Courage

Elizabeth Isabelle · Post by **Elizabeth Isabelle** » Sun Oct 08, 2006 8:47 am

Scott wrote:

Courage is what egolessness is all about.

Taken exactly like that, this is true. The point I have a contention with is the path. Courage is not a prerequisite (although it can be) because it is the person who has nothing to lose who finds it easier to take the kinds of risks that heroic measures often require.

A person who has nothing to lose can either take it easy or seize the fact that there is now only everything to gain.

sschaula · Post by **sschaula** » Sun Oct 08, 2006 9:30 am

Courage is not a prerequisite (although it can be) because it is the person who has nothing to lose who finds it easier to take the kinds of risks that heroic measures often require.

A person who has nothing to lose can either take it easy or seize the fact that there is now only everything to gain.

I don't really understand your point...but I think courage isn't just about doing things people consider brave because you've got nothing to lose. I think courage is when you have things to lose, and you do whatever it is because it's the right thing to do.

Elizabeth Isabelle · Post by **Elizabeth Isabelle** » Sun Oct 08, 2006 10:30 am

I could have phrased that better.

If the goals are truth, honesty, and doing the right thing, then it is easier to do those things when one has nothing to lose.

It does take more courage to risk a lot than a little, but it does not really matter how one arrives at a point of using logic, rationality, and engaging justice - so long as one does these things.

Consider for a moment that the way many people think and behave is like a sinking ship, and wisdom is a lifeboat.
If a ship is sinking, it takes little courage to step into the lifeboat, and a lot of courage to swing on a rope from the top deck into the lifeboat. It does not matter so much how each person got there as it matters that they got there. The guy who decided to swing down on a rope isn't any more in the lifeboat than the guy who took the stairs. The rope guy may get a little more glory for a moment, but wisdom isn't about glory.

sschaula · Post by **sschaula** » Sun Oct 08, 2006 11:20 am

Elizabeth,

I agree with you. Everyone who abandons the sinking ship (delusion) and gets onto the lifeboat (wisdom) has made a courageous move...if they swung down from a rope (if they had a lot to lose) or just hopped on (not much left to lose). That is why I said egolessness (wisdom) is all about courage.

But back to the original discussion: is a fragile ego closer to egolessness than a strong ego? I don't think so. A strong ego makes courageous moves. A fragile ego gets moved. It's more likely that a fragile ego will sink with the ship, because it couldn't decide whether or not it should risk its life jumping onto the lifeboat.

Elizabeth Isabelle · Post by **Elizabeth Isabelle** » Mon Oct 09, 2006 1:20 pm

Scott,

I am missing your point. Here's what I'm perceiving that you are saying, so please correct whatever it is that I misunderstood.

(please substitue "=" for "approximatly equals" as I do not know how to make the correct symbol with the keyboard)

I think you're saying:

egolessness = wisdom
wisdom = courage
courage = strong ego
therefore
egolessness = wisdom = courage = strong ego

This does not follow because egolessness does not even close to equal a strong ego.

sschaula · Post by **sschaula** » Mon Oct 09, 2006 9:34 pm

That's not what I'm saying.

Elizabeth Isabelle · Post by **Elizabeth Isabelle** » Mon Oct 09, 2006 10:06 pm

So I repeat:

Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:so please correct whatever it is that I misunderstood.

.

sschaula · Post by **sschaula** » Mon Oct 09, 2006 11:11 pm

Alright...I don't mind spoon feeding you.

A person with a weak ego can't do courageous things. A person with a strong ego, and also a person with no ego, can do courageous things.

A person with a strong ego is closer to having no ego than a person with a weak ego, because the weak ego is stagnancy. It's based completely in delusions of "I'm not good enough". The strong ego is based in delusions as well, but they don't hinder the progress of that individual. The strong ego has the courage to progress and grow even more...to the point where they rely on nothing, and it's almost as if they have no ego at all, because they're so confident in their own nature.

They don't need to be boosted up by others, in order to feel strong. Nothing affects them.

Anyway...I haven't lost my ego entirely, so I can't tell you where the next step is for the strong ego. But I am absolutely sure that having a weak ego is far far far far far away from having no ego, and having a strong ego is much closer.

Elizabeth Isabelle · Post by **Elizabeth Isabelle** » Tue Oct 10, 2006 1:58 am

Aha - I see where our miscommunication is. I see a difference between having a weak ego and a fragile ego.

A weak ego does, as you say, become prone to cowardly behavior. This person may do or say things to go along with the crowd, to keep his job even though he sees something unethical going on in his company, not say or do anything if he sees someone getting beaten (or maybe just consider calling in a report later) - that sort of thing. This person is still trying to protect what ego he has. If someone takes a blow to his ego (boss threatens to blackball him if he discloses company fraud) he will back down, feel hurt, feel the conflict between what he knows is right and what he is going along with - and just be a weak little marshmallow. He doesn't have enough courage to do the right thing.

A person with a fragile ego gets his ego broken with the blow. He takes the boss' threat and figures he's sunk anyway - doesn't know how far his boss will try to push him but is sure that if he goes along with it, either he will be an emotionally beaten slave to this unethical master or he will get blackballed anyway, so he decides to do the right thing because he feels like he has nothing to lose. It didn't take any courage for him to do the right thing.

sschaula · Post by **sschaula** » Tue Oct 10, 2006 2:07 am

Okay, well...a wuss is a wuss.

Elizabeth Isabelle · Post by **Elizabeth Isabelle** » Tue Oct 10, 2006 2:17 am

namelesss · Post by **namelesss** » Wed Oct 11, 2006 7:26 am

Thinking that you have 'courage' is vanity. Hollow egoic desperate 'self' validation, believing the lies to be truths.
'Pride' is considered a 'sin' for a reason.

It certainly provides a 'platform' (built on sand, of course) to judge others as 'wusses', though, while enjoying our own pats on our own backs... Gee, sometimes we can even garner the 'pats' from others (similarly deluded).
It is still mere vanity; taking 'credit' for that which you have no 'responsibility'.

sschaula · Post by **sschaula** » Wed Oct 11, 2006 9:16 am

You're absolutely 'right', nameless.

sue hindmarsh · Post by **sue hindmarsh** » Wed Oct 11, 2006 11:25 am

namelesss wrote:

It is still mere vanity; taking 'credit' for that which you have no 'responsibility'.

What does this mean: "taking 'credit' for that which you have no 'responsibility'"?

-
Sue

Carl G · Post by **Carl G** » Wed Oct 11, 2006 11:26 am

namelesss wrote:Thinking that you have 'courage' is vanity. Hollow egoic desperate 'self' validation, believing the lies to be truths.
'Pride' is considered a 'sin' for a reason.

Scott wrote:You're absolutely 'right', nameless.

He's absolutely right because technically there is no "you" to have the courage, right, Scott?

Heh, well actually, nameless, I think you have delusions about courage if you talk like this. How is courage necessarily linked to vanity, desperate 'self' validation, and believing lies to be truths?

nameless: It certainly provides a 'platform' (built on sand, of course) to judge others as 'wusses', though, while enjoying our own pats on our own backs... Gee, sometimes we can even garner the 'pats' from others (similarly deluded).

It could provide such a platform, but what if the courage is just plain old fashioned grit? That is a good thing, no?

Scott, you said the same thing earlier in the thread, and now you are agreeing with all this vanity talk.

Scott: Everyone who abandons the sinking ship (delusion) and gets onto the lifeboat (wisdom) has made a courageous move...if they swung down from a rope (if they had a lot to lose) or just hopped on (not much left to lose). That is why I said egolessness (wisdom) is all about courage.

Said like a man. And now you want to join the wuss patrol.

Stand up for the guys, Scott, show some courage!
(smilie emoticon here)

nameless: It is still mere vanity; taking 'credit' for that which you have no 'responsibility'.

nameless, you're too stoic, too humble. You're right, we have no right taking credit for anything. We're just caused, right. We're all effects. No body, no self. Might as well hang loose and let it all just happen. Right on, brother.

sschaula · Post by **sschaula** » Wed Oct 11, 2006 11:59 am

Carl,

Scott, you said the same thing earlier in the thread, and now you are agreeing with all this vanity talk.

I think nameless was primarily talking about me....and I said he is right. I don't claim to be perfect.

namelesss · Post by **namelesss** » Wed Oct 11, 2006 1:35 pm

sschaula wrote:I think nameless was primarily talking about me....and I said he is right. I don't claim to be perfect.

No sir.
I was speaking in generalities.

Elizabeth Isabelle · Post by **Elizabeth Isabelle** » Wed Oct 11, 2006 1:48 pm

sschaula wrote:You're absolutely 'right', nameless.

I thought Scott was mocking him, and had done a fine job of pointing out nameless' need to be "right" - which is another "pride" "sin."

namelesss · Post by **namelesss** » Wed Oct 11, 2006 2:22 pm

Sue Hindmarsh wrote:What does this mean: "taking 'credit' for that which you have no 'responsibility'"?

Hello, Sue.
Like plagiarism.
If I carve a ..carving, and someone else claims to have produced this WoA (work of art), and actually 'believed' his claim, he would be deluded (his 'belief' of a 'lie/illusion').
If 'seeing things' from a non-deluded perspective is to be preferred, then it would ba an act of 'compassion' to point out the 'delusion' to him, along with, perhaps, a bit of 'evidence' for him to evaluate.

From 'this' perspective, 'we' (the entire universe is included in the definition of 'we') are 'created' anew 'as' each 'moment' of our existence. All (Planck) moments together, simultaneously. So if a moment is 'created' where it appears that I am 'creating something' (when looked at from a 'certain' perspective), it is not 'me' that is 'doing' (there actually is no 'motion' possible, no 'doing', like electrons 'jumping' energy levels) anything. It just 'appears' that way. ('Appearances' are always deceiving! And 'believing' appearances of illusion to be 'reality' is delusion.)

So you were created, for a few moments, appearing to exhibit courage, or genius, or sagacity, or murderous rage, or hate or compassion, etc.. none of this is our actual 'doing'. This is how we are 'created' in the momentary 'Now'. We are not the 'creators', we are the (as much as this knowledge and all the implications just 'grind' on the illusions of the old ego) 'creation'. To take credit for the courage with which you are momentarily 'created', is 'delusional'. If you wish to consider 'delusion' to be counterproductive, it must be weeded out. It always manifests as an ugly egoic 'battle'. After all, we are basically talking about our egoically held (and 'desperately' defended, as we identify with our egoic) 'beliefs'.

This is basically why 'Pride' ("Look at me! I'm so courageous! Aren't I special?") is considered a 'sin'. We take unto our (egoic delusion of) 'self' that which is the 'creator's'.

I answered as well as I could because I got the impression that your question was simply an honest desire to understand what this wierd shit is that I'm offering; unlike the nastiness and agendized questions and sarcasm, etc... that I commonly receive before people even had an inkling of my meanings. Egos are so delicate...

So, an honest answer for an honest question.
I know that I touched on some 'questionable terms', such as 'creator', 'created', 'sin'.. but the 'creation' part can be upheld from, among other perspectives, that of quantum mechanics. I didn't think it necessary to get into that now, within the context of answering your question, but I 'will' go there 'later'.
Thank you for asking.

namelesss · Post by **namelesss** » Wed Oct 11, 2006 6:33 pm

Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:
sschaula wrote:You're absolutely 'right', nameless.
I thought Scott was mocking him, and had done a fine job of pointing out nameless' need to be "right" - which is another "pride" "sin."

You are like an annoying mosquito buzzing in the background.
Shoo..
Its a shame that there is no 'ignore' function on this board, you'd be my first.
My only 'need' is to ignore you from here on out. I can easily do that. You make a terrible minion.
Bye bye.
'Need' satisfied.
Bzzzzzzz......

namelesss · Post by **namelesss** » Wed Oct 11, 2006 7:15 pm

Actually, you all win.
I'm out of here.
You can go back to sleep now.
My appologies to Sue H. if your question was honest and respectful, that would be the first here, and my answer to you was honest and straight also..
It just isn't worth it to me to have to deal with the nastiness on this site.
Good night and good bye.
Carry on.

Elizabeth Isabelle · Post by **Elizabeth Isabelle** » Wed Oct 11, 2006 9:20 pm

namelesss wrote:Its a shame that there is no 'ignore' function on this board

Sure there is. It is used by not reading the post, not hitting "add reply," typing, and clicking "submit."

Carl G · Post by **Carl G** » Wed Oct 11, 2006 10:21 pm

namelesss wrote:Actually, you all win.
I'm out of here.
You can go back to sleep now.
My appologies to Sue H. if your question was honest and respectful, that would be the first here, and my answer to you was honest and straight also..
It just isn't worth it to me to have to deal with the nastiness on this site.
Good night and good bye.
Carry on.

All ego, and no courage.