GENIUS FORUMS

Cory: do you think the possibility of an afterlife is a more optimisitic scenario than if there is no after life?

Eliz: That might depend on the quality of afterlife nothingness is compared against.

Elizabeth, I think that suffeing is based on a physical-biological-chemical-electrical proccess, suffering I think is limited to a flesh bound organism.

What good reasons do you have for believing that suffering can take place in some ghost-like body?

Cory Duchesne wrote: Kow wrote:

Kow: Do you have an ego or are you the ego?

I would say that I am the ego. To say that ‘I have an ego’ is to divide the observer from the observed. Such a division is an illusion.

Obviously. Why then did you keep saying: "I'm assuming you mean kows ego." ? :)

Cory Duchesne wrote: However, I would like to hear what you think the ego is. What do you think the ego is? What is it made of?

The ego is self centered activity. It's the continuation of the subjective state, which is the reality of thought. It is duality. It is illusion.

Cory Duchesne wrote:
What is the difference between ‘non-duality’ and monism? Give my description of monism another quick read and tell me what you think.

wikipedia will suffice.... Nondualism versus monism
The Western philosophical concept monism is similar to nondualism. But monism holds that all phenomena are actually of the same substance. Nondualism proper, on the other hand, holds rather that different phenomena are inseparable or that there is no hard line between them, but that they are not the same. The distinction between these two types of views is considered critical in Zen, Madhyamika, and Dzogchen, all of which are nondualisms proper, whereas Advaita Hinduism is monist — it maintains that all phenomena are Brahman). Some later philosophical approaches also attempt to undermine traditional dichotomies, with the view they are fundamentally invalid or inaccurate. For example, one typical form of deconstruction is the critique of binary oppositions within a text while problematization questions the context or situation in which concepts such as dualisms occur.

Kowtaaia,

thanks for the wikipedia bit on monism and nondualism.

kow: The ego is self centered activity. It's the continuation of the subjective state, which is the reality of thought. It is duality. It is illusion.

Then isnt the phrase 'conscious ego' an oxymoron?

Why then did you keep saying: "I'm assuming you mean kows ego"?

Hey, come on now, that is me just trying to translate a particular comment of yours:

Kowtaaia: The birth of ego was completely conscious.

Don't you think that comment of yours deserves the question that it provoked?

When someone claims that his ego was born completely consciousness, it seems wise to question that person on the fundamentals pertaining to what exactly he regards an ego to be, and what he regards consciousness to be.

Your idea of a 'conscious ego' seems a bit in contradiction with your most recent post which describes the ego as delusional self-centered activity.

Cory Duchesne wrote:

kow: The ego is self centered activity. It's the continuation of the subjective state, which is the reality of thought. It is duality. It is illusion.

Then isnt the phrase 'conscious ego' an oxymoron?

"Conscious ego" is your phrase. But if you'd like some more dope on the ego; it IS self awareness and "The birth of ego 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.

You have said that you are the ego because the division between the observer and the observed is an illusion. From your statements and questions and the phraseology, it is obvious that your assertion is a belief and not the manifest reality of that fundamental realization. Right? Right! :)

Cory Duchesne wrote:What good reasons do you have for believing that suffering can take place in some ghost-like body?

Direct contact with ghosts/spirits

Hello again kowtaaia,

Kow: "Conscious ego" is your phrase. But if you'd like some more dope on the ego; it IS self awareness

But didn't you also say in a previous post:

kow: The ego is self centered activity. It's the continuation of the subjective state, which is the reality of thought. It is duality. It is illusion.

So, according to you Kow, ego is self centered activity, the continuation of the subjective state, the reality of thought, duality and thus ego is illusion.

But then on the other hand you say: "ego IS self awareness"

So which is it?

Kow: "The birth of ego 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.

Do you rememeber being in your mother's womb or something? What were you doing when your ego first 'dawned'. Playing with a toy blocks? nursing on your mother's teet? Were you in the womb?

But maybe I am taking this all too literally. I really don't know how metaphorical you are speaking. I encourage you to tell me more.

Kow: You have said that you are the ego because the division between the observer and the observed is an illusion.

I am a part of the thought proccesses and emotions that I try and control, sure. Furthermore, the biochemical-electrical activity of my brain that can be observed on a physiological reading IS me. This really isnt that hard to realize I dont think.

Kow: From your statements and questions and the phraseology, it is obvious that your assertion is a belief and not the manifest reality of that fundamental realization

[laughs]

wow, you really are a very advanced human being arent you?

Seriously, for the sake of keeping this conversation interesting (rather than a pissing contest), I will consent to the possibility that you are indeed my superior, and that my understanding is (unlike yours) based on mere belief, rather than direct perception.

I look foward to your reply.

Cory Duchesne wrote: Hello again kowtaaia,

Kow: "Conscious ego" is your phrase. But if you'd like some more dope on the ego; it IS self awareness

But didn't you also say in a previous post:

kow: The ego is self centered activity. It's the continuation of the subjective state, which is the reality of thought. It is duality. It is illusion.

So, according to you Kow, ego is self centered activity, the continuation of the subjective state, the reality of thought, duality and thus ego is illusion.

But then on the other hand you say: "ego IS self awareness"

So which is it?

All. The subjective state is the reality of thought. Thought is consciousness. The Buddhist "becoming" is the continuation of that state. The continuation is the activity of thought as the 'me'. Don't you like the answer?

Kow: "The birth of ego 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.

Cory Duchesne wrote: Do you rememeber being in your mother's womb or something? What were you doing when your ego first 'dawned'. Playing with a toy blocks? nursing on your mother's teet? Were you in the womb?

But maybe I am taking this all too literally. I really don't know how metaphorical you are speaking. I encourage you to tell me more.

Questions like the above are the reason that it was pointed out that your "I am ego, because the observer is the observed" statement was a belief and not the manifest reality. You qualified your questions in the previous post with "When someone claims...". Well, you claimed something and became quite upset it was pointed out that you merely believe.

We've almost finished the insult game on the other thread and there's no desire to play it here. Play nice and don't be defensive or we're done and you can speculate all you want.

Cory: So, according to you Kow, ego is self centered activity, the continuation of the subjective state, the reality of thought, duality and thus ego is illusion.

But then on the other hand you say: "ego IS self awareness"

So which is it?

Kow: All. The subjective state is the reality of thought. Thought is consciousness.

Isnt it 'thought' that tells me that there is a heaven to go to when I die?

How are such thoughts 'consciousness?' Couldnt you just as easily say: thought is unconsciousness?

Isnt 'the me' a state of unconsciousness?

Cory: Do you rememeber being in your mother's womb or something? What were you doing when your ego first 'dawned'. Playing with a toy blocks? nursing on your mother's teet? Were you in the womb? But maybe I am taking this all too literally. I really don't know how metaphorical you are speaking. I encourage you to tell me more.


Kow: Questions like the above are the reason that it was pointed out that your "I am ego, because the observer is the observed" statement was a belief and not the manifest reality.
You qualified your questions in the previous post with "When someone claims...". Well, you claimed something and became quite upset it was pointed out that you merely believe.

Are you referring to my claim that the 'observer IS the observed?' No, I wasn’t upset, I'm just confused and bit amused about why you think that I am stuck in mere belief simply because I don't understand your statement: "The birth of ego was completely conscious”

I can assure you that the birth of my ego was unconscious. I don't remember much at all. And after the birth of my ego, like 99% of humanity, I continued to be unconscious (although relatively conscious, but from an absolute perspective; unconscious) for many years after that.

It wasn’t until only relatively recently that I’ve become more conscious to the point where I can see how ‘the me’ doesn’t inherently exist, and what ‘the me’ is, is an infinite relationship of constituents comprising the totality. I see that, among other truths.

So, as a child, the birth of your ego was completely conscious eh kow?

You didnt suffer any childhood sorrows? No dissapointments?

Cory,

In one breath you say that you are the ego and in the next breath you say that the ego is yours. Which one is it?

kow: In one breath you say that you are the ego and in the next breath you say that the ego is yours. Which one is it?

Using common figures of speach shouldnt be totally negated, kow. Language wasnt geared for expressing these sorts of truths.

I do not [edit:] refrain from using possesive pronouns just because I realize the illusion of nouns and seperation. Language is based on fragmentation, division, and most pronouns are used in regards to possesion. If two people are aware of some basic absolute truths, then there is no reason why they can't use langauge in the common sense.

You can understand that, right?

What I like to do, is to come to a consensus with the person I am talking to, sometimes that consensus involves realizing the illusion of self and from there it is usually no problem for the two agents to proceed by using common language which often manifests as the usage of possesive pronouns.


However, I've revised my post anyway:

Cory: So, according to you Kow, ego is self centered activity, the continuation of the subjective state, the reality of thought, duality and thus ego is illusion.

But then on the other hand you say: "ego IS self awareness"

So which is it?

Kow: All. The subjective state is the reality of thought. Thought is consciousness.

Isnt it 'thought' that tells me that there is a heaven to go to when I die?

How are such thoughts 'consciousness?' Couldnt you just as easily say: thought is unconsciousness?

Isnt 'the me' a state of unconsciousness?

Cory: Do you rememeber being in your mother's womb or something? What were you doing when your ego first 'dawned'. Playing with a toy blocks? nursing on your mother's teet? Were you in the womb? But maybe I am taking this all too literally. I really don't know how metaphorical you are speaking. I encourage you to tell me more.


Kow: Questions like the above are the reason that it was pointed out that your "I am ego, because the observer is the observed" statement was a belief and not the manifest reality.
You qualified your questions in the previous post with "When someone claims...". Well, you claimed something and became quite upset it was pointed out that you merely believe.

Are you referring to my claim that the 'observer IS the observed?' No, I wasn’t upset, I'm just confused and bit amused about why you think that I am stuck in mere belief simply because I don't understand your statement: "The birth of ego was completely conscious”

I can assure you that the birth of Cory was unconscious. I don't remember much at all. And after the birth of the illusionary sense of me, of cory, like 99% of humanity, I continued to be unconscious (although relatively conscious, but from an absolute perspective; unconscious) for many years after that.

It wasn’t until only relatively recently that I became more conscious of my inherent non-existence, to the point where I could see how ‘the me’ doesn’t inherently exist, and what ‘the me’ is, is an infinite relationship of constituents comprising the totality. There is consciousness of that, among other truths.

So kow, as a child, the birth of a kow-ego was completely conscious?

You didnt suffer any childhood sorrows? No dissapointments?

Cory,

This is curious. If you understand that the space between the observer and the observed, is an illusion, why would you ask "Isnt it 'thought' that tells me that there is a heaven to go to when I die?" ?
Do you capture this or is it befuddling?

kow: If you understand that the space between the observer and the observed, is an illusion, why would you ask "Isnt it 'thought' that tells me that there is a heaven to go to when I die?" ?

Why do I ask that question? simple. I'm putting myself in the shoes of the human being who doesnt understand that he has no inherent existence, who doesnt understand that the ego is an illusion.

Such a human being is of course 'thought', and is of course ego.

You agree with me, because you have already said:

kow: The ego is self centered activity. It's the continuation of the subjective state, which is the reality of thought. It is duality. It is illusion.

But then on the other hand you say:

Kow: [in childhood] The birth of ego(kow) was completely conscious.

What is this consciousness? how was this consciousness different from the ego(kow)?

Are you simply saying: some ego's are more conscious than others?

Some ego's are not deluded, while others are deluded?

Cory Duchesne wrote:
What is this consciousness? how was this consciousness different from the ego(kow)?

Consciousness is the sense of existing. The dawning of that sense is the birth of ego, the 'inner', the subjective state. If you recall, it was phrased as "for some reason or other".

Cory Duchesne wrote: Are simply saying: some ego's are more conscious than others?

Some ego's are not deluded, while others are deluded?

That has to be the case. How does illusion come to end? 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.

Cory: What is this consciousness? How was this consciousness different from the ego?


kow: Consciousness is the sense of existing.

Is it equally correct to say that ‘ego’ is the sense of existing? Why do you separate them?

kow: The dawning of that sense [of consciousness] is the birth of ego, the 'inner', the subjective state. If you recall, it was phrased as "for some reason or other".

Ok, so are you saying that consciousness is separate from ego or not? If so, then I am intrigued, if not, then I think you are being a bit superfluous and dreary.

Cory: Are simply saying: some ego's are more conscious than others? Some ego's are not deluded, while others are deluded?

Kow: That has to be the case. How does illusion come to end?

Well didn’t you say that you were born without illusion due to the presence of consciousness during the birth of (kow)ego?

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.

So you are saying that there is conscious self-awareness and unconscious self-awareness and both are the beginning of what is the human problem?

Cory Duchesne wrote:

Cory: What is this consciousness? How was this consciousness different from the ego?
kow: Consciousness is the sense of existing.

Is it equally correct to say that ‘ego’ is the sense of existing? Why do you separate them?

kow: The dawning of that sense [of consciousness] is the birth of ego, the 'inner', the subjective state. If you recall, it was phrased as "for some reason or other".

Ok, so are you saying that consciousness is separate from ego or not? If so, then I am intrigued, if not, then I think you are being a bit superfluous and dreary.

Cory: Are simply saying: some ego's are more conscious than others? Some ego's are not deluded, while others are deluded?
Kow: That has to be the case. How does illusion come to end?

Well didn’t you say that you were born without illusion due to the presence of consciousness during the birth of (kow)ego?

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.

So you are saying that there is conscious self-awareness and unconscious self-awareness and both are the beginning of what is the human problem?

Cory,

You're not responding to what is written. None of your questions have anything to do with what was said. You're taking a very clear pointing and interpreting it. You don't need to do that. Just READ and respond to what is written.

You're not responding to what is written. None of your questions have anything to do with what was said. You're taking a very clear pointing and interpreting it. You don't need to do that. Just READ and respond to what is written.

I did read and respond to what was written. I've re-read, and am still standing by my last post. Can you please cite examples of my interpretation errors and make things a bit clearer?

Cory,

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 ‘ego’ 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 want to continue our conversation, you must pay attention.

It's in black and white in front of your face. If you don't understand, no more time will be wasted on you!

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

Cory: Is it equally correct to say that ‘ego’ is the sense of existing? Why do you separate them?

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

Ok fine, I have no comprehension. I'll admit, it is all belief and no direct perception.

Now will you please answer my question, in hopes that I may come to understand?

Is it equally correct to say that ‘ego’ is the sense of existing? Why do you separate them?

Cory Duchesne wrote:Why do you separate them?

Let me play catch-up here. What are you referring to here? What do you think 'Kowtaaia' is seperating?

I mean is it really that stupid of a question considering you said:

Kow: The subjective state is the reality of thought. Thought is consciousness.

and then you say:

kow: The ego is self centered activity. It's the continuation of the subjective state, which is the reality of thought. It is duality. It is illusion.

So let me get this straight.

Thought is consciousness.

Ego is consciousness.


but then you say:

Kow: Consciousness is the the dawning of the sense of existing, and this is the birth of ego, the 'inner', the subjective state.

Tell me why you seperate ego from consciousness.

Is all of your talk really just this pretentious dreary superflous act that you are putting on for us?

Or is there some substance behind your tedious way of communicating?

beebuddy: Let me play catch-up here. What are you referring to here? What do you think 'Kowtaaia' is seperating?

He is saying that the dawning of consciousness is the birth of the ego.

What is his point? What are the implications? He doesnt seem to be really saying anything at all.

He is saying that A = A. What's the problem with that?

Cory Duchesne wrote:

Kow: Consciousness is the the dawning of the sense of existing, and this is the birth of ego, the 'inner', the subjective state.

Cory,

We are done. Not only can you not read and comprehend, but you have fabricated a quote. What you posted as a kowtaaia quote is your own fabrication.

Kowtaaia wrote:

The subjective state is the reality of thought. Thought is consciousness.

What do you mean, "The subjective state is the reality of thought"? Are you saying that there isn't an 'objective state'?

Cory wrote:

Isnt it 'thought' that tells me that there is a heaven to go to when I die?

What does this mean?

-
Sue