You know that I favor thinking in terms of Lesser Enlightenment (self-possession / daimon) and Greater Enlightenment (no ego / non-dual)
Conversation
What does daimon mean?
I tend to go with awakened v. enlightened. Took me a long time to realize that when Vinay told me I was enlightened, he meant awakened (first solid understanding of what you are, without full enlightenment).
1
2
as for self-possession, the problem is that you can skip past it and get stuff you shouldn't have till you are self-possessed (as I understand the term).
1
1
Ah. Definitions of atman seem to differ. I recently ran into a very advanced guy who has atman=soul, but that wasn't my understanding. Can you define further?
1
1
(And I mean super advanced. In terms of energy body stuff, one of the two most powerful I know of. Capable of truly crazy stuff.)
1
The HGA/daimon/whatever is one’s highest self — joyful, fiercely compassionate, clear on one’s personal dharma, liberated from attachment — experienced as distinct from the self (though “really” the place where the self touches the cosmic whole)
2
1
hrrrm. I think these are different paths, honestly. Even personal dharma is ultimately *whatever*.
1
I for one am not interested in pursuing full awareness of the nondual. It is enough for me to know it to be true.
Full awareness of my dharma, though, is compelling.
3
Yes, different folks want different things. I find Jiva-mukti compelling. Non-dual desirable but not compelling. Personal dharma I know to be true in a metaphysical top level sense, but it offends me at every lower level.
1
Heh.
"Are you saying free will isn't real?"
"Are you saying you'd want it to be?"
Ha!
I have never been able to tell what people think they mean when they say “free will”
2
it can only mean that you think your ultimate reality is an unmoved mover. Which it might be. But any "self" the vast majority of people have access to (certainly including me) isn't that.