Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Sign In Register
Examples: Monday, today, last week, Mar 26, 3/26/04
Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.

Why do we try to escape consciousness? + some great quotes

MateeahMateeah Explorer
in Buddhism Basics
Of course, this is what our ego is always doing, we don't realize we are already enlightened!

But why do we start trying to escape consciousness in the form of ego anyway? It's quite impractical! The ego is just a manifestation of spirit, but then why did it manifest at all? Is it simply the package deal to be intelligent life, for survival?

It is what we always are, for the eternity of timelessness...

A few great quotes I've heard recently ..

"You are an aperture in which the universe is looking at and exploring itself." -Alan Watts

"The entire world of form is arising in your formless awareness right now. You can are aware of form, time, color, so your awareness is formless, timeless, colorless. In other words, emptiness and form are not two. They are both One Taste in this moment. And you are that." -Ken Wilber

And this is article on enlightenment is fantastically clear...

http://www.spiritualteachers.org/norquist_article.htm
Sabby

Comments

  • FlorianFlorian Veteran
    Hmm. Are you suggesting that the ego is timeless? Would an ego not require space and time for its functioning?
  • SabbySabby Explorer
    I guess it depends on what you believe. Think of it this way, if we are all one and part of the eternal whole and we are in fact the universe experiencing itself "just as a wave is to an ocean, or an apple to an apple tree" then the ego would in fact act as a catalyst for spiritual growth.

    Let's say that we did come to this earth to have an experience but we were already enlightened, if that was the case, then there would be no point for an experience, there would be no growth, "we would already know all the cards in the poker hand" and in a sense there would be no challenge or interest. in order to experience all experience we would have to obtain a false ego/illusion in order to learn and once we have gained enough experience, possible over multiple lifetimes (if you believe that) then we will finally obtain this liberation, this understating/enlightenment that in fact we truly are the whole act and all the actors and thus the experiencer has experienced the all experience and the goal is complete for that apple or wave..

    but i dunno :)
  • MateeahMateeah Explorer
    Florian said:

    Hmm. Are you suggesting that the ego is timeless? Would an ego not require space and time for its functioning?

    I meant consciousness is timeless, not ego :)

  • MateeahMateeah Explorer
    Sabby said:

    I guess it depends on what you believe. Think of it this way, if we are all one and part of the eternal whole and we are in fact the universe experiencing itself "just as a wave is to an ocean, or an apple to an apple tree" then the ego would in fact act as a catalyst for spiritual growth.

    Let's say that we did come to this earth to have an experience but we were already enlightened, if that was the case, then there would be no point for an experience, there would be no growth, "we would already know all the cards in the poker hand" and in a sense there would be no challenge or interest. in order to experience all experience we would have to obtain a false ego/illusion in order to learn and once we have gained enough experience, possible over multiple lifetimes (if you believe that) then we will finally obtain this liberation, this understating/enlightenment that in fact we truly are the whole act and all the actors and thus the experiencer has experienced the all experience and the goal is complete for that apple or wave..

    but i dunno :)

    That makes sense, I mean, how could we know enlightenment without not knowing it? Just like emptiness and form , it's another necessary contrast that helps us distinguish one from another :)
    Sabby
  • FlorianFlorian Veteran
    Well, the Upanishads say there is no consciousness after death.

    In timelessness, who is to be conscious of what? Perhaps it's the word 'consciousness' that causes a problem. For most definitions, those which depend on it being a process, time and space would be required.

    Just being awkward :)

  • robotrobot Veteran
    Mateeah said:

    Sabby said:

    I guess it depends on what you believe. Think of it this way, if we are all one and part of the eternal whole and we are in fact the universe experiencing itself "just as a wave is to an ocean, or an apple to an apple tree" then the ego would in fact act as a catalyst for spiritual growth.

    Let's say that we did come to this earth to have an experience but we were already enlightened, if that was the case, then there would be no point for an experience, there would be no growth, "we would already know all the cards in the poker hand" and in a sense there would be no challenge or interest. in order to experience all experience we would have to obtain a false ego/illusion in order to learn and once we have gained enough experience, possible over multiple lifetimes (if you believe that) then we will finally obtain this liberation, this understating/enlightenment that in fact we truly are the whole act and all the actors and thus the experiencer has experienced the all experience and the goal is complete for that apple or wave..

    but i dunno :)

    That makes sense, I mean, how could we know enlightenment without not knowing it? Just like emptiness and form , it's another necessary contrast that helps us distinguish one from another :)
    I don't mean to distrupt the intent of your exchange. And this is not necessarily relevant to your point.
    I just want to toss in here that form is emptiness and emptiness is form. Emptiness is not other than form. So emptiness is not separate from form. And there is no form that is not empty.
    There is no distinction between them, they are not two.
    Sabby
Sign In or Register to comment.