Is ignorance intentional?

[tsuki]

Hey, there's a question that's been bugging me for a while and I wonder what you guys think of this.

Is ignorance (itself) intentional? Is is "part of the design" and is it capital G "Good"?
If that is the case, then why is the ego considered devilish/parasitical/demonic?
Is it because seekers, prior to enlightenment, are devils and judge suffering?

The other formulation of the same question: what is the origin of the ego? 
Or: what is the reason for seeking?

The last question seems the most palpable - we seek to escape suffering, but this answer is relative to existence as the separate self.
Patanjali seems to answer these questions by saying that ignorance is the only thing to do after the first distinction, between Purusa and Prakrti, has been made. From the separate self's perspective however, it seems pretty cruel to have been be created merely for the sake of Purusa's entertainment.

[tsuki]

@Meta-Man

If Love, enthusiastic nourishing freedom, is all there is, then ego is inevitable and indispensable.
There is no freedom from the ego, as ego itself is an expression of freedom. It is the freedom to hate yourself.
Seeking is therefore a completely egotistical pursuit, rooted in self-hate, which reinforces the thing it tries to get rid of.

I have one dissonance though. If ego exists merely because it is possible, then why is it so pervasive?
Is it because it is so basic, coming into the picture right after the first distinction has been made?
Or is the ego distinction itself? It does not seem that way, it is entirely possible to be distinct from someone else and still love them truly. That act would be completely against the ego though.
Ego is more like distinction with rejection. One-sided attachment to a pole of otherwise complementary polarity.

Edited May 4, 2020 by tsuki

[tsuki]

6 minutes ago, Meta-Man said:

Because it is constantly striving for survival, like any other mechanically behaving organism. It seeks continuity.

Are you saying that ego is an organism? That doesn't sound right.
There are things that exist, but aren't egotistical. Are plants egotistical?
If you reduce a plant, via thought, into a mechanical system, then it does indeed seem like its purpose is survival, but that reduction is of your own making. The plant in itself simply is. Reality isn't mechanical - it's intelligent, which is the polar opposite of that.

I'd say that things become egotistical when they strive for permanence of their form.
This would imply that only self-aware creatures can be egotistical.

28 minutes ago, Meta-Man said:

Yes, ego is the root distinction. The original ‘sin’.

I'd rather say that the original sin is not distinction, but self-image (knowledge).
Even in the Bible, Adam and Eve existed prior to their consumption of the fruit.
Adam and Eve are a distinction, and it is a precondition of knowledge.

37 minutes ago, Meta-Man said:

True Love is the absence of distinctions. 

Ego can only operate on the level of conditional love. Because it is a limitation its love cannot be unlimited.

Again, this only makes sense if all there is, is ego. I disagree.
When you are immersed in something beautiful, thoughtless, can you spot anything wrong with the thing you're infatuated with?

[mandyjw]

What is innocence, in relation to ignorance? What is it that imposes the extra judgement that the choice of the word ignorant infers? 

 

[tsuki]

12 minutes ago, mandyjw said:

What is innocence, in relation to ignorance? What is it that imposes the extra judgement that the choice of the word ignorant infers? 

Thank you. It's self image. The 'should have known better' thing.
Or maybe deliberate ignoring of something. As if God was really somewhere, ignoring itself.
Guilt.

Edited May 4, 2020 by tsuki

[tsuki]

Ignorance, ego.
Innocence, true self.

Are they really two sides of the same coin? @mandyjw

Edited May 4, 2020 by tsuki

[tsuki]

49 minutes ago, Meta-Man said:

‘The plant itself simply is’ - the same can be said about ego. That doesn’t change the way they function/behave. 

"Function" and "behavior" are knowledge, stories, brought to the table by the ego.
Reality, in itself, has no function or behavior. It's pure magic, a miracle. Something out of nothing.
That is not a statement expressing my enthusiasm, but a literal description.

49 minutes ago, Meta-Man said:

The human dilemma is a unique one of mistaken identity. The brain has created a subject-object split. This makes it feel as though one is an autonomous, separate entity in an outside world. This is the illusory prison. Other organisms function smoothly and seamlessly. The plant doesn’t ask itself how to be a plant. The bird doesn’t ask itself how to be a bird.

I agree, but I wouldn't express it in terms of biology. It's a slippery slope.

49 minutes ago, Meta-Man said:

The bird doesn’t ask itself how to be a bird.

And yet, an ego asks itself how to not be an ego .

45 minutes ago, Meta-Man said:

How can there really be anything other than innocence? Ego and ignorance is also innocence.

Exactly my point! That's what I've been asking about.
If that is the case, then why do we seek?

Edited May 4, 2020 by tsuki

[tsuki]

It seems like I'm striving for permanence of this conversation.

Thank you @Meta-Man and @mandyjw.

[mandyjw]

1 hour ago, tsuki said:

Ignorance, ego.
Innocence, true self.

Are they really two sides of the same coin? @mandyjw

Learning and discovery is the greatest joy there is, but it wouldn't be a joy if you didn't have the freedom to do so. So the possibility of learning + freedom to do so= the possibility of ignorance. We get to choose what we focus on. You cannot learn and be conscious of ignorance, consciousness of ignorance is pushing something away, learning is receiving. Openness/love/appreciation forgetting what one knows is required to learn, beginner's mind is the only "intelligent" kind of mind. 

[Preetom]

Does Santa claus exist? 

Edited May 4, 2020 by Preetom

[James123]

4 hours ago, tsuki said:

"Function" and "behavior" are knowledge, stories, brought to the table by the ego.
Reality, in itself, has no function or behavior. It's pure magic, a miracle. Something out of nothing.
That is not a statement expressing my enthusiasm, but a literal description

If you think or feel something, it is ego (Duality, something other then you). If you dont think that will make you exist as nothing, it is pure consciousness (you will be exist as nothing, but everything is you, which is selfless). 

[The observer]

@tsuki

Because duality = non-duality and God = the devil.

Most spiritual people follow the dogma that God is pure awareness and that awareness is all there is. While that view is factually true from a certain perspective, it still dismisses thought entirely and therefore causes trouble accessing the biggest picture understanding.

To solve this problem, one must realise that awareness = thought and thought = awareness. These two are not separate, neither opposites. They're, loosely speaking, two different forms of one thing. Thoughts create awareness. And awareness creates thoughts. They give birth to each other all the time. It's one exquisite example of yin-yang embodiment.

Back to the question: what is the reason for seeking? The reason is that because seeking is the ultimate nature of reality. There cannot be reality without seeking just as much as there cannot be God without a devil. Reality is seeking precisely because it's lacking/incomplete. Even though it is also complete from another perspective. Seeking vs. Being is one dynamic/duality. Separation vs. Unity is another. From whichever point of view you choose to look at either dualities, it's still completely valid. The ultimate reality is not just being or unity. Being and unity are partially true. Seeking and separation are the other half of the truth. But Part vs. Whole is a duality, and therefore either dualities are not only partially true but also completely true at the same time. The ultimate reality is non-dual, and it is dual as well at the same time. Without this understanding, there will remain a shadow and it will remain demonised. Not that that's bad or evil or anything, but that it's bugging you 

Edited May 4, 2020 by The observer