Monday, June 5, 2023
Register   |   Login
Mar 15

Written by: ghar
3/15/2009 6:54 AM

Why would an enlightened person present their case? Paradoxically being the key word, why would anyone institute the question in a Self discovery context? In order to talk about the subject we must walk the proverbial razor's edge. In ‘normal’ conversation a person tries to convince another person of their viewpoint, so to talk about it "I" automatically will make the reader suspicious of "my" honesty, but I think it is worth bringing up for I generally avoid talking about it as much as possible unless directly asked. The reason for that, being it has no mundane value, but it is priceless for those that have relentless questions about their origin. For one thing the behaviorists would label such a state as deranged or something that they could look up in a book which had a definition that they have witnessed, or as Douglas Harding would say, a definition in the 'as if' world not the 'as is' world. In other words, how are we to measure and categorize something that we really cannot triangulate let alone witness unless by accident? If one wanted to acquire ‘Enlightenment’ one is definitely still stuck in an egotistical state but realistically what choice is there? To talk about something that can't be talked about rationally isn't an excuse and that is why so many ‘realized’ people try to express their perception poetically. There is a hope that beyond logic and linear progressive thinking there will be a hint of what it is like for them and they too really have no choice but to try and communicate as all manifested beings do, hence the question. Is enlightenment an egotism or an accident that some times occurs?

I tend to label the being in us which articulates the egotistical person who appears in the mirror a puppet on strings. That is the same character which combs his hair sometimes, and presents himself to the world knowing full well that is not the real me. Not that I'm a total phony but a reflection. That which you see of me is not the real me. I am much vaster and translucent. I can honestly tell you I am aware of my true nature as much as humanly possible and I know that I am only talking to myself for there is only One Self and many apparent others. I don't exist as a solid object and the scientists will tell you that, yet stop short of explaining what I am.

By talking about these things I have a solitary expectation... and that is, I might help someone in the similar strange situation to know they are not alone. But paradoxically once more, they may find that they are alone. The linear minded 'experts' will question your 'sanity' so know this... you can not be seen under a microscope for there is nothing there and those that see something are looking at a reflection of thought, which they can not adequately define.


2 comments so far...

Re: The Egotism of Enlightenment

Here, here!!

By MC on   3/15/2009 3:27 PM

Re: The Egotism of Enlightenment

Glad that the topic was of interest, I have long wondered about the motive of the people who wrote about or talked about 'losing' the ego in a 'death' experience which they lived to speak about. Having experienced that realm I found it is truly paradoxical and the death of a shadow existence for one emerges from the proverbial 'cloak room' with the same costume you had until its programed time is run out. There is no I or me and guess what.. there is no you or other. Not an egotism... a paradoxical actuality.

By ghar on   3/17/2009 11:21 AM

Your name:
Add Comment    Cancel