GENIUS FORUMS

A deceptive sense of self-nature is present whenever there is a statement "I don't like that", "I love this", "That was horrible", "This is annoying me", "That's not what I believe". All such egotism is creating an attribute where an attribute isn't, it's based in notions of a self-quality- what one prefers, what one abhors, what one believes, what one feels. Hurrying and hastening, emotion and belief, laboring and moving toward, in a vain attempt to reach 'scenery' that is satisfactory. Buddha mind is free from desire because it recognizes the quality of.

SeekerOfWisdom wrote:A deceptive sense of self-nature is present whenever there is a statement "I don't like that", "I love this", "That was horrible", "This is annoying me", "That's not what I believe". All such egotism is creating an attribute where an attribute isn't, it's based in notions of a self-quality- what one prefers, what one abhors, what one believes, what one feels. Hurrying and hastening, emotion and belief, laboring and moving toward, in a vain attempt to reach 'scenery' that is satisfactory. Buddha mind is free from desire because it recognizes the quality of.

This is like rubbing your eyes to see flowers in the air. If self-nature doesn't exist to begin with then neither does egotism based on self-nature, or recognition of self-nature. But egotism does exist, just not in the form you think it does, but rather in the form you are demonstrating right now.

You go on and on about emptiness, yet you never seem to be at peace. If you don't like what somebody says you respond to them by quoting scriptures and invoking what others say, until you find a text that you feel supports your view. Then you go back to talking about emptiness. That's a vicious circle, some would say a "wheel of samsara."

jupiviv wrote:never seem to be at peace

Thanks Jup, proving the point, placing an attribute (or perceived lack of) where an attribute isn't.

SeekerOfWisdom wrote:

jupiviv wrote:never seem to be at peace

Thanks Jup, proving the point, placing an attribute (or perceived lack of) where an attribute isn't.

Aren't you committing the same error you are accusing me of? You're placing the attribute of placing an attribute on me. Or does self-nature become real when pointing it out supports your argument?

You don't make sense, there's a lack for you.

For example,
"If self-nature doesn't exist to begin with then neither does egotism based on self-nature, or recognition of self-nature."

Wtf? Mind explaining these odd statements you constantly make?

SeekerOfWisdom wrote:You don't make sense, there's a lack for you.

I thought you said there can never be a lack of any attribute?

For example,
"If self-nature doesn't exist to begin with then neither does egotism based on self-nature, or recognition of self-nature."

Wtf? Mind explaining these odd statements you constantly make?

If X=0, then X+Y=Y. If the attribute of self-nature is absolutely non-existent, there is no question of it being created when one thing is chosen/desired/preferred above another.

What you are saying essentially amounts to this - triangles cannot exist since they are based on the notion of square circles, which cannot exist.

What he's saying is really straightforward, though; that if the subject-object (or, self-other) duality did not exist or is "illusory" (which apparently means exactly the same thing to many!), then it necessarily follows that there is no such thing as the egotism you are talking about.

Jupiviv wrote: If the attribute of self-nature is absolutely non-existent, there is no question of it being created when one thing is chosen/desired/preferred above another.

Leyla Shen wrote:What he's saying is really straightforward, though; that if the subject-object (or, self-other) duality did not exist or is "illusory" (which apparently means exactly the same thing to many!), then it necessarily follows that there is no such thing as the egotism you are talking about.

Jup I'm talking about false notions or a deluded belief in self-nature, not that it's actually created from having these false views.

As Leyla points out, there is no such thing as an ego, but we can't stop there as that sentence alone is misleading for how then do we say someone is egotistical?

There is no ego or atman, meaning no ego-entity which is bound up in form, ie, with belonging or possession. Yet there is the widespread delusional belief that there is an ego-entity, (which causes other delusions such as free will) and the deluded view that the self can pass away (the 'false' self of course will). This notion is what is referred to when someone is said to be egotistical.

Hello?

Is there anybody out there?

I think I just had one of those deeply mysterious, wordless experiences.

I make a note to instantly close the page when I see the words "Pink Floyd"

SeekerOfWisdom wrote:As Leyla points out, there is no such thing as an ego, but we can't stop there as that sentence alone is misleading for how then do we say someone is egotistical?

We *must* stop there if all we are saying is that ego is absolutely non-existent. If we attribute an ego to somebody then it must exist.

Yet there is the widespread delusional belief that there is an ego-entity, (which causes other delusions such as free will) and the deluded view that the self can pass away (the 'false' self of course will).

The ego in this case, then, is just ignorance, which is not absolutely non-existent. It doesn't follow, however, that any reference to a self, or any desire or preference attributed to a self, is ignorant. You are interpreting what is just poetic language(no self-nature/ego) all too literally.

The words of the Buddha were intended merely as efficacious expedients for leading men out of the darkness of worse ignorance. It was as though one pretended yellow leaves were gold to stop the flow of a child's tears. - Zen.

The 'yellow' leaves here refer to the dualistic reality that is all around you, and the 'gold' refers to the idea that this reality is illusory, so there is no point in shedding tears over it. But the ultimate is to understand that duality is also non-duality. It is not really "illusory" because there is nothing it hides. There is no infinite apart from finite things.

Kunga wrote:

Dennis Mahar wrote:You can only do slavery by agreement.
dependent arising.
WTF are you talkin' about?

No.

Slaves do not agree to be slaves,
if you think that is the case, you don't know WTF you are talking about.

There is the will/power of some to in-slave others, by taking away their will/ power.
Dependent Arising isn't always pretty and joyous.
Causes and conditions also mean being in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Slave to fashion.

jupiviv wrote: The ego in this case, then, is just ignorance, which is not absolutely non-existent. It doesn't follow, however, that any reference to a self, or any desire or preference attributed to a self, is ignorant. You are interpreting what is just poetic language(no self-nature/ego) all too literally.

Ignorance isn't absolutely non-existent but an ego-entity is, which is not to be confused with 'Self' or the undeniable truth of existence, and of course language can do nothing more than point toward or hint at the truth. Words are designations attempting to convey meaning, they don't have inherent meaning in themselves.


Cahoot, I wonder if Kunga will even get what you mean! What do you think?

SeekerOfWisdom wrote:Ignorance isn't absolutely non-existent but an ego-entity is

It depends on what you mean by an ego-entity. If it means "ignorance", whether partial or complete, then it exists. Likewise if it means a particular finite thing like a person, or a purpose or desire. The flaw in your thinking is in equating any demarcation of purpose, possession, desire etc. with ignorance.

SeekerOfWisdom wrote:There is no ego or atman, meaning no ego-entity which is bound up in form, ie, with belonging or possession. Yet there is the widespread delusional belief that there is an ego-entity, (which causes other delusions such as free will) and the deluded view that the self can pass away (the 'false' self of course will). This notion is what is referred to when someone is said to be egotistical.

This is well said. As for the question if some illusion is actually "existing" or not, it's really like all things illusionary: they seem to exist from a certain perspective; when being caught up in the activity. But upon closer examination the discovery is made that something else is being looked at altogether, a motion which only created some temporary appearance in passing. Often the example of Buddha's whirling burning torch creating the appearance of some solid ring of light is given. The appearance of a ring is without doubt existing for the one reporting on it. But no solid ring is ever to be found, not by any science nor by any deeper philosophizing on the matter. Knowing this deep down does change perspectives on comings and goings of circles, warm, wet, cold or stone dry ones, and all the clinging to them.

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:it's really like all things illusionary: they seem to exist from a certain perspective; when being caught up in the activity. But upon closer examination the discovery is made that something else is being looked at altogether, a motion which only created some temporary appearance in passing. Often the example of Buddha's whirling burning torch creating the appearance of some solid ring of light is given. The appearance of a ring is without doubt existing for the one reporting on it. But no solid ring is ever to be found, not by any science nor by any deeper philosophizing on the matter.

There have been so many examples and metaphors used to portray this subtle truth, one well suited to it is the arising of a mental image in the dark for a moment so brief one could not even recollect what was actually experienced, and of course like all illusion, it was never really there, only the appearance itself. Now I don't know how you would describe or how you see the nature of all things (earth, body, universe,etc) but there is no inherent distinction between appearances of this sort and the appearance of something everyone would agree to be nothing more than a fantasy. In the same way a ring is no different to gold, the world we refer to, with all its manifestations, is no different to any passing 'mind-experience'.

SeekerOfWisdom wrote:There have been so many examples and metaphors used to portray this subtle truth, one well suited to it is the arising of a mental image in the dark for a moment so brief one could not even recollect what was actually experienced, and of course like all illusion, it was never really there, only the appearance itself.

If there is nothing that appears, then there are also no appearances, but that is clearly not true. Even a ring of fire requires fire, or an LED screen.

Now I don't know how you would describe or how you see the nature of all things (earth, body, universe,etc) but there is no inherent distinction between appearances of this sort and the appearance of something everyone would agree to be nothing more than a fantasy.

If a fantasy is supposed to be a thing that can never exist, then there is a distinction between it and things that can exist, viz., the attribute of existence. As for whether this distinction is inherent or not, it really depends on what "inherent" means. This distinction is universally valid, so if "inherent" means permanent or absolute, then it is an inherent distinction.

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:The appearance of a ring is without doubt existing for the one reporting on it. But no solid ring is ever to be found, not by any science nor by any deeper philosophizing on the matter. Knowing this deep down does change perspectives on comings and goings of circles, warm, wet, cold or stone dry ones, and all the clinging to them.

The problem is that after un-clinging from circles, people usually start clinging to rectangles or trapezoids.

Dennis Mahar wrote:When you look at sheet of paper,

can you 'see':

climate, cloud, sunlight, soil, seed, tree, logger, chainsaw, timber mill, trucks, paper manufacturing factory, retailer.

Can you see dependent arising?
inter-being?

Can you see this fundamental emptiness?

Can you see formlessness and form streaming endlessly?

Where in your fundamental endless empty and impermanent formless forming stream of climate is earthquake, of sunlight, is melanoma, of cloud, are floods, of soil, are pathogens, of tree, is disease, of logger, is fatigue, of chainsaw and timber mill and trucks, is pollution, of manufacturing factory and retailer, is greed? Do you think if you gave the same sheet of paper to the empty and formless forms of prey and predator that is fly and spider and rat and snake that they'd see the same sanitized paper-making-paper-selling mental abstractions flowing by as did you?

Mostly what is lost is the simple fact of being, the joy of being.

Is the simple fact of being, the "joy of being" the experience of the zebra being stalked and suffocated by the lion? Is the simple fact of being, the "joy of being" the experience of the rabbit been chased and having its bones crushed by the coyote? Is the simple fact of being, the "joy of being" the experience of not being suffocated or crushed, but ever being on alert to the possibility of being suffocated or crushed?

No thought can stop the hungry, thirsty beingness/thingness of Nature. Not the thought of joy or peace or love or God or philosophy or reasoning or welfare or social security or bank-account-building. Thought provides a moment or moments of agreed-upon-forgetting of Her empty and impermanent incest and cannibalism, that is all.

SeekerOfWisdom wrote:Now I don't know how you would describe or how you see the nature of all things (earth, body, universe,etc) but there is no inherent distinction between appearances of this sort and the appearance of something everyone would agree to be nothing more than a fantasy. In the same way a ring is no different to gold, the world we refer to, with all its manifestations, is no different to any passing 'mind-experience'.

And yet we do make distinctions, like you are doing now, between one expression and the other, one description being more representative of truth than some fantastic statement. This distinction is not "inherent" but purely contextual. That's how you'd distinguish between dreaming and being awake, no matter momentary confusions in between. The dream will not stand when not acting in relation with its larger context. It's meant to rise and fade fairly quickly, like a fog, a brief moment of inspiring lucidity at best. But life can pass us by in the same way: rising and fading fairly quickly, like a dream. Or as a bright spark of spirit at best. What is often called "reality" is derived from this very difference.

It is what it is and isn't what it isn't.

It's how it turned out.

It was nothing really, you know, just a misunderstanding,
just sayin',
to come from that nuthin,
each new moment is momentous, fresh and alive with a possibility.

Are we clear on that?

No use sookin' about 'what happened' which turns out to be a story about 'what happened'.

Memory is great because I don't have to figure out how to open the window every time I want to open the window.
Re-feeling the fuck-ups sux.

Yeah....just have another drink...

playful minx you are.
wink wink.

Distinction.

because of the unborn-ness of Buddha-mind, it readily reflects all things that come along and transforms itself into them, thus turning the Buddha-mind into thought.

..In the Unborn, all things are perfectly resolved