GENIUS FORUMS

ExpectantlyIronic wrote:Kow,

You aren't providing any arguments to prove your points. Your simply asserting your own views without any explanation of why they should be accepted. You might think that they're so intuitive that they'll be automatically accepted when stated, but that obviously doesn't seem to be the case. Could you clearly state what you're trying to say, how it contradicts what I've said, and why?

What are you talking about? You haven't proven fuck all!

What are you talking about? You haven't proven fuck all!

I've provided arguments for my positions. If you think that I'm wrong, attack my arguments, rather then simply asserting an alternate view. If I were to suggest that the earth is flat because it appears to be, you wouldn't be facilitating discussion by merely stating that it's round. I'd have no clue as to why you think it's round, and thus couldn't do anything in response beyond reiterating my previous position. See what I mean?

ExpectantlyIronic wrote:

What are you talking about? You haven't proven fuck all!

I've provided arguments for my positions. If you think that I'm wrong, attack my arguments, rather then simply asserting an alternate view. If I were to suggest that the earth is flat because it appears to be, you wouldn't be facilitating discussion by merely stating that it's round. I'd have no clue as to why you think it's round, and thus couldn't do anything in response beyond reiterating my previous position. See what I mean?

With few exceptions, all you've done is state your beliefs. If you don't agree with the responses, then attack them, rather than asking for verbal proof about something that must be perceived or realized, to be understood. All that words do is point. It's up to you to look or not look. Take it or leave it.

Kow,

Alright. Lets look at one of your statements:

The experiencer, the feeler etc. is an illusion. The illusion constantly reincarnating itself is the activity of thought as "me". That's you! You are that life of thought.

You claim that the "experiencer" is an "illusion". You've said that this is because it's not always experienced. I previously gave an analogy that demonstrates that we generally don't refer to that which isn't always experienced as an illusion. Specifically, I brought up patterns observed when awake that aren't experienced when sleeping. Given this, you seem to be making a merely semantic point that depends on your unique usage of the term "illusion" when applied in this case to hold true. Thus it doesn't refute my claims that the "experiencer" isn't an illusion, when you understand that I simply mean that the term "illusion" is generally used to describe a category of phenomena that doesn't make sense when applied to such things as the "experiencer". This is due to the fact that the "experiencer" is indistinguishable from the experiences that compose it. To call the "experiencer" an illusion, is to call everything experienced an illusion.

Incidentally, I think we might be talking past each other. You seem to be providing a definition of self that isn't all-encompassing of experienced phenomena. I've consistently said that my usage of the term is. What I call "me" seems to be indistinguishable from what I might call the "experiencer". If you separate the two for whatever reason, then that could be the reason for our disagreement on the matter.

Dude :),

Let's very briefly address two of your points. Actually, they are assumptions.

ExpectantlyIronic wrote: Kow,
You claim that the "experiencer" is an "illusion". You've said that this is because it's not always experienced.

Give a quote where 'kow' said that (the sentence in bold).

ExpectantlyIronic wrote: To call the "experiencer" an illusion, is to call everything experienced an illusion.

No it isn't. Why do you assume such a thing?

To quote the Buddha, when he was asked about the experiencer:


"But who, Venerable One, is it that feels?"

"This question is not proper," said the Exalted One.
I do not teach that there is one who feels.
If, however, the question is put thus:
'Conditioned through what does feeling arise?' then the answer will be 'Through sense impressions as a condition feeling [arises]; with feeling as a condition, craving [arises]."
--SN II 13

Kow,

Give a quote where 'kow' said that (the sentence in bold).

You claimed that the ego could be "absent while the body is living."

Why do you assume such a thing?

The "experiencer" is the totality of that which is experienced. What else could it possibly be? If the "experiencer" - the totality of experiences - is an illusion, then all the components - experiences - the comprise it must also be illusions.

ExpectantlyIronic wrote: Kow,

Give a quote where 'kow' said that (the sentence in bold).

You claimed that the ego could be "absent while the body is living."

In other words, kow didn't say that "the experiencer is an illusion because it's not always experienced.", but that the ego could be absent while the body is living. There are myriad ways for the experiencer not to be experienced; identification, absorbtion, inattention, to name a few. None are the absence of the phenomenon, though.

There's no reason to endlessly go over the other point. You're repeating yourself and kow will reiterate, as well. The absence is always unknown, anyways. :)