Do all children prefer to have immortal egos?

Cory Duchesne · Post by **Cory Duchesne** » Mon Nov 06, 2006 2:51 am

Ok, so this sense of existing that precedes the ego is unconditioned? Is that what Kow is saying?

Cory Duchesne · Post by **Cory Duchesne** » Mon Nov 06, 2006 2:57 am

if not, then why does he seperate consciousness from ego?

And if so, why does he equate consciousness with ego?

Steven Coyle · Post by **Steven Coyle** » Mon Nov 06, 2006 3:05 am

kowtaaia,

It would be helpful if you provided definitions, rather than your own subjective terminology.

When The Buddha refers to 'the unconditioned' - he is referring to emptiness, or sunyata.

A link -

http://www.angelfire.com/electronic/bod ... nyata.html

Cory Duchesne · Post by **Cory Duchesne** » Mon Nov 06, 2006 3:13 am

Steven wrote:

It would be helpful if you provided definitions, rather than your own subjective terminology.

Steven, if he did this, then the pleasure of bamboozling and mystifying us with his nonesense would be undermined.

Steve: When The Buddha refers to 'the unconditioned' - he is referring to emptiness, or sunyata.

Yes, and thought is always present, is it not? If it wasnt, then how could the unconditoined state be confirmed? The conditioned state confirms the existence of the unconditioned.

beebuddy · Post by **beebuddy** » Mon Nov 06, 2006 3:15 am

Steven Coyle wrote:kowtaaia,

It would be helpful if you provided definitions, rather than your own subjective terminology.

When The Buddha refers to 'the unconditioned' - he is referring to emptiness, or sunyata.

A link -

http://www.angelfire.com/electronic/bod ... nyata.html

Funny, a site with pop-up ads is supposed to be credible? It is generally accepted that unconditioned = nibanna. Ask around.

Elizabeth Isabelle · Post by **Elizabeth Isabelle** » Mon Nov 06, 2006 3:16 am

Steven Coyle wrote:kowtaaia,

It would be helpful if you provided definitions, rather than your own subjective terminology.

I think that is excellent advice to everyone from the newest member to those who run the board.

Elizabeth Isabelle · Post by **Elizabeth Isabelle** » Mon Nov 06, 2006 3:17 am

beebuddy wrote:
Steven Coyle wrote:kowtaaia,

It would be helpful if you provided definitions, rather than your own subjective terminology.

When The Buddha refers to 'the unconditioned' - he is referring to emptiness, or sunyata.

A link -

http://www.angelfire.com/electronic/bod ... nyata.html
Funny, a site with pop-up ads is supposed to be credible? It is generally accepted that unconditioned = nibanna. Ask around.

I didn't get any pop-ups.

beebuddy · Post by **beebuddy** » Mon Nov 06, 2006 3:20 am

They are there, along with non-pop-up ads.

Cory Duchesne · Post by **Cory Duchesne** » Mon Nov 06, 2006 3:24 am

Funny, a site with pop-up ads is supposed to be credible? It is generally accepted that unconditioned = nibanna. Ask around

Funny, pop ups or no pop ups, there is no reason two individuals can't cooperate in order to come to a consensus of what words mean. I really don't think we need to go much further than the dictionary. Depending on the authority of buddhist texts, or depending on others by 'asking around' isn't really very rational.

Using our own good objectivity, combined with plain, simple words should suffice.

Steven Coyle · Post by **Steven Coyle** » Mon Nov 06, 2006 3:25 am

And this discredits the site, because they don't share in your brand of compassion?

...

Steven Coyle · Post by **Steven Coyle** » Mon Nov 06, 2006 3:28 am

S: When The Buddha refers to 'the unconditioned' - he is referring to emptiness, or sunyata.

C: Yes, and thought is always present, is it not? If it wasnt, then how could the unconditoined state be confirmed? The conditioned state confirms the existence of the unconditioned.

Yes.

Right on.

beebuddy · Post by **beebuddy** » Mon Nov 06, 2006 3:30 am

Steven Coyle wrote:And this discredits the site, because they don't share in your brand of compassion?

...

If you don't get it, no amount of argument will help. Anyway, as was already mentioned, among Buddhists it is generally accepted that unconditioned = nibanna. That answers your earlier question.

Steven Coyle · Post by **Steven Coyle** » Mon Nov 06, 2006 3:33 am

Steven Coyle wrote:And this discredits the site, because they don't share in your brand of compassion?

If you don't get it, no amount of argument will help.

But, reasoned debate will.

Anyway, as was already mentioned, among Buddhists it is generally accepted that unconditioned = nibanna. That answers your earlier question.

It does, it does.

Cory Duchesne · Post by **Cory Duchesne** » Mon Nov 06, 2006 3:42 am

steve: And this discredits the site, because they don't share in your brand of compassion?

Beebuddy: If you don't get it, no amount of argument will help.

steve: But, reasoned debate will.

But steve, if they allow themselves to stoop down to the lowly level of speaking with their fellow human beings in a logical, simple way, then they loose the sense that they are super-special superior people.

The prefer the hide behind the attitude:

'I know and you dont and can't, because if you did, then that would make me less special'

beebuddy · Post by **beebuddy** » Mon Nov 06, 2006 3:44 am

So, then you believe that the "Inconceivable State of Buddhahood Sutra" is not credible? You agreed with the eroneous statement that "thought is always present," did you not?

kowtaaia · Post by **kowtaaia** » Mon Nov 06, 2006 4:02 am

Steven Coyle wrote:kowtaaia,

It would be helpful if you provided definitions, rather than your own subjective terminology.

Dictionaries are for definitions. What words do you want definitions for?

kowtaaia · Post by **kowtaaia** » Mon Nov 06, 2006 4:53 am

Steven Coyle wrote:kowtaaia,

When The Buddha refers to 'the unconditioned' - he is referring to emptiness, or sunyata.

The Demonstration of the Inconceivable State of Buddhahood Sutra

Thus have I heard. Once the Buddha was dwelling in the garden of Anathapin-dada, in the Jeta Grove near Sravasti, accompanied by one thousand monks, ten thousand Bodhisattva-Mahasattvas, and many gods of the Realm of Desire and the Realm of Form.

At that time, Bodhisattva-Mahasattva Manjusri and the god Suguna were both present among the assembly. The World-Honored One told Manjusri, "You should explain the profound state of Buddhahood for the celestial beings and the Bodhisattvas of this assembly."

Manjusri said to the Buddha, "So be it, World-Honored One. If good men and good women wish to know the state of Buddhahood, they should know that it is not a state of the eye, the ear, the nose, the tongue, the body, or the mind; nor is it a state of forms, sounds, scents, tastes, textures, or mental objects. World-Honored One, the nonstate is the state of Buddhahood. This being the case, what is the state of supreme enlightenment as attained by the Buddha?"

The Buddha said, "It is the state of emptiness, because all views are equal. It is the state of signlessness, because all signs are equal. It is the state of wishlessness, because the three realms are equal. It is the state of nonaction, because all actions are equal. It is the state of the unconditioned, because all conditioned things are equal."

Manjusri asked, "World-Honored One, what is the state of the unconditioned?"

The Buddha said, "The absence of thought is the state of the unconditioned."

Steven Coyle · Post by **Steven Coyle** » Mon Nov 06, 2006 5:53 am

With his last line, The Buddha expresses a state in accordance with the sutra.

But, what kind of thought is The World Honored One refering to?

kowtaaia · Post by **kowtaaia** » Mon Nov 06, 2006 6:07 am

Steven Coyle wrote:With his last line, The Buddha expresses a state in accordance with the sutra.

But, what kind of thought is The World Honored One refering to?

That's a silly question.

Steven Coyle · Post by **Steven Coyle** » Mon Nov 06, 2006 6:11 am

Is that your nature, to condition what is silly and what isn't?

kowtaaia · Post by **kowtaaia** » Mon Nov 06, 2006 6:15 am

It's a silly question!

Do you ask "What kind of fluids?" in response to "If you stop taking in fluids you will dehydrate." ?

Steven Coyle · Post by **Steven Coyle** » Mon Nov 06, 2006 6:18 am

I don't.

But fluids are tangible.

Thoughts thinking about thoughts are less so.

Cory Duchesne · Post by **Cory Duchesne** » Mon Nov 06, 2006 6:19 am

Steven: But, what kind of thought is The World Honored One refering to exactly?

Steven, they think that 'the world honored one' is not refering to a kind of thought, but a state of 'no thought'.

My question is, if there was a state where 'thought' was absent, then how would you know that you were in that state? How could that state ever be remembered and spoken of if thought is absent during that state?

Beebuddy and Kow will probably respond by saying: "its right in front of your face! You can't get there by discussion!"

This is just the way that they deal with the painful task of facing up to their own immaturity.

Who knows, they might be of that breed of human who thinks that you can't understand though reasoning. It's hard to say with these clowns.

Thought is always present, and can never be absent until one is dead.

kowtaaia · Post by **kowtaaia** » Mon Nov 06, 2006 6:25 am

Steven Coyle wrote:I don't.

But fluids are tangible.

Thoughts thinking about thoughts are less so.

That's just a game. Thought itself though, is a material process. It's an actual physical movement.

Steven Coyle · Post by **Steven Coyle** » Mon Nov 06, 2006 6:27 am

Cory,

Do you understand emptiness?