David,
sam: Ah, the appeal to authority.
DQ: How does stressing the importance of developing first-hand knowledge and expertise in enlightenment translate into "appealing to authority"? You've lost me there.
sam: You are dismissing me for not having first-hand knowledge which supposedly is your authority for doing so. Yet you don't demonstrate any knowledge yourself, you simply appeal to it as if you had it. Why not demonstrate it instead of appealing to it?
DQ: The demonstration of it is in the words that I write to this forum everyday.
I'm unimpressed. Don't appeal to authority. It makes you look bad.
I'm not suggesting that I am entirely without ego, but there is enough in my words to show that I speak with expertise, clarity, simplicity, and freedom of mind.
I've seen a number of questionable ideas from you on basic stuff. Let's see how the debate goes.
DQ: Give me an example of an enjoyment and I will show you the egotism that is involved.
sam: Eating a meal.
DQ: Depending on the person and the situation, there is: emotional relief in conquering hunger pains, the satisfaction of gaining energy and strength, the temporary casting aside of boredom, the distraction from worries and fears which occupy the mind, the guilty pleasure of eating rich food, the satisfaction that one has earned the money to pay for the food, the satisfaction that one is eating healthily, the desire to talk to others in the future about what one has eaten, etc.
sam: The point isn't that you can't make it about ego if that is your intent. The point is that it isn't NECESSARILY about ego. Many people eat because they are hungry. Satisfying hunger isn't about ego. Enlightened people get hungry too.
DQ: I'll say it again, if a person is fully enlightened and thoroughly free of the illusion of ego, then yes, his every single action is performed without ego, no matter what he does - eating, walking, talking, admonishing deluded posters, etc.
On the other hand, if he isn't fully enlightened and his mind is still spellbound by the ego, then his every action, without exception, is performed egotistically, no matter what he does - eating, walking, talking, admonishing deluded posters, etc.
There is never an instance where an unenlightened person performs without ego, no matter how pure he believes his actions to be.
Plainly we have different views.
The highest and purest action that an unenlightened person can perform is the intense searching for enlightenment with every shred of his being. Yet even this remains in the realm of egotistical activity. If, through this intense activity, he succeeds in becoming fully enlightened and completely frees himself from the illusion of ego, then yes, here, and only here, does he begin to behave without ego.
Your conceit is that you believe that you occasionally behave without ego, even though you are still unenlightened and thus still spellbound by the ego. This comes back to the fact that you are in denial about the deeper aspects of ego.
I think one difference between you and me is that you think acting without ego is some holy event only the enlightened may partake of. I don't see it as a big deal. I met a homeless guy on the street yesterday. I never give money to the homeless which is an ego response, they scare me. Yet this guy was able to immediately bring down all my defenses. I gave him money because I was no longer wrapped up in egoic fear about it. I know what it feels like to be in ego and I know when it isn't there. It's not the big deal you think it is. It's available to everyone all the time given just a little opening and receptivity. But without enlightenment, staying in that place is a matter of circumstance rather than an awakening.
sam: You are being arrogant by pretending I can't tell the difference between dogmatic religious prescriptions (please behave, I know what's good for you) and enlightenment teaching. That you would appeal to your so-called first-hand experience to get a pass on preaching dogma is pretty sad. If you want to pretend telling everyone what to do is a manifestation of enlightenment, well, compared to you, looking foolish is the last thing I'm worried about.
DQ: I neither put forth dogma, nor tell people what to do. You're barking up the wrong tree here. I might provoke, stimulate, attack, cajole, reason, etc, but that is an altogether different activity.
We got into this whole back-and-forth when I said the "dreamworld" you alluded to is fine if you're getting what you want. That didn't sit well with you and you responded by telling me of its dire consequences and that you would "prod and goad people into valuing wisdom regardless." I commented that telling others what to do is the work of politicians, not enlightenment teachers, which is where you tried to pull rank with experience. To set the record straight, I have no problem with you teaching others. I only say that enlightenment teaching is not concerned with the behavior of others. Religions concern themselves with behavior, enlightenment concerns itself with who is behaving. Now if you want to be concerned with others' behavior, fine. Just don't pretend that is about teaching enlightenment; enlightenment is not about better behavior.
sam: Show me a single enlightenment teacher who has based their teaching on how others should behave.
DQ: Jesus, Buddha, Chuang Tzu, Lao Tzu - they all did it. Even the quote you posted by Lao Tzu is full of advising people how they should behave.
For example:
If you want to be a great leader,
you must learn to follow the Tao.
Stop trying to control.
Let go of fixed plans and concepts,
and the world will govern itself.
sam: Huh? Are you serious? How can you post the quote and miss the words right in front of your face? STOP TRYING TO CONTROL. LET THE WORLD GOVERN ITSELF.
DQ: Nonetheless, he is putting forth prescriptions which he strongly suggests other people should follow. If I was unkind and argumentative, I could accuse Lao Tzu of being dogmatic and fixated upon telling other people what to do, based purely on what he writes here.
I think its disingenuous to say that Lao Tzu was trying to tell others what to do. You are trying to read a subtext into it which isn't there in order to justify a personal viewpoint. The Tao Te Ching is poetry, not pronouncements. If you read it that way, you get religion. And if you don't see the difference between a religion like Christianity and an enlightenment teaching like the Tao, I don't think you would make a very good teacher.
sam: Oh, and in case your arrogance will proclaim those words as a prescription for behavior, need I remind you of your original assertion ... I don't really care what people want. I'm still going to prod and goad people into valuing wisdom regardless.
DQ: I doubt that Lao Tzu really cared what most people wanted either. After all, he made it plain that he thought most people were fools.
Nor was he concerned with goading people into valuing what he had to say.
DQ: In other words, Lao Tzu advises those who want to be great leaders (i.e. become enlightened) should learn to follow the Tao, stop trying to control the world, and let go of fixed plans and concepts. How much more prescriptive can you get?
sam: Are you really this clueless? You say you can tell others how to behave and that conforms with not trying to control anyone? You are the one imposing your fixed plans and concepts on others. This is pretty pathetic. You need to brush up on your A=A.
DQ: I do it no more than Lao Tzu did. If I was really interested in controlling people, I would be engaging in another career path. I would be a politician or a religious guru, for example. Like Lao Tzu, I provoke and stimulate people, without seeking to control them.
Again, I was taking exception with your concern for others' behavior. There is nothing wrong with the concern. It's just not what enlightenment is about.
DQ: So for what reason does a person surrender? Why does he choose to surrender as opposed to, say, bashing his head against a tree trunk?
sam: I already said, the ego doesn't surrender. It bargains. It wants a better deal. Surrender is about finding that place that isn't about ego. From that place there is surrender.
DQ: If it is the ego which doesn't surrender, then who does?
I already responded to this with Sapius. Imagine you and I were discussing awakening but in the context of a dream. And you were to say, "well, if it isn't you who awakens, who does? No one awakens just as no one surrenders. It doesn't mean there isn't awakening or surrendering, just that the ego has nothing to do with either one.
sam: If you want to think about surrender in terms of ego, think about someone who has just lost everything in a fire or storm. What do you do in such a circumstance? Can the ego get a better deal than nothing? Sometimes nothing is the only deal in town and when you see that, sometimes, not always but sometimes, the liberation you never wanted and never believed in, suddenly appears.
DQ: At the moment, I can't discern anything that you might have lost. You seem to engage in all the normal worldly pursuits that every Tom, Dick and Harry engages in. What exactly was the nature of your loss which led to your surrender?
Here was a time when I surrendered. I was traveling in a foreign country and missed a connection at an airport. I didn't speak the language. The airport itself was chaos, I had no idea where to go or what to do or how I was going to get out of there. There in fact was nothing to do. The ego had reached a dead-end. I simply sat down and waited. In ten minutes, I overheard a conversation taking place in English. I went up to the speaker. He was a native, there with his wife and friends, speaking English however because he was seeing the friends off who only spoke English. After describing my plight, he said he could help. He got me a new ticket for a flight the next day, took me home to share their apartment overnight, got me to the airport the next day, made sure I would make the flight and then refused money when I offered it for all his help (I gave it to him anyway). You can call that luck if you want but it was plainly more than that to me. And it's an example of what can happen when you surrender to what you can't control. And note that it wasn't really me who surrendered, the circumstances "surrendered me." Can those circumstances be cultivated? I don't know. I do know an ego would never consciously go there. I would never have missed my connection on purpose just to see what would happen. I also know that people do have practices around surrendering, such as Mother Teresa. What I see going on is that egos go as far as they can go. Some just go in circles, endlessly, but others reach a point where there is a realization that if there is to be a next step, "I" can't do that. I don't know how that realization operates in each individual. You have to find that out for yourself.
Or has it even happened yet? You did say you were unenlightened, so I suppose this means that it hasn't.
No, I'm not enlightened.
