Ending the Ego is Empirical and Rife with Uncertainty

[Loki]

It's a scientific endeavor and hence always an uncertain one. You'll never know if you're egoless, because there may be some experiences that make you upset. To find out if you're really egoless, you'd have to endure more and more terrible or elating things, which seems silly to do.

Know what I mean? The brain is always getting comfortable in it's surroundings, and you always have to change the surroundings in order to test if you are actually ok with the change, which, if they are extreme enough, you probably won't be.

[jupiviv]

You can only end the false ego, or self. The true ego doesn't need to be ended.

It's possible to know with absolute certainty that you have no false ego, since you not having a false ego is something only you can know with certainty, and isn't a function of things other than yourself. Even if you don't experience all the possible empirical things that might reinforce the false ego, you can know you are free from them the moment you discard the false notion of the ego.

However, it is hard to be absolutely without any false conception of the ego, i.e, a Buddha.

[Blair]

The brain is always getting comfortable in it's surroundings, and you always have to change the surroundings in order to test if you are actually ok with the change, which, if they are extreme enough, you probably won't be.

When you achieve a sufficient level of consciousness, changes in the brain, such as chemical changes don't matter. They are still felt and experienced, but are overidden by the higher perception.

[Anders Schlander]

It's a scientific endeavor and hence always an uncertain one. You'll never know if you're egoless, because there may be some experiences that make you upset. To find out if you're really egoless, you'd have to endure more and more terrible or elating things, which seems silly to do.

Know what I mean? The brain is always getting comfortable in it's surroundings, and you always have to change the surroundings in order to test if you are actually ok with the change, which, if they are extreme enough, you probably won't be.

Since egolessness, for a conscious human being, would entail being a perfect buddha, then essentially, you could ask the question: can you know if you're perfect? because by definition, if you can, you can know you're egoless.

To that question, i'll say, you'll know exactly what is happening in your mind when it's happening, and if what is happening is perfection, then I see no reason why you could not recognize perfection and egolessness, in the same way you can recognize imperfection and ego.

If you are trying to endure more and more terrible or elating things, then that's a sign there is ego, because only the ego sees death or life, so I agree with you that it is silly. Silly to test worse and worse things, when just concieving of 'worse' things is proof on it's own. Though I note, worse in an emotional sense. Ofcourse things can be worse in some contexts without ego.

[Conservationist]

You'll never know if you're egoless, because there may be some experiences that make you upset.

Very true, and it reminds me why Buddhism is ludicrous.

Discipline is a better goal than elimination of a vital part of your being. You're here for the human experience -- crazy go nuts with it, but if you want it to be effective, you'll have to discipline all its parts.

[Loki]

You can only end the false ego, or self. The true ego doesn't need to be ended.

The True self, from my understanding, is identification with everything. The problem is that I don't find I am living this way, I find myself living as if I am separate from people, in competition with them or vulnerable to harm from them.

It's possible to know with absolute certainty that you have no false ego, since you not having a false ego is something only you can know with certainty, and isn't a function of things other than yourself.

Isn't it possible that you could be behaving fearfully without being conscious of this fact?

Even if you don't experience all the possible empirical things that might reinforce the false ego, you can know you are free from them the moment you discard the false notion of the ego.

I could discard the notion of the false ego in an egotistical manner, and thus deceive myself. How can I know that I am not deceiving myself?

However, it is hard to be absolutely without any false conception of the ego, i.e, a Buddha.

As far as I can tell, it's impossible to know for sure that one is not being egotistical.

[Loki]

It's a scientific endeavor and hence always an uncertain one. You'll never know if you're egoless, because there may be some experiences that make you upset. To find out if you're really egoless, you'd have to endure more and more terrible or elating things, which seems silly to do.

Know what I mean? The brain is always getting comfortable in it's surroundings, and you always have to change the surroundings in order to test if you are actually ok with the change, which, if they are extreme enough, you probably won't be.

Since egolessness, for a conscious human being, would entail being a perfect buddha, then essentially, you could ask the question: can you know if you're perfect? because by definition, if you can, you can know you're egoless.

To that question, i'll say, you'll know exactly what is happening in your mind when it's happening,

I don't see how this is true. What we see happening in our mind could very well be only part of the story, there are things going on in the subconscious influencing our conscious thoughts, often without us knowing it.

and if what is happening is perfection, then I see no reason why you could not recognize perfection and egolessness, in the same way you can recognize imperfection and ego.

If perfection is not being influenced by fear, then how can you know that you are not influenced by fear?

If you are trying to endure more and more terrible or elating things, then that's a sign there is ego, because only the ego sees death or life, so I agree with you that it is silly. Silly to test worse and worse things, when just concieving of 'worse' things is proof on it's own.

Imagining a scary situation is much different than actually putting yourself in that situation. I can imagine being on the battlefield of a war, and it might not scare me, but that's quite different than actually putting myself in that situation.

[Anders Schlander]

Since egolessness, for a conscious human being, would entail being a perfect buddha, then essentially, you could ask the question: can you know if you're perfect? because by definition, if you can, you can know you're egoless.
To that question, i'll say, you'll know exactly what is happening in your mind when it's happening.

I don't see how this is true. What we see happening in our mind could very well be only part of the story, there are things going on in the subconscious influencing our conscious thoughts, often without us knowing it.

The idea of perfection, if anything, to me, is to rest in what is absolutely true, because everything else changes and can't be relied upon. So it's not an emperical thing. What happens is the conscious by definition, and is what matters in the end. The subconscious workings may cause some of it, but we only see the effects, not the causes, because anything we see is the conscious.

If perfection is not being influenced by fear, then how can you know that you are not influenced by fear?

Well, the short answer is, when death no longer makes you fearful, because death seems unreal.

Perfection is or shouldn't be defined as the art of not being influenced by fear, because unconscious things would also be perfect then, you are still right, that by my definition, and yours, then the emotion of fear doesn't influence and frighten you if you are perfect, by definition. If there is no basis for loss and gain, there is no basis for the fear of loss.

I could discard the notion of the false ego in an egotistical manner, and thus deceive myself. How can I know that I am not deceiving myself?

The desire of trying to end the ego can itself be a stumpling block I believe, because in reality, things are already just as they are, God is right infront of you, so what are you trying to change?, the ego dissapears naturally when you 'open your eyes', as in reality there is no dust to wipe away unless you keep hold of the ego. The ego likes to grab hold of untruth versus truth, which prevents you from progress.

In a sense, it's like the ego talking for ages about discarding itself, but unable to disprove itself using itself, it goes around in circles.

But even if you 'open your eyes', then will you have discarded the false ego? the ego has a habit of finding it's way back just after you think you've gone rid of it.. I'm not sure what one should do, but I think the same as the concept of making fire by continously rubbing a stick of wood round and round applies, it takes all out progress, there are so many imperfections, even if one manages to open your eyes for once, practice is neccesary to what shall I say, trying to melt out the impurities. It's funny, essentially there is your "pure" nature, and at the same time, there is the actual concept of practice. Without practice, your ego's corrupting powers won't give you any rest, as you open your eyes to your "pure" nature, the show will be stolen by that corrupting force, because there is too many impurities weighing you down.

What should you focus on then? your essential "pure" nature right now, or the act of continual practise? perhaps there can be no pure nature without continual practise, and perhaps there can be no real continual practise without ones pure nature.

edit: without memory of being aware of ones pure nature, then how can one practise towards it?, and how can one be aware of ones pure nature, without practise of cleaning out ur mind?

All this is just words, maybe it is over-complicating things.

[jupiviv]

The True self, from my understanding, is identification with everything. The problem is that I don't find I am living this way, I find myself living as if I am separate from people, in competition with them or vulnerable to harm from them.

I'd say that the true self is simply knowing what you are, and therefore knowing what everything else is. You can't actually identify with everything, since consciousness is not everything. Although identification with the All is a part of the way, the ultimate is to be a separate individual.

I could discard the notion of the false ego in an egotistical manner, and thus deceive myself. How can I know that I am not deceiving myself?

By asking the question - am I deceiving myself? Take every thought that occurs to you to its conclusion, and try to connect it with other things. Analyse your actions and if you find flaws, try to find out what is common between them, and associate them with other things you've thought about. And don't give up if this effort takes you nowhere and confuses you.

As far as I can tell, it's impossible to know for sure that one is not being egotistical.

When you say this, are you being egotistical or not? :-) If you're being egotistical, then this whole statement is meaningless, since you are speaking egotistically. If you're not, then it contradicts itself.

[Nick]

If we define egotism as a certain kind of phenomena that arises within consciousness, and those phenomena are not arising within consciousness in any given moment, then by definition we can say there is no egotism going on. Also, if circumstances arise in the next moment that cause egotism to arise, that doesn't change the fact that in the previous moment, one was in fact thinking, behaving, and existing without egotism.

The real question is; how should we define egotism?

[David Quinn]

It's a scientific endeavor and hence always an uncertain one. You'll never know if you're egoless, because there may be some experiences that make you upset. To find out if you're really egoless, you'd have to endure more and more terrible or elating things, which seems silly to do.

Know what I mean? The brain is always getting comfortable in it's surroundings, and you always have to change the surroundings in order to test if you are actually ok with the change, which, if they are extreme enough, you probably won't be.

Good point, but I don't think it really matters if a high-level Buddha doesn't know for sure that he would be able to maintain his Buddhahood in "all situations". Whether or not he can is ultimately Nature's decision, not his. All he can do is try to be fully conscious of nirvana at all times.

As for "testing" our egolessness, we are being tested all the time, regardless of the situation. Egolessness is basically full consciousness of nirvana. If we are only experiencing nirvana intermittently (because of the arisal of cravings, distractions, worries, ego-games, etc), then we can be sure that any kind of new or extreme situation will arouse our ego. It is only when we are able to experience nirvana all the time - in each moment of the day, without any backwards slipping - that the introduction of more extreme situations would have some merit. And even then, it would have to be balanced against the possibility of unnecessary injury or death.

But I agree that we should try and keep mixing things up, just so that we don't fall into easy, comfortable habits.

-

[jupiviv]

I don't think it really matters if a high-level Buddha doesn't know for sure that he would be able to maintain his Buddhahood in "all situations". Whether or not he can is ultimately Nature's decision, not his. All he can do is try to be fully conscious of nirvana at all times.

It does matter is you aim to be a perfect Buddha, because you'd aim to know if you can be a Buddha in all situations. Being or not being a Buddha isn't a function of the "situation", i.e, things that are not ourselves.

[Kelly Jones]

I think David's already answered that, Jupta. "At all times" is the first step. If one can just do that, as one goes about one's everyday life (knowing that all the situations one finds oneself in, are the larger self), then one may be able to move to the next step. To try to run when one cannot even walk, would be driven by ego-games, not by the desire for perfection.


...

[jupiviv]

Let me put it another way - a high-level Buddha would still suffer from moments of unconsciousness. So he would still strive to become fully conscious of all time. So I don't think it's right to say that it doesn't matter to him whether he is not conscious of all situations or not.

If someone thinks that he is fully conscious for all time, and then a situation comes up which makes him unconscious, then he is obviously mistaken. Actually, it is useless to try to be perfect for all of time, since we can't know for sure what happens in the past or the future. Perfection includes time by definition.

[Kelly Jones]

The knowledge of the Buddha shows there is nothing that changes from consciousness to unconsciousness. That's precisely why Buddhas don't suffer. There's no more limitation, no place or state where there is enlightenment, no conditions he lingers in. He sees what is real, which is always the case.

If one gets sidetracked, and forgets what is true, still the Buddha is there when one awakens, showing one's forgetfulness to be the Buddha, the Buddha that never dies. Everything is perfect already.


...

[jupiviv]

The knowledge of the Buddha shows there is nothing that changes from consciousness to unconsciousness. That's precisely why Buddhas don't suffer. There's no more limitation, no place or state where there is enlightenment, no conditions he lingers in. He sees what is real, which is always the case.

If one gets sidetracked, and forgets what is true, still the Buddha is there when one awakens, showing one's forgetfulness to be the Buddha, the Buddha that never dies. Everything is perfect already.


...

All that applies to the perfect Buddha, not the imperfect person.

[Blair]

Oh crikey, does anyone actually listen anymore?

Fucking shithead.

[jupiviv]

Who're you calling a shithead, you coquettish cockmuncher!

[Cory Duchesne]

The thing that will bind one most readily to samsara/ego is the allure of people, groups and sensuality. Watch the chatter in your head, and you'll see it revolves around ones desire to exclude oneself from certain aspects of existence in order to secure attachment to group, worldly attainment, person or thing.

If you have stretches of time where you joyfully watch every conception and memory you have transform endlessly into other forms and ultimately emptiness, then you are in nirvana. The worst things that have happened to you seem comical in their insignificance. All drama is diffused.

At my best moments, when I think of people, attainment and things, I no longer see them as people, attainment and things in the ordinary sense, but I look at them more abstractly, fluidly, and over long stretches of time. For instance, instead some desirable, distinct, visceral sensation that symbolizes something important, I see a manifestation as it (or she) is from different abstract perspectives: if it's a beautiful woman, I see a bag of fluids and organs. But that's not truth. So I see her over stretches of time: going from shopping mall, to hairstylist, to meal, to toilet, to work, etc, and I turn up the speed so she's buzzing around, 20 years in a minute. If you look at people as they are in the long term, they are like balloons being released of air, whizzing aimlessly around a room in a myriad of directions. The moon becomes fluid, and the water becomes dry. I see individuals or groups like I would a wandering branch on a tree, a meandering river, or a business vision like blood from a wound clouding the water. We are all sparks emitting from a fire, being flung mindlessly into the air and spiraling up and being extinguished, waves emerging and breaking. Cliques are mycelium networked and sprawling without choice. The seducer like a molecule of one element dancing with another, or being chemically degraded as a substance, dismantled by another. But none of this is truth, it's only what a truthful mind does to things.

For Nirvana to occur, we need to diffuse the visceral sensations of obvious moment to moment experience, and use abstractions to represent people and things in creative and imaginative ways. Finally, we can even diffuse the objective reality of these abstractions by understanding their empty and formless nature. Nothing ultimately has power over you, all is empty, including you.

However, I don't for a moment think that my brain is not getting comfortable with this "ease". Once Nirvana is realized, you can then challenge yourself more and more by trying new situations, and in those situations, temptations are everywhere, and one can easily sink into the visceral, and statistically speaking, you probably will become entrenched in the mire, such is mans weak will and mind.

"When you make the two one, & when you make the inside like the outside & the outside like the inside, & the above like the below, & when you make the male & the female one & the same, so that the male be not male nor the female female; & when you fashion eyes in place of an eye & a hand in place of a hand, & a foot in place of a foot, & a likeness in place of a likeness; then you will enter the Kingdom." Thomas: 22

[jupiviv]

If you have stretches of time where you joyfully watch every conception and memory you have transform endlessly into other forms and ultimately emptiness, then you are in nirvana. The worst things that have happened to you seem comical in their insignificance. All drama is diffused.

If marijuana is ever commercialised, this would be a great line to put on a packet of it. You just have to add at the end - "Just one packet of Duchesne marijuana can provide with you with that experience all day!"

At my best moments, when I think of people, attainment and things, I no longer see them as people, attainment and things in the ordinary sense, but I look at them more abstractly, fluidly, and over long stretches of time.

And that's supposed to be nirvana?! You may as well say that a rock has nirvana and be done with it.

[Blair]

To be fair, a rock and you have at least one attribute in common; neither is conscious.

Booyaa! You won't know Nirvana shitweasel. Keep on the attache' to de fecal

.

[jupiviv]

To be fair, a rock and you have at least one attribute in common; neither is conscious.

Someone else compared me to a rock last night. It was not so much me that she compared to a rock, as my enormous penis. You know who it was?





YO MOMMA!!!

[Loki]

Jup, I find you neither funny, nor insightful. You are a presumptuous douche, in fact.

[Cory Duchesne]

At my best moments, when I think of people, attainment and things, I no longer see them as people, attainment and things in the ordinary sense, but I look at them more abstractly, fluidly, and over long stretches of time.

And that's supposed to be nirvana?! You may as well say that a rock has nirvana and be done with it.

How is the ability to look at things from increasingly abstract, microcosmic, and long term perspectives, while being mindful of their emptiness, "rock-like?"

[jupiviv]

At my best moments, when I think of people, attainment and things, I no longer see them as people, attainment and things in the ordinary sense, but I look at them more abstractly, fluidly, and over long stretches of time.

And that's supposed to be nirvana?! You may as well say that a rock has nirvana and be done with it.

How is the ability to look at things from increasingly abstract, microcosmic, and long term perspectives, while being mindful of their emptiness, "rock-like?"

It's rock-like in that it is not much nearer enlightenment than a rock.