GENIUS FORUMS

Great topic! The ego dilemma: the bloody struggle with its final realization of non-existence, a truth that cannot just be conceptualized ("thinged") in thought or feeling alike, without invoking the very thing it questions. Some mistake this for the clever act of denial or simply ignorin...

The function of suffering is to loosen the grip on inadequate conceptions and encourage the ascension to a higher state of being. Without suffering people would not progress in any real sense; they would not feel any inclination to let go of insipid and shallow world-views and modes of being (feel f...

I once had a long nightmare that I was a separate essence, and that my joy depended on catching other disparate essences that were always floating away or dissolving in my hands as if they lacked substance and were made of nothing. And everywhere other separate essences chased after the same things,...

For something to truly exist separately, its existence must not be compounded of other things, and for it to be self-existent, without being compounded of other things, it must be a thing-in-itself. It follows from your statement that if something does not really exist separately, it's existence is...

The idea of a separate existence is the idea of being self-existent, i.e., a thing-in-itself. There is a difference between the terms "separate existence", "self-existent" and "thing-in-itself." The first is the distinction between one thing and another, the second is ...

RZoo wrote:The subject is contextualized into a semioticist dematerialism that includes truth as a totality

A definition is not its own disproof, and only dualistic when conceived as something other.

Nihilism is an ironic demonstration of a premise.

RZoo wrote:

TheImmanent wrote:The negative is merely the absence of the positive.

WHAAAAAT? I CAN'T HEAR YOU. LA-LA-LA-LA!

That sounds like a happy delusion. ;-)

You're more fortunate than you suspect.

Positive emotions consist in the expression of one's own nature. Negative emotions consists in the conception of some hindrance or opposition to the expression of one's own nature. This leads the ego to form the belief that it is the suffering that gives rise to pleasure and vice versa. For every t...

The doer who once did was never anything but an incorrect conclusion. He never actually did anything. There is no activity but awareness, i.e., enlightenment. Passive awareness is a contradiction. There is no awareness, either. All dualities are illusions, not just the ones you are biased against. ...

The ego is passive (acted upon), restrained (consigned to a specific place and duration), detached (conceives all things as separate) and shut off from any true emotion or idea (only possessed by misconceptions). Enlightenment is active (that by which everything is), limitless (cannot be captured b...

Buddhas Bliss was permanent. The bliss I have experienced is impermanent. Is it the same bliss, only the quality and quantity of it relative to the proximity to Enlightenment ? The quality of it is inversely proportionate to the proximity to "Enlightenment". The stronger the suffering, th...

The ego is passive (acted upon), restrained (consigned to a specific place and duration), detached (conceives all things as separate) and shut off from any true emotion or idea (only possessed by misconceptions). Enlightenment is active (that by which everything is), limitless (cannot be captured by...

Leyla Shen wrote:

A perspective is a necessary premise for a discussion. The idea of a separate existence is false, since all things are interconnected.

A discussion between two persons is an interconnection.

Yes it is. A person is not actually a self.

A perspective is a necessary premise for a discussion. It's no more necessary than a person. These ideas are both indicators of different experiences/thoughts/opinions in a discussion, and can be deluded or wise ideas upon the person using them. Enlightened discussion, without ego-presence, is poss...

A perspective is not a false claim. As you say, it is an axiom. But the ego, i.e., a person, is a false claim to being a private essence. That is, a separate existence. An axiom could be false. The claim of separate existence is not sufficient to render an idea false. A perspective is a necessary p...

Both a perspective and a person exist dependently, but a perspective is literally a perspective while a person is not literally a person. A person is the concept of a private essence, being a person. No one is a perspective. Not by my definition. A person is a human being, and human being is a pers...

movingalways wrote:When the truth is spoken truth is all that exists. When the truth is spoken, thoughts of being a person or an ego or a spirit or a soul do not exist. Therefore, when one speaks the truth, they are the truth and nothing but the truth, they are the light of the world.

That is correct.

A perspective is literally the axiom which dictates a person's interaction with his environment. A perspective is not a false claim. As you say, it is an axiom. But the ego, i.e., a person, is a false claim to being a private essence. That is, a separate existence. So a perspective is not literally...

In so far as a perspective is insightful, to that degree the perspective is not under the conceit of being a person. Whether or not the perspective is insightful, a person is still only figurative. Don't you mean abstract rather than figurative? A person does not exist in a literal sense and is not...

In so far as a perspective is insightful, to that degree the perspective is not under the conceit of being a person. Whether or not the perspective is insightful, a person is still only figurative. Don't you mean abstract rather than figurative? A person does not exist in a literal sense and is not...

In so far as a perspective is insightful, to that degree the perspective is not under the conceit of being a person. Whether or not the perspective is insightful, a person is still only figurative.

Who lets go? A person is a blind spot. A person is not someone who may lack insight, the existence of person is a lack of insight. In a perspective, considered over time, insights may accumulate so that the person disappears. The one who would let go and that which would be let go are both gone.

The limited perspective is no obstacle, its way of designating a strawman of ideas as its being is. Were the limited perspective to be known as such, there would be enlightenment. The perspective would be empty of a person, i.e., ego.

Kunga wrote: MA said, " Whoever said : The PURPOSE of Enlightenment (is to stop thinking) is deluded. " I NEVER said THE PURPOSE of Enlightenment was to stop thinking !!!! I said the purpose of Enlightenment is to realize THE TRUTH . And to realize THE TRUTH, conceptual thinking stops. Wh...