Fundamental principles, Truths

Simon · Post by **Simon** » Sun Feb 04, 2007 6:52 am

Trevor wrote: But I prefer sticking to non-empirical truths, since it's much easier to determine if they are eternal and absolute.

Is it not an absolute truth to say that all empirical truths are non-absolute? Therefore, in regards to figuring out whether emprical truths are absolute/eternal, it's not a matter of easy or hard - the fact is that they (emprical truths) logically cannot be absolute/eternal.

Trevor Salyzyn · Post by **Trevor Salyzyn** » Sun Feb 04, 2007 7:18 am

True, but a careful expression of something apparently derived from the empirical world can potentially be absolutely true, even though the facts (by virtue of being empirical) are not.

For instance, once I have defined numbers, if define age to be the number of times the Earth has appeared to completely orbit around the sun since someone left his mother's crotch, and it appears that the Earth has orbitted around the sun 22 times since some individual was born, it is absolutely true (through deduction) that the person has an age of 22. For all intents and purposes though, this requires such an incredibly awkward language structure -- and I am sure I made a grammatical error somewhere or other in that mess -- that it should never be used, unless making a specific point.

There are an infinite number of eternal truths: you can even get an such a truth from definitions and appearances (so long as it is expressly stated that the appearances are just appearances). The important thing is narrowing them down to the most worthwhile ones.

hades · Post by **hades** » Sun Feb 04, 2007 7:44 am

Trevor Salyzyn wrote: There are an infinite number of eternal truths: you can even get an such a truth from definitions and appearances (so long as it is expressly stated that the appearances are just appearances). The important thing is narrowing them down to the most worthwhile ones.

What criteria do we have to figure out which eternal truths are worthwhile and which are not? Besides mere preference.

Simon · Post by **Simon** » Sun Feb 04, 2007 7:54 am

Trevor wrote:True, but a careful expression of something apparently derived from the empirical world can potentially be absolutely true, even though the facts (by virtue of being empirical) are not.

ah, but wait - what truth isn't derived from the empirical world (sense perception)?

Trevor Salyzyn · Post by **Trevor Salyzyn** » Sun Feb 04, 2007 8:02 am

What criteria do we have to figure out which eternal truths are worthwhile and which are not? Besides mere preference.

It really does boil down to preference, but there are certain general themes that, by being very powerful (instructive, explanatory, elegant), have become common. The nature and structure of Reality (metaphysics, ontology, and logic), the nature of knowledge (epistemology), and the nature of the ego (psychology). An eternal truth that can explain the entire nature of reality in only a few words is much more elegant than the example I gave.

But yeah... it is preference. There is no "objective" criteria for measuring which truth to use.

Trevor Salyzyn · Post by **Trevor Salyzyn** » Sun Feb 04, 2007 8:07 am

Simon,

ah, but wait - what truth isn't derived from the empirical world (sense perception)?

Any truth derived solely from definitions and logic. In the strictest sense, yes, everything is ultimately derived from the empirical world. It is the only way to interact with the world.

But once logic is accepted (propositions such as self-identity and non-contradiction: "A=A" and "A is not equal to not-A"), logical propositions become the definition of the non-empirical world.

Simon · Post by **Simon** » Sun Feb 04, 2007 8:32 am

Trevor,

Simon: what truth isn't derived from the empirical world (sense perception)?

Trevor: Any truth derived solely from definitions and logic. In the strictest sense, yes, everything is ultimately derived from the empirical world.

And it seems to me that this is because definitions and logic are the by-products of taking the experience of sense perception for granted, rather than denying sense perception. (denying sense perception seems like the ultimate form of skepticism, you can't get anymore skeptical than that)

Once logic is accepted (propositions such as self-identity and non-contradiction: "A=A" and "A is not equal to not-A"), logical propositions become the definition of the non-empirical world.

It seem like what we are feeling up against here by using skepticism and inquiry, is similar to what Descartes felt himself up against.

He responded with his "cognito" proposition, "I think therefore I am". Descartes used skepticism to deny certainty in just about everything, but he would not go so far as to deny sense experience. So he believed in sense experience......and some, if you know what I mean. :)

David Quinn · Post by **David Quinn** » Sun Feb 04, 2007 10:42 am

Hades wrote:

Apply it to itself, and it falls apart.

All things are impermanent <--- including the truth value of that statement. Including the truth of any statement, principle, or idea....

Truth is permanent, by definition. Thus, the above statement cannot apply to truth, again by definition.

This means that the above statement can only apply to empirical things - that is, to the forms which appear to us though our minds and senses. It cannot apply to logical truth itself without becoming a nonsense statement.

Take 1+1=2, for example. As a concept which appears to the mind, 1+1=2 is just another impermanent thing. However, the logic underpinning 1+1=2 is timeless. It can never be falsified under any circumstances. It is permanently true.

So that is how the above statement should be interpreted. The existence of things is always impermanent, while the truth of things never changes.

Just like "We can never know anything for certain" falls apart when you apply its meaning, to itself.

If a person tries to claim that utterly everything is uncertain, even logical truths, then yes, he would fall into self-contradiction and the claim would become meaningless. In fact, this is one of the great flaws of postmodernist thinking.

However, if he were to claim that "we can never be certain in empirical matters" and put this forth as a truth of absolute certainty, there would be no problem.

Now about Causation. We can never know for certain if A caused B in the physical world, because we are appealing to our senses somehow, and those are naturally uncertain.

That's true. Timelessly true, even

So if we can never prove the causation between any events with certainty, what grounds do we have to assume that causation actually exists?

It is necessarily true from a logical perspective that all things have causes. Even though we cannot know for sure what actually causes what in the empirical world, we can still know that it is impossible for anything to arise with cause.

I went into this some detail in my ebook, The Wisdom for the Infinite, so rather than simply repeating myself, I will refer you there.

For example, in chapter 2:

The Logical Proof of Cause and Effect

There are two ways of proving that things cannot arise without cause. The first involves recognizing that a thing cannot exist without its constituent parts, while the second involves recognizing that a thing cannot exist in the absence of an external reality. Although these two proofs may seem isolated on the surface, in reality they are both expressions of the one core proof - namely, that a thing cannot arise in the absence of other things.

It is easy to see that an object cannot exist without its constituent parts. A car, for example, cannot exist without the engine, wheels, doors and windows which comprise it. Eliminate these things and the car automatically disappears. Moreover, the existence of the car is dependent not only on these parts existing, but on their being fitted together in the correct manner. Or to state this in more general terms, a car only comes into existence when the causal circumstances are ripe.

The same reasoning can be applied to anything else in existence. If a thing exists, it will necessarily be comprised of parts. It is an inherent fact of existence. Even if a thing does not seem to have easily recognizable physical parts, such as a smooth sphere or a portion of empty space, it can nevertheless be divided up conceptually into parts. We can mentally carve a smooth sphere into two imaginary halves and conclude that the sphere cannot exist without the existence of these two halves.

It should be pointed out that the parts which constitute an object are not the object itself. The engine inside a car is not the car, nor are its wheels, doors and windows. Although they are part of the car, they are nevertheless objects which are distinct from it. Thus, the truth that a thing cannot exist without its parts is really an expression of the more general truth that a thing is necessarily dependent upon other things for its existence.

Objects are not only dependent on internal factors, but they rely on external ones as well, which now leads us to the second proof. Without the presence of an external reality, it is equally impossible for an object to exist. By way of analogy, consider the image of a black bird painted on a white canvas. It is only because of the contrast between the black and white colours that the painted bird is able to exist at all. If the canvas was exactly the same shade of black as the bird, the bird would simply merge into the rest of the canvas and disappear without trace.

It might be pedantically argued that a painted bird of the same colour as the rest of the canvass could still be distinguishable by virtue of, say, the different thickness of the paint used on the bird, or by the use of a different brush technique, or whatever. While this is certainly true it would only support my essential point, which is that things can only exist via contrasts. It does not matter what kind of objects or contrasts we care to focus upon, the basic truth is unchanged: without the presence of contrasts nothing can exist at all.

Imagine a tree existing on a plain. Now mentally take away everything that is not the tree - the plain, the distant mountains, the sky, the grass, and so on. Keep on doing this until there is nothing left except the tree existing in a void. Now take away the void. Do you think the tree can still continue to exist in such a situation? Logically, it cannot. Its very being as a tree, its features, its structure and shape, is as much dependent upon the existence of the void, or whatever happens to be surrounding the tree, as it upon its own constituent parts.

Existence is always dualistic in nature. Just as "up" can only exist in relation to "down", and "big" in relation to "small", so too an existing object can only exist in relation to what is not that object. In more formal language, "A" (which stands for any object or event in the Universe) is always dependent upon "not-A", and vice versa.

To sum up, then, a thing cannot exist in the absence of other things existing both inside and outside of it. When these internal and external things are causally arranged in the appropriate manner, the thing in question comes into existence. But what exactly does come into existence in that moment? In the final analysis, nothing. Not a single sliver of anything extra. If anything does seem to arise in that moment, it is purely a conceptual projection on our parts.

To use the above example again, a car only comes into being when its parts are assembled correctly. Before then, there is no car at all. Only when the final component is put into place does the car suddenly emerge. Nothing substantial is added in the process, only a rearrangement of what is already there. What we call the car, then, is simply a conceptual creation that we project onto a particular arrangement of components. It is an abstraction that ultimately has no physical referent.

We are essentially no different, of course. Our existence as an independent and substantial entity is also an illusion. We are nothing more than a conceptual construct which is projected onto a conglomeration of parts. We are like the fist that vanishes as soon as the hand is opened.

How do you respond to this?

What else is there, everything lacks inherent existence? This means everything requires certain conditions in order to exist. Again this relates to the physical world where things "exist"...Where things are perceivable, and sensational, in the phenomenal world. This is just another way of saying everything is caused by something else, or is dependent on something else.
This isn't wisdom, this is another description of a possible physical world we all play in, this is the scientist's realm, the toy maker's realm, the carpenter's realm and the lawyer's realm....

No, it is logical truth, which is the province of philosophy. Everyone has an intuitive understanding that all things must have causes, but it is only when you become a skilled philosophical thinker that you can to bring this intuition into greater clarity and observe its absolute foundations.

the idea of everything being impermanent and inherently empty renders its own validity, its own truth impermanent and inherently empty!

Again, the flaw in this analysis is that you are taking a statement about the existence of things and misapplying it to the truth of things. In academia, they call this a "category error", in which a principle is wrongly applied out of context. A trivial example of this is trying to determine whether guilt is blue or yellow. What you're doing is essentially no different.

A truth is a truth, regardless of whether its existence as a concept in our minds lacks inherent existence or not. If we go back to the example of 1+1=2, this is something which is always true, no matter what kind of existence our logical thoughts about it have. For example, if we were dream about 1+1=2 at night and observe the logical truth underpinning it, the mere fact that it is a dream-conception doesn't affect its truthfulness in any way.

-

hades · Post by **hades** » Sun Feb 04, 2007 11:19 am

"Truth is permanent, by definition."

Truth is an idea that comes and goes.
In what sense is it permanent?

"Again, the flaw in this analysis is that you are taking a statement about the existence of things and misapplying it to the truth of things. In academia, they call this a "category error", in which a principle is wrongly applied out of context. A trivial example of this is trying to determine whether guilt is blue or yellow. What you're doing is essentially no different"

The premise "all things are impermanent" is a universal statement, it includes all things, aka EVERYTHING.

Truth is some thing, its not nothing...it is a value we attach to propositions, statements, mathematical ideas, philosophic...etc

The definition of all things : every entity or particular of an aggregate or total; all. Synonyms, everything.
Definition of Everything: All things or all groups of things.

There is no other category beside this, if there is, then it becomes part of it. So truth is part of all or everything.
It has to be impermanent.

So how am I making a category error in this case? It refers to everything.

For example, if we were dream about 1+1=2 at night and observe the logical truth underpinning it, the mere fact that it is a dream-conception doesn't affect its truthfulness in any way.

Truth describes things. Things can be true and things can be false. Its a sort of quality.

So the truth is attached to things. Its contingent upon that which it is describing...1+1, or the grass is green, or whatever...
Truth independent of things is absurd.

So if "all things" are impermanent, and not only is truth a sort of thing it is also necessarily attached to "things". Then ipso facto 'truth' becomes impermanent, contingent, etc..

Also, the truthfulness of that statement is another idea. Just like if you were to dream of the color blue. It doesn't exist somewhere magically in a platonic realm as blue permanently when you aren't aware of it. Even if it is the same every time you inspect it in reality or in dreams...

It appears in the mind, and then disappears. So does the notion of Truth or Truthfulness....How can they be permanent?

Matt Gregory · Post by **Matt Gregory** » Sun Feb 04, 2007 12:39 pm

hades wrote:
"Truth is permanent, by definition."
Truth is an idea that comes and goes.
In what sense is it permanent?

Truth is not an idea, it's Reality.

hades · Post by **hades** » Sun Feb 04, 2007 12:41 pm

Matt Gregory wrote:
hades wrote:
"Truth is permanent, by definition."
Truth is an idea that comes and goes.
In what sense is it permanent?
Truth is not an idea, it's Reality.

Both are ideas.
Both are void.

David Quinn · Post by **David Quinn** » Sun Feb 04, 2007 1:48 pm

Hades wrote:

DQ: "Truth is permanent, by definition."

H: Truth is an idea that comes and goes.

The idea of Truth might come and go, but the reality to which this idea points is timeless and permanent.

In what sense is it permanent?

It is beyond time, beyond life and death.

DQ: Again, the flaw in this analysis is that you are taking a statement about the existence of things and misapplying it to the truth of things. In academia, they call this a "category error", in which a principle is wrongly applied out of context. A trivial example of this is trying to determine whether guilt is blue or yellow. What you're doing is essentially no different"

H: The premise "all things are impermanent" is a universal statement, it includes all things, aka EVERYTHING.

Truth is some thing, its not nothing...it is a value we attach to propositions, statements, mathematical ideas, philosophic...etc

Look at it this way:

You're right in saying that a logical truth arises when the causal conditions are ripe. When the appropriate definitions are brought together in the right causal circumstances, a truth emerges.

For example, the truth of 1+1=2 arises when the appropriate definitions of 1, 2, +, and = are brought together in a logical relationship. The existence of this logical truth is momentary. It is nothing more than a fleeting conception. However, within that particular moment, the truth contained with this fleeting conception is timeless.

When a person grasps the truth of 1+1=2, he also grasps that it can never be falsified. He grasps that it will always be true in all locations of the universe, and in all possible worlds.

All it takes is a momentary appearance of a timeless truth for its timelessness to be perceived and established. In that instance its timelessness is grasped. It doesn't matter if this appearance falls away again. Its timelessness, as a truth, remains.

The definition of all things : every entity or particular of an aggregate or total; all. Synonyms, everything.
Definition of Everything: All things or all groups of things.

There is no other category beside this, if there is, then it becomes part of it. So truth is part of all or everything.
It has to be impermanent.

So how am I making a category error in this case? It refers to everything.

You're mistaking the form of a concept for the truth for its content.

The causal circumstances which generate a logical truth are repeatable. A conscious being can recreate the causal circumstances for a particular logical truth whenever he wants, and in each time he can perceive that it can never be falsified.

For example, he can go to all corners of the Universe and recreate the conditions for 1+1=2 and he will find, in each instance, that its meaning and truth never changes.

-

hades · Post by **hades** » Sun Feb 04, 2007 2:12 pm

David Quinn wrote: The idea of Truth might come and go, but the reality to which this idea points is timeless and permanent.

The pointing will pass.
A timeless reality? Thats another idea, which will fade away, don't worry.

You believe these True-ideas point to something solid? There is nothing solid.

Look at it this way: ..... However, within that particular moment, the truth contained with this fleeting conception is timeless.

That particular moment is transient, and with it goes the truth it contains.

When a person grasps the truth of 1+1=2, he also grasps that it can never be falsified. He grasps that it will always be true in all locations of the universe, and in all possible worlds.

All it takes is a momentary appearance of a timeless truth for its timelessness to be perceived and established. In that instance its timelessness is grasped. It doesn't matter if this appearance falls away again. Its timelessness, as a truth, remains.

Its timelessness might be grasped for an instant, but just like everything else, that instant will be over, the moment will pass.
And the timeless truth will have nowhere to remain.

David Quinn · Post by **David Quinn** » Sun Feb 04, 2007 3:18 pm

Okay, we'll leave it there for now. I'm glad to see you are thinking about these issues a bit.

-

Sapius · Post by **Sapius** » Sun Feb 04, 2007 7:01 pm

Hades wrote:

Its timelessness might be grasped for an instant, but just like everything else, that instant will be over, the moment will pass.

Yes, I can see that the moment will pass away, but will the truth of the statement â€œthe moment will pass awayâ€ also pass away?

And the timeless truth will have nowhere to remain.

As you mentioned, â€œits timelessness might be grasped for an instantâ€, why do we say grasped? Can something be grasped if it is not already there? Do you mean to say that we create truth rather than discover?

Arenâ€™t certain things true and will remain irrelevant of the passing moment? As in â€œtimeless truth will have nowhere to remainâ€. Will the truth contained in this statement also pass away? In other words, if I said that â€œtruth passes away with the passing away of consciousnessâ€, would that not be true every time consciousness arises?

At least the truth that â€œtimeless truth will have nowhere to remainâ€ seems timeless. Or are you not really confident about its truth?

â€œEVERY-THING (as in how you mean) is causal and hence is not here to stayâ€, at least the truth of that statement has to remain if that is to happen.

Unless you have a reason to believe that nothing is happening whatsoever.

hades · Post by **hades** » Sun Feb 04, 2007 7:26 pm

Sapius wrote: Yes, I can see that the moment will pass away, but will the truth of the statement â€œthe moment will pass awayâ€ also pass away?

Yes. They will go together, hand in hand. Until nothing is left.

As you mentioned, â€œits timelessness might be grasped for an instantâ€, why do we say grasped? Can something be grasped if it is not already there? Do you mean to say that we create truth rather than discover?

Arenâ€™t certain things true and will remain irrelevant of the passing moment? As in â€œtimeless truth will have nowhere to remainâ€. Will the truth contained in this statement also pass away? In other words, if I said that â€œtruth passes away with the passing away of consciousnessâ€, would that not be true every time consciousness arises?

At least the truth that â€œtimeless truth will have nowhere to remainâ€ seems timeless. Or are you not really confident about its truth?

â€œEVERY-THING (as in how you mean) is causal and hence is not here to stayâ€, at least the truth of that statement has to remain if that is to happen.

Unless you have a reason to believe that nothing is happening whatsoever.

You are still looking for something solid, something permanent.
Why?

Sapius · Post by **Sapius** » Sun Feb 04, 2007 8:05 pm

Hades wrote,

S: Yes, I can see that the moment will pass away, but will the truth of the statement â€œthe moment will pass awayâ€ also pass away?

H: Yes. They will go together, hand in hand. Until nothing is left.

If you say so, but that then necessarily raises the question; if there is an end to it, then how did all this start?

You are still looking for something solid, something permanent.
Why?

No, not really. I'm simply trying to understand. So tell me, how did it all start?

hades · Post by **hades** » Mon Feb 05, 2007 5:00 am

Sapius wrote:
If you say so, but that then necessarily raises the question; if there is an end to it, then how did all this start?

That question isn't necessary.

You are still looking for something solid, something permanent.
Why?
No, not really. I'm simply trying to understand. So tell me, how did it all start?

It started by you thinking of it.

David Quinn · Post by **David Quinn** » Mon Feb 05, 2007 9:42 am

I've changed my mind, Hades. I will engage in this discussion a little more.

-

You wrote:

DQ: The idea of Truth might come and go, but the reality to which this idea points is timeless and permanent.

H: The pointing will pass.

I'm not sure that you realize it, but you are actually agreeing with my point. Yes, the pointing will pass, and the reason for that is because it is eternally true that all things will pass.

A timeless reality? Thats another idea, which will fade away, don't worry.

Indeed, even the idea that "all things will pass" will fade away. And yet, as you are acknowledging throughout this discussion, the truth that all things will pass will always remain.

You believe these True-ideas point to something solid? There is nothing solid.

The Truth is as solid as the eternal flux which your own ideas are attempting to point to.

DQ: Look at it this way: ..... However, within that particular moment, the truth contained with this fleeting conception is timeless.

H: That particular moment is transient, and with it goes the truth it contains.

If the truth of eternal flux were to go in that moment, then everything would suddenly come to a standstill.

As always, you are confusing the ideas themselves with the realities they are pointing to. It is the classic Zen sickness of mistaking the finger for the moon.

DQ: All it takes is a momentary appearance of a timeless truth for its timelessness to be perceived and established. In that instance its timelessness is grasped. It doesn't matter if this appearance falls away again. Its timelessness, as a truth, remains.

H: Its timelessness might be grasped for an instant, but just like everything else, that instant will be over, the moment will pass.
And the timeless truth will have nowhere to remain.

The truth that all things will pass is something that you and I can perceive within a conceptual instance. Even though this conceptual instance will pass in the very next moment, the truth of its passing, along with the passing of everything else in that instance, remains. That is why you will always be able to invoke this truth at any time in the future. It is a rock-solid, unvarying truth which you have personally hung your own hat upon. You need to recognize this dynamic within yourself and own up to it.

-

hades · Post by **hades** » Mon Feb 05, 2007 10:30 am

David Quinn wrote: I'm not sure that you realize it, but you are actually agreeing with my point. Yes, the pointing will pass, and the reason for that is because it is eternally true that all things will pass.

Truth is an idea, ideas are not eternal.
Its an appearance, a thing you become aware of now and then.

As always, you are confusing the ideas themselves with the realities they are pointing to.

The distinction between ideas and supposed "realities" they point to is the function of imagination.

Ideas simply point to other ideas.

It is the classic Zen sickness of mistaking the finger for the moon.

I am the moon, you're sucking the finger.

I'm not the one who worships concepts like causality, impermanence, or emptiness, or whatever you believe in.

The truth that all things will pass is something that you and I can perceive within a conceptual instance. Even though this conceptual instance will pass in the very next moment, the truth of its passing, along with the passing of everything else in that instance, remains.

The "truth" of any proposition or idea, has nowhere to remain when that proposition leaves your mind.

That is why you will always be able to invoke this truth at any time in the future. It is a rock-solid, unvarying truth which you have personally hung your own hat upon. You need to recognize this dynamic within yourself and own up to it.

Hmmm..You are objectifying truth, turning it into a toy and trying to grasp it, own it, and then call it everlasting.

If it were eternal and timeless it would be with you unconditionally. This isn't the case. It comes and goes, and its not up to you, not now, and not any time in the future.

David Quinn · Post by **David Quinn** » Mon Feb 05, 2007 2:37 pm

Oh well, keep thinking about it. Talk to you another time.

-

Sapius · Post by **Sapius** » Mon Feb 05, 2007 2:50 pm

hades wrote:
Sapius wrote:
If you say so, but that then necessarily raises the question; if there is an end to it, then how did all this start?
That question isn't necessary.

You are still looking for something solid, something permanent.
Why?
No, not really. I'm simply trying to understand. So tell me, how did it all start?
It started by you thinking of it.

Do you mean that is uncaused? And if you still insist that it is unnecessary to question any further, then so be it. You don't have to respond.

Jamesh · Post by **Jamesh** » Mon Feb 05, 2007 4:48 pm

Truth is an idea, ideas are not eternal.
Its an appearance, a thing you become aware of now and then.

In 1 billion years, a sentient race develops on Planet X, which is 5000 light years away from earth.

In their language, what we refer to as 1+1 = 2, is

"Shake left leg, shake right leg, is equivalent to a wave of a certain tenacle."

So while all the named concepts are different, their language is physical for instance, the logic behind why something "is equivalent to" is as existent for them as our 1+1 = 2. Everything else is different, except the logical reasoning remains the same for them as it does for us. Even if they lived in a universe with different universal laws (not that I believe such exists), it would still be the same logical reasoning - so therefore this reasoning, in a non-subjective sense is permanent.

BMcGilly07 · Post by **BMcGilly07** » Mon Feb 05, 2007 5:36 pm

hades wrote:I am the moon, you're sucking the finger...

I'm not the one who worships concepts like causality, impermanence, or emptiness, or whatever you believe in...

Hmmm..You are objectifying truth, turning it into a toy and trying to grasp it, own it, and then call it everlasting...

I could quote the Tao and talk about how if the teacher is not respected and the student not cared for, that a lack of respect for one or another leads to a failure in comprehension.

I could go on about how each person you engage with in discussion here or anywhere else may consciously or unwittingly drop a jewel of knowledge for which we should be gracious for having had this rare chance encounter- from which we have walked away with a little more wisdom than we had coming into this last moment.

But what would be the point? Those who know this are already respectful. Those who don't know this assault those who take the pain to bang their head against the brick wall that is the other's ignorance. If you go into the line of wisdom for praise and thanks, you'd better be one hell of a good liar and even better at stroking egos. Than again, the wise value neither praise nor thanks. Good thing they don't.

There's a breaking point where the ego can no longer defend its position without going on the offensive, no matter how sound his defensive position is, his insecurity forces him to make a bid for superiority by striking his opponent. The ego is always insecure, ever aware of its tenuous existence and by extension its power, it needs reaffirming from time to time and only gains it when assured that any potential threats have been scolded and minimized.

Pay attention to the true teacher- your own mind. If you allow it to be overrun by ego than you have truly lost your mind.