Death Is

[Ryan Rudolph]

Jason wrote:

This type of scientific-like causation is uncertain. It's not possible to prove that this domino effect actually occurs, it's not possible to know with absolute certainty that cause 1 creates effect 2, it's not possible to know for certain that flicking the light switch causes the light bulb to begin to glow. Undermining the ego with these ideas is useless if what you seek is certainty. The early parts of David's "Wisdom of the Infinite" make this mistake.

I agree with Jason, you couldn’t be absolutely certain that the domino effect actually occurs. It’s incredibly one-dimensional and time-based. Linear thinking wont get you anywhere.

For instance with my birth:

There are an infinite number of causal relationships that contributed to my birth. I cannot pinpoint one and say “Eureka, this one is it!” In the end I cannot be certain what is the cause of all this, the totality is both caused and uncaused. The mind must rest in paradox.

We only learn causality as a means to drop into a state of being where causality is no longer needed, into a state of emptiness.

Beingof1 wrote:

It is like believing in the boundaries of nations, they only exist in a conceptual frame of reference. There is no boundary between you and everything.

The way you have just defined it, I agree with. I took the statement literally as in: I am everything therefore I can perceive everything. This is not correct. All I can perceive is what is outside my window, I cannot perceive what is happening across the world.

To have a human brain is incredibly limiting, The brain is an arse, a handicapped instrument. The mind is beyond the brain, but that is another metaphysical discussion.

A handicapped brain is like a tiny weak stream trying to gain the same intense momentum as a strong white rapid river, but the stream has too much sediment deposited along its banks, its depths are shallow, and it lacks the steep slope necessary for the dissent so it abandons the trek to the infinite ocean and simply links up to a larger river.

This is the tragedy of many seekers. They would rather link up to a larger river than gain the fierce momentum necessary to make it to the ocean themselves.

This is the danger of hero worship such as Jesus, Kierkegaard and the whole gang.

“The man who constantly quotes others is afraid to be solely dependent on his own thoughts”

Author: Not Cosmic Prostitute

[Leyla Shen]

Scott wrote:

The truth here is one type of truth...it's absolute. A priori. There's no way to deny any of the truth. It's higher than any other truth, because it precedes all other truth. If one has integrated this truth into their every waking second they have truly attained the highest state of mind.

How does someone integrate this truth, though? How does a person know they are a fluctuation of nature while they get cut off in traffic and their mouth begins cursing, their mind begins flaring? How do they understand that their nature envelops the entire universe and all of them is formlessness taking shape, while they talk to their friends about the weekend?

I cut someone off in traffic today.

Where I live, the roads planning has left a lot to be desired since they’ve opened up countless new estates here now. Consequently, what used to be a quiet -- but the only -- road out into the arterials of the greater suburbs has now become a nightmare. Every morning, an endless row of cars banks up for miles trying to get out. This particular t-intersection is in dire need of traffic lights. It’s dog-eat-dog. Any small break and you have to gun a left turn onto the main road. Forget the attempt to turn right (remembering that we drive on the opposite side of the roads here to the US) there in the mornings. It just ain’t gonna happen. So, I saw a break. Noticed that this bird was probably doing a little over the speed limit and estimated that she had enough time to break without causing a collision. Off I went. Only to be indignantly hooted by her. Course, I was in no mood for anyone’s crap this morning, given my 15-year-old’s insistence that by hooting him on this very same morning caused him angst and proved, therefore, how rotten I was for doing so, since he’d -- once again -- forgotten where he had put his science book and the rest of us should just patiently wait in the car forever until he found it. Never mind the fact that I have constantly suggested that he organise himself the night before each day if he truly prefers a morning without such angst. So, I looked in my rear vision mirror and noticed this dumb fuck waving her arms about and I slammed on my breaks, got out of the car, watching her as she now locked her doors and held onto her steering wheel. She had a funny sort of smile now as she looked out of the top of her car window, from behind her dark brown sunglasses, wound down about 3 inches. Give a woman a car horn and she thinks she can take on the world, until the world stops and looks back at her, that is. I had some words for her, like: “Why don‘t you slow the fuck down and show some courtesy since you surely must know how bad this intersection can get…” Needless to say, she never got out of her car. What she did do, once I had turned off this (now) main road, was toot her horn again as she sped by. I guess she figured she was safe, until she had to stop some 10 metres later because the distance she enjoyed occurred only due to the fact that our little confrontation had allowed the traffic in front of me to move on and clear a bit of roadway by doing so.

I reckon the difference between her and I is that I was exactly aware of who I was, but she wasn’t. The ego -- being a non-inherent construction of the moment that defines it -- fools people like her into thinking that they exist at any given time in and of themselves and, therefore, deserve as some sort of God-given right, right of way.

That’s why I don’t give a fuck about the “morality” of others, and those who would accuse me of being egoistic when they don’t have the faintest idea of what it means. They are lifeless apparitions who suck the substance out of the words of wise men with their shallow, stinking and very dead breath.

You must understand what is meant by ego. That understanding can only be integrated into one’s existence with thought -- reason. We can give each other words enough, but we cannot give each other the means to think.

bert wrote to another thread:

is it the 'otherness' within ourselves that make us loathe others?

No, bert. It is the “otherness” in others that makes them loathesome. That you have come to loathe yourself so much that you must deny self is not enlightenment. Don’t kid yourself, resting your conscience in the ego that positions itself as non-separate -- the universe, light and love -- is no less deluded than any other. That you find yourself partial to some form of emotion rather than another is not wisdom.

More on this later, Scott.

[sschaula]

Leyla,

I cut someone off in traffic today...

I do it sometimes, as well. I think what we do isn't a good indicator of our wisdom, but our reactions to what others do is. No negative reaction usually means you're wise, or else just indifferent to whatever particular circumstance...or both!

The golden rule of morality (do to others what you'd have them do to you) usually stems from hoping that life will go a certain way, and is definitely based in egoism.

I reckon the difference between her and I is that I was exactly aware of who I was, but she wasn’t. The ego -- being a non-inherent construction of the moment that defines it -- fools people like her into thinking that they exist at any given time in and of themselves and, therefore, deserve as some sort of God-given right, right of way.

I don't think there's any difference between her and you, at least in terms of ego having its hold. You are definitely smarter than you've made her out to be. So there's the difference between you two.

I know you're under ego's grip because you say "I reckon", "her and I", "I was", "who I was". Of course someone not under "the grip" can say such things, but any time you're thinking it, you're deluded.

Who reckons?

You say "her and I" like you are the same type of thing as her. You are a part of reality, and not the whole of it?

"I was"? Are you different now?

"Who I was"...who were you? You're making it sound as if you were a piece of this pie called life. Come on Leyla! If you're made of strawberries, sugar and dough then know that the rest of the pie is as well.

Anyone who thinks "I am so great because I know that I am not the ego!" is truly under the grip of the ego. Who is so great that isn't the ego? Who knows that is not the ego? WHO is not the ego??

Read that last question again....who isn't the ego? How can you not be something that doesn't exist?

That’s why I don’t give a fuck about the “morality” of others, and those who would accuse me of being egoistic when they don’t have the faintest idea of what it means.

This doesn't make sense to me. It seems like you're angry at these people, especially when you say....

They are lifeless apparitions who suck the substance out of the words of wise men with their shallow, stinking and very dead breath.

"You" are also a lifeless apparition, so long as they're lifeless apparitions. What makes you better than them? What makes you have life, that they don't have? Does your breath never smell in the morning? Mine certainly does smell. You never have shallow breath? So you're always breathing really deep? Don't you get light headed?

But seriously...it seems like you sound mad at normal people. I don't see why an egoless person would be mad. I think they'd just....be...don't you?

You must understand what is meant by ego.

What is your definition of it?

That understanding can only be integrated into one’s existence with thought -- reason.

I agree with that. Just some reasoning doesn't shake a person, though. Reasoning that integrates into one's existence has to be FULLY understood, so that all false concepts are obliterated in its presence. Until then, the ego dominates us.

You said to Bert,

Don’t kid yourself, resting your conscience in the ego that positions itself as non-separate -- the universe, light and love -- is no less deluded than any other. That you find yourself partial to some form of emotion rather than another is not wisdom.

I agree with that.

A good test of the New Age enlightenment is to see whether a person talks about their attainments and realizations, or not. If they don't, they're probably enlightened. Vedanta, as we always see on this forum, is such an easy trap to fall into when seeking true wisdom. I fell into that trap once. Unwise fell into it, and speaks about it in his (her?) topics recently. It's easy to read "Your consciousness is God and you are just like the Buddha", and think that you're enlightened. It's hard to hear that you're not enlightened. People eventually come to test themselves when their desire for truth kicks in, and they see that a person absorbed in God wouldn't necessarily care if someone cuts them off in traffic, or says they're unenlightened. They start becoming honest with themselves when that desire for understanding truth kicks in.

More on this later, Scott.

If you insist. What else is there to talk about on this?

[MKFaizi]

I am getting old. I never cut anyone or anything off in traffic.

Today, I was coming home and a ground hog ran out in front of me. Had I had no choice but to kill it, I could live with that fact. But I had a choice. I braked.

I felt sorry for the creature because he had some awareness. He stopped in front of me and his head turned from left to right and left to right and in front and back -- trying to make a decision. Had he continued onward, the car on the other side would have hit him. He may have heard my brakes. He scurried backwards to the shoulder from where he had come.

Split second decision on his part.

Not much different from the split second decisions made by many humans.

I believe in mercy if it can be given. I expect no mercy and I have received none.

Faizi

[bert]

leyla:

bert wrote to another thread:

Quote:
is it the 'otherness' within ourselves that make us loathe others?


No, bert. It is the “otherness” in others that makes them loathesome. That you have come to loathe yourself so much that you must deny self is not enlightenment. Don’t kid yourself, resting your conscience in the ego that positions itself as non-separate -- the universe, light and love -- is no less deluded than any other. That you find yourself partial to some form of emotion rather than another is not wisdom.

More on this later, Scott.

on the 'otherness' :
how can you be someone else?Ego can be bypassed?you were not the cause of your actions?
-what is there to believe,but in Self?
-actions are the expressions of ideas bound up in the belief;they being inherent are obscure,their operation indirect,easily they deceive introspection.
-Ego:a contra-reflective symbol of the noumenal becoming furtile from our own inexhaustible refractibility.Ego is a power of conjuctivity,a second-hand reality of the noumenal,functionally divergent from the original:a fluxing all directional appetence,connective by all 'as if';equivalents becoming directive by disparities.

Do I loathe myself?Do I deny self?am I seeking for Enlightenment?
-Again,what is there to believe,but in Self?
we are what we believe and what it implies by a process of time in the conception,creation is caused by this bondage to formula.
-when I fail to see myself in all things,then shall I prey for enlightenment.till then,I am a misologist.

Don’t kid yourself, resting your conscience in the ego that positions itself as non-separate -- the universe, light and love -- is no less deluded than any other.

here dwelleth delusion: a man sees a coiled rope and imagines it a snake,and thereby is afraid and runs away in terror.the rope is real,and still a rope;the fear suffered with the reaction is also real although bred of imagination.The delusion was caused by poor observation.Yet some would have it that things are not what they appear to our casual glance,or because 'reality' does not entirely disclose itself at once - therefore everything is illusion.It proves that
our imaginings from illusion are real in as much as they react on us in the same manner as if from reality.

yet,you did not understand me.
He that truly please himself is without virtue,and shall satisfy all men.Hate,jealousy,murder,etc.are conditions of love,even as virtue,greed,selfishness,suicide,etc.are conditions of not pleasing one's self.There is no sin more sickening than love,for it is the very essence of covetousness and the mother of all sin,hence it has the most devotees.Self-love only is pure and without congregation.

do you comprehend it?

That you find yourself partial to some form of emotion rather than another is not wisdom.

happiness is wisdom.
wisdom is the mysterieus incomprehensibility of all things,whoever the designer,he is the generator,and all the partial disclosiers of knowledge prove this.

[bert]

leyla:

Don’t kid yourself, resting your conscience in the ego that positions itself as non-separate -- the universe, light and love -- is no less deluded than any other.

Ego,with all its varying degrees of consciousness,is our light in the darkness of the unseen and unknown,for it has infinite relatability that will replenish our light.

[bert]

leyla:

no,bert.It is the “otherness” in others that makes them loathesome.

our evidence of separate existence lies in our reaction to things;my feeling is my apperception,i.e. Ego;for what I feel is 'consciousness as I',which may not be felt by anyone else.

[bert]

leyla:

That you have come to loathe yourself so much that you must deny self is not enlightenment.

may I promote?:
when one sees one's reflection everywhere and sees everything in oneself,one becomes a stoic...or a backslider to all pretences.
something I like.

[Leyla Shen]

Scott,

You know what I like about you? There’s someone actually there. A person with whom one can have a real discussion. Not like when you talk to these people who insist (even as they’re talking to you, mind) that they don’t exist -- they are everything, including you (telepathic, even; causing your very own existence) -- yet still attempt to come off as wise whilst engaging in this delusion. You ever noticed how hard it is to engage in an actual conversation -- an exchange of ideas -- with these types of people? One wonders why they make any noise at all.

So, there’s this rule apparently: you can only be non-existent when other people are non-existent. If these originally non-existent people "suddenly" develop an ego during the course of a discussion with you, the reason for that is because you (not they - they being everything) don't exist but you (somehow suddenly not part of everything) just don't seem to get that.

Must be hard to, at the same time, be everything and, thus, everyone except a few people you don't like for one reason or another.

If you insist. What else is there to talk about on this?

Oh, yes, I insist.

For example:

L: You must understand what is meant by ego.

S: What is your definition of it?

However, it will be more than a single-line definition. Might even be a thread unto itself, inspired by several current threads/discussions.

[R. Steven Coyle]

Leyla,

You shun all that you don't understand!

Why do you deceive yourself so throughly?

[R. Steven Coyle]

Even with an ego, you can still be "everything."

Does a little suffering eliminate Truth?

[Leyla Shen]

Oh, shut up, Steven. You have no idea what I'm talking about.

[R. Steven Coyle]

With only mind, you are creating other people.

You are the other people.

The untrained ego separates self from non-self.

[R. Steven Coyle]

Really?

[Leyla Shen]

If I were right in front of you at this moment, I'd smack you over the head with something really heavy.

Your short platitudes are very telling. I know it gets tough for you when you try to write more than one sentence, but:

Put some beef into it, son, then I may treat you like a man: a philosopher.

[R. Steven Coyle]

Now, Leyla, come now.

Would you respect me if I cowered to your mode of expression?

You wouldn't. You would respect yourself.

Right now, simplicity suits me.

[Leyla Shen]

Steven wrote:

Would you respect me if I cowered to your mode of expression?

The untrained ego separates self from non-self.

Explain yourself.

[R. Steven Coyle]

Steven wrote:

Would you respect me if I cowered to your mode of expression?

The untrained ego separates self from non-self.

Explain yourself.

The distinction between where we begin, and where we end is the great illusion. Since all of creation is experienced solely within our own mind, the conclusion may be reached: We are everything. Non-duality is thus acheived, and the flux of Nature is our very own.

[Leyla Shen]

Man, you're hard work.

The distinction between where we begin, and where we end is the great illusion.

Why, then, do you insist on a distinction (a beginning and an end) between you and I -- you cowering to my mode of expression and alluding to the possibility that you can gain respect from me -- in the same breath as accusing me of not understanding the idea in question?

Since all of creation is experienced solely within our own mind, the conclusion may be reached: We are everything. Non-duality is thus acheived, and the flux of Nature is our very own.

So, you -- or the "we" that exists in your own mind -- are the Totality experiencing itself: is that right?

(bert, I'll reply to you soon.)

[R. Steven Coyle]

Man, you're hard work.

Me?

S: The distinction between where we begin, and where we end is the great illusion.

L: Why, then, do you insist on a distinction (a beginning and an end) between you and I -- you cowering to my mode of expression and alluding to the possibility that you can gain respect from me -- in the same breath as accusing me of not understanding the idea in question?

I still have a mind. The illusion of separateness is only that, in and of itself.

S: Since all of creation is experienced solely within our own mind, the conclusion may be reached: We are everything. Non-duality is thus acheived, and the flux of Nature is our very own.

L: So, you -- or the "we" that exists in your own mind -- are the Totality experiencing itself: is that right?

Yeah, that's "it."

[sschaula]

Leyla,

You know what I like about you? There’s someone actually there. A person with whom one can have a real discussion. Not like when you talk to these people who insist (even as they’re talking to you, mind) that they don’t exist -- they are everything, including you (telepathic, even; causing your very own existence) -- yet still attempt to come off as wise whilst engaging in this delusion.

Well, I'm just honest. Glad someone likes it.

You ever noticed how hard it is to engage in an actual conversation -- an exchange of ideas -- with these types of people? One wonders why they make any noise at all.

That's why I asked bert and Steven what they were talking about. It isn't their fault, though. They want to be better and understand, it's just that they haven't uncovered the means. I haven't yet forgotten where I came from. I was in the same boat as they are in now. I know that I was a person, and I desperately wanted to understand. I tried crazy things, like lying down without moving for hours on end, thinking that would bring me the unshakeable state of enlightenment. I laid there, still as I could be, only breathing and thinking, for many hours. It became so stressful that I just wanted to die, so, all the more reason to lay there. I laid until I gave myself up completely to the whims of the world, and the world flipped inside out, in my mind, and I saw that there wasn't a self. Then the experience ended and I still seek an unshakeable enlightenment.

I did this back when I was a beginner seeker, when I spouted off all the nonduality Advaita Vedanta new age not-understanding-Buddhism shit.

So I understand where these people are coming from. They're just like you and I, and I assure you that they do have selves. Their selves are very apparent to them, and they desperately seek liberation from that illusion and they desperately want to know the truth.

In a sense I'm still there with them....in the same boat. It's just that I've been in the boat for a while and know that we have a pair of oars.

So, there’s this rule apparently: you can only be non-existent when other people are non-existent. If these originally non-existent people "suddenly" develop an ego during the course of a discussion with you, the reason for that is because you (not they - they being everything) don't exist but you (somehow suddenly not part of everything) just don't seem to get that.

Good thing they're here at the forum for truth.

Must be hard to, at the same time, be everything and, thus, everyone except a few people you don't like for one reason or another.

What's harder is coming to terms with the fact that you're very wrong.

However, it will be more than a single-line definition. Might even be a thread unto itself, inspired by several current threads/discussions.

Sounds good to me, lets go for it.

[R. Steven Coyle]

Scott,

What does this statement mean to you:

I am in the clouds.

Or, this,

The orange crescent moon preceded my despair.

[unwise]

Shen,

I advise you to take your non-inherent ego over to a non-inherent doctor and get some non-inherent medication to calm down before you hurt some non-inherent people and give your non-inherent son lots of non-inherent problems.

[suergaz]

In letting go our meaning, in letting ourselves go, we hazard chance, we revel in it, make it our own. We were always philosophers, dancers, drummers. Wisdom loved us from the beginning. We cannot remember crawling! Above cloud, above platitudes, who wouldn't accuse us of them?

We only favour antagonism as far as we desire to show our mastery of it.

[suergaz]

Unwise, Leyla is a good mother. A wendy to us lost boys. She's a match for all kinds of piratical personages, I trust her poets heart.