The nature of enlightenment

if he subconsciously lies, doesn't that make him an inherent liar?

so then why would he lie sometimes and tell the truth others?

pot calling the kettle black?

 

No. What I meant is that he may not be aware of the nature of his behavior. From his perspective, he may have felt detached, unthreatened, etc. etc. during our exchange but may in actuality have been influenced by subconcsious defense mechanisms, meaning that he may be able to "truthfully" say that he wasn't threatened when in actuality he was. Make sense?

So is that an admission of your lack of detachment then? Or are you just assuming that I was hurt by your inside joke?

Travis

 

I find it ridiculous to think that one can somehow pick up on subconscious defense mechanisms through text on an internet forum.

I was just pointing out that you aren't exactly practicing what you preach.

I did it all in a detached manner too.

 

Some people find it ridiculous that you believe in god. Do you allow that to lessen the conviction of your belief? Or do you say something along the lines of, "forgive them oh lord, for they know not what they do".

How so?

Travis

 

but, how do you know that I believe in God?

(yes, I am aware of what my signiture says)

it seems to me that you dont exactly hold responses that originate with the ego in high regard. but I've seen you make those same exact types of responses, even without cause.

 

I read your post in one of the Christianity forums where you said something along the lines of, "I don't know much, but I know there is a God".

But more importanly, you're diverting from the point: Why not maintain an open minded mentality about a phenomenon you're not currently familialized with, instead of dismissing it with a singular, narrow-minded statement as some dismiss your own beliefs?

I've never claimed to be infallible. Occasional and minor ego flare-ups don't equate with hypocrisy. If you adopt a detached perspective, I'm sure you'll find that the vast majority of ego-based behavior originates with those who respond to my assertions. Most of what I say involves declarative, matter-of-fact statements of universal truth that don't accomodate the ego's defense mechanisms -- hence people's tendency towards ego indulgence when responding to my posts. The more humble ones are capable of pacifying their desire to defend their illusory existence and simply take my posts for what they are.

Travis

 

I was lying. Or was I? Someone else posted that using my name. Or did they?

You seem to be saying that any discussion that involves disagreeing with you is ego-driven.

But what if my declarative, matter-of-fact statements of universal truth didn't accomodate you? What would you do? Just not respond? or couldn't you disagree in a non-ego driven way?

 

Are you interested in an honest exchange of ideas, or being an evasive smart-ass? I could probably accomodate you either way -- it's just that one mentality is self-destructive and the other isn't.

Not at all. The problem is that very few people in the world today understand what I like to call "enlightened debates". This is a debate that prioritizes the enhancement of one's conceptual framework over the ego-gratification inherent in "winning". If someone were to offer a counterpoint that's relevant in the context of the conversation and that refutes an assertion I've made, I would gladly concede my "defeat". But of course, in enlightened debates, both the winner and the loser ultimately both win.

That would depend on the context. In some cases, people's paths are simply asynchronous. A universal truth applicable for them at that stage in their path may be completely irrelevent for me, and vice versa.

Absolutely. Read Kaminoishiki's posts (who by the way outranks me when it comes to spiritual realization ). They're brilliant examples of disagreements that aren't driven by ego.

Travis

 

but it isn't done without purpose. Im just trying to point out that it's incredibly difficult to discern anything about another individual over a forum.

 

Debatable, to say the least. This depends a great deal on the level of consciousness one is operating at.

Regardless, however, the ability to discern anything about other individual's doesn't detract from any of my aforementioned points.

Travis

 

well all of this began as a result of whether or not we were replying an i detached manner, and something about relayers ego and if it had been subconsciously responding.

that's something about an individual. things which I would be difficult to discern.

 

In that case, are you willing to accept the possibility that I have access to perceptual faculties that you do not, without interpreting it as some kind of value judgement or declaration of superiority?

Travis

 

you may. but I subjectively doubt it.

at the same time, could I have perceptual faculties that you do not, and have understood that there was no ego antagonism in his post, while you are simply deluding yourself?

 

Yes, I think it's quite possible that you have perceptual faculties that I do not, but not with regard to the aforementioned scenario. If I'm deluding myself, than why are you the one that keeps evading the points that I raise?

I think you are young and inexperienced, and are in the process of "testing the waters" of different spiritual outlooks, which is an admirable endeavor. You are clearly quite bright and proficient in exposing the ego-indulgences of others, but you're also rather adversarial at times and cling too fervently to narrow-minded beliefs that in your heart you remain doubtful of.

You can continue to pursue truth without the ego facade that you rely on currently. In fact, at some stage of your journey you will be incapable of continuing unless the veil of illusion that you currently cling to is shed.

Travis

 

It's because I'm an asshole. = D

I would let my ego go, but I've come to love him so.

Plus he has me convinced I will go crazy if disintegrate him.

 

Those who know don't talk. Those who talk don't know. Close your mouth, block off your senses, blunt your sharpness, untie your knots, soften your glare, settle your dust. This is the primal identity.

Tao Te Ching quote

 

damn....and here I thought discussion was useful.....

 

This is probably the most commonly misinterpreted Tao te Ching quote, as your application of it here reflects. Lao Tsu wasn't advocating taking a vow a silence. He was simply referencing a particular ego-distortion involving speaking for the sake of speaking -- speaking to create a kind of buffer zone between oneself and the discontentment inherent in ego-identification. He clarifies this by advocating transcendence of sensory identification and the establishment of connection with stillness. Whatever arises from this state, verbalization or not, is primal identity.

Travis

 

"Asshole" wouldn't have been my first choice of word to describe you, but I can see how you think you're an asshole.

It's just a shame he doesn't return the favor, eh?

Ironically, despite the fact that you're speaking light-heartedly (I hope ), your ego is correct in this instance: You would very likely go crazy if you were somehow able to let go of it as abruptly as the word "disintegration" implies. In almost all cases, the process of ego dissipation must unfold gradually.

Travis