No ego = bullshit

[skipair]

How can something be which is not universally true be universally true "for" someone? We don't determine what is universally true and what's not.

We do in terms of our morality. If that morality includes logic then all the points you're making are very relevant. But for most people, morality is more emotional than logical, and while they might use bad logic to help justify it, logic really has nothing to do their choices. In this sense, whatever things they hold in high moral regard, again like romantic or family love, will ALWAYS be true for them and will steer their experience accordingly until different values/morals are cultivated. The same is true for valuing logic.

[baulz owt]

find myself in a world of business, where I'm free to exert MY values upon the world without a bad conscience.

u gan be a rock star, Skip?

[Matt Gregory]

I'd like to reframe this discussion because I think it's kind of vague and that's why it's not going anywhere. I just want to explain how I define things in order to resolve this on my own terms. I assume we're talking about enlightenment.

The ego includes everything that impedes or prevents enlightenment. So what impedes or prevents enlightenment? It's false beliefs.

Values aren't true or false, so they're not included in the ego. Values are just phenomena that are caused. They could be justified with logic sometimes, but they don't have to be. Values are just what a consciousness directs behavior towards. The more conscious something is, the more focus it has, so the more it values the things it values.

Emotions come from values, but false beliefs are also necessary for emotions to arise. Values don't rely on false beliefs, they just rely on consciousness. So, you can get rid of emotions without getting rid of values. Emotions might drive consciousness to choose behavior that pursues its values, but consciousness can choose to do this without emotions, too.

It doesn't matter if the universe has no values. We want to understand the universe, but we don't want to try to behave like the universe. That wouldn't make much sense. We're either a small piece of the universe, so we need to behave like a small body the universe, or if we think of ourselves as the entire universe, such as when we think of all our causal connections to everything, then we already behave like the universe.

My 2 cents. I hope it wasn't too abstract.

[Nick]

No, I see it as an ego geared toward truth. I see what I call ego as constant just as preferences are constant in experience, but through truth-preference it's seen that no preferences in anything have inherent value.

Does that include the preference to operate egotistically? If one isn't operating delusionally, which is possible, then one must be operating truthfully, and to the extent that one operates truthfully is the extent to which they are without ego. So when one is operating 100% truthfully the ego is necessarily eliminated. This is a logically possible scenario. That it seems unlikely to happen in our current state does not disprove the idea of a perfectly enlightened being's existence.

Empirical analysis of my own spiritual and philosophical development sheds some light on this. When I first began understanding what is ultimately true, my ego was still firmly rooted and able to become very excited and reach emotional highs quite easily by this new information, which in turn made it easy to progress very quickly down the spiritual path. But as I mulled over and refined my understanding of truth, much of the things that once drove me in life, like the ego, were exposed as mental creations that lacked any inherent existence and meaning outside of what I gave them, essentially taking my legs right out from underneath me in a full sprint. I think this is what makes enlightenment so hard. The very thing that motivates and excites you to uncover absolute truth is being destroyed in the process, making it harder and harder to push one's self down the path to complete and total enlightenment. I believe this shows that the ego's sphere of influence is able to be reduced, and in theory, eliminated.

I feel like I've been released from a bondage of sorts, and now find myself in a world of business, where I'm free to exert MY values upon the world without a bad conscience.

A bit like: First there were other's values, then there were no values, then there were MY values.

I think you've taken fact that there is ultimately no value, purpose, or meaning to reality and turned it into the foundation of your life with the sole purpose of enhancing your ego, instead of getting to the bottom of things-refining your understanding of truth-and following its logical implications to the very end. It's really no surprise then that you think the ego can not be diminished or eliminated when you've only strengthened your ego through the use of philosophy. Despite your claim that it's all about you now, I don't think you've made philosophy personal enough. If you really want to find out if enlightenment is possible, then it's time to turn the sword of reason on yourself and commit spiritual suicide.

[skipair]

u gan be a rock star, Skip?

YEAH!!!

[Loki]

I'll even be the first to admit that these things dominate most aspects of my life.

I would argue that they dominate ALL aspects, and that the conception of a perfectly enlightened Buddha without ego has no reality outside of the imagination.

Really? Dominate ALL aspects? I don't think that's necessarily true. I mean, if I compare myself with the average human, they believe much more in the self than I do. So when one is a hard core believer in self, then yes ego would dominate all aspects of their life, but for a truth seeker who has an understanding about the delusional nature of self, it logically follows that the ego would be less dominating of his life.

I think the ego is involved in every aspect of my life, but I wouldn't be so quick to say it dominates all those aspects. I know the ego's true nature, so it doesn't fool me as much as it used to, making it much less dominating. What do you think?

I think you have two egos, the bad one and the good one. The good one is the sense of self which extends far past the normal boundaries that people usually project, and the bad self is the more traditional sense of self that most people have. In the end, there is no escaping the sense of me. Whatever it is you experience, that is you. Your identity can be very broad, or it can be petty. But identity (self) cannot be escaped.

[skipair]

MG, I like your post. The only issues I take with it are first: I don't think I've ever made any progress by thinking about or going after "enlightenment". For me it sets up a construct-building mentality to try and resolve the mystery of what the term could mean. If it's going to mean anything useful for me, it just means clarifying things that already exist, just for the sake of clarity. It's not like there's a journey to reach a land of purity, it's just seeing where we already are and becoming more conscious about how it works. There's no real mystery to uncover, no prize to go for, no attainment to be had. This isn't a critique on what you said but just my response to it for my own sake and whoever might benefit.

Second is the definition of emotion. For me it's been more useful to think of being in "states" than in emotions, and I think by definition we are always in one state or another. These states all involve feeling in some form, but may not be so intense as to overwhelm the mind and to call them love or hate.

[skipair]

Does that include the preference to operate egotistically?

Of course, but as I've been trying to argue, we don't have a choice in the matter. I think it's how consciousness works: not only to make distinctions but to have personal preferences about them.

If one isn't operating delusionally, which is possible, then one must be operating truthfully, and to the extent that one operates truthfully is the extent to which they are without ego. So when one is operating 100% truthfully the ego is necessarily eliminated. This is a logically possible scenario. That it seems unlikely to happen in our current state does not disprove the idea of a perfectly enlightened being's existence.

Truthfully to me means operating consciously, actually knowing what you're talking about and doing, which ironically really amounts to having no knowledge at all. If this to you means no ego but you also recognize that this talking and doing has to do with personal desires none-the-less then we are in agreement.

I think you've taken fact that there is ultimately no value, purpose, or meaning to reality and turned it into the foundation of your life with the sole purpose of enhancing your ego,

If you extend the ego definition to include those desires I mentioned above, then I say yes, absolutely I have strengthened my ego. And I've done this ON PURPOSE.

Let's say that I haven't gotten to the bottom of things, and I haven't in the sense that I am NOT totally clear about every little aspect about my reality, regardless this is still a reasonable decision that is in my best interest. The reason why is that I've yet to see any evidence that my statement about a meaningless universe is WRONG, yet to see any evidence that ALL values including logic are of no ultimate value but of PERSONAL SELF-INTEREST, and yet to see any reason that I should revoke this freedom of being unswayed by adversity, just by the fact of it being adversity. If that means the sole purpose was enhancing my ego then I say DAMN RIGHT. What is the alternative? Continue without full expression of my views? Continue to create problems out of nothing? Continue to believe in universal morals? I DON'T THINK SO! :)

A large focus of GF, as I see it, is basically a trick to get people's minds pointed more toward questioning their beliefs with reason. Enlightenment is like a donut in front of a treadmill. I'm not sure this is the best way to go about encouraging it, but I do see ruthlessly questioning personal beliefs as the most worthwile activity a person can fill their life with, not only because it's played an ENORMOUS role in my own life, but because I've found people who've had a life that successfully allows them to do the same are much more fun to spend time with than people who haven't. It takes the CRAZINESS out of a person.

If you really want to find out if enlightenment is possible, then it's time to turn the sword of reason on yourself and commit spiritual suicide.

This sounds awesome, and it is an excellent donut. But you don't have to temp me, I'm already caught. Do I also like other things? SURE!!! Do I still think reasoning is most important? YES!!!

[Matt Gregory]

MG, I like your post. The only issues I take with it are first: I don't think I've ever made any progress by thinking about or going after "enlightenment". For me it sets up a construct-building mentality to try and resolve the mystery of what the term could mean. If it's going to mean anything useful for me, it just means clarifying things that already exist, just for the sake of clarity. It's not like there's a journey to reach a land of purity, it's just seeing where we already are and becoming more conscious about how it works. There's no real mystery to uncover, no prize to go for, no attainment to be had.

Well, hmm. You can't really make any progress without a goal, but of course the need of a goal isn't enough reason to believe in something. I've always believed in it. I've always believed that there's a fundamental nature of reality and that we can make it shine through our consciousness. But if you don't see enough evidence to believe it then you won't.

You have to believe it if you want to achieve it, though. That much is for sure. You have to keep your eye on the ball. It's a huge goal, though. It can take 5, 10, 20 or more years of solid effort to reach it. If you're totally committed and you work on it for 16 hours a day, you might be able to reach it in 5 years if you're fortunate. So it's kind of meaningless to say you've tried it for a little while and it didn't get you anywhere.

It's okay to build mental constructs of it while you're searching for it. You can't hope to reach the goal in one fell swoop, you have to take things one step at a time. Your mental constructs will keep you on track and you'll refine them as you learn more and more. They're like a raft that gets you across a river. Once you reach the other side you won't need the raft anymore and you can discard it. But if you discard it before you cross the river, then you'll never get across.

Second is the definition of emotion. For me it's been more useful to think of being in "states" than in emotions, and I think by definition we are always in one state or another. These states all involve feeling in some form, but may not be so intense as to overwhelm the mind and to call them love or hate.

Emotions are states that are distinct from other states because they arise from false beliefs about the nature of reality. If you don't want to think about enlightenment, then I guess you can just ignore the distinction and live emotionally if you want. It's entirely your choice.

[skipair]

I've always believed in it. I've always believed that there's a fundamental nature of reality and that we can make it shine through our consciousness.

WTF? Why would you believe this? This is a perfect example of what I mean by creating a mental phantom and chasing after it. This is an ERROR because there is no fundamental nature of reality, at least not in any sense that you haven't already experienced at every single moment of your life already. A curiosity and interest in clarification should be enough. This means putting a STOP to creating value hierarchies to make enough room in the mind to examine the ones you already have.

You are already using one RIGHT NOW as you read this. Why are you doing it, where does it come from, does it have a use?

You have to believe it if you want to achieve it, though. That much is for sure. You have to keep your eye on the ball. It's a huge goal, though. It can take 5, 10, 20 or more years of solid effort to reach it. If you're totally committed and you work on it for 16 hours a day, you might be able to reach it in 5 years if you're fortunate.

More bullshit. :( Who told you this, and why do you believe them? Are you enlightened and know from experience that it can take 5 fortunate years or maybe even 20? What if I log 24 hour sessions every third day for 3 years, will I be halfway? Will I have to go to time management classes?

How long have you been at this and why haven't you figured it out yet? Did you just not want to put in the hours? Were you just unlucky? Are you on the part-time, 20 year plan? Have you considered that what you believe in may be the problem? WHY do you believe those things? Because of THAT? Why do you believe THAT? Because of THAT? WHY?

I guess telling someone about all the time stuff could be inspirational. WOW, what a BIG DEAL it must be!!! But by that point, if someone doesn't already have the natural curiosity I doubt it'd be very effective. That is MY experience though, maybe you've have success with it.

Gotta get to the kids early! Who wants to start a private elementary school with me?!?!?!?!

It's okay to build mental constructs of it while you're searching for it. You can't hope to reach the goal in one fell swoop, you have to take things one step at a time. Your mental constructs will keep you on track and you'll refine them as you learn more and more. They're like a raft that gets you across a river. Once you reach the other side you won't need the raft anymore and you can discard it. But if you discard it before you cross the river, then you'll never get across.

Why do you think this? Is this what you know from experience or did someone tell you? If you build a construct to chase after how do you know you're going the right way? What if you didn't build a construct but instead examined the ones you already had? I think there are enough already.

Emotions are states that are distinct from other states because they arise from false beliefs about the nature of reality.

That's how you define it? I will remember that to make any future conversations between us more efficient!!!

[jupiviv]

How can something be which is not universally true be universally true "for" someone? We don't determine what is universally true and what's not.

We do in terms of our morality. If that morality includes logic then all the points you're making are very relevant. But for most people, morality is more emotional than logical, and while they might use bad logic to help justify it, logic really has nothing to do their choices. In this sense, whatever things they hold in high moral regard, again like romantic or family love, will ALWAYS be true for them and will steer their experience accordingly until different values/morals are cultivated. The same is true for valuing logic.

They're still not determining what is universally true. What is "true" to them is not universally true.

[jupiviv]

Well, hmm. You can't really make any progress without a goal, but of course the need of a goal isn't enough reason to believe in something. I've always believed in it. I've always believed that there's a fundamental nature of reality and that we can make it shine through our consciousness. But if you don't see enough evidence to believe it then you won't.

Some people are meant to be enlightened, others are not. The rift between the two is arbitrary, albeit being indeterminable by no one but God.

Therefore, the people who are chosen to be sages reach enlightenment easily and swiftly. There isn't even an effort on their part. They are already on the other side of the river; they only wake up. Therefore, to have goals is useless. If you are meant to be enlightened, you will be.

[Nick]

I think you have two egos, the bad one and the good one. The good one is the sense of self which extends far past the normal boundaries that people usually project, and the bad self is the more traditional sense of self that most people have.

We can identify ourselves with whatever we want depending on what we are trying to accomplish or express. Saying that identifying with one thing is good, and another is bad implies they have inherent qualities, which is false thinking.

In the end, there is no escaping the sense of me. Whatever it is you experience, that is you. Your identity can be very broad, or it can be petty. But identity (self) cannot be escaped.

We are conscious beings, and because of that we are bound to distinguish our consciousness from the things it is not, it is completely natural. That doesn't mean we have to believe in it's inherent existence, and thus the ego.

[Nick]

Does that include the preference to operate egotistically?

Of course, but as I've been trying to argue, we don't have a choice in the matter. I think it's how consciousness works: not only to make distinctions but to have personal preferences about them.

How is the simple act of making distinctions, something all conscious beings are bound to do, necessarily egotistical? Isn't this the nature of consciousness just like it's the nature of trees to grow toward sun light?

Truthfully to me means operating consciously, actually knowing what you're talking about and doing, which ironically really amounts to having no knowledge at all. If this to you means no ego but you also recognize that this talking and doing has to do with personal desires none-the-less then we are in agreement.

Like I said, it is the nature of consciousness to make distinctions, and when this is done honestly and truthfully about the nature of the things we make distinctions of, and indeed Reality as a whole, we can say we are operating free from ego. Also, preferring an outcome is not the same as desiring an outcome, the latter implies and emotional attachment to the outcome, which stems from a belief in the self and is wrong thinking. You're going to have to do a lot more ground work if you want to show that making distinctions and making reasonable choices about them is necessarily delusional (ego based), and not just the simple nature of how consciousness works.

If you extend the ego definition to include those desires I mentioned above, then I say yes, absolutely I have strengthened my ego. And I've done this ON PURPOSE.

Let's say that I haven't gotten to the bottom of things, and I haven't in the sense that I am NOT totally clear about every little aspect about my reality, regardless this is still a reasonable decision that is in my best interest. The reason why is that I've yet to see any evidence that my statement about a meaningless universe is WRONG, yet to see any evidence that ALL values including logic are of no ultimate value but of PERSONAL SELF-INTEREST, and yet to see any reason that I should revoke this freedom of being unswayed by adversity, just by the fact of it being adversity. If that means the sole purpose was enhancing my ego then I say DAMN RIGHT. What is the alternative? Continue without full expression of my views? Continue to create problems out of nothing? Continue to believe in universal morals? I DON'T THINK SO! :)

No one is arguing that there is an ultimate meaning to the universe and I am in no way discouraging you from expressing your views, or encouraging you to create problems out of nothing or believe in universal morals. The two choices you have presented here for yourself: putting your ego on center stage, and believing in a bunch of bullshit are both delusional and have nothing to do with the philosophical path or what I'm talking about.

A large focus of GF, as I see it, is basically a trick to get people's minds pointed more toward questioning their beliefs with reason. Enlightenment is like a donut in front of a treadmill. I'm not sure this is the best way to go about encouraging it, but I do see ruthlessly questioning personal beliefs as the most worthwile activity a person can fill their life with, not only because it's played an ENORMOUS role in my own life, but because I've found people who've had a life that successfully allows them to do the same are much more fun to spend time with than people who haven't. It takes the CRAZINESS out of a person.

That's all good and well, I wouldn't want anyone to accept something at face value (including enlightenment) as opposed to hashing things out for their self.

If you really want to find out if enlightenment is possible, then it's time to turn the sword of reason on yourself and commit spiritual suicide.

This sounds awesome, and it is an excellent donut. But you don't have to temp me, I'm already caught. Do I also like other things? SURE!!! Do I still think reasoning is most important? YES!!!

I'm telling you what you have to do if you want it, whatever choices you make about it are yours and yours alone.

[skipair]

They're still not determining what is universally true. What is "true" to them is not universally true.

What YOU are calling universal is a logical phenomenon. Either you are being stubborn and arguing for the sake of arument or you are stupid for not understanding what I've said. When I use the term I am describing both logical an illogical processes, because some people universally use one to decide their morals, and some universally use the other. Got it?

[skipair]

How is the simple act of making distinctions, something all conscious beings are bound to do, necessarily egotistical?

Because I'm including the notion of preferences in those distinctions and calling that egotistical.

Isn't this the nature of consciousness just like it's the nature of trees to grow toward sun light?

Does a tree experience preferences?

Also, preferring an outcome is not the same as desiring an outcome, the latter implies and emotional attachment to the outcome, which stems from a belief in the self and is wrong thinking.

It doesn't imply that to me, but if it does to you then I would suggest that the difference of being attached and emotional or otherwise is a matter of degree. Sometimes it is very easy to let something go, and that is where I prefer to be.

The two choices you have presented here for yourself: putting your ego on center stage, and believing in a bunch of bullshit are both delusional and have nothing to do with the philosophical path or what I'm talking about.

Right, I said earlier it was likely we were defining terms differently. When I say ego it seems to conjure up something for you that it doesn't conjure with me. You're trying to give me advice through metaphor, and I'm just trying to explain my definitions. That fact that your interpretation of my definitions are in conflict with your own is no surprise, but I guess what is a surprise to ME is your seeming desire to attempt to STAY IN CONFLICT and to try to keep me in the world of your own defintions seemingly without putting much effort into being flexible with your own. I have a lot of respect for you and don't mean this as an insult in any way, but why does it seem to me that you're being irrationally stubborn about this? My guess is that like MG you have an attachment to BEING on the path to some NIRVANA, and anyone who is either not there yet or claims to be beyond it is BAD. Strange.

[Nick]

Because I'm including the notion of preferences in those distinctions and calling that egotistical.

So what else does operating egotistically mean to you? Do you see it as necessarily delusional the way I do (believing in an inherently existing self)? Also, if we can agree that behaving egotistically is delusional, why is making distinctions and having preferences automatically delusional?

Does a tree experience preferences?

You missed the point. It's the nature of trees to grow toward sunlight, just like it's the nature of consciousness to make distinctions, regardless of whether ego is involved or not.

It doesn't imply that to me, but if it does to you then I would suggest that the difference of being attached and emotional or otherwise is a matter of degree. Sometimes it is very easy to let something go, and that is where I prefer to be.

Are you saying that just because your attachment to something is weak means you have no desire?

Right, I said earlier it was likely we were defining terms differently. When I say ego it seems to conjure up something for you that it doesn't conjure with me.

I guess what is a surprise to ME is your seeming desire to attempt to STAY IN CONFLICT and to try to keep me in the world of your own defintions seemingly without putting much effort into being flexible with your own.

I think it's that I'm making a distinction between consciousness and ego. Why you combine the two things doesn't make much sense to me or seem particularly useful for our discussion. It just seems like you're trying to lump the two together as if this were a short cut to squashing the idea that one can operate without ego instead of doing the actual leg work to prove this to be the case.

I have a lot of respect for you and don't mean this as an insult in any way, but why does it seem to me that you're being irrationally stubborn about this?

With all due respect, I think you're doing a little projection here. I'm just trying to get to the bottom of things, it's what I do.

My guess is that like MG you have an attachment to BEING on the path to some NIRVANA, and anyone who is either not there yet or claims to be beyond it is BAD. Strange.

I may have an attachment to being on the path to enlightenment, but I certainly don't consider you or anyone else bad because they aren't on the same exact path as me, obviously that's impossible. I do like to keep people on their toes and honest though, and you aren't the first person to take this as a condemnation of some sort.

[Rhett]

If there was such a thing as having no ego, which I think is probably impossible, then this person would have no problem with me coming over and blowing their head off with a shotgun.

Ego keeps you alive.

A person without ego would likely act against your attempt to blow their head off, and would do so without inhibition of false abstractions or panic. Such a person values wisdom and reality, and therefore acts against their destruction.

In comparison the general life pain experienced by egotistical persons means they may feel some sense of relief in the thought of being dead. Indeed, all egotistical people tend to engage in various forms of suicide, such as the slow suicide of smoking, or the diminishment caused by alcohol, or sex, etc, due to their problems.

So really, egolessness keeps you alive.

[jupiviv]

They're still not determining what is universally true. What is "true" to them is not universally true.

What YOU are calling universal is a logical phenomenon. Either you are being stubborn and arguing for the sake of arument or you are stupid for not understanding what I've said. When I use the term I am describing both logical an illogical processes, because some people universally use one to decide their morals, and some universally use the other. Got it?

Logical = Universal by nature.

Illogical = Non-universal by nature.

Also, what's with all the hurling insults? There seems to be a lot of insulting going on here for a philosophy forum.

[Blair]

Jesus came to rebuke, not to comfort.

So what are you doing you piece of shit, other than judging?

[Loki]

Saying that identifying with one thing is good, and another is bad implies they have inherent qualities, which is false thinking.

Aren't you implying here that false thinking is bad?

We are conscious beings, and because of that we are bound to distinguish our consciousness from the things it is not, it is completely natural. That doesn't mean we have to believe in it's inherent existence, and thus the ego.

You don't have to believe the ego is permanent in order to have an ego. I don't believe the ego can be overcome via consciousness (consciousness IS ego), but that doesn't mean I believe the ego is a permanent thing with clear cut boundaries.

[Matt Gregory]

I've always believed in it. I've always believed that there's a fundamental nature of reality and that we can make it shine through our consciousness.

WTF? Why would you believe this?

I don't know, it's just based on experiences I've had and then running into things that indicated other people have experienced the same thing more deeply than I have. It's hard to explain, but you can perceive who is enlightened and who isn't by how penetrating their words are.

This is a perfect example of what I mean by creating a mental phantom and chasing after it. This is an ERROR because there is no fundamental nature of reality, at least not in any sense that you haven't already experienced at every single moment of your life already.

You can experience something every day and not notice it. For example, people are constantly communicating through their body language, but hardly anyone notices it even though we experience it every time we interact with someone.

A curiosity and interest in clarification should be enough.

Enough for what? What's your goal? Why are you on this forum thinking about this stuff?

This means putting a STOP to creating value hierarchies to make enough room in the mind to examine the ones you already have.

You are already using one RIGHT NOW as you read this. Why are you doing it, where does it come from, does it have a use?

I chose my own value hierarchies.

You have to believe it if you want to achieve it, though. That much is for sure. You have to keep your eye on the ball. It's a huge goal, though. It can take 5, 10, 20 or more years of solid effort to reach it. If you're totally committed and you work on it for 16 hours a day, you might be able to reach it in 5 years if you're fortunate.

More bullshit. :( Who told you this, and why do you believe them? Are you enlightened and know from experience that it can take 5 fortunate years or maybe even 20?

I'm a little enlightened. Yes, I know from experience that it can take a long time. You don't have to believe me, I don't care.

What if I log 24 hour sessions every third day for 3 years, will I be halfway? Will I have to go to time management classes?

You're taking this a bit too literally. It takes everyone a different amount of time, depending on their disposition and talent for accepting truth and so forth.

How long have you been at this and why haven't you figured it out yet? Did you just not want to put in the hours? Were you just unlucky?

Just unlucky. I ran out of motivation.

I guess telling someone about all the time stuff could be inspirational. WOW, what a BIG DEAL it must be!!! But by that point, if someone doesn't already have the natural curiosity I doubt it'd be very effective.

Obviously not.

It's okay to build mental constructs of it while you're searching for it. You can't hope to reach the goal in one fell swoop, you have to take things one step at a time. Your mental constructs will keep you on track and you'll refine them as you learn more and more. They're like a raft that gets you across a river. Once you reach the other side you won't need the raft anymore and you can discard it. But if you discard it before you cross the river, then you'll never get across.

Why do you think this? Is this what you know from experience or did someone tell you? If you build a construct to chase after how do you know you're going the right way? What if you didn't build a construct but instead examined the ones you already had? I think there are enough already.

Everything we do involves a mental construct. If you want to examine the mental constructs you already have, you still need to figure out how you're going to do this and come up with a plan and a vision of what you want to accomplish. These are mental constructs.

Emotions are states that are distinct from other states because they arise from false beliefs about the nature of reality.

That's how you define it? I will remember that to make any future conversations between us more efficient!!!

Do you understand why I define it this way?

[Matt Gregory]

Well, hmm. You can't really make any progress without a goal, but of course the need of a goal isn't enough reason to believe in something. I've always believed in it. I've always believed that there's a fundamental nature of reality and that we can make it shine through our consciousness. But if you don't see enough evidence to believe it then you won't.

Some people are meant to be enlightened, others are not. The rift between the two is arbitrary, albeit being indeterminable by no one but God.

Therefore, the people who are chosen to be sages reach enlightenment easily and swiftly. There isn't even an effort on their part. They are already on the other side of the river; they only wake up. Therefore, to have goals is useless. If you are meant to be enlightened, you will be.

There is no God, but if there was, he could ordain a person to make effort to become enlightened and that person could become enlightened. Therefore, if you don't make goals, then you could be going against God.

[Nick]

Saying that identifying with one thing is good, and another is bad implies they have inherent qualities, which is false thinking.

Aren't you implying here that false thinking is bad?

I'm implying that if you want to really understand the fundamental nature of reality; false, irrational, and illogical thinking is a bad idea, naturally.

You don't have to believe the ego is permanent in order to have an ego. I don't believe the ego can be overcome via consciousness (consciousness IS ego), but that doesn't mean I believe the ego is a permanent thing with clear cut boundaries.

Just saying that "consciousness is ego" doesn't make it so, and if you're going to define them as the same thing you're just side-stepping the real issue because I can always come up with another word for consciousness (cognitive awareness), and discuss that in relation to the "ego/consciousness" i.e. a false conception of an inherently existing self.

[jupiviv]

Well, hmm. You can't really make any progress without a goal, but of course the need of a goal isn't enough reason to believe in something. I've always believed in it. I've always believed that there's a fundamental nature of reality and that we can make it shine through our consciousness. But if you don't see enough evidence to believe it then you won't.

Some people are meant to be enlightened, others are not. The rift between the two is arbitrary, albeit being indeterminable by no one but God.

Therefore, the people who are chosen to be sages reach enlightenment easily and swiftly. There isn't even an effort on their part. They are already on the other side of the river; they only wake up. Therefore, to have goals is useless. If you are meant to be enlightened, you will be.

There is no God, but if there was, he could ordain a person to make effort to become enlightened and that person could become enlightened. Therefore, if you don't make goals, then you could be going against God.

By "God" I don't mean in the classical sense. To be enlightened is to be goalless, and how can one have a goal of being goalless? That goal would never be accomplished.