SkyPanther

Reincarnation and rebirth are different propositions. Reincarnation, as in Hinduism is akin to water in a glass. The glass being a body, water being the "ego" or "soul", which moves to another glasse after death. Rebith, as in Buddhism is akin to a candle lighting another candle, passing on its flame. The candle being the body, and the fire being the cause and effect of the person (Karma). The Buddha did not teach the survival of the egoic self. In my opinion, dabbling in some forms of channeling and @Sarah_Flagg please correct me if I'm wrong, mediumship is channeling the stream of the grater self (essentially the energy/consciousness/essence) which uses the mediums own experience to re-construct a memory of the "dead" ego. It's not actually the ego of the dead, but a reconstruction. This is why sometimes the memory is interpreted incorrectly.

The issue is that this truth is counterintuitive, and is hard to "teach". Even the Buddha was reluctant. You should try, but be waned that most won't get it, or else think you are nutty. Don't let that discourage you.

Male and female are concepts when it comes to how one acts; in some cultures women were the warriors, for instance. But gender, sexuality and sex are all different aspects of life. They are not "problems" so much as different expressions. It makes life interesting.

Rebirth is a perspective; I am typing this on my phone, so please forgive the short response. All things in the universe are "existence". You, me, your cat, dog, flower, etc, etc. Since there is no "you", that is there is no ego self, you could say you are the universe. So the thing that "rebirths" is the "universal existence" bound by chaos theory, or "cause and effect" (karma). You, that is the universe and existence, existed as verious things all started an unknown time in the past by a single cause that splintered out(think of a river breaking up into different streams) into all the people, animals, planets and other universes and planes of existence. That's my take on it as a Student of Theravada Buddhism.

I'd say 7 working toward 8; however that is a self assessment; and I could totally be off. Meditation teachers tell me I'm a Sotapanna, but that's a Buddhist level which may not translate to any number on that chart.

From a Buddhist POV: Mind precedes all mental states. Mind is their chief; they are all mind-wrought. If with an impure mind a person speaks or acts suffering follows him like the wheel that follows the foot of the ox. Mind precedes all mental states. Mind is their chief; they are all mind-wrought. If with a pure mind a person speaks or acts happiness follows him like his never-departing shadow

Speaking for myself, the things that used to bother me about what some people like that said, I isolated, and resolved. The thing that gets "hurt" is the ego being... find that part that is getting hurt and release it. Now if they are physically hurting you, that is a different topic. Leave the situation, or get law enforcement involved.

Speaking for myself, I knew, because there was a stark difference from before and after. The initial experience is different from anything else you have experienced. For me it was a momentary stillness in thought, and a mind that felt like it was expanding out into infinity. Basically like the "mind" popped, there was awareness, but no consciousness for a very quick moment. Afterwards, the hole most have that they fill with things (material stuff, sex, drugs, partying, drinking, etc), got filled with an ever present contentment. That is, whatever other mind state I am in, I can focus on the center of my being, the contentment, and the other mind state fades away. Once I started meditating, and got to the 4th Jhana (equanimity), I could bring that up consciously as well. The other big change was that at first I noticed a two second "gap" between my thoughts, emotions, etc, and my identification with them. I just saw them as emotions, ideas, thoughts, and if I left them alone, they would fade. If I started to tell stories about the emotion, than I would get caught up again, and act "normally" (i.e like I always used to). The more I meditate the bigger that gap gets. And now I can just see that I am in a bad mind state, and shift to a good one, (either contentment or equanimity) I also lost the fear of death, because the self/ego is not "I". The organism is not "I". So there is no fear in dying because the only thing that dies is the memories, and tendances your brain held (the organism). And it's not that you want to die, it's that you no longer cling to life. It varies for people, but this was my experience.

It's not that you do not exist. You exist, what does not exist is the ego. You are trying to get it to an equanimous state where you do not hate yourself.. .you are trying to get to "acceptance" of yourself as you are. And along the path, you use love, compassion, etc, to shrink the hate you may have for yourself, or others, until you accept both as they are.

This is accurate, it depends on the perspective; If you look at a wave, you need both the Crests and troughs or there is no wave. The Buddha taught bliss through extinguishment (trough), the Hindu Vedantas taught bliss through fullness(or purpose) (crest). There are also downsides to the bliss in both, via misunderstanding; with Buddhism you can get to nihilism and/or an ego driven marit system, with Hinduism you get a cast system, and/or an ego driven purpose.

Depending on who you ask, yes. "Everyone is already enlightened, but most forget that they are". I think this is a correct view. The different paths are meant to decondition you back to your "enlightened" state.

I agree, and for my part I appologize for the debate that took place in the other thread. I thought I was having a good faith discussion with a person that misunderstood what I was saying. That was a wrong assumption, and the discussion turned into a fruitless debate.

This is spot on. Though I would add to the OP, that this is not a forum run by psychologists (and, I assume, most here do not have any formal education in psychology) so take all the advice here with a large grain of salt. You may need real psychological help before you can start on your path, or maybe not. I think as jjer94 suggests, once you see the ego as an illusion, and the events in your life as being colored by this illusion, the weight you give your emotions/hangups/habitual tendencies/addictions/attachments, so on and so forth, will shrink by a lot. There is no real need for woo "spirituality"; here is how Albert Einstein saw it: Source: http://www.lettersofnote.com/2011/11/delusion.html See the delusion for what it is, and the rest will fall into place.

Ego death is not about not caring about stuff. It is more about being equanimous/content with things as they are. That is, if you get something you want, you are content, if you do not get something you want, you are content, if you are left alone on an island, you are content. The ego usually wants things and measures things by past experiences, or things that you think you are. "I am a nerd, I am a jock, etc, etc" With ego death, you see these as concepts, and you do not identify yourself with that concept. And that can be emotions, ideas, labels, etc... The death would actually be more about "understanding" that the ego is just that... a conglomeration of different things, and is not "self". You could call it more an "ego check". And then there are different paths that seek to make the ego more and more transparent until it is gone (for instance Buddhism) and the point of that is exactly as the video suggests, deletion from existence (Samsara). Here is a scientific perspective on this concept:

I think this can be summed up like this: You, I, everything that exists is made of atoms. They have substance, you can feel them, they are "real" (that is your eyes and brain perceive them). But atoms are not "real" in the sense of the concept. The concept of atoms is made by our mind. In reality it is just vibrations/energy/pattern. And all of those words are also concepts. They are not "real". They exist in our collective knowledge as ideas, and concepts. People confuse these as "the real world". In reality they are concepts. As for non-dualism, that too is a concept. But it is an interesting one. Can you have a positive poll without a negative poll on a magnet? Can you know what "light" is without "dark" (really photons hitting your eye, which is interpreted in a certain way by the brain to show you light/color, "light" is really a narrow band on the electromagnetic spectrum made of a prism of "colors" which are really the frequency of a wave). Can you understand "up" without "down"? Can you differentiate "good" if there is no "bad"? Without its "opposite" the other makes no sense. Consciousness/Ego needs to measure things to make sense of it. The "I like it, I don't like it, I neither like nor dislike it mind" But in reality they are all connected, or "dependently arisen". So in a sense they are both "separate" and "one", just like in quantum physics a particle is both a discrete particle and a probability wave. And you can go down the list and see this is true everything. Time is a concept, there is no past, or future, there is only "now", which is always in flux. "Life" (it is "life" as we know it on this planet) is a concept, etc, etc...

This has some interesting points, there is a book called "The Book" by Alan Watts, that, while it does not answer the questions asked here directly, it does speak how both you and your kids should approach the world after you "wake up". There is also a video that speaks a bit about his view: Another related video:

Ultimately meaning at the end of something, i.e, if you get down to the core of something. Your ego is the reason you are having an adverse reaction to the statements being made here; manifesting as ad hominems, strawmen and name calling. If that is your version of "enlightenment", no thank you. We have derailed this thread long enough though, I apologize to the other posters here, and feel free to have the last word on this, because this is a fruitless path on both of our counts. Be well, and I am sorry for any upset I have caused you.

Did I judge you or Donald Trump? My knowledge of Trump is solely based on his public statements. I do not want to quote them here because I think they are harmful. I see a duck, I call it a duck. Knowing too well that "duck" is a concept. But since we are living in a world of concepts we use concepts to communicate ideas, which are themselves concepts. I have found peace, thankfully, after many years of study and self-inquiry, what I am doing now is just the last remnants of cleaning up the cruft. I honestly do not care what you think truth is, or is not, or enlightenment, or anything else. Because ultimately this whole thing has been about you, and your aversions. Had nothing to do with me at all.

This is exactly right. There is a discourse given by the Buddha exactly about this. Once you get to the other shore, throw out the raft that got you there. Source: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.022.than.html Because anything that locks one into a way of thinking, ultimately, is a concept that binds. This does not mean that you let go of the understanding itself, but the concepts that got you to this understanding. For me, the raft is (Theravada) Buddhism, for others it's Zen, or Wicca, or Christianity, or Process Philosophy, or Panpsychism, or what Alan Watts, or Leo are teaching... But a foundation is needed on what "enlightenment" is or is not. And it is not "egoism" or "Do as you Will" or "If it feels good, do it". So, in the goal of keeping on topic, and I apologize that it has swerved into this no-man's land, find an exemplar of an enlightened person, see if their teachings make sense to you, and if you find value in them, follow them. For me, those people were/are Alan Watts, and Siddhartha Gautama until I get to the other shore.

Kind of a "not here nor there" comment, but, Alan Watts was a huge proponent of using psychedelics to dislodge the ego. However he also suggested that once you "find the door", to stop using the drugs to get there. Basically use them as a way to understand what Leo is talking about, but once you reach that, you can get there without the drugs. Mostly because at some point, you might be abusing the drugs, versus trying to get to the goal of actualization, etc.

I agree, and I have been respectful and spotlighting places where we agree. But note that the attacks are not coming from me. And I totally agree that there are multiple ways to "self-actualization" or "enlightenment", but that gets a bit blurry when you change the definition of the words. If you are in the ballpark, yes, we can agree that "6+3 = 9 but so does 5+4", but when you change enlightenment to mean "do as you will", that is not really what either self-actualization or "enlightenment" is about. "Do as you will" does fit LeVay Satanism however, which is anathema to egoless "enlightenment", or "self-actualization" as most understand it.

There is no authority I am appealing to, other than decency to yourself and others. You seem to have bought into the "if it feels good, do it" paradigm. Sorry, that is not something I think is "right", nor will it ever lead one away from ego. Thank you for another ad hominem, but I do not accept it.

It is irrelevant to me what or who you think I am. But you should work on why you have the strong aversion to people that disagree with you, or your version of "enlightenment".

Developing a narcissistic ego is not normal, and that is just going by psychological assessment, not having anything to do with enlightenment. Being a psychopath, that only cares for your own happiness is not normal, and that is just a psychological assessment. Being a pathological liar is not normal. And this is not talking about Trump, per se, but is making a point that there are bad qualities that should not be cultivated because they harm society and/or people. Feel free to project whatever you think enlightenment means, is, or aught to be, but it will not have a recognizable resemblance to the psychological term "self-actualization". You have essentially created your own goal of what you think you should act like. That does not surpass the ego.

Enlightenment is a concept, true. But reaching for the evolution of the psyche is an ideal, not a belief. For instance I would class myself as a transhumanist, because I have hope for humanity, that one day we will live in peace and harmony with ourselves and the universe, cosmism would be the actual concept. But change always starts with one, you. I want to help society by changing myself. You are assuming things about me, by projection, or outright fabrication from a few posts on a forum. I would never do something like that to anyone. Because, in my opinion, it is a snap judgment.