SkyPanther

Well, or its maroon spreading peanut butter. But your attachment to Ken Wilber is pretty fascinating, tell me more.

That is your legitimate perspective, others disagree. Whichever perspective is actually right is up for debate.

I like playing games, as do you, don't be ashamed to admit it. As for the articles and links, ignore them.

Since the game is set up to play with someone, if I win, or not, is irrelevant. But you should know that. As for protesting, nope, just making sure we are playing with a semblance of facts. Otherwise I can just make up false things you have said with no shame whatsoever, just like you have been.

Did I say I have no ego? Did I say I was perfect? Did I say any of those things? I did say I have seen ego as an illusion. I am working on dislodging it. I do not have a view of self, which is different than "no ego". And I see no insult, unless that is how you took it. No insult was intended. I am just conversing back and forth with you because I think it's fun and humorous.

Yes nomad, you have figured me out.

How do you know I have not gone through grief, rage, and despair? That's the nice thing about the internet, you know nothing about me, other than what I say here. And anything I say here can be a role I am playing. Or maybe it's true, or maybe it's half true. Again, I never claimed to be fully enlightened, or "killed" the ego, or any of the sort. I have been saying that I am working on it. This forum, meditation, people like you (thank you), are all lessons on the path. But I could be saying this because I know it sounds nice, I could also be saying this because I know that is what the Dalai Lama and other Bodhisatta's have said and I could be parroting them. I could just totally be lying, or I could be sincere. I do not care how you, or anyone else takes it. If I am being honest or not, really, only matters to me and my own progress. I am not taking anything you say seriously, or personally, I am sitting in an office, on a chair, drinking coffee and eating friday donuts. I am enjoying this exchange. Also listening to the Dhammapada (verse 28 and others) from time to time.

You keep using anti-Christ like that's a bad thing to me, or is that a bad thing in your mind? I don't actually follow any guru, except the Pali Canon, and a monk who sometimes chips in with his meditation expertise. So I have no real idea of what Tolle says other than watching some videos that were pretty entertaining. I've not read any of his books. As for the rest, feel free to think whatever. Ego is tricky, I am still uprooting fetters, and this is a fun exercise.

Well, to be clear I used stroking egos because that is the verbiage you used... I am taking nothing you say here seriously or personally, so might as well play and have fun back with you. I need more people like you in my life... it's fun actually having people tell what's on their mind without filters. Though I think this is not half of the authentic experience I would get from an actual Bhikkhu of a particular lineage.

Nothing wrong with stroking, as long as you know it's a game, and meaningless. Sometimes it's fun talking with like minded people, sometimes it fun helping others. Sometimes it's fun being an "anti-Christ", like you are playing here. Kudos for keeping the game going.

Or, you know, I could be having fun here talking with you. If I am being watched or not, won't change the content of how I say things, though I may be more or less blunt, depending on the audience. I have no power here, people do not know who I am, I can make a different username and post as that if I say the wrong things, and the only person that would know is Leo by looking at my IP. I never claimed to be enlightened. I did say I was on the path; but the final delusion does not break till later, I am totally fine having fun, while realizing it is all meaningless. We are playing games here after all, no? Or are you taking this seriously?

I do not switch views. I am not attached to a view. I think some views are more "right", "wholesome", or "skillful", but those views do not have a political affiliation. Sometimes liberals have it, sometimes conservatives, sometimes moderates, sometimes neither of them. I have my own path though, if people are interested I can share that, by pointing them at the Pali Canon, or Vedanta, depending on their disposition, but I don't think it is my right to tell others how to live their lives, who to vote for, or anything else that infringes on the path they chose.

No, I think truth is whatever truth is... I don't know what it is, but extremes are no more truth than anything else. I am fine with being the anti-Christ, as for deceiver, well, that is a matter of debate. I could be sincere and think I am telling the truth, when I am actually really deceived. But then my intention is not to deceive... I could just totally be wrong and think I have truth. I have not forced anyone to read my posts, everyone here is free to leave, ignore, or not read the posts they deam offensive.

Maybe, or maybe I can hold a view and not cling to it. I do have to live in the world of concepts, and conditioned reality. There may come a time where I leave it behind, but right now it has me interested enough that I stay. But I am enjoying these conversations with you.

I do not care who is liberal or conservative, I care about what is more "true", to a situation. Sometimes that is liberals, sometimes that is conservatives, sometimes it is neither or both. The reason I call myself "liberal" has nothing to do with the politics, and everything to do with the intention.

I totally admit I am biased, but I never hid that. As for the guardian, I tend to go to what most agree as accurate reporting, whether it is actually accurate or not, I do not know, since I was not there, and even if I were it would still be colored by my bias. Feel free to ignore anything I post, or link.

It is true for any view; including the Dhamma. Once you get across the river of desire, you discard the raft.

That is hard to do when ego is built up from birth in the West, and especially in the US, and where most have not stepped foot outside the country. Some will get it eventually; some won't. But the rounds of kalpas will continue with or without their(our) understanding.

I think anytime there is any reaction, instead of response, and the reaction is that of a personal affront, that is an egoic delusion. So finding the threads, and fetters that keep your ego bound, by being constantly affronted is the best way to break out of egoic/conceptual and personal view. Or simply put, if you take anything personally, you need to figure out why and release it. Because you have some egoic clinging to view.

The teacher said I was a Sotapanna. Reading the description, it fits both my experience and my realization. I never claimed to be an Arahant. But to answer the question more directly, everyone is enlightened... most just miss it because they have too much conditioning from culture/nature. Or "too much dust in their eyes".

No, but I was never looking to get enlightened. I was living a normal life... or as normal a life as a software engineer has. After my experience, which again, I was not actually looking to get, I did research of what "that" was, and saw all the eclecticism/New Age woo found in modern teachings of Eastern thought in the West. So I found a Theravada Buddhist Monastery in San Diego (It's a Thai Forest Tradition called "Metta Forest Monastery") took the Refuge and Precepts, and then found a teacher and started reading the Pali Canon. I am in my 30's; if I were younger, and was actually seeking enlightenment, I would be in India doing what @Henri suggested. Probably some where near Bodh Gaya, or a Forest in Thailand.

Oh, I understand, but there are people that take Wilber and turn his writing into a spiritual life. Just like people do with Alan Watts, Osho, etc... Alan Watts was a "spiritual entertainer", he said that many times... but people still took him as a guru. The Buddha was not a god, just a teacher, but people still turned him into a divine being.

They may be talking about the same thing, or they could be talking about the same thing from their personal interpretation. But from what I understand Eckhart Tolle did not work toward enlightenment, he just "got it". But now he is teaching others essentially how he now feels without having a pre requisite understanding that how he feels is after the fact; it did not get him to the fact. That is why if you take the religion out of Vedanta/Hinduism/Buddhism, all of them are tools to show you how to dislodge the conditioning of humanity and nature, so you can get that realization.

I think you are right that Zen, Burmese and Thai teachers there will be very confrontational and sometimes physically so (without actual malice) because as soon as they see that they are getting under your skin, they will pick at that egoic wound and try to make it a bloody gash. Than you either leave because your ego has been so affronted, or you take it till the ego surrenders and you get that moment where you go "I just realized I was the one making my life a living hell by taking all of this personally". As soon as that happens, and the teacher sees it, the teacher stops picking at you. With most Westerners that is a challenge, because from birth the ego and "self esteem" is the first thing they teach you in school. "Your special!" That sticks with most people and they take it as a weird doctrine of egoic one upmanship. So the teachers here have taken a different tactic, which has its own pitfalls of creating Spiritual Egos. This is why I agree with @Henri, if people are serious about seeing enlightenment for what it is, leave the country(western society), and go to India, Thailand, Japan, etc, and actually get a teacher that follows the tradition that makes the most sense to you. That may be Vedanta/Hinduism, Zen/Theravada/Tibetan Buddhism, etc, but it actually follows the original teachings and not a mishmash of Eckhart Tolle, Alan Watts, Osho, Ken Wilber. Who all may be "enlightened" (or not) but all have a different way of getting there which may not be compatible if someone else is trying to get there. Stick to one thing instead of jumping around and use the teachings as a tool than discard it once you have cleared up all the concepts and ideas you think are "reality".

For any Star Trek fans, this should be an interesting existential question. There is a comic that makes this question clear, but it can also be used to dislodge your idea of the "self". http://existentialcomics.com/comic/1 This is muplitple pages this is the first: So the question is... if you had two points separated by millions of miles, that you could travel to at the speed of light, or faster, but it required quantum teleportation (which would destroy the you that enters the machine and then recreate your physical body on the other side), would the you that appears on the other side be "you", or your clone? That is, are you your memories, or your continuation of consciousness? When you go to sleep, is the thing that wakes up "you" or a clone? Since your consciousness stopped while you were sleeping. Some interesting things to think about, because this might be a reality one day: Shades of 'Star Trek'? Quantum Teleportation Sets Distance Record http://www.livescience.com/52259-quantum-teleportation-sets-distance-record.html