the end of personal development - Discussion
| the end of personal development | Lucas | 1/31/17 3:37 PM |
RE: the end of personal development
|
Noah D | 1/31/17 9:48 PM |
|
RE: the end of personal development
|
Lucas | 2/1/17 3:46 AM |
Thanks for your answer!
I didn't know Susanne Cook-Greuter, she did great work with her scientific approach on spiritual development! I didn't know anyone like her before.
I only skimmed the pdf and looked at the 9 different states a bit more in detail and what I noticed so far is
that it's only a description of a development where the ego is a constant variable. And the human being finally extends its consciousness to a degree where it sees the ego as a filter and is not attached to it. Is that right? If not, please tell me about your view.
What I'm thinking of is the ego as an own universe. It's like macro- and microcosm.
I assume that most of you dealt with the macrocosm (non-attachement, Cook-Greuter's unitive stage) and explored it extensively.
For me the way into the microcosm isn't about cutting off the identification from the ego.
Now I would like to make an exaggeration:
Normal enlightenment is like -> There's so much equanimity and I don't care for myself, because there's no. I'm so non-attached that there's only the non-attachement. I'm watching but there's no watcher at all. So many paradoxes arrise and pass away and it's Ok.
Opposite enlightenment is like -> I am! I am an individual. I am a conscious being. Because I'm so massively identificated, there's no need for egoistic behaviour. Everything I do is marvelous and it's for the sake of all (not narcissistic!).
And the other link (actualfreedom.com.au):
In my view malice, sorrow and all the "bad things" in life are a loving support by the universe to get more and more connected to love.
I don't look at them as things I have to get rid of but as things that can transform the ego into a state where it doesn't produce anything what incites me as a human being.
I want to quote something from this site (I hope it's alright?): "One starts by dismantling the shadowy social identity which has
been overlaid, from birth onward..."
For me this is creating a duality (shadow-light, good-bad) and extremely suppressing one part to make it an imaginary unity. And it's like "You poor guy, tormented all your life in this evil world." This world and society isn't evil, it's what you're making out of them. It's meant as a support not as torture. You will get exactly what you need to grow. I think we're here to learn and not for being tormented. If you accept this challenge it'll be an adventure. But it's everyones own decision and view, so it can be hell as well.
It rhymes, that's funny
.
Lots of love
Lucas
I didn't know Susanne Cook-Greuter, she did great work with her scientific approach on spiritual development! I didn't know anyone like her before.
I only skimmed the pdf and looked at the 9 different states a bit more in detail and what I noticed so far is
that it's only a description of a development where the ego is a constant variable. And the human being finally extends its consciousness to a degree where it sees the ego as a filter and is not attached to it. Is that right? If not, please tell me about your view.
What I'm thinking of is the ego as an own universe. It's like macro- and microcosm.
I assume that most of you dealt with the macrocosm (non-attachement, Cook-Greuter's unitive stage) and explored it extensively.
For me the way into the microcosm isn't about cutting off the identification from the ego.
Now I would like to make an exaggeration:
Normal enlightenment is like -> There's so much equanimity and I don't care for myself, because there's no. I'm so non-attached that there's only the non-attachement. I'm watching but there's no watcher at all. So many paradoxes arrise and pass away and it's Ok.
Opposite enlightenment is like -> I am! I am an individual. I am a conscious being. Because I'm so massively identificated, there's no need for egoistic behaviour. Everything I do is marvelous and it's for the sake of all (not narcissistic!).
And the other link (actualfreedom.com.au):
In my view malice, sorrow and all the "bad things" in life are a loving support by the universe to get more and more connected to love.
I don't look at them as things I have to get rid of but as things that can transform the ego into a state where it doesn't produce anything what incites me as a human being.
I want to quote something from this site (I hope it's alright?): "One starts by dismantling the shadowy social identity which has
been overlaid, from birth onward..."
For me this is creating a duality (shadow-light, good-bad) and extremely suppressing one part to make it an imaginary unity. And it's like "You poor guy, tormented all your life in this evil world." This world and society isn't evil, it's what you're making out of them. It's meant as a support not as torture. You will get exactly what you need to grow. I think we're here to learn and not for being tormented. If you accept this challenge it'll be an adventure. But it's everyones own decision and view, so it can be hell as well.
It rhymes, that's funny
.Lots of love
Lucas