Do all children prefer to have immortal egos?

Cory Duchesne · Post by **Cory Duchesne** » Mon Nov 06, 2006 6:42 am

steven: Cory, do you understand emptiness?

Sure I do. If you break any given object down, what is its essence? It has no essence. Penetrate inside it, and you find constituents. Penetrate those constituents and you find more constituents.

Each object is full of things, yet those things are empty.

There is nothing concrete, only a begingless and endless movement that does not inherently exist.

Take a torch and swing it like a windmill making circles. The circle of flame looks like it has a concrete existence, but does it? Of course not.

The man swinging the torch is just like that circle.

The circle is real, but the concrete existence of the circle is illusionary.

To understand all things to be like this, is to understand emptiness.

Steven Coyle · Post by **Steven Coyle** » Mon Nov 06, 2006 6:56 am

Then - by default - you also understand what The Buddha meant by "the unconditioned."

You explained it perfectly.

Steven Coyle · Post by **Steven Coyle** » Mon Nov 06, 2006 6:57 am

...

("Not grasping after phenomena")

Cory Duchesne · Post by **Cory Duchesne** » Mon Nov 06, 2006 7:38 am

It's really not that difficult to explain.

Kow's problem is that he takes what is simple and and makes it complicated and puffed up. If you try politely calling him on his error he begins to speak to you like you don't know the superior truth that he knows.

Steven Coyle · Post by **Steven Coyle** » Mon Nov 06, 2006 8:57 am

Yeah, what's up with that, kow?

kowtaaia · Post by **kowtaaia** » Mon Nov 06, 2006 9:23 am

The error was in the other chaps interpretation. He was disagreeing with his own erroneous interpretation.

kowtaaia · Post by **kowtaaia** » Mon Nov 06, 2006 9:29 am

Here's a perfect example AGAIN:

Let's take this one example only, because if you're not going to pay attention, you're just wasting time.

In response to this: Consciousness is the sense of existing. The dawning of that sense is the birth of ego, the 'inner', the subjective state.

you post this: Is it equally correct to say that â€˜egoâ€™ is the sense of existing? Why do you separate them?

Do you understand that your response demonstrates no comprehension of what was said.

If you don't see it, then you don't know how to read!

Cory Duchesne · Post by **Cory Duchesne** » Mon Nov 06, 2006 9:46 am

Consciousness is the sense of existing. The dawning of that sense is the birth of ego, the 'inner', the subjective state.

Why not just say: the ego dawns.

Oh, I know why, because then the statement would appear as it really is, completely un-insightful, and inappropriate considering the comment that it was originally in response to.

Let's go back and take a peak at this quote:

kow: "The birth of ego(kow) was completely conscious." means that the dawning of that self awareness happened during wakefulness and was directly perceived. It means that you remember being born.

That's Kow's explanation for why he didn't have any desire for immortality as a child.

Kow was born without delusion.

A messiah!

kowtaaia · Post by **kowtaaia** » Mon Nov 06, 2006 10:03 am

Flattery will get you nowhere. The engagement is off and that's all there is to it! Move on.

Cory Duchesne · Post by **Cory Duchesne** » Mon Nov 06, 2006 10:21 am

Thats fine. Feeding your messiah fantasy is certainly not my idea of a good time.

Leyla Shen · Post by **Leyla Shen** » Mon Nov 06, 2006 10:59 am

1. Consciousness is the sense of existing
2. The sense of existing is the experience of time and thingness: separation, change
3. Therefore, consciousness is the experience of time and thingness
4. The dawning (appearance/development) of consciousness is the birth of ego, the 'inner', the subjective state

If these are true, then it is logically impossible for the birth of ego NOT to occur during â€œwakefulnessâ€ unless the ego in your following statement is a separate thing to self and, therefore, self awareness:

"The birth of ego(kow) was completely conscious." means that the dawning of that self awareness happened during wakefulness and was directly perceived. It means that you remember being born.

What is it that is already awake to directly perceive the birth ofâ€¦what?

To "remember being born" has, by way of your own logic, no more significance than the affirmation of existence.

Now, I am interested in this birth of yours. Do you have any specific details, kowtaaia, of a single event or is it something which occurs on a monthly, daily, hourly basis?

What is the significance of this memory to you?

.

kowtaaia · Post by **kowtaaia** » Mon Nov 06, 2006 11:24 am

Leyla,

It is the brain that perceives directly and registers the occurence.The dawning was a single event and up until a few months ago it was accepted as common for everyone. The significance is conscious birth, coming into being, but it's just a memory, now. Someone else made it into a big deal. :)

Cory Duchesne · Post by **Cory Duchesne** » Mon Nov 06, 2006 12:01 pm

kow wrote:

It is the brain that perceives directly and registers the occurence.The dawning was a single event
and up until a few months ago it was accepted as common for everyone. The significance is conscious birth, coming into being, but it's just a memory, now. Someone else made it into a big deal.

No, its not so much about you announcing your special birth to us.....that's no big deal.

It's your attempt to explain how your special birth was accompanied by 'wakefullness'.

Moreover, your insistence that conscious self awareness is different from wakefullness makes your case a particularly absurd one.

You were talking alot of gibberish back there bro.

Cory Duchesne · Post by **Cory Duchesne** » Mon Nov 06, 2006 12:03 pm

leyla,

you may or may not appreciate this piece of the kow puzzle.

he said this earlier on:

kow: Hopefully, you're not mistaking the conscious dawning of self awareness with awakening, because conscious or not, it is the beginning of what is the human problem

yep, kow is basically saying that he was born enlightened.

kowtaaia · Post by **kowtaaia** » Mon Nov 06, 2006 12:12 pm

Cory Duchesne wrote:leyla,

you may or may not appreciate this piece of the kow puzzle.

he said this earlier on:

kow: Hopefully, you're not mistaking the conscious dawning of self awareness with awakening, because conscious or not, it is the beginning of what is the human problem

yep, kow is basically saying that he was born enlightened.

Jesus Christ, you're stupid! The dawning of self awareness is the birth of the ego. The ego is the human problem.

kowtaaia · Post by **kowtaaia** » Mon Nov 06, 2006 12:17 pm

Case closed. You don't know how to read.

Cory Duchesne · Post by **Cory Duchesne** » Mon Nov 06, 2006 12:22 pm

Jesus Christ, you're stupid! The dawning of self awareness is the birth of the ego. The ego is the human problem.

There you go! See how much easier it is when you put aside your silly riddles and just speak the truth plainly?

No shit the ego is the problem. regarding the ego as such is practically a cliche.

Given how complicated you seem to enjoy making things, I find it pretty ironic how you succombed to a pretty massive oversimplification by equating ego to self-awareness.

So self awareness is the human problem?

I would think that the problem lies in a lack of.

Just because you remembering sucking on your moms boobs doesnt mean that you werent deluded.

You were an ignorant baby with a good memory.

You were lacking self awareness, and seem to continue to lack it.

kowtaaia · Post by **kowtaaia** » Mon Nov 06, 2006 12:27 pm

Learn how to read.

Dan Rowden · Post by **Dan Rowden** » Mon Nov 06, 2006 12:33 pm

Research would seem to suggest than in humans self-awareness develops around - roughly - 18 months (based on things like mirror responses etc). So, this is effectively when the ego, the self/other duality arises. The rest is a process of maturation and conditioning.

Cory Duchesne · Post by **Cory Duchesne** » Mon Nov 06, 2006 12:44 pm

dan wrote,

Dan: Research would seem to suggest than in humans self-awareness develops around - roughly - 18 months (based on things like mirror responses etc). So, this is effectively when the ego, the self/other duality arises. The rest is a process of maturation and conditioning.

ok, but you have to realize dan, kow bringing up this point near the begining of this thread was completely illogical. It came really out of nowhere.

As kow likes to say: 'a non sequiter'

meaning, he made a statement earlier on that did not follow from the premises, and then proceeded to speak condescendingly.

Ah, but there is a logic behind the illogic.

Keep in mind kow says:

"The birth of ego(kow) was completely conscious." means that the dawning of that self awareness happened during wakefulness and was directly perceived. It means that you remember being born.

Dan, maybe you can try to accomadate Kow's 'wakefullness' during infancy with the latest research.

kowtaaia · Post by **kowtaaia** » Mon Nov 06, 2006 12:55 pm

If anyone actually gives a shit, they can read the thread from the beginning, to see exactly what happened. Aside from being a poser and having abominable reading and comprehension skills, our friend Cory Duchesne, displays a major inferiority complex.

Cory Duchesne · Post by **Cory Duchesne** » Mon Nov 06, 2006 1:37 pm

for the past few days I've been reading over your scuffle with the boys on the vernon howard thread. Originally I skimmed it over lightly and assumed that trevor and scott were just being territorial and a bit petty in reaction to the new guy. But now that I've read over that thread more carefully, and after experiencing dealing with you first hand, I can relate to them.

You truly are a difficult person to communicate with, there is something uniquely superficial and petty about the way you use words and expect others to understand them, and you seem to bring out the worst in people.

however, if there was a fault on my side, it was my neglecting to ask you to define some basic words earlier on. It probably would have been like pulling teeth to get you to cooperate. But who knows.

I wish you a better encounter next time.

kowtaaia · Post by **kowtaaia** » Mon Nov 06, 2006 1:50 pm

Anyone that can read, knows that you're full of shit. You should have let this go, as beebuddy suggested, when you were caught falsifying a quote. You continue to harangue and the hole that you are in, just gets deeper. Again, as beebuddy foretold.

Cory Duchesne · Post by **Cory Duchesne** » Mon Nov 06, 2006 2:12 pm

Falsifying a quote? There was no conscoius intention to distort, I was typing from memory what said because I didnt want to going searching for it. I remembered it wrong. Big deal.

For you to cling to this mistake just shows how shaky the planks you stand on really are.

farewell wakeful one.

kowtaaia · Post by **kowtaaia** » Mon Nov 06, 2006 2:32 pm

Cory Duchesne wrote:Falsifying a quote? There was no conscoius intention to distort, I was typing from memory what said because I didnt want to going searching for it. I remembered it wrong. Big deal.

For you to cling to this mistake just shows how shaky the planks you stand on really are.

farewell wakeful one.

Cory Duchesne wrote:

He just accused me of mis-quoting him. I'll admit, I edited his quote just to make it simpler. It was a mistake to do that.

Which one is the lie?