Self-Deception

[Razard86]

I have come across a certain individual who made a claim that Spiritual Teachings aren't needed in the Spiritual Awakening Process which revealed to me the profound ignorance some have about the topic of Self-Deception. Its amazing how some people do not get this. Self-Deception is the fundamental default ground of reality. Spiritual Teachings are the strategy guide you as God created to guide you through the process. If you believe remembering your true nature and embodying it is such a easy thing to awaken and actualize you might be the most arrogant ignorant person on the planet. 

If it was such a easy thing, humanity would have collectively realized and actualized it. The Ego is a very tricky creation of yours, and if you take it lightly it will co-opt your entire life and take complete control and sabotage you. I've dealt with my own ego and others enough to know its sneakiness and what has helped me recognize it is through the feeling of separateness, judgment, being the ego, and the feeling of connectedness and patience being the true authentic expression. When I tell you the EGO is the ONLY obstacle in your life, you have no idea how important that statement is. There are no other obstacles in life but the EGO, if this isn't recognized then the EGO has you completely fooled.

The only problem in life is EGO, anything else is falsehood which the EGO has tricked you into believing. 

[Razard86]

Found a video by a Youtuber who is tripping on acid that buttresses my point. And I'll add a Leo clip.

 

[Maru]

All these spiritual ideas or "teachings" had to come from somewhere. How did the first teacher get his insights to awakening or enlightenment? 

Where did the first teacher find his wisdom? 

"seeing the beauty of the way things are"  Do you need a teacher to figure this out? Or does a teacher just make it easier? 

 

Is awakening really a matter of hard or easy?  To me it seems as if its more about really wanting it. I can think to myself i want to be awakened right now, but that is in itself self-deception. I don't want to BE it, i just want to know it. But knowing it is not the truth is it?   

 

That's my thoughts, hope you enjoy them

[Danioover9000]

@Razard86  Nah, that's self deception all right.

[SOUL]

Spiritual teachings are only needed if one believes they are needed.

Spiritual teachings are the hoops and shenanigans that the ego believes it needs to do to 'attain' or 'achieve' something that already exists as it is.

Someone may very well require of themselves those things to be done and appease the ego but all these things that one believes are needed to be done are just distractions from being present.

Why it's not 'easy' is because the ego wants it's to be a challenge, it wants it to be work, it wants it to be hard to justify its identity as the one who does these things.

Well being is simple, there is nothing to be taught or learned for well being, it is simply being at peace with just being.

This is why psychedelics are so powerful, they cut through the mind's 'doing' and allow consciousness to just 'be'.

As soon as you know that spiritual teachings aren't needed, they cease to be needed.

[SeaMonster]

Please, dude -- try to be honest and not conflate separate issues into the category of "spiritual teachings."  This is a rhetorical gambit that allows you to victim-blame and defend questionable ideas, such as the "teaching" of solipsistic dogma as part of "spiritual teachings."

You basically criticized and attacked the video guy who directly experienced the negative effects of certain types of "spiritual teachings." You threw out the red herring of kundalini awakenings, which had nothing to do with the issue at hand.  If you want to talk about ego and self-deception, that was pretty much a good example of that.

Can you admit that teaching solipsistic dogma to spiritual seekers can be harmful or not (without blaming the victim)?

This guy is not the first and only example of this negative impact, and not everyone who has experienced such suffered from schizophrenia either.

Edited December 24, 2022 by SeaMonster

[Breakingthewall]

spiritual teachings have the function of making the mind flexible, ready for awakening. but the true awakening almost never occurs if not with psychedelics, or meditating in a cave for 25 years, since it requires the self to completely withdraw. the self is structure, and spiritual teachings easily become structure, since the self appropriates them. true awakening is completely out of mind, that is, it requires the complete destruction of all structures. 

quality spiritual teachings should prepare the mind for its collapse, and nothing more

[SeaMonster]

10 minutes ago, Breakingthewall said:

true awakening almost never occurs if not with psychedelics, or meditating in a cave for 25 years, since it requires the self to completely withdraw.

That's forum dogma.  Regular shaktipat can get you enlightened within a year, and then you work on integration.

[Breakingthewall]

9 minutes ago, SeaMonster said:

That's forum dogma.  Regular shaktipat can get you enlightened within a year, and then you work on integration.

just my experience. the thing is something very deep, very real. a break in the energetic body that makes up what you are. I suppose it's possible with analog means in certain people, but I find it very difficult. it has to be something complete, without the slightest intrusion of the mind. there are substances that promote this very efficiently if the person is prepared

[SeaMonster]

I don't believe that a set of psychedelic experiences can get you the whole way there, and I see ZERO evidence that anyone has reached full liberation using only psychedelics.  They do certain things well, and have their uses, but the problem is the same problem as with any tool used in spirituality - the ego always captures the "seeking" process and uses it for its own ends.

There has to be an element of genuine sacrifice, letting-go and uncertainty in order for full awakening to happen.  If you're thinking, "oh, I'll just do psychedelics a bunch of times and I'll be fully enlightened" that is already evidence that the ego is firmly in charge of the process.  Psychedelics cannot overcome the fact that one cannot INVOLUNTARILY, PASSIVELY become fully enlightened.  

With shaktipat, e.g. you're paying someone a lot of money to do sessions -- and you have no guarantee if/when it's going to work.  So there is a real element of letting-go-of-control involved.  There is a real TENSION to overcome (the ego will keep telling you that you're an idiot for paying a lot of money for something that isn't working.)

The ego likes a path, a straight line, certainty, guarantees (how do I accomplish this?)  It wants to control not only the end but the means, and can get picky about the means.

But that's entirely the opposite of "letting go."

 

 

 

Edited December 24, 2022 by SeaMonster

[Razard86]

This entire thread is ego lol yall arguing and finding things to argue with just for the sake of arguing. There is a lot of ignorant responses on this thread which reveals a certain lack of experience to things that is obvious. Try giving psychedelic experiences or high intensity experiences to a child that throws it into bouts of infinite visions with no ground and see what happens. Development is a part of spirituality like everything else, anytime someone starts denying some aspect of the truth (what is) to pick a side and defend it they reach ego. 

Are there exceptions to what I am presenting? OF COURSE THERE ARE because all identities are relative. I'm talking about in general what is true. There are beings who are born enlightened so none of what is posted here would apply to them. But in general when dealing with the path, development and doctrine is needed. If that wasn't the case....it wouldn't be the case. Instead of always trying to tear down the ancient, ask yourself why it exists at all. To build a house you need a foundation, at a certain level of technological development, future houses may not require this but at the current level of technology they do. EVERYTHING IS RELATIVE. 

[Breakingthewall]

11 hours ago, Razard86 said:

This entire thread is ego lol yall arguing and finding things to argue with just for the sake of arguing. There is a lot of ignorant responses on this thread which reveals a certain lack of experience to things that is obvious. Try giving psychedelic experiences or high intensity experiences to a child that throws it into bouts of infinite visions with no ground and see what happens.

13 hours ago, SeaMonster said:

 

 

I assume you mean that because of what I've said about spiritual teachings and psychedelics. You didn't like my contribution ??. oh, you're so advanced. And so agressive btw. Or maybe you have no idea what I'm talking about. mmmm, yes, I think it will be that. you can see thousands of videos of leo, you will continue without having a fucking idea. Just become infinite, there is the real deal. Other things are just masturbation. Enough for the kids. Adults need the real thing. 

 

Edited December 25, 2022 by Breakingthewall

[Maru]

@Razard86

You sir confuse me. Are you not just as much ego as we are?
 

Edited December 24, 2022 by Maru
someone else posted in between

[vladorion]

43 minutes ago, Maru said:

@Razard86

You sir confuse me. Are you not just as much ego as we are?
 

He's an ego who tricked himself into believing that he's not an ego.

Now he's trying to teach other egos and gets upset when they don't recognize his egoless wisdom.

[John Paul]

Every word is a lie. There is no exception for spiritual teachings. 

Someone could enlighten you by having you follow their outrageous dance moves for one hour straight 

[Maru]

9 minutes ago, John Paul said:

Every word is a lie.

I guess the only truth to any word is the sound it makes as it leaves your mouth or the mark it leaves on whatever surface you scribble it.
 

 

[Razard86]

15 hours ago, Maru said:

@Razard86

You sir confuse me. Are you not just as much ego as we are?
 

I confuse you because you desire to be confused. Confusion only happens to a mind that is close-minded. When you seek to disagree, rather than understand you will be confused. So no I don't confuse you, YOU confuse you. 

When I say ego I literally explained in my post what I meant. I said all identities are relative, if all identities are relative then if you take any stance as an absolute then you are stuck in ego. If you take a position from a relative point of view then you are not in ego. Many on here are taking absolute positions, as a result they are communicating from a place of ego. 

To be free of egoic perspective your perspective would have to be relativistic, this would reveal that you understand that reality is purely relative with every moment. 

[Maru]

Your doing exactly the same though. It confuses me that you blame people for things you do yourself and then somehow fail to see this.

I did not add questionmarks behind my sentences for no reason. They were ment as questions to you, not absolute statements.

I just wanted to try to show you that the opposite perspective of your own exists and might be valid. You know, try to open your mind to the opposite. Is that not the reason why you have a discussion? To break the illusion that black is better then white or visa versa.

[Razard86]

On 12/25/2022 at 6:30 PM, Maru said:

Your doing exactly the same though. It confuses me that you blame people for things you do yourself and then somehow fail to see this.

I did not add questionmarks behind my sentences for no reason. They were ment as questions to you, not absolute statements.

I just wanted to try to show you that the opposite perspective of your own exists and might be valid. You know, try to open your mind to the opposite. Is that not the reason why you have a discussion? To break the illusion that black is better then white or visa versa.

I'm doing that, if I am then you would have provided an example already. Notice you haven't done that? You just projected onto me. Do you know how easy it is to say someone did something? Easy, you just say it. No examples, no pointers, nope you just say they did something. I have repeated again, ego is when you take an absolute perspective. Please point to where I am doing that? 

I respond to criticism which is constructive, constructive means it can be used to build/construct from. Telling somebody they are doing something, without showing where is not constructive. Notice....how I just provided constructive criticism by explaining what the issue is. 

[A_v_E]

@Razard86  amen, god bless, why is there only you making sense here ?