Death Is

[Jamesh]

I thought so, too...but when I read this topic all I see is "blah blah blah", flirting and pandering. "You me you me blah blah blah". This is nothing but a bathroom.

I don't see anyone with a passion for understanding. I don't see any philosophy going on in here. I see playing and bantering. That isn't philosophy. Everyone here talks about eachother's personality traits...is that so entertaining? Soon, those traits will disappear forever and you'll be left with nothing to entertain you.

Let your desire for understanding entertain you. Let it consume you...so that you stop bantering about nothing useful.

Everyone here thinks they get it. "I understand the truth!" Everyone is so wrong, because the one that understands is the root of delusion. Any understanding built upon that delusion isn't true understanding. Yet people still come on this forum waving their flag around, banging their own drum, like proud patriots of themselves. Everyone toots their own horn.

So I come onto a topic like this, and all I read is "honk honk honk." Absolutely useless.

Are we all becoming like Marsha? I sense it in myself at times.

[frank]

It's not rocket science tharpa.

...there are prior causes to this sprouting of BuddhaSpeak you throw out there...

Since Nietsche the Discourse has been about 'What it means to be a Human Being'...

OK, you are an Ego, 'feels separate'...feels vulnerable...has to get some Power...to feel less vulnerable..

You head off to Scripts 'R' Us and rummage thru' the Bargain Box for a little number that looks powerful....
You found Buddhism.

Now you've got your Script.

You've got your Costume and your Lines and you rehearse them...you get beat up here and there and go underground for a while to try and make the Script work for you better...you get some kudos here and there and develop a little confidence...pretty soon you start feeling superior and feeling you have Absolute Truth at your fingertips...

Do you get it?

This Act of attaching to yourself a 'skin' of Language to survey the World with and Judge it with...to get you a Win.

Now, you will say...frank old son, you have just 'skinned' me with Language...

I get it.

But what are we to do?

frank

[Leyla Shen]

frank,

Your stated purpose is to 'attack'....the lack of 'clarity of thought' wherever you find it.

You asked for my personal details.

My 'clarity of thought' tells me that to provide those details would show a distinct lack of 'clarity of thought'.

I can't simply trust that having you run your cold, calculating eye over my personal details would guarantee 'clarity of thought' from you.

But I could wager London to a Brick that I would be attacked.

For that is what you want to do.

Seems to me, frank, that your issues with trust are entirely emotional. Also seems to me that when one’s memories and ideas are clear and reasoned out (that is, when they are conscious), there is no fear. [Edit: though I find this a foregone conclusion to my own thinking, I will state it here anyway: the elimination of what is otherwise known as the sub/unconscious and its hidden influence is directly propotional to the degree of clarity of thought.]

What, then, could possibly be so bad about clarity of thought -- except for one who has no idea what it actually means?

If it is something you possess or can identify and want, something you are driven by or for, there’s nothing to be afraid of.

Not even me.

~

Scott,

Everyone here thinks they get it. "I understand the truth!" Everyone is so wrong, because the one that understands is the root of delusion. Any understanding built upon that delusion isn't true understanding. Yet people still come on this forum waving their flag around, banging their own drum, like proud patriots of themselves. Everyone toots their own horn.

Whilst I definitely see what you are saying, I think “everyone” is too broad to be useful, philosophically.

The “I,” just as any thing else, lacks inherent existence -- which is precisely why it can be said to exist in the same way anything else can be said to exist: as a consequence of its causes. If it were absolutely true that there is no such thing as “I,” there would be no appearance of “I.”

Delusion and suffering sprout from attachment to things. And even that understanding, as with all things, is empty (lacks inherent existence). Even frank’s Godforsaken, go-nowhere and unconscious “script” ranting is empty. He knows this, but cannot take it any further apart from to say "what are we to do," and then keep repeating his script, ad nauseum.

So, in what way does “I” (self) not appear in the same breath as you find it necessary to speak to others? In the way, perhaps, that attachment makes it appear as Ego?

.

[tharpa]

frank, re 'extra fiction'.

If you mean that the material is not from my personal original insight, sure. But the forum hosts have supplied quite a bit of source material from buddhist and daoist traditions, amongst others, presumably because it is regarded as helpful.

The above 'four reminders' are one of the most widely used contemplations of death, and some of its ramifications, in the world.

By contemplating such material (any good material), some of the insight it took to compose it can be absorbed into one's own view.

On the other hand, if there were certain aspects of the contemplation that you find 'fictive', then in order to make a point you should clarify, since otherwise your statement seems only 'banterish'.

[sschaula]

Leyla,

Whilst I definitely see what you are saying, I think “everyone” is too broad to be useful, philosophically.

It's not too broad. Every single person at this forum is unenlightened...so "everyone" is okay to use.

The “I,” just as any thing else, lacks inherent existence -- which is precisely why it can be said to exist in the same way anything else can be said to exist: as a consequence of its causes.

This is true...but do you live in the knowledge of that, or does the "I" continue to arise in your mind? If the latter, you're unenlightened and then you are included in "everyone".

If it were absolutely true that there is no such thing as “I,” there would be no appearance of “I.”

This is not true. Appearances are decieving, Leyla. You just admitted that the "I" lacks inherent existence, so why do you now say that there is such a thing as an "I"? The "I" isn't absolutely true...although it may arise in your mind. It's a momentary manifestation of reality. Since it's not absolutely true, it's delusion (in the realm of maya) and therefore you're unenlightened...and my use of the word "everyone" applies to you.

Delusion and suffering sprout from attachment to things. And even that understanding, as with all things, is empty (lacks inherent existence).

True...but are you just saying that? Or do you live every moment with that knowledge spontaneously arising? It's easy to say "The ego is false", but it's hard to truly see through it. It's easy to say "understanding lacks inherent existence" but it's hard to live from that wisdom.

I say, until the philosopher does, he is unenlightened and a fool.

Even frank’s Godforsaken, go-nowhere and unconscious “script” ranting is empty. He knows this, but cannot take it any further apart from to say "what are we to do," and then keep repeating his script, ad nauseum.

Empty of meaning, and empty of inherent existence. That's pretty empty!

So, in what way does “I” (self) not appear in the same breath as you find it necessary to speak to others?

I'm unenlightened...but I recognize it. The delusion of the ego is still there for me, but I realize what needs to be done in order to become enlightened. Your question seems to be asking, "is it possible to speak to other people without an ego of your own?" I don't know...all I know is that delusion arises in me and you (everyone here), and all I'm doing is pointing it out.

In the way, perhaps, that attachment makes it appear as Ego?

When there is no ego there's no one who has attachment. But if you have no attachment, you may still have an ego. It's easy to be non-attached...to sit around doing nothing all day. That's every philosopher. But to have no ego is hard, because it takes the strongest mind to pierce through itself, so that only reality is experienced. So there's absolutely no delusion.

So attachment doesn't make an ego appear, if that's what you meant. The delusion of the self is what creates attachment, because without that delusion there's no way to be attached to anything...because who is attached?

[tharpa]

"you may still have an ego"

!! Who has their ego? Ego of course, always having itself.

Thought in response to above:

Ego in mind manifests as ignorance, the act of not knowing Truth.
Ego in speech/emotion manifests as selfishness, not being compassionate/open.
Ego in body manifests as cowardice/fear, having uncertainty of motivation and manifestation.

Ego is a process, not an entity.

Enlightenment is everything the ego doesn't want, a form of 'death', if you will.

[sschaula]

Tharpa,

!! Who has their ego? Ego of course, always having itself.

A good reframing...but a person has an ego who has delusion. Of course thinking "I need to get rid of my ego" would be worthless, because the ego is the "I" needing to get rid of the ego...which is the "I"..etc...

Anyone who thinks clearly can understand it, therefore I see no reason to stop saying "Your ego". It keeps communicating the idea simpler.

Thought in response to above:

Ego in mind manifests as ignorance, the act of not knowing Truth.
Ego in speech/emotion manifests as selfishness, not being compassionate/open.
Ego in body manifests as cowardice/fear, having uncertainty of motivation and manifestation.

Ego is a process, not an entity.

Ego always manifests as "I". That's simple enough...the rest stems from that delusion. Of course "I" is a "process", and not a real entity. It doesn't exist like the body...it can be applied to anything. Most of the time people use "I" as some creative controller of the various pieces of their body and mind.

With some introspection, a person can easily see it. With some right understanding, a person can easily see it as delusion.

Enlightenment is everything the ego doesn't want, a form of 'death', if you will.

That's what it seems like when sought after. I've experienced a great fear a few times, when thinking deeply about this. Or when thinking about becoming enlightened...when you think about the implications of that, it can seem scary. You lose everything in the world including yourself.

[tharpa]

yes, and that 'delusion' is a causally interdependent process, not an entity.

Often when we discuss 'ego' the mind immediately starts assuming there is some 'thing' there, which of course is the delusion.

That is why there is what is known as 'ego of self' and 'ego of others', or the ego principle in terms of oneself, and that same ego principle in terms of phenomena, which includes people and objects. The seemingly solidity of rocks, for example, is a form of 'ego of other'.

Qinn's contemplation of interdependent causality viz. a water fountain is a delightful draft of simple eloquence.

Since the process itself is an illusory conceptual construct, it has been well said:

"All thoughts vanish into emptiness like the imprint of a bird in the sky."

[frank]

leyla:

Seems to me, frank, that your issues with trust are entirely emotional. Also seems to me that when one’s memories and ideas are clear and reasoned out (that is, when they are conscious), there is no fear. [Edit: though I find this a foregone conclusion to my own thinking, I will state it here anyway: the elimination of what is otherwise known as the sub/unconscious and its hidden influence is directly propotional to the degree of clarity of thought.]

What, then, could possibly be so bad about clarity of thought -- except for one who has no idea what it actually means?

If it is something you possess or can identify and want, something you are driven by or for, there’s nothing to be afraid of.

Not even me.

Nobody actually lives a life with profound 'clarity of thought'...if there is anything absolute it is that....

Because nobody knows anything for certain.
did you get that?
Nobody knows anything for certain.

People profess they do..but they just believe.

In the absence of Absolute Truth.
Ego makes it up...because it has to, to feel better.

As Foucault remarked it is just as easy to 'structure Reality' on a pack of Lies as it is on Absolute Truth.

You are a 'Pack of Lies'...all of you...effectively a 'Pack of Lies'...
Sometimes you know this with utmost clarity, but mostly you 'push it away'....because it doesn't feel good realising one's inauthenticity...

Basically you are promoting an Ideal Form that you don't live.
Now that is 'clarity of thought'...

Why pretend you are these Ideal Forms...these Mental Constructions...you are Vulnerable and you don't like it, so you spray this self aggrandizing Language about to prop yourself up...
That's what Ego does.

frank

[Pye]

.

frank . . . the deconstructionist has to suffer the same fate as his quarry; and the good one invites it. Perhaps it is he who is caught up in language even more cripplingly.

I can well imagine the want of silence, though, perhaps for you especially, who must see many skewed linguistic configurations upon which people's suffering is built. The painful irony, of course, is only another address of language seems able to point that out.

don't drown in it, frank. hang on, and breathe where's it's quiet . . . .

.

[tharpa]

SS wrote: "Ego always manifests as "I". That's simple enough...the rest stems from that delusion. Of course "I" is a "process", and not a real entity. It doesn't exist like the body...it can be applied to anything. Most of the time people use "I" as some creative controller of the various pieces of their body and mind. "

Well, the process that creates 'I' also creates 'other' and on some level, this acculturated process of multiple others (aka our 'world' and 'phenomena' therein) create more 'I''s.

When you say : " it doesn't exist like the body" I assume you are saying that it is nonexistent just like the body is nonexistent. ? (It could be read to mean the opposite: it doesn't exist in the same sense that a body does exist.)

There are many different aspects to the same thing, which is why I offered a body, speech and mind scenario. Similarly, water is flowing or not, wet or not, present or absent, pacified or turbulent and so forth. So along with the root notion/subject of water, there are no end of qualitative aspects as well.

In terms of 'symblism', the union of awareness and perception always throws up instant teaching, wherein anything that arises is a symbol of this all-pervasive dynamic continuously unfolding.

Again, Quinn's guru, the water fountain.

Fear: if you are in doubt as to which direction, go into the fear. I wish I could do that myself, but doing so in reality versus in theory requires years of practice at learning-by-doing how to unify body and mind so there is no flicker (of irrelevant femininity in the language used here, I think) of hesitation (gap of body, mind, intention) whatsoever.

Quinn's practice in this is that of being a self-proclaimed 'Genius' making his entire life manifestation inseperable from his Philosophical View (or Realisation). Whether this is authentic manifestation or a form of psychosis is hard to tell. But it always is. Which is why realisation in some traditions manifests as what has been called 'Crazy Wisdom'.

[tharpa]

"As Foucault remarked it is just as easy to 'structure Reality' on a pack of Lies as it is on Absolute Truth.

You are a 'Pack of Lies'...all of you...effectively a 'Pack of Lies'...
Sometimes you know this with utmost clarity, but mostly you 'push it away'....because it doesn't feel good realising one's inauthenticity...

Basically you are promoting an Ideal Form that you don't live.
Now that is 'clarity of thought'...

Why pretend you are these Ideal Forms...these Mental Constructions...you are Vulnerable and you don't like it, so you spray this self aggrandizing Language about to prop yourself up...
That's what Ego does. "

That rang somewhat true. But why the concern about what 'all of you' are up to? What are you - Frank - up to?

[frank]

Quinn wrote in W of I:
In many ways, the construction that the brain creates is an arbitrary one. After all, there is no real need for it to make a strictly accurate rendition of what is really "out there". Its prime concern is merely to construct a world that best suits the practical needs of our species.

Pye:

frank . . . the deconstructionist has to suffer the same fate as his quarry; and the good one invites it. Perhaps it is he who is caught up in language even more cripplingly.

I can well imagine the want of silence, though, perhaps for you especially, who must see many skewed linguistic configurations upon which people's suffering is built. The painful irony, of course, is only another address of language seems able to point that out.

don't drown in it, frank. hang on, and breathe where's it's quiet . . . .

No, it's fun Pye...it's entertaining...it's brilliant...what else have we got?

We actually live in this 'Living Language' System...like a fish lives in Water...
Our whole Life is spent in Conversation isn't it?
Conversation with Others or With Ourselves...

Tryin' to figure something out.

On with the Show this Is It!

frank

[sschaula]

Tharpa,

Well, the process that creates 'I' also creates 'other' and on some level, this acculturated process of multiple others (aka our 'world' and 'phenomena' therein) create more 'I''s.

So it's easy to see: when the "I" process doesn't happen (or is seen through clearly), all other delusion ceases in the mind.

When you say : " it doesn't exist like the body" I assume you are saying that it is nonexistent just like the body is nonexistent. ? (It could be read to mean the opposite: it doesn't exist in the same sense that a body does exist.)

The way I wrote it conveys the truth the best it can be conveyed in one sentence.

The body is existent as an object, not a false process of the mind. You can become aware of the body, but you can't become aware of the ego, because it is the one that becomes aware. You can only understand that you are falsehood itself, and that "you" must be taken from your mind in order to experience the truth.

Of course, "the body" is something you imagine. It lacks inherent existence...but it's based on something you experience. You imagine as well as experience it. You never really experience the ego in the same way as you do the body. The ego is a false impression, that says, "I am experiencing the body"...so the ego is inexperiencable. Thus, it could be said that the body is real and the ego isn't.

There are many different aspects to the same thing, which is why I offered a body, speech and mind scenario. Similarly, water is flowing or not, wet or not, present or absent, pacified or turbulent and so forth. So along with the root notion/subject of water, there are no end of qualitative aspects as well.

I don't understand what you're saying here.

In terms of 'symblism', the union of awareness and perception always throws up instant teaching, wherein anything that arises is a symbol of this all-pervasive dynamic continuously unfolding.

I don't understand this either.

Again, Quinn's guru, the water fountain.

As far as I can tell, Quinn's guru has yet to be found since he is still in darkness. Despite his clarity, insight and logic, I don't believe he has attained enlightenment. I found a good expression of what I mean just this evening...

From http://www.experiencefestival.com :

A clear distinction should be made between awakening to the Way (Great Awakening) and attaining the Way (attaining Enlightenment). (Note: There are many degrees of Awakening and Enlightenment. Attaining the Enlightenment of the Arhats, Pratyeka Buddhas, Bodhisattvas, etc. is different from attaining Supreme Enlightenment, i.e., Buddhahood.)

To experience a Great Awakening is to achieve (through Zen meditation, Buddha Recitation, etc.) a complete and deep realization of what it means to be a Buddha and how to reach Buddhahood.

It is to see one's Nature, comprehend the True Nature of things, the Truth. However, only after becoming a Buddha can one be said to have truly attained Supreme Enlightenment (attained the Way).

A metaphor appearing in the sutras is that of a glass of water containing sediments. As long as the glass is undisturbed, the sediments remain at the bottom and the water is clear. However, as soon as the glass is shaken, the water becomes turbid. Likewise, when a practitioner experiences a Great Awakening (awakens to the Way), his afflictions (greed, anger and delusion) are temporarily suppressed but not yet eliminated.

To achieve Supreme Enlightenment (i.e., to be rid of all afflictions, to discard all sediments) is the ultimate goal. Only then can he completely trust his mind and actions. Before then, he should adhere to the precepts, keep a close watch on his mind and thoughts, like a cat stalking a mouse, ready to pounce on evil thoughts as soon as they arise.

To do otherwise is to court certain failure, as stories upon stories of errant monks, roshis and gurus demonstrate.

This is exactly my point; it's what I've been harping about lately. The most anyone here has attained is an awakening...not enlightenment. A satori, not nirvana.

I wonder if anyone is actually paying attention to what I'm saying.

Fear: if you are in doubt as to which direction, go into the fear. I wish I could do that myself, but doing so in reality versus in theory requires years of practice at learning-by-doing how to unify body and mind so there is no flicker (of irrelevant femininity in the language used here, I think) of hesitation (gap of body, mind, intention) whatsoever.

I think that's just playing ego games. Instead of imagining yourself go into the things you imagine you're afraid of, just try to discern the truth. Have the balls to stop playing games and see clearly. This is where talks about masculinity and courage really matter. Talks about active seeking, versus being lazy.

The lazy person will choose not to try and discern clearly, because it's really the hardest thing in the world to do. They will try to make themselves not lazy, perpetuating their delusion. Delusion should be attacked.

The fearful person will try to confront their fears, thus perpetuating their delusion. If they forgot about being fearful, and focused on seeing through the ego, they'd naturally stop being afraid. Without a self, who can be afraid?

So don't play ego games with the qualities of yourself. If you seek the truth alone, all of those perfect qualities will fall in place effortlessly.

Quinn's practice in this is that of being a self-proclaimed 'Genius' making his entire life manifestation inseperable from his Philosophical View (or Realisation).

That's my practice as well. Until of course, the two combine...then what practice could there be when only truth is experienced? Because the practice itself is part of delusion, and the practicer is the root of all of this delusion.

Whether this is authentic manifestation or a form of psychosis is hard to tell. But it always is. Which is why realisation in some traditions manifests as what has been called 'Crazy Wisdom'

In my opinion, it's only crazy wisdom when it's not enlightened. It's crazy wisdom when it's merely understood, and not lived/experienced. Once it's lived and experienced, when all delusion is gone, then what can describe it is "perfect wisdom".

[frank]

tharpa:

That rang somewhat true. But why the concern about what 'all of you' are up to? What are you - Frank - up to?

Tryin' to figure it out.

For what are we to do.

Wittgenstein thought we should just talk about Natural Science.

Buddhism is entirely aware of the hypnotic effect of Language.
A Tyro comes along to Buddhism looking for a power script so the tyro is given one...

The top Buddhists don't actually believe in anything.

But they have a problem.

Not only is the tyro 'needing' a script, else he won't persevere, but Buddhism has to exist in a 'condition'...it is subject to 'governing bodies' in 'countries'...Buddhism can't say to the 'Warlord'...we don't believe 'anything', not even 'you'....the Warlord would feel threatened and wipe them out. So, the Warlord is also sold the script to make him feel better...it's a Trade-Off..

The point of Buddhism is to get you to behave nicely in order to enhance the survival of the species...

The tyro comes along and is told to sit on his cushion, shut up and 'find your Ego'...that gets him 'off the street' and behaving nicely for 40 years...

Super Nanny pulls the same stunt on the little monkey minds (kids)...she puts them on the 'Naughty Chair'.

Buddhism then sells you the concept...if you be a good boy Father Xmas will bring you Nirvana...

It's just Parenting.

like Father Xmas, Tooth Fairy, Boogie Man, Willie Wonka....'things' like Nirvana, Karma etc.. are part of a 'carrot/stick' device to get you behaving well.

At some point you are meant to figure it out and realise the seductive power of Language Streams and how your Ego grabs Language to somehow get a definition for Itself...

I know, it's Astonishing.

frank

[tharpa]

SS wrote:
"The body is existent as an object, not a false process of the mind. You can become aware of the body, but you can't become aware of the ego, because it is the one that becomes aware. You can only understand that you are falsehood itself, and that "you" must be taken from your mind in order to experience the truth.

Of course, "the body" is something you imagine. It lacks inherent existence...but it's based on something you experience. You imagine as well as experience it. You never really experience the ego in the same way as you do the body. The ego is a false impression, that says, "I am experiencing the body"...so the ego is inexperiencable. Thus, it could be said that the body is real and the ego isn't. "

(I take these one at a time. I have no idea how you make those lovely white quote boxes!!)

First, I appreciate the interchange.

OK: in terms of that statement, I did guess the wrong meaning. It could be read two ways grammatically, that's all.

After pondering this, my first reaction is that you are all over the place logically. Every sentence, or rather each term once establishes morphs into something else later on.

In response I shall simply reply to your thrust, which is good, with an old yogic quote :

"wisdom resides within the body".

On that, I think, we agree.

This is not fair: to pluck something from above to illustrate the objection:

"You can become aware of the body, but you can't become aware of the ego, because it is the one that becomes aware. "

The 'you' in that sentence is the ego, right? So it can read: 'ego can become aware of body, but ego can't become aware of ego because ego is the one that becomes aware.' If ego cannot see ego, how can it see 'body' or anything else? Once it becomes awareness, why cannot it see body or anything else?

Another old quote: 'the difference between a buddha and a samsaric being is that a buddha sees the nature of samsara.'

This gets to the meaning of the word/term/title Buddha. Buddha simply means one/a person (the 'a' at the end) who is awake (budh), i.e. aware.

From this point of view, one could say that a confused version of Buddha is a self/ego. Once that confused version is relaxed, the Buddha naturally has already emerged as such.

[tharpa]

"Quote:
Th: There are many different aspects to the same thing, which is why I offered a body, speech and mind scenario. Similarly, water is flowing or not, wet or not, present or absent, pacified or turbulent and so forth. So along with the root notion/subject of water, there are no end of qualitative aspects as well.

SS: I don't understand what you're saying here.

Tharpa answers: I was trying to poke holes in positing Truth or The Absolute as a monist notion. In Quiin's book he points out that although each particle of water therein is not the whole lake, yet there is a lake (though a lake as such doesn't really exist except as a mental construct). So 'lake' is some sort of universal principle relative to the molecules of water comprising it. On a larger scale, the Universe, Totality, or Truth exists as the continuum within which so-called individual particles/causes/events therein strut their stuff. And yet, there is nothing to say there is only one such Totality because even that notion is dependent upon the situation which is the subject. In order to have a One Totality principle you would have to have One point of view. That demands locality, and locality, spatially speaking, is the same as the ego principle. So Truth is false even though it is true. Or put another way: Truth/Totality etc. is inexpressible even though it can, as Quinn rightly points out, be inferred by logic. Which is a tool, not an existens.


Quote:
In terms of 'symblism', the union of awareness and perception always throws up instant teaching, wherein anything that arises is a symbol of this all-pervasive dynamic continuously unfolding.


I don't understand this either."

Tharpa answers: symbolism is that things 'mean' something, i.e. throw up images on the mirror of awareness. Water means water which has qualities, and those qualities are the meaning of water (wetness, flow, density, adaptability, frozen rigidity, steaming violence etc.). As such, the qualities of water are the symbol for what it 'means'. Isness means something, or everything (that is) is a symbol of inherent meaning, which is the awareness principle. All experience involves awareness principle; and all experience symbolises exactly what it is, as it is.

This is a clumsy attempt to explain the meaning of the term 'Mahamudra', which means great symbol in many translations.

Actually, the term mudra means both action/gesture and 'seal', as in signature/sealing a document. All experience is 'sealed' with awareness. Again, Quinn's eloquent water fountain serving as the guru of enlightened awareness, the very elements themselves speaking the language of enlightened awareness.

[Leyla Shen]

Scott,

L: The “I,” just as any thing else, lacks inherent existence -- which is precisely why it can be said to exist in the same way anything else can be said to exist: as a consequence of its causes.

S: This is true...but do you live in the knowledge of that, or does the "I" continue to arise in your mind? If the latter, you're unenlightened and then you are included in "everyone".

What appearance does not arise in the mind?

When you ask me if “I” live in the knowledge of “that,” how would that not be an arising in my mind of “I,” that knowledge, and even mind?

L: If it were absolutely true that there is no such thing as “I,” there would be no appearance of “I.”

S: This is not true. Appearances are decieving, Leyla.

Appearances are just that. There is no deception when they are known as just that: appearances. Deception is a quality of uncertainty. If I am certain that an appearance is nothing more than an appearance, where’s the deception?

You just admitted that the "I" lacks inherent existence, so why do you now say that there is such a thing as an "I"?

It is the same way as your tennis ball example not so long ago (a good one, I thought).

Where you ultimately appear to be going is that anything subjective does not exist; only the phenomenal aspects of a thing exist (and are impermanent). Is that along the lines of what you are saying?

The "I" isn't absolutely true...although it may arise in your mind. It's a momentary manifestation of reality.

If you hold "we are having experiences" as an absolute truth, then in what way is the "I" or "we" not absolutely true? I don’t see that as an argument for the non-existence of “I” and, therefore, the conclusion that the “I” is any less an appearance than any thing else.

Since it's not absolutely true, it's delusion (in the realm of maya) and therefore you're unenlightened...and my use of the word "everyone" applies to you.

How do you distinguish between illusion, delusion and reality?

L: Delusion and suffering sprout from attachment to things. And even that understanding, as with all things, is empty (lacks inherent existence).

S: True...but are you just saying that? Or do you live every moment with that knowledge spontaneously arising? It's easy to say "The ego is false", but it's hard to truly see through it. It's easy to say "understanding lacks inherent existence" but it's hard to live from that wisdom.

“I” am an appearance of the moment. “I” come into existence through causality in the form of “I.” Same goes for “you” and your perception of me, etc, vice versa, and so on. When an individual does not understand that “I” -- or any other thing -- cannot possibly come into existence without its causes, then there is attachment, suffering and delusion. If, for instance, I do not understand this about frank, and I view “him” as an inherently existing thing, then I am likely to get all emotional (maybe love, maybe hate, maybe bored, etc.) over this appearance, especially since I am also likely to view myself in the same light: as a thing outside of causality.

L: Even frank’s Godforsaken, go-nowhere and unconscious “script” ranting is empty. He knows this, but cannot take it any further apart from to say "what are we to do," and then keep repeating his script, ad nauseum.

S: Empty of meaning, and empty of inherent existence. That's pretty empty!

:)

S: So, in what way does “I” (self) not appear in the same breath as you find it necessary to speak to others?

L: I'm unenlightened...but I recognize it. The delusion of the ego is still there for me, but I realize what needs to be done in order to become enlightened. Your question seems to be asking, "is it possible to speak to other people without an ego of your own?" I don't know...all I know is that delusion arises in me and you (everyone here), and all I'm doing is pointing it out.

That might well be the way it appears to you, Scott. And, if it appears that way, then it appears that way. That is all you can be certain about, as far as I’m concerned, on the subject of “everyone” is unenlightened. Since to conclude that the “I” does not exist on the basis of what you apparently (gleaned from the logic implicit in the context of my understanding of your words so far) hold as the only type of existence -- objective existence -- is yet itself an appearance, and nothing more.

L: In the way, perhaps, that attachment makes it appear as Ego?

S: When there is no ego there's no one who has attachment.

Are you saying that when an individual considers self as inherent -- that is, without causes -- then there can be attachment? If you are, I agree.

But if you have no attachment, you may still have an ego. It's easy to be non-attached...to sit around doing nothing all day. That's every philosopher.

I agree that a philosopher could well be attached to thought but I think that in such cases the calibre of philosophy is very low. And, if the absence of attachment is the benchmark of enlightenment, then he too is unenlightened to that degree.

But to have no ego is hard, because it takes the strongest mind to pierce through itself, so that only reality is experienced. So there's absolutely no delusion.

Agreed. However, there is something gnawing at me regarding the idea of "piercing through itself." The enlightened mind pierces through delusion. Just "who" this enlightened mind may or may not belong to is another question altogether.

So attachment doesn't make an ego appear, if that's what you meant. The delusion of the self is what creates attachment, because without that delusion there's no way to be attached to anything...because who is attached?

I call the delusion of self “Ego.” But that, by the definitions and thereby logic that I have used in this discussion, by no means implies they do not exist, unless you hold that only “solid objects” exist and any subjectivity -- such as “I” or “tennis ball” -- is delusion.

.

[suergaz]

Leyla:

I call the delusion of self “Ego.”

And I call self-conception "Ego" which is what it ultimately is.

Self as delusion-- I don't know it. Every fabled 'falsity' of self is but the feeling of its incompletion. :D

The “I,” just as any thing else, lacks inherent existence -- which is precisely why it can be said to exist in the same way anything else can be said to exist: as a consequence of its causes.

But existence alone is inherent!

[sschaula]

Tharpa,

(I take these one at a time. I have no idea how you make those lovely white quote boxes!!)

Highlight the text you want to quote, then click the Quote button above the box where you post your reply.

First, I appreciate the interchange.

As do I.

OK: in terms of that statement, I did guess the wrong meaning. It could be read two ways grammatically, that's all.

After pondering this, my first reaction is that you are all over the place logically. Every sentence, or rather each term once establishes morphs into something else later on.

I tried to explain things so that when you read it and tried to see, it could be easier. I could write things from a specific viewpoint, but that wouldn't enable you to verify the statement. So when I say, "You can be aware of the body", it's easy for you to agree, "oh yes, I am aware of the body". When I say, "You can't be aware of the ego, because it's that which is aware", it's easy to apply that to yourself. You can see that you're aware, yet if you try to identify the ego, it seems to evade you (because the ego is trying to identify). It's like eyes trying to see themselves.

In response I shall simply reply to your thrust, which is good, with an old yogic quote :

"wisdom resides within the body".

On that, I think, we agree.

Well, I guess it can't reside outside of the body.

This is not fair: to pluck something from above to illustrate the objection:

"You can become aware of the body, but you can't become aware of the ego, because it is the one that becomes aware. "

The 'you' in that sentence is the ego, right? So it can read: 'ego can become aware of body, but ego can't become aware of ego because ego is the one that becomes aware.' If ego cannot see ego, how can it see 'body' or anything else? Once it becomes awareness, why cannot it see body or anything else?

Ego is a delusion. But just look for yourself. Actually take a second and look, instead of just reading through...it's obvious that you can become aware of your body. You look at it and see it. You can feel your skin. You can taste something with your tongue.

It should also be obvious that you can't become aware of the ego, because it isn't actually there. You can become aware that you are thinking, "I am becoming aware of the body", and that can give you a hint as to what the ego is...a made up identity. Who becomes aware? Try to find that, and I assure you that you'll be on quite the search. It's like trying to catch a ghost in your hands...your hands will seem to pass right through it, and yet it remains. So it is with the ego, you try to find it and can't, yet it remains.

Another old quote: 'the difference between a buddha and a samsaric being is that a buddha sees the nature of samsara.'

This gets to the meaning of the word/term/title Buddha. Buddha simply means one/a person (the 'a' at the end) who is awake (budh), i.e. aware.

Good quote.

From this point of view, one could say that a confused version of Buddha is a self/ego. Once that confused version is relaxed, the Buddha naturally has already emerged as such.

Well, I see your point but I would never call a confused version of a Buddha, a Buddha...since Buddha means a person who is awake or aware. Obviously, if he is confused he isn't awake/aware.

In Quiin's book he points out that although each particle of water therein is not the whole lake, yet there is a lake (though a lake as such doesn't really exist except as a mental construct). So 'lake' is some sort of universal principle relative to the molecules of water comprising it. On a larger scale, the Universe, Totality, or Truth exists as the continuum within which so-called individual particles/causes/events therein strut their stuff. And yet, there is nothing to say there is only one such Totality because even that notion is dependent upon the situation which is the subject. In order to have a One Totality principle you would have to have One point of view. That demands locality, and locality, spatially speaking, is the same as the ego principle. So Truth is false even though it is true. Or put another way: Truth/Totality etc. is inexpressible even though it can, as Quinn rightly points out, be inferred by logic. Which is a tool, not an existens.

This is probably why some people refer to enlightenment as, "Zero point."

[tharpa]

"Well, I see your point but I would never call a confused version of a Buddha, a Buddha...since Buddha means a person who is awake or aware. Obviously, if he is confused he isn't awake/aware. "

Well, another old quote: realisation of mahamudra is like a snake uncoiling.

At first the snake is knotted up (samsara) but it's basic nature as a snake is not to be so. When it uncoils and assumes its natural shape, it is Buddha. So I stay with my first statement, that samsaric beings are Buddhas-in-waiting, as it were, playing deaf and dumb to their own essential nature.

As to being aware of ego, ego cannot. However, we can become aware of the process of ego and moreover aware of the process of awareness-aliveness that exists above and beyond the ego. But this is something that happens on many levels, only with full enlightenment the whole thing being seen through.

The buddhist notion of the Four Foundations of Mindfulness comes to mind: mindfulness of body, life process, effort and mind. But I think that's too much technical gibberish for this forum perhaps. In any case, self/ego is an illusory construct fictively put together with discursive habitual patterns. It is a movie on the screen with apparent, seeming continuity and solid storylines, but in fact a mass of fast-moving frames beamed through the projector. Our minds hear and see 'the story' of ego, and it all makes sense. But only because of our own story-making proclivities. Without such language, without the habitual grammar and syntax of ego-fictification, there would be no such thing. And it certainly is possible to see through it.

Often this happens with ordinary people, it is said, at the moment of death, orgasm or a sneeze. A car crash for that matter!

Good joke too, I suspect, the moment of laughter!

[sschaula]

Leyla,

What appearance does not arise in the mind?

Think about it like watching a tv. You can get wrapped up in the story and people on it, or you can always be aware that it's a tv. The story is "appearance". In this example, if you are aware it's just a tv and you don't get caught up in the story, you're enlightened. The enlightened person doesn't fall for appearances although they do appear. A story still plays out, despite your state of mind while looking at the tv.

When you ask me if “I” live in the knowledge of “that,” how would that not be an arising in my mind of “I,” that knowledge, and even mind?

If you answered, "I live in the knowledge of that", you'd probably be answering as an ego, and you'd be lying.

I can't answer what it would be like to answer the question as an enlightened person.

Appearances are just that. There is no deception when they are known as just that: appearances. Deception is a quality of uncertainty. If I am certain that an appearance is nothing more than an appearance, where’s the deception?

First...think of "appearances" this way...you are driving down a road on a hot summer day and see what looks to be like a lot of water in the road up ahead. That's an appearance. When you drive up closer, it seems to disappear and you realize there wasn't any water at all, it was just the heat coming off of the pavement.

Now think deeper about this self stuff... How can you be certain that you are just an appearance? In being certain of that, you're making yourself out to be real - the identifier of truth. An ego can't be aware of its own falseness.

Yes, it's a hard egg to crack, but keep thinking about it.

It is the same way as your tennis ball example not so long ago (a good one, I thought).

It kind of is. But a tennis ball exists, and an ego doesn't.

Where you ultimately appear to be going is that anything subjective does not exist; only the phenomenal aspects of a thing exist (and are impermanent). Is that along the lines of what you are saying?

No. I'm just saying the way things are.

If you hold "we are having experiences" as an absolute truth, then in what way is the "I" or "we" not absolutely true?

Well, it wouldn't be absolutely true that "we are having experiences".

I don’t see that as an argument for the non-existence of “I” and, therefore, the conclusion that the “I” is any less an appearance than any thing else.

Does the "I" appear as anything, or is it a process that goes on in the mind? Can you point to something exact, and say "That is it"? If so, let me know what you're pointing at.

Can you point to a tennis ball and say, "that is it"? Obviously you can.

How do you distinguish between illusion, delusion and reality?

Ha, good question.

“I” am an appearance of the moment. “I” come into existence through causality in the form of “I.” Same goes for “you” and your perception of me, etc, vice versa, and so on. When an individual does not understand that “I” -- or any other thing -- cannot possibly come into existence without its causes, then there is attachment, suffering and delusion.

When a individual does or does not understand, there is attachment suffering and delusion...because the individual is the source of attachment, suffering and delusion.

If, for instance, I do not understand this about frank, and I view “him” as an inherently existing thing, then I am likely to get all emotional (maybe love, maybe hate, maybe bored, etc.) over this appearance, especially since I am also likely to view myself in the same light: as a thing outside of causality.

Thinking of the ego is different than thinking of a tennis ball. A tennis ball has a form, and the only delusion about it is in your mind. The ego, however, doesn't have a form. It is the delusion. "You" can't see through the ego, because you are it! And "you" are an unreal event.

I know, it's hard to understand.

That might well be the way it appears to you, Scott. And, if it appears that way, then it appears that way. That is all you can be certain about, as far as I’m concerned, on the subject of “everyone” is unenlightened. Since to conclude that the “I” does not exist on the basis of what you apparently (gleaned from the logic implicit in the context of my understanding of your words so far) hold as the only type of existence -- objective existence -- is yet itself an appearance, and nothing more.

Like I alluded to before, the "I" doesn't appear. It isn't an object of awareness...it's a delusion.

Are you saying that when an individual considers self as inherent -- that is, without causes -- then there can be attachment? If you are, I agree.

Nope. You can consider yourself as real or unreal...but you are still considering yourself. Of course you can think, "I am unreal...a non-inherent thing" and still be attached to things. If you're honest with yourself, you can see that. Only the person who is free of the ego is free of attachment.

I agree that a philosopher could well be attached to thought but I think that in such cases the calibre of philosophy is very low. And, if the absence of attachment is the benchmark of enlightenment, then he too is unenlightened to that degree.

The absence of attachment isn't the benchmark of enlightenment, because then this kid would be considered enlightened...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ram_Bomjon

He even admits that he's not a Buddha. Nope, a person can seem to not have attachments, yet still be attached. This kid is probably attached to meditation and enlightenment. Only when all his attachments are completely dropped forever, will he have a chance at enlightenment.

And enlightenment is an absence of delusion...not attachments.

Agreed. However, there is something gnawing at me regarding the idea of "piercing through itself." The enlightened mind pierces through delusion. Just "who" this enlightened mind may or may not belong to is another question altogether.

Well "piercing through itself" is only some terminology for something I don't personally understand. I only see what needs to be done.

The self, being a delusion, must not be experienced in order for there to be enlightenment.

I call the delusion of self “Ego.” But that, by the definitions and thereby logic that I have used in this discussion, by no means implies they do not exist, unless you hold that only “solid objects” exist and any subjectivity -- such as “I” or “tennis ball” -- is delusion.

That may well be what I'm saying.

[sschaula]

Well, another old quote: realisation of mahamudra is like a snake uncoiling.

At first the snake is knotted up (samsara) but it's basic nature as a snake is not to be so. When it uncoils and assumes its natural shape, it is Buddha. So I stay with my first statement, that samsaric beings are Buddhas-in-waiting, as it were, playing deaf and dumb to their own essential nature.

Funny, I've only heard these ideas expressed in physical terms. I never heard anyone say it this way. Have you read the Hatha Yoga Pradipika?

As to being aware of ego, ego cannot. However, we can become aware of the process of ego and moreover aware of the process of awareness-aliveness that exists above and beyond the ego. But this is something that happens on many levels, only with full enlightenment the whole thing being seen through.

Agreed.

The buddhist notion of the Four Foundations of Mindfulness comes to mind: mindfulness of body, life process, effort and mind. But I think that's too much technical gibberish for this forum perhaps.

Yeah, at least personally I like things more "to the point".

In any case, self/ego is an illusory construct fictively put together with discursive habitual patterns. It is a movie on the screen with apparent, seeming continuity and solid storylines, but in fact a mass of fast-moving frames beamed through the projector. Our minds hear and see 'the story' of ego, and it all makes sense. But only because of our own story-making proclivities. Without such language, without the habitual grammar and syntax of ego-fictification, there would be no such thing. And it certainly is possible to see through it.

Funny, I just used that example in my post to Leyla. So you believe it's possible, too? Apparently Frank doesn't...so why he's here I don't know.

Often this happens with ordinary people, it is said, at the moment of death, orgasm or a sneeze. A car crash for that matter!

Good joke too, I suspect, the moment of laughter!

Once I had a "glimpse". I layed completely still for hours, following the Buddha's footsteps of staying beneath his tree. I told myself "I will not move until I have attained enlightenment!" I was laying on my bed in my room, and I imagined my parents coming in after a day wondering why I just sat still, and then them calling the paramedics who'd take me to a mental institute or something. I vowed that no matter what happened, I wouldn't move until I was enlightened.

So I didn't, and I surrendered everything I had...then it was like the world flipped inside out. The best way I can describe it is that my breath was breathing me. A good way to think about it is that the experience doesn't fit into my current mindset.

I wasn't ripe enough yet. That was an overwhelming insight I had, after I came out of the experience 30 seconds later.

It was more scary than something that'd make me laugh...however I'm sure that when a person is ripe it could make them laugh.

[frank]

L: Even frank’s Godforsaken, go-nowhere and unconscious “script” ranting is empty. He knows this, but cannot take it any further apart from to say "what are we to do," and then keep repeating his script, ad nauseum.

S: Empty of meaning, and empty of inherent existence. That's pretty empty!

Your Script is what you've got. The Contents of your Ego.

You are 'In' your own private Idaho...

It's hilarious.

frank

[sschaula]

You want to fight?