No ego = bullshit

[skipair]

So what else does operating egotistically mean to you?

In the classical sense to me it means not being objective about things, refering data to the subject (self) instead of sorting it with your best logical judgment with an end in mind. But I don't think objectivity means anything without something to be objective about, and I think those things arise outside of the logical sphere, or else there would be no point in performing them. I think we can only learn to more easily let those guiding desires go, when they happen to change into something else like they often do, by putting objectivity in the forefront of our mind to help become more flexible and adaptable with the flow of things. Desire trumps logic in the end.

I'm not convinced by your arguments that it's any more possible to be like a tree, in the sense that it's just in it's nature to do things and not because they experience selfish desires, than it is to believe in a great bald eagle in the sky directing the birds and the bees below him. Frankly it sounds religious. So, show me the evidence and not the theory. Because I haven't seen any ever. Becoming less emotional over things is not evidence that it's possible to operate without egotistical desires the way I've defined it. It's just evidence that one is capable of objective thinking and values it because it allows them to better get what they already want.

[Matt Gregory]

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.

Whatever gave you the idea that enlightenment is goallessness?

[jupiviv]

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.

Whatever gave you the idea that enlightenment is goallessness?

How can one without an ego have a goal? He may have a "goal" like the spreading of wisdom, going to the other end of the room to have a drink of water, etc, but he wouldn't attach any worth to his "goal". It wouldn't be a goal in the way that 99% of people see it.

[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?

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.

Understanding the fundamental nature of reality is something you identify with "e.g., I am the truth!"

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.

Who out there really thinks they have an inherently existing self? I doubt many people even think like that.

[Nick]

In the classical sense to me it means not being objective about things, refering data to the subject (self) instead of sorting it with your best logical judgment with an end in mind. But I don't think objectivity means anything without something to be objective about, and I think those things arise outside of the logical sphere, or else there would be no point in performing them.

The universe operates on logical principles and we are forced to operate logically. The problem arises when we cut ourselves of from following logic through out all areas of our mind and only allow ourselves to accept logic inside tiny isolated fragments of our mind. Confining logic in this way is how people trap themselves in duality and is the cause of all false thinking and suffering. Only when we break down our mental barriers and allow logic to flow freely across our mind do we begin to see what's right in front of our faces: absolute truth.

I think we can only learn to more easily let those guiding desires go, when they happen to change into something else like they often do, by putting objectivity in the forefront of our mind to help become more flexible and adaptable with the flow of things. Desire trumps logic in the end.

Logic can never be trumped. Even when we go about chasing our desires, we go about it logically, even if it is in a very isolated way that seems almost completely removed from reality. Every thought that enters your mind and every word you utter confirms logic over and over again. What matters is that we understand this fact and go with the unstoppable flow of logic instead of battling with delusions of our own making.

I'm not convinced by your arguments that it's any more possible to be like a tree, in the sense that it's just in it's nature to do things and not because they experience selfish desires, than it is to believe in a great bald eagle in the sky directing the birds and the bees below him. Frankly it sounds religious. So, show me the evidence and not the theory. Because I haven't seen any ever. Becoming less emotional over things is not evidence that it's possible to operate without egotistical desires the way I've defined it. It's just evidence that one is capable of objective thinking and values it because it allows them to better get what they already want.

Making distinctions and making informed decisions about them is a property of consciousness, it's quite simply what it does. Just like trees grow toward sunlight, or how fire produces heat, or how the sun produces light. This is real simple stuff.

[Nick]

Understanding the fundamental nature of reality is something you identify with "e.g., I am the truth!"

Isn't that how Jesus put it; I am the way, the truth, the light.

Who out there really thinks they have an inherently existing self? I doubt many people even think like that.

You're right, they just assume it without an ounce of genuine thought.

[Loki]

Understanding the fundamental nature of reality is something you identify with "e.g., I am the truth!"

Isn't that how Jesus put it; I am the way, the truth, the light.

Ok, so do you see my point? You are identifying with something that does not inherently exist, plus you are saying that identifying with other things is bad, and identifying with truth is good.

Who out there really thinks they have an inherently existing self? I doubt many people even think like that.

You're right, they just assume it without an ounce of genuine thought.

I agree there isn't much thought, but I don't agree that they assume they inherently exist. From my observations, many, many people are acting as if their existence is contingent on causes.

[skipair]

Logic can never be trumped. Even when we go about chasing our desires, we o about it logically,

Ok, this is closer to what I'm trying to articulate. You say that even when we go about chasing our desires, and I would put a challenge to you to name ONE INSTANCE where this is NOT the case. I see logic as the structure of reality, and desire as the content. We might use logic to various conscious degrees, but it is a tool and the end is desire. In this sense logic can definitely be thought of as trumped.

[Matt Gregory]

Whatever gave you the idea that enlightenment is goallessness?

How can one without an ego have a goal? He may have a "goal" like the spreading of wisdom, going to the other end of the room to have a drink of water, etc, but he wouldn't attach any worth to his "goal". It wouldn't be a goal in the way that 99% of people see it.

So, sages don't have goals, but have "goals" in quotes? Because if they just had goals, then they would be guilty of having goals, but if you put the word in quotes it gets rid of the guilt. That's brilliant.

[Nick]

Ok, so do you see my point? You are identifying with something that does not inherently exist, plus you are saying that identifying with other things is bad, and identifying with truth is good.

Let me ask you this: Once one knows what is absolutely true, why on earth would they identify with anything else? That's like knowing that in order to open a door you need to push it, but you continue pulling it anyway. It makes absolutely no sense.

I agree there isn't much thought, but I don't agree that they assume they inherently exist. From my observations, many, many people are acting as if their existence is contingent on causes.

Well I don't think they would use the terms "inherent" and "exist" to describe their self. It's more of a vague notion about who and what they are. They don't have any understanding about the true nature of reality. I mean, sure people operate based on mundane notions of cause and effect, like knowing they have to eat, sleep, and have a general awareness of their surroundings in order to survive, but this is all very superficial and has nothing to do with getting to the core of existence.

[Nick]

You say that even when we go about chasing our desires, and I would put a challenge to you to name ONE INSTANCE where this is NOT the case. I see logic as the structure of reality, and desire as the content. We might use logic to various conscious degrees, but it is a tool and the end is desire. In this sense logic can definitely be thought of as trumped.

I see it differently. I see the ego as a tool, as well as desire, operating within a logical framework, just like everything else.

So say it is one's desire to overcome all delusion in order to be left with absolute truth. If he accomplishes this he is left with emptiness; no ego, desire, or anything else that arises out of a poor understanding of reality. This is a logically necessary outcome when one arrives at a perfect understanding of reality that bridges all areas of his mind. There is simply no room left in the mind for the ego to take root and grow. This doesn't mean he stops being conscious, it just means he is no longer influenced about false conceptions of reality.

[skipair]

I see it differently. I see the ego as a tool, as well as desire, operating within a logical framework, just like everything else.

I see this perspective and mine as the same in the sense that for consciousness, I maintain and I think you agree, that both logic and desire or if you prefer preference (less emotional) are functions, and that you can't have one without the other. My point in this thread is bringing more to light how the desire aspect is inescapable, nor should that be attempted. Consciousness of how those desires work logically is what should be attempted.

So say it is one's desire to overcome all delusion in order to be left with absolute truth. If he accomplishes this he is left with emptiness; no ego, desire, or anything else that arises out of a poor understanding of reality. This is a logically necessary outcome when one arrives at a perfect understanding of reality that bridges all areas of his mind. There is simply no room left in the mind for the ego to take root and grow. This doesn't mean he stops being conscious, it just means he is no longer influenced about false conceptions of reality.

This is what I call a tasty theoretical donut. A good psychological trick to get people's minds attached to being more objective or discovering what objectivity is in the first place. Because as I've said before valuing objectivity cannot ever take the place of all other desire without leading directly to death. At the very least, one would have to be emotional over being objective to sustain life, and to a large degree this is what I see from you.

[Rhett]

I see it this way. The core of the ego is the false belief in an inherently existent self, and the padding is the confusion and suffering and other associated behaviours that arise from it.

Egolessness is thus the absence of these. The egoless state involves intellectual discernment about what is good and what is bad, and actions appropriate to these. Emotional desires have no place in the egoless state, thankfully, as delusion and suffering have been vanquished.

[jupiviv]

Whatever gave you the idea that enlightenment is goallessness?

How can one without an ego have a goal? He may have a "goal" like the spreading of wisdom, going to the other end of the room to have a drink of water, etc, but he wouldn't attach any worth to his "goal". It wouldn't be a goal in the way that 99% of people see it.

So, sages don't have goals, but have "goals" in quotes? Because if they just had goals, then they would be guilty of having goals, but if you put the word in quotes it gets rid of the guilt. That's brilliant.

Good call :-) Yes, I am trying to dissociate sages from such a petty and common thing as a goal.

Sages have goals in the sense that water has the goal of making things wet. Their goals are not distinct enough from themselves to be called goals. I think the word "function" would be better. The function of the sage is to spread truth.

[Matt Gregory]

Sages have goals in the sense that water has the goal of making things wet. Their goals are not distinct enough from themselves to be called goals. I think the word "function" would be better. The function of the sage is to spread truth.

You're thinking is backwards on this. The more a person approaches enlightenment, the more his consciousness increases. The more his consciousness increases, the more distinct everything becomes. The more distinct everything becomes, the more goal-oriented the person becomes. He becomes more aware of causes and consequences, and takes on more responsibility.

The idea that goals are inherently egotistical is just plain wrong.

[Loki]

Ok, so do you see my point? You are identifying with something that does not inherently exist, plus you are saying that identifying with other things is bad, and identifying with truth is good.

Let me ask you this: Once one knows what is absolutely true, why on earth would they identify with anything else?

Let's say I become a really good computer programmer or I invent some fantastic new technology. I identify with what I've done, because it was my hard work and will power that achieved it.

[Nick]

I see this perspective and mine as the same in the sense that for consciousness, I maintain and I think you agree, that both logic and desire or if you prefer preference (less emotional) are functions, and that you can't have one without the other.

I think that when one we are talking about a conscious being who does something for egotistical reasons, they are basically attempting to reinforce and confirm their existence, it makes them feel more real, and when one realizes that their existence needs no reinforcing or confirmation they can potentially stop operating in this manner and be free from ego and desire.

My point in this thread is bringing more to light how the desire aspect is inescapable, nor should that be attempted. Consciousness of how those desires work logically is what should be attempted.

I think as human beings we have evolved to be creatures who are very prone to desire, it's what drives us as individuals and as a species, but that doesn't mean it's impossible for consciousness to exist without it. That we can distinguish between consciousness with and without ego logically proves that these things can arise whether or not we can imagine what this would be like in relation to the human experience.

This is what I call a tasty theoretical donut. A good psychological trick to get people's minds attached to being more objective or discovering what objectivity is in the first place. Because as I've said before valuing objectivity cannot ever take the place of all other desire without leading directly to death. At the very least, one would have to be emotional over being objective to sustain life, and to a large degree this is what I see from you.

So you're saying that one can only live in perfect accordance with absolute truth when they are emotionally attached to it, but you also say that it actually is possible to do this without being emotionally attached, but as soon as one did this it would result in their death. This sounds like a contradiction. What if we're talking about an enlightened conscious being who doesn't need sleep, food, or anything else to support his existence? What would stop them from remaining in existence?

[Nick]

Let me ask you this: Once one knows what is absolutely true, why on earth would they identify with anything else?

Let's say I become a really good computer programmer or I invent some fantastic new technology. I identify with what I've done, because it was my hard work and will power that achieved it.

Then I would say that you probably have a foggy, partial, or no understanding of what is ultimately true so it wouldn't be accurate to view you as someone identifying with truth, and as such it would be no surprise to see you identifying with something else like products of your labor and other things which are not absolute.

[Carl G]

I consider products of my labor as absolutely absolute. After all they are part of the All.

[jupiviv]

Sages have goals in the sense that water has the goal of making things wet. Their goals are not distinct enough from themselves to be called goals. I think the word "function" would be better. The function of the sage is to spread truth.

You're thinking is backwards on this. The more a person approaches enlightenment, the more his consciousness increases. The more his consciousness increases, the more distinct everything becomes. The more distinct everything becomes, the more goal-oriented the person becomes. He becomes more aware of causes and consequences, and takes on more responsibility.

The idea that goals are inherently egotistical is just plain wrong.

I'm usually not one to argue semantics, but I'll persist here. Goals themselves always have to be distinct from the person who has them. To the sage, nothing is distinct from himself. Goals are an end. To the sage, there is no end.

I agree that greater consciousness leads to greater responsibility, but that is still deluded thinking. It is a desire to reach beyond cause and effect. The only goal that a sage can have is that which is without any delusions, and that kind of goal would necessarily have to stop being a goal.

[Sarge_Jr]

It rests on the context. Ego means "I", as in "Myself". In that context, saying you have no Ego is like saying you have no consistancy, But mentally, physically or spiritually?

The misconception is that an Egotistical person is in love with him/herself. Saying you have no Ego could suggest you are not Egotistical.

e·go·tist
n.
1. A conceited, boastful person.
2. A selfish, self-centered person.

ego·tistic, ego·tisti·cal adj.
ego·tisti·cal·ly adv.

Like many things, Its all in the context.

[Matt Gregory]

I'm usually not one to argue semantics, but I'll persist here. Goals themselves always have to be distinct from the person who has them. To the sage, nothing is distinct from himself. Goals are an end. To the sage, there is no end.

I agree that greater consciousness leads to greater responsibility, but that is still deluded thinking. It is a desire to reach beyond cause and effect. The only goal that a sage can have is that which is without any delusions, and that kind of goal would necessarily have to stop being a goal.

What you're talking about here is passive egotism. It's the direct opposite of sagehood. What you're talking about is more like damage control for someone who still has an ego. But the sage doesn't have one, so doesn't need to play these kind of mind games with himself. He can't do anything egotistical because the means for egotism is no longer there.

[Matt Gregory]

It rests on the context. Ego means "I", as in "Myself". In that context, saying you have no Ego is like saying you have no consistancy, But mentally, physically or spiritually?

Yeah, that's the Freudian ego, which is different from the spiritual sense of the word. The spiritual ego is the conglomeration of false concepts of the self and reality that prevent one from knowing/experiencing ultimate reality.

[jupiviv]

I'm usually not one to argue semantics, but I'll persist here. Goals themselves always have to be distinct from the person who has them. To the sage, nothing is distinct from himself. Goals are an end. To the sage, there is no end.

I agree that greater consciousness leads to greater responsibility, but that is still deluded thinking. It is a desire to reach beyond cause and effect. The only goal that a sage can have is that which is without any delusions, and that kind of goal would necessarily have to stop being a goal.

What you're talking about here is passive egotism. It's the direct opposite of sagehood. What you're talking about is more like damage control for someone who still has an ego. But the sage doesn't have one, so doesn't need to play these kind of mind games with himself. He can't do anything egotistical because the means for egotism is no longer there.

Well, you can call it damage control :-). Or you can call it investigating every part of oneself, because the ego is never really dead, and always seeks to expand. Even people like Nietzsche, Kierkegaard and probably even Gautama(the most superior imo) had egos - no matter how small - which occasionally resurfaced. So I think that continually questioning oneself in these regards is quite useful.

[xerox]

...