Examining The Wisdom of the Infinite

Discussion of the nature of Ultimate Reality and the path to Enlightenment.
encode_decode
Posts: 69
Joined: Tue Feb 28, 2017 6:19 pm

Examining The Wisdom of the Infinite

Post by encode_decode » Mon Mar 27, 2017 1:58 pm

@David Quinn

I think a fair first question to ask is: When you set out to write "The Wisdom of the Infinite" what inspired you to give the book this title?

I have read all of the chapters except for one: Emptiness - I will be reading that this week. I am really enjoying the discourse in the book.

Hopefully you accept my first question as one that is valid David and I look forward to your response.

:)

User avatar
David Quinn
Posts: 5559
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: Examining The Wisdom of the Infinite

Post by David Quinn » Mon Mar 27, 2017 3:21 pm

It was simple and straight to the point. The book is about opening the mind to the Infinite and there is great wisdom in this.

encode_decode
Posts: 69
Joined: Tue Feb 28, 2017 6:19 pm

Re: Examining The Wisdom of the Infinite

Post by encode_decode » Mon Mar 27, 2017 4:10 pm

Thank you David - it was a minor curiosity and your answer makes perfect sense to me.

Before I ask a few things about the chapter on cause and effect I want to quote the first paragraph from the introduction and ask a simple question.
David Quinn wrote:The biggest obstacle for the serious student seeking to become enlightened is his natural habit of trying to grasp at Reality as though it were a "thing" of some kind, as though it were a limited phenomenon separated from himself. He might be aware that he is unenlightened, it might deeply dissatisfy him and strongly motivate him to want to rectify the situation. But because he does not yet comprehend the nature of Reality, he is hampered by his flawed understanding and wrongly interprets Reality to be a realm which needs to be mentally reached in some way.
So in your view how do you in particular know when you have come across an enlightened person?

Thanks for this by the way :)

User avatar
David Quinn
Posts: 5559
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: Examining The Wisdom of the Infinite

Post by David Quinn » Mon Mar 27, 2017 4:51 pm

encode_decode wrote:So in your view how do you in particular know when you have come across an enlightened person?
There are two aspects to this:

Firstly, you have to become enlightened yourself. Being enlightened gives you direct inward knowledge of what enlightenment consists of.

Secondly, from the knowledge and clarity of your own enlightenment, you have a reliable basis for judging whether or not another person is enlightened. If he exhibits behaviour that is consistent with enlightenment as you inwardly know it, you can make the reasonable inference that he is enlightened. It is not an exact science, however, as we are dealing with the empirical realm here and all of the uncertainty this entails.

It boils down to being an informed hypothesis generated out of one's inner expertise.

Thanks for this by the way :)
No problem.

encode_decode
Posts: 69
Joined: Tue Feb 28, 2017 6:19 pm

Re: Examining The Wisdom of the Infinite

Post by encode_decode » Mon Mar 27, 2017 5:23 pm

I have one more question for today thanks David.

In the chapter on cause and effect; in the section titled "Transcending God"; I quote the last sentence:
David Quinn wrote:It literally forms the bedrock of Reality.
Here you are speaking of cause and effect. I also hold the belief that cause and effect forms the bedrock of Reality.

What do you have to say about a philosopher like Kant who says that reason is the source of morality? I would say that something caused Kant to say this given that in your chapter on cause and effect you say "If the conditions are ripe for a particular thought to arise, then it will arise - without any hesitation at all."

User avatar
David Quinn
Posts: 5559
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: Examining The Wisdom of the Infinite

Post by David Quinn » Mon Mar 27, 2017 6:24 pm

encode_decode wrote:What do you have to say about a philosopher like Kant who says that reason is the source of morality? I would say that something caused Kant to say this given that in your chapter on cause and effect you say "If the conditions are ripe for a particular thought to arise, then it will arise - without any hesitation at all."
I'm not sure what Kant means by that. Reason can help clarify your morality, but it can never be the actual source of it.

On one level, we can say that one's core value in life is the source of one's morality. For example, my core value in life is wisdom and from this springs a morality that focuses upon the need to be rational, intellectually consistent, open-minded, mentally flexible, intuitive, unattached, unbiased, willing to question everything, willing to abandon all delusions, willing to follow the truth wherever it might lead, and so on.

Another person's core value in life might be to eliminate all feelings of insecurity, and so he formulates a morality that centres around making as much money as possible, trampling on others to get ahead, hobnobbing with other powerful people, bribing judges and politicians, suppressing his conscience, dismantling his inner life, etc.

Going to a deeper level, the core value that each person happens to adopt is generated out of the zillions of causes which come together to form him as an individual, and thus we can say that Nature itself, the bedrock of causality, is the true source of morality.

encode_decode
Posts: 69
Joined: Tue Feb 28, 2017 6:19 pm

Re: Examining The Wisdom of the Infinite

Post by encode_decode » Mon Mar 27, 2017 7:20 pm

Well David, I cannot argue with any of that. In particular I find synergy with "the core value that each person happens to adopt is generated out of the zillions of causes which come together to form him as an individual".

Until next time, I hope you stay well :)

User avatar
Dan Rowden
Posts: 5663
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 8:03 pm
Contact:

Re: Examining The Wisdom of the Infinite

Post by Dan Rowden » Mon Mar 27, 2017 8:42 pm

My own take on the source of morality can be seen at 4:33 of this video.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eSRsZdYyCag

encode_decode
Posts: 69
Joined: Tue Feb 28, 2017 6:19 pm

Re: Examining The Wisdom of the Infinite

Post by encode_decode » Mon Mar 27, 2017 9:25 pm

Thank you for that Dan - I actually watched the whole video - I am not a theist - The atheists I know have ethical views and are moral people.

User avatar
Dan Rowden
Posts: 5663
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 8:03 pm
Contact:

Re: Examining The Wisdom of the Infinite

Post by Dan Rowden » Mon Mar 27, 2017 9:51 pm

I wasn't intending to imply you're a theist, but simply to make my own case about the 'source' of morality without having to type a gazillion words. Naturally atheists are moral people. I'm not sure amorality is possible in the context of a teleological consciousness (i.e. a consciousness that involves a sense of future, purpose and causation).

encode_decode
Posts: 69
Joined: Tue Feb 28, 2017 6:19 pm

Re: Examining The Wisdom of the Infinite

Post by encode_decode » Mon Mar 27, 2017 10:58 pm

I understand that Dan. I was just adding a bit of small talk.

encode_decode
Posts: 69
Joined: Tue Feb 28, 2017 6:19 pm

Re: Examining The Wisdom of the Infinite

Post by encode_decode » Tue Mar 28, 2017 9:39 am

Before I ask more on the subject of cause and effect I want to ask a contrasting question based on a question already asked.

In contrast to:
encode_decode wrote:So in your view how do you in particular know when you have come across an enlightened person?
I now ask the question:

How does oneself know when oneself is enlightened?

For example:

How does Bob know when he himself is enlightened?

User avatar
David Quinn
Posts: 5559
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: Examining The Wisdom of the Infinite

Post by David Quinn » Tue Mar 28, 2017 10:48 am

encode_decode wrote:How does oneself know when oneself is enlightened?
It is a certainty that arises when one fully comprehends the nature of reality. Such an all-encompassing understanding takes one beyond all things and there is nowhere further to go.

One is so far beyond all things that even enlightenment is left behind.

encode_decode
Posts: 69
Joined: Tue Feb 28, 2017 6:19 pm

Re: Examining The Wisdom of the Infinite

Post by encode_decode » Tue Mar 28, 2017 11:35 am

Your previous answer to my previous question is quite interesting to me David and I would like to revisit that one day but for now I want to move on to my next query which is:

In the chapter on cause and effect - In the section The Eternal Nature of Cause and Effect - I quote the fifth paragraph:
David Quinn wrote:A far more pertinent question, perhaps, is the question of why there is a process of causation in the first place and not nothing at all. In other words, why is there "something" rather than nothing? This is an important question to resolve because it goes to the very heart of understanding Reality itself.
You then proceed to say "that the process of cause and effect is not a created thing, but the very principle behind all created things." - after which you explain that the principle of causation does not really exist at all.

Now I quote the seventh paragraph in the same section mentioned above:
David Quinn wrote:The "principle of causation", then, is merely a figure of speech. It is a description of how created things change into other created things. It is a conceptual construct which points to the fact that objects arise out of what is already there in the world. It asserts that a thing is created out of necessity from the circumstances which are present and that it is impossible for anything else to be created in its place. It also points to the truth that things have no beginning or end, and thus points to the essential "oneness" of Reality.
So from what I understand of what you write, you are saying that causation is some sort of process and the principle of cause and effect is what we use to express this process.

What do you say to those that might be able to fit causation in with the concept of the following?
  • Because causation has always been and always will be and I know I was born and I will die then I will be caused to come back again and again forever. Life is just a cycle of some sort; a cycle of death and rebirth.

I ask this because in the second last paragraph of the same section I quote:
David Quinn wrote:To sum up, then, the principle of causation which is responsible for the existence of all created things, including states of nothingness, itself never comes into existence and therefore is incapable of experiencing birth and death.
. . . and I know there are some people who take the leap from cause and effect to the endless life cycles so to speak . . .

User avatar
David Quinn
Posts: 5559
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: Examining The Wisdom of the Infinite

Post by David Quinn » Tue Mar 28, 2017 12:26 pm

encode_decode wrote:Now I quote the seventh paragraph in the same section mentioned above:
David Quinn wrote:The "principle of causation", then, is merely a figure of speech. It is a description of how created things change into other created things. It is a conceptual construct which points to the fact that objects arise out of what is already there in the world. It asserts that a thing is created out of necessity from the circumstances which are present and that it is impossible for anything else to be created in its place. It also points to the truth that things have no beginning or end, and thus points to the essential "oneness" of Reality.
So from what I understand of what you write, you are saying that causation is some sort of process and the principle of cause and effect is what we use to express this process.
We have to be careful with calling it a “process” as well. That too is a figure of speech. To call causation a process could easily imply that it has a limited form, or a limited set of characteristics, whereas in reality it has no form and manifests infinitely into the countless phenomena we see around us.

encode_decode wrote:What do you say to those that might be able to fit causation in with the concept of the following?
  • Because causation has always been and always will be and I know I was born and I will die then I will be caused to come back again and again forever. Life is just a cycle of some sort; a cycle of death and rebirth.
What is this “I” exactly?

For anything to come back at all, the countless causes which gave rise to it in the first place would also have to come back.

encode_decode wrote:I ask this because in the second last paragraph of the same section I quote:
David Quinn wrote:To sum up, then, the principle of causation which is responsible for the existence of all created things, including states of nothingness, itself never comes into existence and therefore is incapable of experiencing birth and death.
. . . and I know there are some people who take the leap from cause and effect to the endless life cycles so to speak . . .
Again, how is a “life cycle” being defined here?

If we define a “life cycle” to be any phenomena occurring over time, then the process of cause and effect is nothing other than the process of generating life cycles.

encode_decode
Posts: 69
Joined: Tue Feb 28, 2017 6:19 pm

Re: Examining The Wisdom of the Infinite

Post by encode_decode » Tue Mar 28, 2017 12:53 pm

That makes sense - I can imagine eternity from what you say.

Now I move on to the last section in the chapter of cause and effect entitled "The Will to Unconsciousness".

I quote the entire first paragraph:
David Quinn wrote:It is sometimes said to me, "It all sounds too simple and convenient for my liking. If cause and effect is the ultimate answer to everything, then why doesn't everybody subscribe to it? Why isn't it taught in schools? Why aren't the great thinkers preaching it? Why have I never heard about it before?"
I am interested to know the answer to each one of these questions . . .

So what I will do here is ask one of the questions you mention and one of my own . . .


'Your' mentioned question:
  • It all sounds too simple and convenient for my liking. If cause and effect is the ultimate answer to everything, then why doesn't everybody subscribe to it?
Wikipedia wrote:In Chinese philosophy, yin and yang (also yin-yang or yin yang, 陰陽 yīnyáng "dark—bright") describe how seemingly opposite or contrary forces may actually be complementary, interconnected, and interdependent in the natural world, and how they may give rise to each other as they interrelate to one another.
Now for 'my' question:
  • Do you think yin and yang fit in with the principle of causation?
:)

I am finding your answers to be concise.

User avatar
David Quinn
Posts: 5559
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: Examining The Wisdom of the Infinite

Post by David Quinn » Tue Mar 28, 2017 4:30 pm

encode_decode wrote:'Your' mentioned question: It all sounds too simple and convenient for my liking. If cause and effect is the ultimate answer to everything, then why doesn't everybody subscribe to it?
There are two main reasons: (a) We are all taught - by society, by our family, by the education system, etc - to habitually think in a complicated, superficial manner and to avoid actually understanding anything, and (b) whenever an individual does manage to break his conditioning and streamlines his mind and starts to probe the simplicity of a great truth like cause and effect, he intuitively perceives the threat it poses to his comfortable life as a normal human being.

Or to put it another way, the lives of almost everyone in the world are filled with strong attachments of one sort or another, attachments that they instinctively want to protect, and thus there is little incentive for anyone to pursue lines of thought that are profound and far-reaching.

encode_decode wrote:Do you think yin and yang fit in with the principle of causation?
They do, particularly when causation is viewed from a purely logical perspective. Yin and Yang represents all pairs of opposites, and each opposite in a pair is necessarily in a causal relationship with the other. I touch on this subject in Chapter 2. For example:
Wisdom of the Infinite wrote:Consider the image of a black bird painted on a white canvas. It is only because of the contrast between the black and white colours that the painted bird is able to exist at all. If the canvas was exactly the same shade of black as the bird, the bird would simply merge into the rest of the canvas and disappear without trace ......

Existence is always dualistic in nature. Just as "up" can only exist in relation to "down", and "big" in relation to "small", so too an existing object can only exist in relation to what is not that object. In more formal language, "A" (which stands for any object or event in the Universe) is always dependent upon "not-A", and vice versa.

encode_decode
Posts: 69
Joined: Tue Feb 28, 2017 6:19 pm

Re: Examining The Wisdom of the Infinite

Post by encode_decode » Tue Mar 28, 2017 6:24 pm

Magnificent David . . . Magnificent.

:)
David Quinn wrote:It is at this point that we can finally begin to understand the spiritual concept of faith. The genuine faith of a spiritual man has nothing to do with blindly clinging to an unprovable belief, as the Christians would have it. On the contrary, it involves pursuing to the end what you know to be ultimately true in life, even though such a pursuit effectively means the forfeiting of your life. As Soren Kierkegaard so eloquently expressed it, "To have faith is really to advance along the way where all the human road signs point: back, back, back."
Indeed.
Jesus wrote:"Blessed is he who is not offended!"
Indeed.

Jesus is one of the most misunderstood individuals.

encode_decode
Posts: 69
Joined: Tue Feb 28, 2017 6:19 pm

Re: Examining The Wisdom of the Infinite

Post by encode_decode » Wed Mar 29, 2017 9:53 am

@ David - Before we start exploring chapter two "Entering the Logical Realm" I just wanted to ask a couple of general questions.

What are your thoughts on science in general?

What do you think of artificial intelligence?

And a less general question . . .

Do you think we can improve our lives and world outside of enlightenment? By this I mean take part in the world but at the same time remain enlightened.

User avatar
David Quinn
Posts: 5559
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: Examining The Wisdom of the Infinite

Post by David Quinn » Wed Mar 29, 2017 4:16 pm

encode_decode wrote:What are your thoughts on science in general?
Positive, but realistic.

As a tool for creating descriptive theories and predictive models about events in the empirical world, it is extremely powerful. It is, thus far, an incredible achievement by the human race. But it does have its limits, particularly when it comes to more intangible areas like spirituality. Science fundamentally lacks the capacity to uncover what is ultimately true in life. It cannot resolve any of the great philosophic issues. It cannot teach a person how to become wise.

On the plus side, a good scientific education can help a person develop skills in evaluating evidence, discriminating between competing theories, making logical deductions and inferences, and being intellectually dispassionate. In other words, it can lead to higher quality mental processes.

Moreover, exploring the various branches of science, such as cosmology and evolutionary biology, can push the mind into more philosophic areas. While it cannot resolve any philosophic issues for us, it can prompt us to want to think more logically and deeply about them. Which, according to my morality, is a good thing.

encode_decode wrote:What do you think of artificial intelligence?
I’m not sure what you are asking here.

Do I think machines can become conscious? In principle, yes. We are machines who are conscious, after all.

Will we be able to build conscious (non-biological) machines one day? I don’t know. It is possible that scientists will never truly understand what consciousness is, that it will always be too elusive for their theories to model. Yet it is also possible that they could create consciousness by accident, as a side effect of constructing ever more complex forms of artificial intelligence. But then again, even if this were to happen, they might not have the means to discern that it has happened.

I'm not fully up to speed with the latest developments. Matt Gregory made reference to machine learning in the Trump thread. This seems to be a powerful area of research. Who knows where it might lead.

encode_decode wrote:Do you think we can improve our lives and world outside of enlightenment? By this I mean take part in the world but at the same time remain enlightened.
Of course. If we think of the mind as a tool, then it follows that the more powerful it becomes - the more rational, the more single-minded, the more insightful, the more profound, the more clear-sighted, the more it transcends life and death, etc - the more it can accomplish in whatever field of life, and the more invincible it will be.

User avatar
Dan Rowden
Posts: 5663
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 8:03 pm
Contact:

Re: Examining The Wisdom of the Infinite

Post by Dan Rowden » Wed Mar 29, 2017 7:23 pm

The issue of how enlightenment engages with the world is a secondary matter to what enlightenment actually is. I don't think the latter point is meaningful without the former having been first determined.

encode_decode
Posts: 69
Joined: Tue Feb 28, 2017 6:19 pm

Re: Examining The Wisdom of the Infinite

Post by encode_decode » Wed Mar 29, 2017 7:47 pm

Entering the Logical Realm
Chuang Tzu wrote:"Some people try to peep at the heavens through a tube, or aim at the earth with an awl. These implements are too small for the purpose. You will find many like this."
I noticed you quoted Master Chuang at the beginning of the chapter named "Entering the Logical Realm" and was wondering whether you had an interest in Chinese Philosophy especially after your answer to my yin yang question. Have you read the Tao Te Ching and studied much on Taoism?

The stone sculpture of Laozi is a pretty impressive, I must admit.
David Quinn wrote:I realize that in this day and age the concept of "pure logical truth" is regarded with suspicion and usually placed in the same basket as religious belief. We are all brainwashed with the view that scientific knowledge is the only valid knowledge there is, and it is evident that most people cannot think beyond this.
Indeed. It is kind of freaky I think. I also think science strips a way at us more than just the ability to think beyond it. I noticed a whole bunch of questions I can answer without the help of science, and these answers are more important to me than all of science put together. Any closed system makes me suspicious though.

So it is logical to me that you do not advocate a closed system in your writings, or am I misinterpreting what I am reading? Especially given the name of the book "The Wisdom of the Infinite".
Last edited by encode_decode on Wed Mar 29, 2017 7:51 pm, edited 1 time in total.

encode_decode
Posts: 69
Joined: Tue Feb 28, 2017 6:19 pm

Re: Examining The Wisdom of the Infinite

Post by encode_decode » Wed Mar 29, 2017 7:49 pm

Dan Rowden wrote:The issue of how enlightenment engages with the world is a secondary matter to what enlightenment actually is. I don't think the latter point is meaningful without the former having been first determined.
Would you mind elaborating Dan? I think I might have missed something there.

User avatar
David Quinn
Posts: 5559
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: Examining The Wisdom of the Infinite

Post by David Quinn » Wed Mar 29, 2017 9:18 pm

encode_decode wrote:I noticed you quoted Master Chuang at the beginning of the chapter named "Entering the Logical Realm" and was wondering whether you had an interest in Chinese Philosophy especially after your answer to my yin yang question. Have you read the Tao Te Ching and studied much on Taoism?
I know the Tao Te Ching well. A very fine work.
  • Without going outside, you may know the whole world.
    Without looking through the window, you may see the ways
    of heaven.
    The farther you go, the less you know.

    Thus the sage knows without travelling;
    He sees without looking;
    He works without doing.
Many of my favourite thinkers are Chinese - not just Lao Tzu and Chuang Tzu, but also Huang Po, Lin-Chi, and Bodhidharma. There is something very lively about the Chinese mentality. Their words tend to be straightforward and direct, with very little padding. They know how to go straight to the root without getting sidetracked by irrelevancies. They also have a playful side, which appeals to me. They’re not afraid to be joyful.

encode_decode wrote:
David Quinn wrote:I realize that in this day and age the concept of "pure logical truth" is regarded with suspicion and usually placed in the same basket as religious belief. We are all brainwashed with the view that scientific knowledge is the only valid knowledge there is, and it is evident that most people cannot think beyond this.
Indeed. It is kind of freaky I think. I also think science strips a way at us more than just the ability to think beyond it. I noticed a whole bunch of questions I can answer without the help of science, and these answers are more important to me than all of science put together.
What is an example?

encode_decode wrote: Any closed system makes me suspicious though.

So it is logical to me that you do not advocate a closed system in your writings, or am I misinterpreting what I am reading? Especially given the name of the book "The Wisdom of the Infinite".
It depends on what you mean by a “closed system”. The Infinite is open in the sense that nothing can ever be excluded from it. It is closed in the sense that nothing can ever enter into it.

User avatar
Russell Parr
Posts: 852
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 2010 10:44 am

Re: Examining The Wisdom of the Infinite

Post by Russell Parr » Thu Mar 30, 2017 12:24 am

David Quinn wrote:
encode_decode wrote:What do you think of artificial intelligence?
I’m not sure what you are asking here.

Do I think machines can become conscious? In principle, yes. We are machines who are conscious, after all.

Will we be able to build conscious (non-biological) machines one day? I don’t know. It is possible that scientists will never truly understand what consciousness is, that it will always be too elusive for their theories to model. Yet it is also possible that they could create consciousness by accident, as a side effect of constructing ever more complex forms of artificial intelligence. But then again, even if this were to happen, they might not have the means to discern that it has happened.
To tack onto this, it is also a matter of how one defines consciousness. Some may not be happy to say a machine is conscious until it exhibits some degree of creativity that exceeds our expectations. Others may look for a self-serving apparatus. A programmed ego (or learned, if a machine is programmed to learn human behaviour), so to speak. Like the Terminator or Matrix movies.

The bottom line is that all things and actions are made up of causality. To attribute the quality of consciousness onto something or someone is nothing more than a categorical designation referring to a group or set of causal phenomena.
David Quinn wrote:
encode_decode wrote:Do you think we can improve our lives and world outside of enlightenment? By this I mean take part in the world but at the same time remain enlightened.
Of course. If we think of the mind as a tool, then it follows that the more powerful it becomes - the more rational, the more single-minded, the more insightful, the more profound, the more clear-sighted, the more it transcends life and death, etc - the more it can accomplish in whatever field of life, and the more invincible it will be.
encode_decode wrote:
Dan Rowden wrote:The issue of how enlightenment engages with the world is a secondary matter to what enlightenment actually is. I don't think the latter point is meaningful without the former having been first determined.
Would you mind elaborating Dan? I think I might have missed something there.
Not to speak for Dan, but he was following up on what David last said in the post before.

Once you thoroughly understand the technicalities of enlightenment, you will then know how it applies to the act of living in this world.

Enlightenment is an attained perspective that undermines the influences of the ego, allowing one to behave in the world in an intelligent, thoughtful manner. It is the ability to maintain objectivity within the subjective experience.

The enlightened perspective is gained by firstly obtaining a proper understanding of the nature of reality. Once this is done, it will immediately and naturally begin to act upon your overall psyche. But this is not enough, sufficient effort must be made in order to fully engulf one's psyche into a consistent applied awareness of the enlightened perspective. This is not easy. In many ways, it is counter-intuitive, because we, as biological beings, are programmed through and through to pay attention to and serve the egotistical side of our psyche.

Now, the ego isn't bad in itself. It is a necessary part of our being. But as far as perspective goes, it is severely limited. To be enlightened is to have the ability to see through one's ego, to put it in its proper place within the greater, or ultimate, perspective.

Post Reply