Conflict between desire and spirituality

[Erock]

I know that a lot of people that post on these boards are spiritual seekers, and I'm wondering how you all balance spiritual searching and everyday life, because they don't seem to go hand in hand (or maybe they do). Right now, I'm having an internal conflict between these two different ideologies:

1. Setting goals. Dreaming about the future. Fulfilling desires. LOA. Trying to experience everything life has to offer, including all of its sensory pleasures. Experiencing all emotions. Taking the good with the bad. Creating memories, and trying to always do something new. Meeting tons of people, and making a lot of friends. Trying to make a difference in the external world, exc...

2. Becoming very quiet on the inside. Trying to stop all internal chatter. Eliminate the ego. Watch emotions as a silent witness. Curb all desire. Keep the mind always in the present and avoid thinking about the past and future. Always staying aware of my spiritual essence, and avoiding all sensory pleasures, for they breed unneccessary desire. Trying to become enlightened, or realize the true nature of reality. Trying to make a difference in the internal world first-for that is what really matters.

How do you guys balance these two, because they seem to go against each other? Is balance really the way to go, because a lot of the most successful people seem to take one of these two paths to the extreme. The most successful spiritual seekers always seem to be in isolation, and the most successful people at fulfilling desires always seem to be dreaming big and doing revolutionary things externally. Right now I am kind of half-way between, and I don't feel like I'm making any progress because they conflict so much.

Anyway, if you have any input on this it would be fantastic.
Erock

[Max Power]

Originally Posted by Erock

1. Setting goals. Dreaming about the future. Fulfilling desires. LOA. Trying to experience everything life has to offer, including all of its sensory pleasures. Experiencing all emotions.

2. Becoming very quiet on the inside. Trying to stop all internal chatter. Eliminate the ego. Watch emotions as a silent witness.

How do you guys balance these two
Erock

Erock,

I can only advise from the SR POV, everything else to me is alien. Some will say 'try this and try that' but only you can decide.

Here goes..........

http://www.stevepavlina.com/blog/200...ve-reality-qa/

I'm 98% there, but I have my own belief about thought, being creative so I modify to make it 100% congruent

Nobody can tell you who you are.

[Groundless]

Originally Posted by Erock

I know that a lot of people that post on these boards are spiritual seekers, and I'm wondering how you all balance spiritual searching and everyday life, because they don't seem to go hand in hand (or maybe they do). Right now, I'm having an internal conflict between these two different ideologies:

1. Setting goals. Dreaming about the future. Fulfilling desires. LOA. Trying to experience everything life has to offer, including all of its sensory pleasures. Experiencing all emotions. Taking the good with the bad. Creating memories, and trying to always do something new. Meeting tons of people, and making a lot of friends. Trying to make a difference in the external world, exc...

2. Becoming very quiet on the inside. Trying to stop all internal chatter. Eliminate the ego. Watch emotions as a silent witness. Curb all desire. Keep the mind always in the present and avoid thinking about the past and future. Always staying aware of my spiritual essence, and avoiding all sensory pleasures, for they breed unneccessary desire. Trying to become enlightened, or realize the true nature of reality. Trying to make a difference in the internal world first-for that is what really matters.

How do you guys balance these two, because they seem to go against each other? Is balance really the way to go, because a lot of the most successful people seem to take one of these two paths to the extreme. The most successful spiritual seekers always seem to be in isolation, and the most successful people at fulfilling desires always seem to be dreaming big and doing revolutionary things externally. Right now I am kind of half-way between, and I don't feel like I'm making any progress because they conflict so much.

Anyway, if you have any input on this it would be fantastic.
Erock

What an awesome question!

I'm wondering how you all balance spiritual searching and everyday life

I believe, you can not be searching and be present at the same time. The mere fact we search, read, yearn, desire means we are not present. Spiritual searching is just one more way we let ourselves be not present it is also saying this very moment is not perfect the way it is. And yet, it is perfect the way it is (easy to say, hard to get it in the heart).

Trying to become enlightened, or realize the true nature of reality. Trying to make a difference in the internal world first-for that is what really matters.

I have moved towards this being in the moment. I am balancing this knowing this is all a dream, all me, and working a job to earn income for my family. I can not drop out of life and meditate 20 hours a day living a monks life...my wife would chop the .... you get the point.

I fully understand your question and I am there with you.

I have read somewhere that the search is needed to get you to the point you realize there is no need to search. Are you attached to the desire to end the search? (another paradox)

If every moment is the perfect teacher and everything is exactly as it is meant to be then why search? Are goals creating anxiety and unhealthy desire?

Breath in. Is the real issue we need to realize this is it, this is the moment we have right now, this typing in the keyboard, this air conditioner that just turned on? This interaction with our dream? Is this all there is? What if it is? Can you / I accept this and just be? Breath out.

Which isn't to say searching is bad, everything is perfect, right? So letting everything just BE is the key form what I have read and in my limited experience.

I don't think I answered your question well but hopefully you know you are not the only one thinking of this.

[Erock]

1. Max so do you consciously try to use your thoughts to control reality, or do you try to stop thinking altogether and "eliminate the mind"?

2. Groundless, yeah this is a very tough question. I read in one of Steve's posts that he doesn't think one should try to get rid of the ego. Rather learn to respect it. I also remember reading in another post that he prefers to visualize then to just meditate. Seems like he is more on path 1, but I think he is still quite spiritual, I don't know.

Hopefully we'll get some more responses
Erock

[Erock]

By the way, Groundless thanks a ton for the site you listed at the top of the page under the "free spiritual resources" thread. I'm really enjoying it, as it discusses things in a way I can understand.

[ethereal]

The two can be combined, it's possible. In fact, now I believe it may be the fastest way to grow, because the world of 1) presents endless temptations and allows you to continuously to "test" and "build" your spiritual muscles. The world of 2) is one of detachment, of avoiding the things that you don't think you can handle.

It's like the spiritual problems of how to handle sex and money. Ramakrishna forbade all his disciples to even touch sex or money, because he thought the energy associated with those things would easily entrap a spiritual aspirant. But it isn't the sex or money that's the problem, it's the attachment to them. If you can learn to internally renounce the attachment, it's possible to overcome them without avoiding them. But if you can't, then it's best to detach for awhile and try again later when you're ready. This takes honest self-assessment -- don't fall into the pride of assuming "of course I can do it!" Many gurus have fallen that way, because they weren't ready for the responsibility of the power they had over their spiritual devotees.

So along the same lines, it isn't setting goals and desires and experiencing that's the problem, it's the attachment to them. If life is going swell, you get a new car and job and bombshell girlfriend, it's pretty easy to get even more attached to sensory pleasures and everything else, which is why some spiritual teachings say to isolate yourself and avoid the world. Once you get sufficiently spiritually advanced, the world can't hook you into attaching anymore, and then it doesn't matter what you do.

A technqiue I've used to renounce internally is to surrender desires, and the pleasures of fulfilling desires, up to God. The ego juices every desire it can get -- you can tell by the frantic energy of attachment it has to wanting to fulfill them and get the "pleasure" of it -- but if you can surrender the pleasure to God, i.e. you are enjoying this desire and this pleasure for the glory of God and not for yourself, then it takes the attachment out of it. Imagine that you're sanctifying this action in your gratitude and worship for life and for God. The pleasure still remains, but the ego's attachment to it is gone, because it's not "me" who is enjoying it anymore. I do this a lot with foods that I'm attached to.

[Erock]

Originally Posted by ethereal

The two can be combined, it's possible. In fact, now I believe it may be the fastest way to grow, because the world of 1) presents endless temptations and allows you to continuously to "test" and "build" your spiritual muscles. The world of 2) is one of detachment, of avoiding the things that you don't think you can handle.

It's like the spiritual problems of how to handle sex and money. Ramakrishna forbade all his disciples to even touch sex or money, because he thought the energy associated with those things would easily entrap a spiritual aspirant. But it isn't the sex or money that's the problem, it's the attachment to them. If you can learn to internally renounce the attachment, it's possible to overcome them without avoiding them. But if you can't, then it's best to detach for awhile and try again later when you're ready. This takes honest self-assessment -- don't fall into the pride of assuming "of course I can do it!" Many gurus have fallen that way, because they weren't ready for the responsibility of the power they had over their spiritual devotees.

So along the same lines, it isn't setting goals and desires and experiencing that's the problem, it's the attachment to them. If life is going swell, you get a new car and job and bombshell girlfriend, it's pretty easy to get even more attached to sensory pleasures and everything else, which is why some spiritual teachings say to isolate yourself and avoid the world. Once you get sufficiently spiritually advanced, the world can't hook you into attaching anymore, and then it doesn't matter what you do.

A technqiue I've used to renounce internally is to surrender desires, and the pleasures of fulfilling desires, up to God. The ego juices every desire it can get -- you can tell by the frantic energy of attachment it has to wanting to fulfill them and get the "pleasure" of it -- but if you can surrender the pleasure to God, i.e. you are enjoying this desire and this pleasure for the glory of God and not for yourself, then it takes the attachment out of it. Imagine that you're sanctifying this action in your gratitude and worship for life and for God. The pleasure still remains, but the ego's attachment to it is gone, because it's not "me" who is enjoying it anymore. I do this a lot with foods that I'm attached to.

Ethereal, that was an amazing post and I really appreciate this response. You seem to really live a balanced life, something I aspire to do. I do have a follow-up question, and that is, should I generally avoid sensory pleasures (money, sex, alcohol, drugs), or, am I allowed to pursue them, yet remain unattached.

Using your example, having a bombshell girlfriend and tons of money. If a spiritual seeker had these, would he have gone after them, yet remain unattached, or let these things come to him? Would he try to get a job that makes a lot of money, go out looking for beautiful women, find parties to go to, or in your example did those things just happen to him, and he "took the pleasure as it came" so to say.

I concerned that if I allow myself access to these things, I will unconsciously become attached and start seeking them out. It's kinda tricky, and I know there is not one correct answer, but where do you draw the line in your own life?

Thanks a ton
Erock

[Hilary]

Dumb question...

What's wrong with being attached to the world?

If the world is illusion, then to be attached to it would be delusion, of course. Then it would make sense to concentrate on staying unattached, and to be very careful to curb desire by limiting exposure to desirable experiences.

But what if the world is a unique creative expression of reality? Then it would make sense to be moved by it, to love its people, desire good things from it and for it... Perhaps the more lovingly and profoundly you could be 'attached', the better?

[ethereal]

In and of itself, everything is neutral -- so really, being exposed to desirable experiences (or undesirable ones, for that matter) doesn't mean anything. But the ego's natural proclivities (our heritage from animal evolution) is to seek pleasure and shun pain and become attached to supposed "external" sources of pleasure (when all joy is actually stemming from the Self within), and that is what we're trying to undo via spiritual work, not with asceticism, guilt and penance or detachment.

I think Hilary's definition of attachment is more about dedication and love for life, and not attachment as it is commonly described in spiritual teachings -- where if you don't get something, you suffer from desire and craving and you scheme endlessly on how to procure it and whine endlessly if you can't

The perfect state of non-attachment is where although you have natural preferences as a unique creation of Source, either outcome doesn't bother you or disturb your sense of peace/benevolence towards yourself, towards others, towards the world.

Originally Posted by Erock

Ethereal, that was an amazing post and I really appreciate this response. You seem to really live a balanced life, something I aspire to do. I do have a follow-up question, and that is, should I generally avoid sensory pleasures (money, sex, alcohol, drugs), or, am I allowed to pursue them, yet remain unattached.

Using your example, having a bombshell girlfriend and tons of money. If a spiritual seeker had these, would he have gone after them, yet remain unattached, or let these things come to him? Would he try to get a job that makes a lot of money, go out looking for beautiful women, find parties to go to, or in your example did those things just happen to him, and he "took the pleasure as it came" so to say.

I concerned that if I allow myself access to these things, I will unconsciously become attached and start seeking them out. It's kinda tricky, and I know there is not one correct answer, but where do you draw the line in your own life?

It is tricky, but by being aware of the potential pitfalls you can recognize it when it hits you

It is especially hard in regards to power, fame, sex, and money, since they have been desired by so many people for so long, you could say that there's a negative energy (glamour) associated with it that's been imprinted into the collective consciousness of mankind. You can say that there's a collective belief system in place that makes those things especially addicting and easy to get trapped by, beyond your personal belief system. Alice Bailey talks about it extensively in her book, "Glamor: A World Problem" (calibrated at ~570 or so).

I actually don't really know where to draw the line, as I have still have problems with it. Personally I seem more inclined towards a monastic life of renunciation, so that's why my posts may sound a little detached (cause that's where I'm coming from ). But the crux of renunciation is the internal decline of pleasure, and does not have to be externalized. In fact, internal renunciation is even harder than external, because you can physically avoid sensory pleasures and the like, but there can still be mental attachment to them. I realized this with my attachment to food -- I had a great diet for long periods of time, but inevitably I get drawn back into overeating and unhealthy diets, meaning that I can physically force myself to eat certain things and not others, but mentally there is still an attachment that needs to be released.

It isn't that pleasure is bad and should be avoided, it's just that the ego gets so easily addicted to it. I recently realized that all those spiritual "rules" and "commandments" aren't because they have some universal law inherent to them, but that the truth underlying them is that they work to deconstruct the ego. With this in mind, all those spiritual "rules" now make sense, and that's when you can master them and know when to break them

Anyway, not sure if I answered your question, and truthfully I don't even think I have an answer to it -- it is probably something that has to be learned through personal experience.

Recently I stumbled upon the Sedona Method, and I think it's great to help people understand what non-attachment means. You release and let go of the attraction to the outcome you want, and you release and let go of the aversion to the outcome you don't want, until you feel completely at peace with either outcome happening. And then you go for the outcome you want anyway, but minus the attachment/craving for it (which not only makes it easier to attain but even more pleasurable). An example is to have sex when you don't have any craving for it -- you can go on for hours, on all 3 levels (gross, subtle, causal) and all 7 chakras, the province of whole-body orgasms and Tantric sex

And to end this post, here's a Dr. Hawkins quote pertaining to success and goals and spirituality:

Success and goals, and where do they fit in with spirituality?
DH: You want to fulfill the potential of your creation. You were created with certain gifts. You want to fulfill the love of God by utilization of those gifts for the good of others. Those goals are not necessarily contradictory to spiritual growth. It shows respect for Divinity and thankfulness for your creation to become that which you can become to the greatest degree. No matter what you are doing, do it to the greatest potential you are capable of. You are respecting the grace and gift of life... to be the perfect expression of your own potentiality.

[Erock]

I can't thank you enough Ethereal. It makes much more sense to me now the balance of fulfilling your purpose, yet remaining unattached. Experiencing sensory pleasures when they arise, yet being careful not to become addicted to them, even surrendering them. Working hard to meet goals, yet not being so outcome oriented, and still remain somewhat unattached.

Thanks a lot. If anybody has any personal stories about them dealing with this, or any insight that would be awesome, but otherwise I have learned a lot.

Erock

[Groundless]

Originally Posted by Erock

By the way, Groundless thanks a ton for the site you listed at the top of the page under the "free spiritual resources" thread. I'm really enjoying it, as it discusses things in a way I can understand.

I am thrilled I could help by pointing at some information for you.

[infinitethoughts]

Originally Posted by Erock

Conflict between desire and spirituality

Hilary's on the right track;

Originally Posted by Hilary

But what if the world is a unique creative expression of reality? Then it would make sense to be moved by it, to love its people, desire good things from it and for it... Perhaps the more lovingly and profoundly you could be 'attached', the better?

Is there a conflict between desire and spirituality?

Why are we here?
---- To live out our desires.

[Erock]

Originally Posted by infinitethoughts

Hilary's on the right track;


Is there a conflict between desire and spirituality?

Why are we here?
---- To live out our desires.

Maybe that is the case, and that is a mindset that makes sense, but a lot of the spiritual gurus recommend staying detached, living in the moment, and avoiding too much sensory pleasure.

I think we may be talking about two different types of desire (and this may be my mistake) because I don't think there is anything wrong with making plans for the future, trying to follow you path and contribute to the world. You can do this while staying detached. I'm talking about the sensory pleasures usually associated with drugs, alcohol, sex, money, reputation, material possesions, power, fame, emotions. My basic question is, are these pleasures included in the "manifesting desires" category, and do you think it is a good thing to want these? Right now, I have a lot of desire for money, power, women, exc.., but am I here to live out these desires as you say? How do you know the difference between a genuine desire, and one that is an ego-based sensory pleasure one?

Erock

[infinitethoughts]

Erock

The path to power, money, women will teach you what reality is.....as will any other path.

[ZHereford]

Originally Posted by Erock

Maybe that is the case, and that is a mindset that makes sense, but a lot of the spiritual gurus recommend staying detached, living in the moment, and avoiding too much sensory pleasure.

I think that anything in excess is detrimental, including detachment. Aristotle advocated everything in moderation. What purpose would it serve to be so detached that you feel nothing?

The bottom line is that whatever we believe reality to be, we are experiencing life collectively in this context. Even if we were in a bubble and reality was outside the bubble, rightly or wrongly, if all we knew was the bubble, we would still have to live within the context of the bubble. So any reality beyond what we can comprehend is irrelevant because it's not real for us.

[Erock]

ZHereford, I agree. I guess the goal of being detached would be eventually to one day drop the ego, or become "englightened." But for now, everything in moderation.

infinitethoughts, would you care to elaborate on that. I've never thought of power-hungry business men or rockstars as being very spiritually advanced. I also see a lot of people fall victim to drugs, or become alcoholics. You're saying that I shouldn't consciously avoid these pitfalls?

[ZHereford]

Originally Posted by Erock

ZHereford, I guess the goal of being detached would be eventually to one day drop the ego, or become "englightened."

Erock, even ego has it's place. Without ego we wouldn't survive. Perhaps when most people talk about ego they really mean 'self-centered' and all-important. If that's the case, then yes, ego has to be tempered with 'reason' and logical thinking.

I believe balance of mind, body and soul is important. Putting too much focus on any one area leads to denial of who we really are. We are not just spiritual, physical or mental. We are all of these things. Moderation is balancing all aspects of who we are.

[{aspiring_to_clarity}]

Erock, I can't give you any answers at the moment, but I would like to commend you for tackling these questions. I wish everyone of your age was so inclined. Heck, I wish I had done so then...maybe by now I would have some wisdom to offer you.

The future of the world seems a lot safer when you come here and see so many young people with such thoughtful posts.

Keep it up.

[Hilary]

I'm happy to read someone sticking up for the poor old ego. I don't think a sense of identity is such a terrible thing to have, either.

But back to topic... I agree there's more than one kind of desire. Some seem to take us away from ourselves - to be distractions, basically, from true self and real living. Addictions of all types might be of this kind: things we do to avoid being aware. Occasionally we wake up for a few seconds and notice that we don't really want to watch TV/ keep 'busy' all day/ eat junk/ ... Maybe this is the kind of desire Erock's talking about.

Is there also more than one kind of detachment? Or is it just a matter of degree? As I can aspire to a life without distraction, but not to one without emotion.

[Andrew Brunelle]

Erok, I believe it was Steve Pavlina who wrote a post called Intuition vs. Ego that said that if something is coming from your ego, it will be fear-based, but if it is coming from your intuition, or your spirit, there will be no fear. Any sort of dark energy behind the intention is what makes it ego-based. As many people have said, when you let go of fear, you let go of attachment, you finally start to 'get it.' It's not easy, but with enough perseverence, you can get to the point of total inner peace. I'm not saying I am there yet, but I can see it off in the distance, but I am not attached to it. If I get there, fine. if not, fine. It's all the same to me. Experience is a wonderful teacher.

And Zhereford, I like what you said up there about we are spiritual, physical, and mental, not just one of the three. We need to embrace who we are, the self, all of the self, even the dreaded shadow self, which I have come to terms with. We all have these qualities and once we embrace the whole self, we can accomplish whatever we want, without attachment because we now know who we are and get fulfillment from knowing this.

[ZHereford]

Originally Posted by Andrew Brunelle

We need to embrace who we are, the self, all of the self, even the dreaded shadow self, which I have come to terms with. We all have these qualities and once we embrace the whole self, we can accomplish whatever we want, without attachment because we now know who we are and get fulfillment from knowing this.

Great point Andrew!
I don't understand why some people want to deny certain aspects of their being. We are multi-faceted and you're right, we should embrace the whole self. There is nothing wrong with being human!

[Erock]

Originally Posted by Andrew Brunelle

Erok, I believe it was Steve Pavlina who wrote a post called Intuition vs. Ego that said that if something is coming from your ego, it will be fear-based, but if it is coming from your intuition, or your spirit, there will be no fear. Any sort of dark energy behind the intention is what makes it ego-based. As many people have said, when you let go of fear, you let go of attachment, you finally start to 'get it.' It's not easy, but with enough perseverence, you can get to the point of total inner peace. I'm not saying I am there yet, but I can see it off in the distance, but I am not attached to it. If I get there, fine. if not, fine. It's all the same to me. Experience is a wonderful teacher.

And Zhereford, I like what you said up there about we are spiritual, physical, and mental, not just one of the three. We need to embrace who we are, the self, all of the self, even the dreaded shadow self, which I have come to terms with. We all have these qualities and once we embrace the whole self, we can accomplish whatever we want, without attachment because we now know who we are and get fulfillment from knowing this.

Hey thanks a ton. Steve's post on intution verse ego was really insightful. My weakness is definitely the outside-in part. My happiness has a lot to do with how others perceive me, and I know it's wrong, but I have some deep rooted beliefs about it. I can see the emotions rising and the voice in my head start to go at manic speed whenever my reputation is at stake, or I have been made to feel like a loser by someone else. I definitely need to let of fear and attachment in that area.

Just a follow up question, do you guys think the spiritual seekers that live in monestaries meditating all day, or are in solitude are wasting their time?

Erock

[Max Power]

Originally Posted by Erock

1. Max so do you consciously try to use your thoughts to control reality, or do you try to stop thinking altogether and "eliminate the mind"?

The mind, body, thoughts and emotions are all creations of consciousness, therefore you can't create with a creation. Remember that consciousness is doing all the grunt work, all the creating, your body is also a creation to observe the other creations.

I believe that thought and emotion do not create as they are observation tools, you (consciousness) creates something and then an emotion or thought is also created to react to the creation.

You don't need to eliminate the mind, the mind is an important observation tool, but it doesn't create anything. The best thing to do is try and identify with consciousness more, it's where all the creative power is.

If you choose something to be so, it will be, then you'll build all the mechanisms to validate, justify and observe the creation.

[ZHereford]

Originally Posted by Max Power

.... The mind is an important observation tool, but it doesn't create anything. The best thing to do is try and identify with consciousness more, it's where all the creative power is.....

I would think that Einstein, Edison and Tesla would beg to differ with you. When we speak of the powerful scientific, philosophical and artistic minds throughout history we don't refer to their consciousness.

[Max Power]

Originally Posted by ZHereford

I would think that Einstein, Edison and Tesla would beg to differ with you. When we speak of the powerful scientific, philosophical and artistic minds throughout history we don't refer to their consciousness.

Depends what you think of as minds. Where was Einstein's mind housed? In his physical brain? Are you saying that all of the interesting stuff that Tesla came up with came from his mind? What is the mind? Where is it? When you answer that question for yourself, you'll see consciousness.

You say "we don't refer to their consciousness" who is this we?

How limiting to consider that ground breaking information that changed people's thinking about the universe and reality came from a physical brain in someone's head. Next thing you'll be saying is that when the physical being dies, that's it!!

[ZHereford]

Originally Posted by Max Power

Depends what you think of as minds. You say "we don't refer to their consciousness" who is this we?

I think of the mind as the mind - the cognitive faculty which thinks, reasons, and applies knowledge.

Consciousness is the state of awareness of self and existence.

The we are those who speak the English language. If you want to change these definitions then you should check with the Webster people.

[infinitethoughts]

Originally Posted by Erock

infinitethoughts, would you care to elaborate on that. I've never thought of power-hungry business men or rockstars as being very spiritually advanced. I also see a lot of people fall victim to drugs, or become alcoholics. You're saying that I shouldn't consciously avoid these pitfalls?

Is that you? A power hungry business man, ruthlessly stepping on people ?


Because you're on this group, I'm saying thru your quest for "balanced" wealth & "power", you'll see what reality is.
You'll still get it, but you won't have to "step" on anybody.

[Hilary]

Yes -there's some good stuff out there on business as a spiritual path.

[Max Power]

Originally Posted by ZHereford

I think of the mind as the mind - the cognitive faculty which thinks, reasons, and applies knowledge.

Consciousness is the state of awareness of self and existence.

The we are those who speak the English language. If you want to change these definitions then you should check with the Webster people.

Lol

Your problem here is that you think that consciousness is all sorts of things as well as being consciousness. You're defining seperation, but there isn't any. There is only one thing that exists and that is consciousness, everything else is a creation of consciousness, therefore there is no mind/body/cognitive faculty, it's all an illusion, a very cunning, dense, physical and spiritual illusion none the less.

I like the way you say that 'we' consider something to be true as in 'we' all agree not to refer to a clever human's consciousness, it's their mind that creates everything. So what does consciousness do, sit on the sidelines and observe while the mind creates?

You can believe that, but it's pretty limiting.

[Joe826]

Wow, awesome thread. This might be my favorite thread of all time. I have to say, Erock, I've been having thoughts very similar to yours recently.

I found that when I'm happy and content, I have no problem riding the "ego wave". If I talk to someone and walk away feeling good, or think I look particularly good one day, then I'm fine without considering detachment, enlightenment, awakening, etc. I'm happy with my solid self-image.

It's when I'm spinning in circles of anxiety, negative self concept, or just general discontent that I go back to "enlightenment" and detachment. It sort of reminds me of when I was a practicing Christian and would only pray when things went wrong :P.

I even conciously tried to let go of need, desire, etc. when I was happy due to my positive self-image, hoping that I could dedicate myself to that pursuit all the time, instead of when I was just feeling bad. I ended up just feeling less happy than I had before.

Even if I was being delusional, I was happier with the delusion than I was (trying to) let go of all thought. I don't really know where that leaves me, to be honest. Will true enlightenment give me joy greater than anything the temporary pleasures of the ego can provide, or is enlightenment just a "smoother ride"?

Thanks for the post.