, and cultivating that into the Ferment.
So I think the ego is sometimes incorrectly given a bad press as it is not necessarily a negative, depending...infact, it can be a powerful tool in our Ultimate Act of Alchemy here on Earth.

Edit to add: You know who does some beautiful archetypal type work is William Blake.

edit on 23-6-2012 by Arles Morningside because: Edited a second time to correct spelling.

I like the way you think.. or be

Blake is great. What you resist persists.. I think somewhere along the lines modern(western) man decided the ego was in the way and needed to be destroyed if enlightenment was to be obtained. So Western man set out to destroy his ego with his ego.

People (including myself) would do well to remind themselves what the purpose of their seeking is.. if there is one at all. Desiring enlightenment is fine. Seeking it.. Working at it. Enlightenment is entirely pointless and without effect to the soul, ego, spirit etc.

I think many would do well with a simpler practice of honesty.. if positive, understandable and applicable effect was the goal. Many people, including myself, seek or sought for some relief to the brittle denial they live under. Enlightenment becomes some kind of secret escape code.. A mental exercise whereby the initiate can bypass the pain of honesty and skip ahead to the front of the line. It's a giant crock of turd.

Being honest with oneself about oneself, their relationships.. reality.. That`s the practice without end. The harder the ego is hit with a hammer the harder and more brittle it becomes. Honesty loosens it up, turns it into something malleable, light, elastic..

Not a single ego has been destroyed in the history of man. Some may argue. But i cannot see how it`s possible. One without an ego is one without a body.

You're so right about honesty being important. I've really come to realize that over the years myself in the Work and how necessary it is.