Was Maslow Enlightened?

[Matthew Lamot]

2 minutes ago, Paul EMD said:

@Matthew Lamot

What I'm saying is that you don't have to be so intense in the way you share your knowledge. Discrediting other's ideas won't make you more right and won't lead to any constructive discussions.  When you tell someone that he is wrong, you are directly making sure that he won't listen to what you have to say. If you truly want to share your knowledge, don't tell people how wrong they are before saying how right you are. It serves no purpose.  That's the classical way people debate, it never leads to any of the side to change its mind. 

As I said, I'm always down to learn and see different points of views, schools of thoughts etc. but I have a hard time paying attention  to someone who loudly claims that his way is the only way. 

Moreover, isn't it so counter productive to be looking for so much certainty over a subject such as enlightenment? 

This is extremely controlling and manipulative behaviour.

Do yourself a favour and read the words instead of reacting to my delivery.

I am not here to molly coddle you into believing me.  Half of my style is to keep out the people who are not ready, and while those who are unable to read between the lines and put their butthurt emotions before their intellect are not qualified for the teaching.

 

[Paul EMD]

@Matthew Lamot

Well my friend, I guess we just use this forum for very different reasons.

And don't think that what I've said was in any way my emotions taking over my intellect, it's kind of the opposite. I'm just trying to understand why forums discussion always turn into those kinds of rude/angry debates where people fight to show how right they are.  But if it's part of your "style", I guess that's just the way it is going to be with you then!

[Matthew Lamot]

32 minutes ago, Paul EMD said:

@Matthew Lamot

Well my friend, I guess we just use this forum for very different reasons.

And don't think that what I've said was in any way my emotions taking over my intellect, it's kind of the opposite. I'm just trying to understand why forums discussion always turn into those kinds of rude/angry debates where people fight to show how right they are.  But if it's part of your "style", I guess that's just the way it is going to be with you then!

Paul, 

I dont have a problem with me.  This is why I can confindently say the things I say.  Self shame and a need to control other people is a Jiva activity.  The need you have for me to be something that you dont agree with is just you, its inside your mind.  And just because you might be in the company of others who also feel shame, or think that everyone should be like them and not have a heavy vasana load, doesnt make you right.

It just makes you try on tactics to make others fit onto the way you need them to be.

Now, I dont want to say these things, its none of my business how you are, but when you mistake me for something in your mind, and you keep at it, (because believe me you have not read or understood a single word ive said so far) then I have to mention what youre doing.

Youre controlling.

Here is a practice:  Ask yourself if my behaviour is universally unacceptable?

If it is, then continue.  You will eventually see the fruits of that perspective.

If my behaviour turns out to not be universally unacceptable, then you will have liberated yourself from part of your conditioning.

As far as forums being angry, I dont know, Ive been on a few and I would say that most of it is misinterpretation coupled with a need to control.  I have no desire to control anybody here, or get anything, I just do my thing and spread the word.  This is a forum for spreading info.  Re-read my words and see the words, see that I pick up posts not to answer peoples problems, but just to make an ongoing debate about what im saying.  

You dont have to like it, I'm not asking you to like it.  But there are a few people now who see what im saying and are thinking I might have a point.

I do it out of desire, because quite frankly I had enough of things that dont work and only make superficial changes.  And when you click what Im saying, you will know why none of these teachings work for what you want, if you want realization proper.  

As far as other things go, like self actualisation, I am self actualized myself, for years, so I know what that is.  But i dont agree with it. But thats not the axe im grinding here, im saying something much deeper, that will be hard to pick up at first i give you that, but once you understand it, you will see what is true about the spiritual practice world and what is not true about it.

[Matthew Lamot]

1 hour ago, Paul EMD said:

@Matthew Lamot

What I'm saying is that you don't have to be so intense in the way you share your knowledge. Discrediting other's ideas won't make you more right and won't lead to any constructive discussions.  

Let's deconstruct this, because this is the ego.  You need constructive discussions.  I don't.  I put the information out there, trying to negotiate a constructive discussion is control.  Subtle.

So if we were to take what Leo says seriously and play this game about watching the ego's "tricky ways" then here we have one tricky way the ego likes to have control over its apparent environment.  So what you are asking me to do effectively is become like you, become controlling and in need of an outcome.

1 hour ago, Paul EMD said:

@Matthew Lamot

That's the classical way people debate, it never leads to any of the side to change its mind. 

See above.  Who said I'm here to change peoples minds?  See, this is such a subtle ego game, the "mature" "actualized" ego.  Out to change others minds instead of just expressing what it wants.

1 hour ago, Paul EMD said:

@Matthew Lamot

Moreover, isn't it so counter productive to be looking for so much certainty over a subject such as enlightenment? 

Yet, you want certainty over your interactions?  See the subtle way the Jiva projects its own intentions outward while hiding it from itself?  The real matter is, yes we do want certainty with our enlightenment path, because without it we all remain control freaks. Nice control freaks, but control freaks all the same 

Why do you think I'm interested in playing your games?  

 

[Paul EMD]

@Matthew Lamot

Well, I'll have to reflect on this answer and our conversation as a whole. 

32 minutes ago, Matthew Lamot said:

The need you have for me to be something that you dont agree with is just you, its inside your mind

I understand what you mean here, it's interesting and pushes me to reflect.

Now I have a question. When you disagree with anything or anyone, isn't it the same thing? When you disagree with people's ideas about enlightenment, isn't it just the need you have for those ideas to be something that you don't agree with? 

You say that I am controlling when I disagree with you, and I'm open to that. I'm actually contemplating the idea to learn from it. However, don't you do the same when you tell people that their views are wrong?  Like you said, isn't it also a "tactic to make others fit onto the way you need them to be."?

[Matthew Lamot]

On 22.8.2016 at 3:14 AM, Paul EMD said:

@Matthew Lamot

Now I have a question. When you disagree with anything or anyone, isn't it the same thing? When you disagree with people's ideas about enlightenment, isn't it just the need you have for those ideas to be something that you don't agree with? 

You say that I am controlling when I disagree with you, and I'm open to that. I'm actually contemplating the idea to learn from it. However, don't you do the same when you tell people that their views are wrong?  Like you said, isn't it also a "tactic to make others fit onto the way you need them to be."?

I'm not saying they are wrong.  I am saying I think I am right, and asking them if what they think they know is accurate?  It depends how well you know the ego, because the ego is the same in everyone, and if you can deconstruct your own ego, you can see it in others.  But the point is, geting butthurt and throwing morals and tantrums and advice that I am supposed to need in order to be more unconscious is laughable.  The more you fall into someone elses version of you the more they are your master.  Until youre enlightened you need to be able to see nonsense trips being put on you.

I've had some people try that on with me.  Leo, Beam, Worm, You... but I've never asked anybody to be open minded, I just make jokes about their hypocrisy.  If you come at me with an hypocrisy, I'll descostruc your argument.  Not because I'm right, but because I can.  Being able to spot nonsense while people are attacking you rather than your argument is part of becoming enlightened.

 

[Matthew Lamot]

15 minutes ago, Paul EMD said:

@Matthew Lamot

Well, I'll have to reflect on this answer and our conversation as a whole. 

I understand what you mean here, it's interesting and pushes me to reflect.

Now I have a question. When you disagree with anything or anyone, isn't it the same thing? When you disagree with people's ideas about enlightenment, isn't it just the need you have for those ideas to be something that you don't agree with? 

You say that I am controlling when I disagree with you, and I'm open to that. I'm actually contemplating the idea to learn from it. However, don't you do the same when you tell people that their views are wrong?  Like you said, isn't it also a "tactic to make others fit onto the way you need them to be."?

I dont want to ignore social norms completely, I still need to navigate this a bit.  But also, once you start to let go you can become a little bit kranky, with a heavy vasana load.  You cant have your cake and eat it.  You cant still be a slave to the collective unconscious and become enlightened.  It dont work this way.  You have to learn to speak and just let it out and be rather than try to negotiate with others.  There are no others ultimately.  But this is a path right?

Not everybody is sattivc.  And once you understand the teaching, you will see that once everyone else has their tempraments you can let it go, nothing to control. But if you listen to nonsense teachings about enlightenment being some placid path for the placid individual and everyone has to speak like Eckhart Tolle on marajuana, then that is just another load of nonsense.   lol

What Im debating here is the path, the spiritual path, and it doesnt matter how I do it, the results are not mine, they belong to God, the field.  What matters is I do the work and just exhaust the vasanas.  One day I'll sit and be peaceful and become enlightened.  Or maybe I wont, maybe I'll just become enlightened and still be kranky.

If you want to see a kranky Vedanta teacher who was extremely enlightened then just have a look at Swami Chinmayananda.

[Matthew Lamot]

38 minutes ago, Paul EMD said:

@Matthew Lamot

You say that I am controlling when I disagree with you, and I'm open to that. I'm actually contemplating the idea to learn from it. However, don't you do the same when you tell people that their views are wrong?  Like you said, isn't it also a "tactic to make others fit onto the way you need them to be."

You got to understand that I dont want to change people.  Im speaking ideas here. Im critiquing ideas that are not even theirs to begin with.  But when someone comes at me personally, and starts saying its about my ego and that I need to change, then I can sleep safely at night knowing that Im not the one out to change people to accommodate my insecurities.  I cam here with a critical debate about ideas, and the more people make it about me as a person the more I can see that their teachings are in fact nonsense.  Because they havent worked if they are still on the level of trying to play the person rather than play the ball in a debate.

*** Edit

Notice the subtle way you reframed the whole thing and said I say you are controlling because you disagree with me.

But rewind, I never said you were controlling because you DISAGREE with me.  I said you are controlling because you are asking me to change my behaviour to suit you and your conditioning. 

This is why I couldnt resist deconstructing your words.  Because inside them it was you all along being controlling.  And now in this statement above you are denying it, trying to wipe it from memory.

Hey, this is how we are.  But the fact is, were not here for fucking therapy, well im not, Im here to speak enlightenment.

So I'll state my case again, you would have spotted this had you have gotten hold of the right teachings.  I'll use every opportunity to make a case for Vedanta. Because it works!

Edited August 22, 2016 by Matthew Lamot

[Paul EMD]

Well, that's a lot of stuff I'll think about. I did not imagine that getting into this conversation tonight would lead to such reflection

[Emerald]

On August 18, 2016 at 10:40 PM, Matthew Lamot said:

Yeah, and I think if he was actually Self realized he would have seen the absurdity of the self actualization model he brought to the world - fucking childs play ! 

I love Maslow's Hierarchy but there are some ways that I agree with what you say. I was big into maximizing my life when I was 20, with a focus on growing myself, getting the best grades, being the most creative, and pursuing a goal of becoming a famous artist one day. I was sculpting a masterpiece ego. Then, I had a couple of experiences where I didn't see through the illusion of ego per say, but I just didn't care about it at all. I was under the influence of an entheogen and I had no fear and felt I had nothing to lose. So, I was able to let go of ego for a bit which opened me up to so much more truth that I was previously insulated from. So, I had a high degree of freedom from ego for those experiences. I immediately noticed that my "maximize life" and achievement-based lifestyle was deeply rooted in self-hatred, and that I was trying to improve myself to avoid death. So, I think many people who pursue self-actualization have this same self-hatred deep down (you'll find some degree of it in most people pursuing growth, including myself), and that self development acts like a bandaid to distract from the perceived annihilation of death. But I'm embracing self-actualization now thanks to Leo, after years of denying myself the natural impetus toward personal growth and living in a personal hell, half in and half out of life. So, I think it's possible that self-actualization could be part of the process. Doing the personal growth work until it gives way to dissatisfaction and the self-hatred becomes clear. To do what feels most natural but to watch with unbiased awareness. What are your thoughts?

[Matthew Lamot]

@Emerald Wilkins

I agree.  In my tradition they say act out your programme until you are done with it.  I am Self Actualized, and to be honest with you it's really all we have, because nobody knows what enlightenment really is here in the West.

The reason I made distinctions is to just have a poke at the fact that enlightenment and self actualization dont mix, and they dont mix in enlightenment paths, not true non dual paths.

People are free to do what they like (sort of - really nobody is free), so if the programme is to SA, then thats what the programme is.  Nothing morally right or wrong about it.  But Maslow, if he was realized, he would not have seen any value in SA, he would have wrote about something else.  I feel anyway.  But my opinion is just an opinion and not to be taken literally.  I'm more interested in pointing toward enlightenment proper.

But the crux of the matter is there actually is no need to make the person into something it's not.  And this is what SA does, its not really growth, its becoming entrenched in the subtle mind.  What I mean by that is it is the collective unconscious becoming conscious of itself, individuation they call it dont they?  Well, that's a big problem because in enlightenment terms its the opposite of happiness, because its still slavery to the human system.  Yeah, slightly more palatable existence for sure, you can be a nice slave lol.  A slave with better ego defences and not so messed up.

But really, if I had a choice i would not have bothered, big waste of time and money and extremely painful process having to integrate all that nonsense.

Each to their own.  My purpose was to have a debate that its got nothing to do with enlightenment, and the only thing i can see that links the two are the New Age theories and people making enlightenment what they want.  

You know?  Have their cake and eat it?  Have their worldly objects and some other object called transcendental awareness? lol.  

That is not real.

 

 

[Emerald]

Just now, Matthew Lamot said:

@Emerald Wilkins

I agree.  In my tradition they say act out your programme until you are done with it.  I am Self Actualized, and to be honest with you it's really all we have, because nobody knows what enlightenment really is here in the West.

The reason I made distinctions is to just have a poke at the fact that enlightenment and self actualization dont mix, and they dont mix in enlightenment paths, not true non dual paths.

People are free to do what they like (sort of - really nobody is free), so if the programme is to SA, then thats what the programme is.  Nothing morally right or wrong about it.  But Maslow, if he was realized, he would not have seen any value in SA, he would have wrote about something else.  I feel anyway.  But my opinion is just an opinion and not to be taken literally.  I'm more interested in pointing toward enlightenment proper.

But the crux of the matter is there actually is no need to make the person into something it's not.  And this is what SA does, its not really growth, its becoming entrenched in the subtle mind.  What I mean by that is it is the collective unconscious becoming conscious of itself, individuation they call it dont they?  Well, that's a big problem because in enlightenment terms its the opposite of happiness, because its still slavery to the human system.  Yeah, slightly more palatable existence for sure, you can be a nice slave lol.  A slave with better ego defences and not so messed up.

But really, if I had a choice i would not have bothered, big waste of time and money and extremely painful process having to integrate all that nonsense.

Each to their own.  My purpose was to have a debate that its got nothing to do with enlightenment, and the only thing i can see that links the two are the New Age theories and people making enlightenment what they want.  

You know?  Have their cake and eat it?  Have their worldly objects and some other object called transcendental awareness? lol.  

That is not real.

 

Actually, in the first two to three years after my experiences (which I didn't know anything about enlightenment at the time), I just tried to do everything to undermine my positive self image and to nullify my identity. Sort of like repressing the ego. The experiences were so liberating that I was willing to undermine all the progress I had made toward growing my identity. If I had painted my ego as a masterpiece, what I did was the equivalent of scribbling over the painting with a permanent marker. Trying to embarrass myself, have no boundaries, not care about my reputation or well-being, cut myself off from everyone, etc. Then, after about three years of floating in the ether, I found Jungian psychology and learned all about individuation vs. the Self, and how individuation is most natural for human beings but that it is also the thing that makes us dis-unified from the Self. I read a lot on the subject and finally felt like I understood something about what had happened to me. But eventually this reached a meteora where I could grow no further on that path, as it was all intellectual. It wasn't until I found Leo's videos that I learned about enlightenment and made the connection between my experiences of not caring about identity and enlightenment. Also, it was emboldening to me to begin pursuing personal growth again and feel that it doesn't hinder progress toward enlightenment. This may not be the case. It absolutely could be a barrier for all I know. But I know that life has been lighter since. I don't have as much resistance to my natural drives. But I'm watching them and hoping that I happen to "hit the right buttons" to become liberated permanently. Until then, it's self-hatred and struggling and suffering every day. But at least it's better than hating self-hatred, struggling against struggling, and suffering through resisting suffering.

[Matthew Lamot]

2 minutes ago, Emerald Wilkins said:

Actually, in the first two to three years after my experiences (which I didn't know anything about enlightenment at the time), I just tried to do everything to undermine my positive self image and to nullify my identity. Sort of like repressing the ego. The experiences were so liberating that I was willing to undermine all the progress I had made toward growing my identity. If I had painted my ego as a masterpiece, what I did was the equivalent of scribbling over the painting with a permanent marker. Trying to embarrass myself, have no boundaries, not care about my reputation or well-being, cut myself off from everyone, etc. Then, after about three years of floating in the ether, I found Jungian psychology and learned all about individuation vs. the Self, and how individuation is most natural for human beings but that it is also the thing that makes us dis-unified from the Self. I read a lot on the subject and finally felt like I understood something about what had happened to me. But eventually this reached a meteora where I could grow no further on that path, as it was all intellectual. It wasn't until I found Leo's videos that I learned about enlightenment and made the connection between my experiences of not caring about identity and enlightenment. Also, it was emboldening to me to begin pursuing personal growth again and feel that it doesn't hinder progress toward enlightenment. This may not be the case. It absolutely could be a barrier for all I know. But I know that life has been lighter since. I don't have as much resistance to my natural drives. But I'm watching them and hoping that I happen to "hit the right buttons" to become liberated permanently. Until then, it's self-hatred and struggling and suffering every day. But at least it's better than hating self-hatred, struggling against struggling, and suffering through resisting suffering.

Yeah, no need to hate self hatred.  Just become aware of it and its subtle influence.  I'm a lot happier these days now I have found something that covers everything.  It covers my pschology and allows me to be a Jiva.  But at the same time enlightenment self inquiry makes you take the Jiva less seriously and loosens you up a bit.  Ramana put it beautifully when he said you still have to live life, but self inquire too.  The thing with enlightenment is it allows you to not need to escape life anymore, and to do that you need to learn to do a whole bunch of shit to achieve it.  Ya know, break a few eggs n that?  So self hatred is part of the human condition, but this is a process of letting go of that, and at times its kranky.

Taking ones process to serious is self hatred, aggrandizing enlightenment is self hatred, most of it is self hate because the Jiva as it is is programmed to seek because of a subtle cognitive pattern that it doesnt see.  When those things are brought into the light, things become more of a party and there is less need to worry about object.  Dont take the Jiva seriously, thats the way to an early grave lol.

Thats my good deed for the day. lol

On that note ill say goodnight

 

[Emerald]

10 minutes ago, Matthew Lamot said:

Yeah, no need to hate self hatred.  Just become aware of it and its subtle influence.  I'm a lot happier these days now I have found something that covers everything.  It covers my pschology and allows me to be a Jiva.  But at the same time enlightenment self inquiry makes you take the Jiva less seriously and loosens you up a bit.  Ramana put it beautifully when he said you still have to live life, but self inquire too.  The thing with enlightenment is it allows you to not need to escape life anymore, and to do that you need to learn to do a whole bunch of shit to achieve it.  Ya know, break a few eggs n that?  So self hatred is part of the human condition, but this is a process of letting go of that, and at times its kranky.

Taking ones process to serious is self hatred, aggrandizing enlightenment is self hatred, most of it is self hate because the Jiva as it is is programmed to seek because of a subtle cognitive pattern that it doesnt see.  When those things are brought into the light, things become more of a party and there is less need to worry about object.  Dont take the Jiva seriously, thats the way to an early grave lol.

Thats my good deed for the day. lol

On that note ill say goodnight

 

I like this. Thank you. Good night.

[LifeLife]

Much unaware ego Mr. Mitchell.

[Matthew Lamot]

7 hours ago, LifeLife said:

Much unaware ego Mr. Mitchell.

Correct!

Ego is unaware, it can never be conscious.  When you understand who you are, consciousness, you also understand that objects of mind, matter, experience are dead, cannot see, are unconscious objects floating inside you, the observer.

So SA in light of this SA is a delusion, because all SA does is try to re-organize the dead objects into something that other dead objects don't object to 

(See what I did there? I did a funny)

When you understand that SA is just helpless emotion striving after wind that can never satisfy it, and thats it's just a superficial aggrandizement of something that isnt' even real, you see the flaws in it.

If you go straight for enlightenment, if the Jiva is sick, it will get better.  Consciousness is the only thing that can make the Jiva better, because consciousness is the only thing that is real, and when consciousness is in the driving seat it doesn't need to defend itself, only the butthurt ego defends itself and tried to control and manipulate and get other dead objects to conform to its illusion.  

But you must understand who you are not first, before you understand who you are.

Got it?

Good 

 

[LifeLife]

@Matthew Lamot Humility son.

[Matthew Lamot]

6 hours ago, LifeLife said:

@Matthew Lamot Humility son.

Humility is a game, I dont feel good so i must act good, and then force that on others who are also supposed to hate themselves just like me

Why do you think I need to take advice from unenlightened and damaged people who are just getting into this to fix their problems?  Thats absurd

[HereNowThisMoment]

On August 21, 2016 at 7:07 PM, Paul EMD said:

What I'm saying is that you don't have to be so intense in the way you share your knowledge. Discrediting other's ideas won't make you more right and won't lead to any constructive discussions.  When you tell someone that he is wrong, you are directly making sure that he won't listen to what you have to say. If you truly want to share your knowledge, don't tell people how wrong they are before saying how right you are. It serves no purpose.  That's the classical way people debate, it never leads to any of the side to change its mind. 

Not completely true, I initially rejected what he was saying, holding adamantly to my view that was based on many many hours spent on reading The Book of Not Knowing (Ralston), Zen Mind Beginner's Mind (Suzuki), Three Pillars of Zen (Kapleau), No Self No Problem (Thubten), a couple of McKenna's books, several by Krishnamurthi, etc. Plus TONS of time spent on my own contemplating, watching Leo's videos, and plenty of other video sources. Since I had so much time and effort invested into those teachings I wanted to defend them to a certain extent. But then @Matthew Lamot made the point that I was blindly believing and following those other teachings, so it would be hypocritical to not also be open to Advaita. And I agreed because I believe that a person that is truly openminded should have the willingness to see all points of view regardless of how intensely they may be shared. I care about the validity of the message, not the delivery.  I care about finding what works to find the truth of reality, freedom, and happiness. That cannot be achieved without being open to all possibilities. That doesn't mean I have to agree with all of them, or that I shouldn't think critically, just that I should be open to giving someone else's point of view a real chance before deciding whether I should look into it further. I started reading some Advaita stuff, and while I am still very new to it I do see a clarity and consistency in the teaching that was insufficient in pretty much all the others that I had tried before. 

Einstein said, "the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." That seems like an accurate description for how I was approaching enlightenment, convincing myself that if I contemplated "Who am I?" tens of thousands of times as is suggested by most that I would magically, spontaneously become enlightened in one flash, as if some happenstance experience could make me any more conscious than I already am. The main point of contemplation is the realization that you are the consciousness in which and of which all experience and objects are perceived and composed, beyond that I would argue that proper teachings help to understand the nature of reality. Those teachings can be explored through direct experience and evaluated for their worth, serving as a guide for deeper understanding. 

 As it stands, Matt and I have had an ongoing discussion and I can tell you that it has been quite constructive despite my initial rejection. So feel free to agree or disagree, but try to be open enough to explore all points of view before dismissal. 

[Paul EMD]

@HereNowThisMoment

I agree with you. 

The only thing I want to point out is that I've never rejected @Matthew Lamot's approach to enlightenment. I've actually been studying Vedanta Treatise by Swami Parthasarathy in the past weeks as I'm doing a Yoga Teacher Training. I was criticizing the way he was sharing his knowledge, not the knowledge itself. As he pointed out, I was actually attacking him more than the ideas being shared, which wasn't right/fair. I'm actually all about exploring various point of views around enlightenment, in order to get a really good big picture idea of the subject. 

I've actually reflected a lot about the discussion we had, and what Matt pointed about my behaviour. He had  really good points. It helped me notice things about my ego I did not see before. It was really constructive and enlightening to me. Like you, I've come in disagreeing with Matt, and ended up learning a lot from it