No ego = bullshit

[Sapius]

Sap: for being conscious necessarily means a thing being conscious of something else…

Is: Yes, that is the story

I prefer, most of the time that is, that single sentences not be plucked out, for then the discussion takes on a different contextual direction, but I guess its ok for now.

But if you investigate into experience, what is happening? Take vision for example, in the morning we wake up, and a world appears in vision. This is undeniable. But then a story pops up: "I am seeing". This is actually not true. The truth is: seeing. Seeing happens, without anyone doing it.

Well, what about the story “in the morning we wake up”? Who is this “we”? And what makes you think there is something awake to begin with, or was asleep from which it awoke? Or is even “seeing” for that matter? Do you blindly trust experiences?

This is not spiritual fluffy-talk. This is scientific fact - the ego is just a story in that it doesn't exist as an independent entity in charge of seeing, walking, thinking, etc.

Sure, it does not exist as an independent entity, and hence is none other than the seeing, walking, thinking, etc, in other words, the necessary and inherently persisting “I”.

The reality of a human being is brain + conditioning, no intrinsically existing self or I is actually needed.

Can I take that as a nice “story”...? :)

On another level I agree with you however. People who say "I have transcended the I", or "I am No-Self", or "I am not here", etc etc are all just as much lost in story as the ones who say "I am here". Here is a self, seriously believing he is not a self - it is ridiculous. Reality is free of all conceptualization.

Well, that is the actual point being pondered over in this thread, so I guess since we are in general agreement on that, there isn’t much for either of us to say.

However, I don’t think “Reality” is free of conceptualization, unless you believe either you or conceptualizing itself is beyond, above or alienated from Reality. Which “Realilty” are you talking about that is devoid of certain “human” aspects or say even humans?

[Is.]

Well, what about the story “in the morning we wake up”? Who is this “we”? And what makes you think there is something awake to begin with, or was asleep from which it awoke?

That's my point. As Bodhidharma said: "Words are illusions". There is no one who wakes up - that's just a story. There is no we - that's just a story. There is nothing that is constantly awake, or something which was once asleep but now is awake - that's just a story. Relatively though all these can be answered, like I attempted with the "brain + conditioning"-thing. (A modernist type, 3-person, relative answer.) But of course, as you rightly pointed out, that is just a story as well.

(Btw, this is my at the moment favourite relative explanation of the apparent self: http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Self_models)

Sure, it does not exist as an independent entity, and hence is none other than the seeing, walking, thinking, etc

There you have it.

Which “Realilty” are you talking about that is devoid of certain “human” aspects or say even humans?

Reality is everything. (Or as they say at the Men of the Infinite-channel: the totality.) However, in the great play of life there are people who are apparently suffering, and since the reality of suffering is that it can end, there is an effort to help - hence all these words. The words are illusory, yes, but somebody who don't know that and is therefore suffering may hear, and hence realize that there is no I separate from reality whereupon the suffering ends, which is awesome.

[divine focus]

But if you investigate into experience, what is happening? Take vision for example, in the morning we wake up, and a world appears in vision. This is undeniable. But then a story pops up: "I am seeing". This is actually not true. The truth is: seeing. Seeing happens, without anyone doing it.

Well, what about the story “in the morning we wake up”? Who is this “we”? And what makes you think there is something awake to begin with, or was asleep from which it awoke? Or is even “seeing” for that matter? Do you blindly trust experiences?

I do.

[Sapius]

Sap: Well, what about the story “in the morning we wake up”? Who is this “we”? And what makes you think there is something awake to begin with, or was asleep from which it awoke?

Is: That's my point. As Bodhidharma said: "Words are illusions". There is no one who wakes up - that's just a story. There is no we - that's just a story. There is nothing that is constantly awake, or something which was once asleep but now is awake - that's just a story. Relatively though all these can be answered, like I attempted with the "brain + conditioning"-thing. (A modernist type, 3-person, relative answer.) But of course, as you rightly pointed out, that is just a story as well.

And my point is… what you say here too is a story… including you saying 'all is but stories', which IS A STRORY TOO… so do you get the point? So since you admit that you are but a storyteller, give me one good reason that I should take you or your stories seriously? And when you do that, how would THAT too not be considered a STORY as well? Do you see the problem?

I think it’s your point from a different point of view may be, because I think you are not getting my point. You see, what you have just said above, inclusive of “That’s my point..”, or “that is a story as well”… is then also necessarily a STORY, so why should I take you or our communications seriously??? Is it allowed in this case to have the cake and eat it too?

Sap: Sure, it (ego or the “I”) does not exist as an independent entity, and hence is none other than the seeing, walking, thinking, etc

Is: There you have it.

Well, thanks…. So I was saying… that “seeing” “walking” “thinking” of a particular “I” means the same as the “I”, and vice versa; and further more, any of those acts mean absolute nothing unless there is an individual thing experiencing those things, and since no two things experience exactly the same, Sapius and Is have to necessarily be two different things that see walk and think, differently, otherwise, there be no sense in them trying to communicate what they think, or try and win over one another.

Is: Reality is everything. Reality is everything. (Or as they say at the Men of the Infinite-channel: the totality.)

Well, it doesn’t really matter what the MOI address existence as, but a post before the last you said…

Is Reality is free of all conceptualization.

So which is it? If now you agree that Reality is inclusive of conceptualisation after all, then I will have to reread what you have said earlier in that light, and see if it makes sense.

However, in the great play of life there are people who are apparently suffering, and since the reality of suffering is that it can end, there is an effort to help - hence all these words. The words are illusory, yes, but somebody who don't know that and is therefore suffering may hear, and hence realize that there is no I separate from reality whereupon the suffering ends, which is awesome.

I kind of don’t believe in “however"s”, because generally it tells me a contradiction is coming up next. However, I could ask here… what people? What sufferings? And expect you to give the same answer as above… “that there are no people… that there is no sufferings… that’s just a story…” but will you remain consistent here is the question.

[Is.]

And my point is… what you say here too is a story… including you saying 'all is but stories', which IS A STRORY TOO… so do you get the point?

I get it, and I grant it.

So since you admit that you are but a storyteller, give me one good reason that I should take you or your stories seriously? And when you do that, how would THAT too not be considered a STORY as well? Do you see the problem?

Extremely good point.

My answer is that I avoid the complete relativistic fallacy by acknowledging that there indeed is a Truth with a capital T. How do I know this, and why should you accept it? The answer is, because of reason. And my reason is very simple: the world is not chaotic. When I open a door, it always leads to the same place. When I plant an apple seed, an apple tree always grows up, never a banana tree. When I jump down a skyscraper on this planet, I always fall downwards. Atleast it has never been observed otherwise. If the Truth with a capital T did not exist, we could not be sure about things like this. So this is my reason for asserting one ultimate Truth. And now that I have asserted such, it is my view that we can make assertions about this Truth that are always more or less true in relation to eachother. So if I for example say that "You can walk on water", this will be less true relative to the view that "You can not walk on water" given our powers of observation and reasoning. Neither view will be the Truth, because the Truth is non-dual and can therefore not be described by dualistic terms, but I will rightly be less correct compared with the person holding the other view.

In light of this, I can now say that my story may rightly be more correct than yours, or vice versa. This in turn can be determined by checking out whose assertion is the least contradictory. Whose story generates the least amount of umcomfortable consequences relative to the the observed world around us?

So I was saying… that “seeing” “walking” “thinking” of a particular “I” means the same as the “I”, and vice versa; and further more, any of those acts mean absolute nothing unless there is an individual thing experiencing those things, and since no two things experience exactly the same, Sapius and Is have to necessarily be two different things that see walk and think, differently, otherwise, there be no sense in them trying to communicate what they think, or try and win over one another.

Ok, so this above is a story. And I have tried to offer another story which is more true relative to yours. And my story is that your assertion is a story that is less true than my story. And my reason for asserting this is that if this I existed to perform seeing, walking and thinking, this I should be found under analysis. But this I is not found, neither in logical analysis, nor in scientific investigation. In logical analysis, all that is found is the basis of designation, never the designated. And in scientific investigation, all that is found is processes in the brain; there is not a place in the brain where everything comes together for control and execution; there is evidently no little man in the brain. This story I have offered is based on logic and reason, if you disagree that this story is more true relative to your own, I suggest we have a formal debate regarding the ontological status of the I to see who ends up with the least uncomfortable contradictions.

So which is it? If now you agree that Reality is inclusive of conceptualisation after all, then I will have to reread what you have said earlier in that light, and see if it makes sense.

Good point. It gets a bit subtle here. Let's use the desert mirage analogy again. Two beings (One ordinary, and one enlightened) walk in the desert, and they see a mirage in the distance. Their respective eye-consciousness apparently register an appearance. The illusion comes in when the ordinary being reifies the appearance of the mirage as existing inherently - he believes that it can provide water and shade. The enlightened being does not believe this, because he has perhaps tried to walk to mirages before and found out that they don't exist in the way the ordinary being believs.

Since, as I said, there indeed exists a Truth with a capital T, if the enlightened being says: "That apparent oasis provides no water" that will be more true, relative to the ordinary being saying "Buzz off, of course it provides water". Neither is ultimately correct, but one is more correct that the other. So, Reality includes all this, except the belief that the oasis actually provides water, which is an illusion; holding the view that it does results in uncomfortable contradictions.

Now you might say that the illusion is Reality as well. We then enter the pragmatic and soteriologic part of the discussion. Correct, the illusion itself is not inherently illusory, but when the being believes that the illusion can perform a function which it can not - suffering or dukkha arises for that being. And since the reality of suffering is that it can end, and since it is obvious that people generally want their suffering to end, we can therefore try to make an effort to point out the dukkha-causing belief that the apparent oasis is able to grant water and shade. Through this, we do not exclude anything from Reality, but help alleviate suffering. (And yes, suffering is illusory as well, but for the ordinary being unaware of this, it is obviously unpleasant, and due to compassion there is an attempt to stop that unpleasantness.)

[Sapius]

.

With all due respects, this mirage or that dream analogy has become so stale that some new one is desperately needed.

Is, you know what, assume that I understand your mirage or say a dream analogy thoroughly, now tell me what exactly does that actually point to?

If an ordinary guy believes in the inherent consequences of a piano falling over his head, what would that piano actually do to an enlightened guy according to his superior knowledge? How different would the consequences for either of them be when facing a firing squad, with each one holding on to his own belief?

Belief in inherency or not, it seems a mirage remains a mirage, a dream a dream, and a speeding bullet a speeding bullet, by definition, now that is a Truth I think even an enlightened guy would not deny.

[Is.]

By using the awesome analogy, your question becomes: "If the enlightened being can see that the 'oasis' provides no water, does this therefore mean that he doesn't need water to survive?"

So how this question doesn't make any sense? Of course he will need water to biologically survive, just like any other being. What won't happen for an enlightened being however is dukkha created from, like an idiot, running over to the 'oasis' in dire anticipation, only to find more hot sand. This needless suffering is created by ignorance, and is what does not any longer occur in an enlightened being's mental continuum.

From David Quinn's online book, which I am currently reading through:

"This relates to the more general point that while both the enlightened sage and the ordinary person exist purely in the realm of appearances, they do not experience the same kind of world. The former lives in a realm of truthful appearances, as it were, while the other one does not. Because the sage has eliminated all delusion from his mind and sees things truly, the appearances that he experiences are stripped of all the hallucinations and distortions that ordinary people project onto their experiences."

[Sapius]

Is: By using the awesome analogy, your question becomes: "If the enlightened being can see that the 'oasis' provides no water, does this therefore mean that he doesn't need water to survive?"

Firstly, I'm not sure if you know the difference between an “oasis’ and a ‘mirage’? And secondly, what analogy? I merely stated some biological facts. And how did you arrive at such an illogical question?

However… I would like to know one essential thing that you failed to address in my last post… tell me, what exactly does the ‘mirage’ analogy actually point to? Does it mean that what an individual experiences as an individual, is all just like the mirage, including ones individuality?

From David Quinn's online book, which I am currently reading through:

"This relates to the more general point that while both the enlightened sage and the ordinary person exist purely in the realm of appearances, they do not experience the same kind of world. The former lives in a realm of truthful appearances, as it were, while the other one does not. Because the sage has eliminated all delusion from his mind and sees things truly, the appearances that he experiences are stripped of all the hallucinations and distortions that ordinary people project onto their experiences."

Appearances or not, delusions or not, enlightenment or not, the fact remains that the ordinary guy and the enlightened guy still hold their identities as individuals, and interact with their environment as an individual, hence the “I” (ego, the sense of I AND that which is not I) remains, and that is the topic of this discussion.

[Is.]

the fact remains that the ordinary guy and the enlightened guy still hold their identities as individuals, and interact with their environment as an individual, hence the “I” (ego, the sense of I AND that which is not I) remains, and that is the topic of this discussion.

You need to understand that it only appears to be that way. To the enlightened being there is no individual separate from life. There is only what happens. Undoubtedly there is an appearance of an individual that can be outlined and differentiated, and this is true on a conventional level, but not in reality. Try to find the actual edge of a cloud and see how well you fare. You're pointing at it from the ground, eh? How about you go closer and closer? What about now?

Firstly, I'm not sure if you know the difference between an “oasis’ and a ‘mirage’?

Have you heard about the two truths doctrine? You can read about it here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two_truths_doctrine

What happens is that people mistake the relative truth (mirage) to be the ultimate truth (oasis), and this is what the mirage-analogy is trying to represent. When people make that mistake, there is suffering. And compassionate beings attempt to remove that mistake from their mindstream. One way to do that is to use analogies, because they are things that ordinary beings can understand, even though the analogies are due to their dualistic nature always limited. But in the end, the analogies and the methods (the four noble truths, emptiness, two truths doctrine, etc) must all be let go for complete enlightenment to occur.

[Sapius]

.
Is, just like most who defend the no-self doctrine, you seem to be quite choosy as to which part of my post you will address, which I think is not fair. I would rather prefer certain questions be answered, especially if repeated for a second time.

For the third time… I would like to know one essential thing… tell me, what exactly does the ‘mirage’ analogy actually point to? Does it mean that what an individual experiences as an individual, is all just like the mirage, including ones individuality?

You need to understand that it only appears to be that way.

And I don’t think I need to explain to you that all that there is, is appearances, but there is no "reality" other than that. Now keeping this in mind…

To the enlightened being there is no individual separate from life. There is only what happens.

For me too, but I’m not enlightened per say, so I don’t see two different individuals, for example Is and Sapius, as NOT two definably different individuals, in any imaginable “reality” removed from the one consciously experienced.

Yes, there is no individual separate from life but life cannot be without individuality (finite things) either, and that which happens is say only but appearances, but for which consciousness is absolutely necessary, for which an individual point of reference is necessary too, otherwise no-one will get “enlightened”; for example, you are enlightened and I am not.

Undoubtedly there is an appearance of an individual that can be outlined and differentiated, and this is true on a conventional level, but not in reality.

Firstly, how did you arrive at “undoubtedly”? (Your “I open the door and step into the same room day in and day out’ does not really prove that one day you might find no ground to step on, which is besides the point for now) Secondly, differentiation is a fundamental necessity for consciousness, and at any and absolutely all “levels” one can imagine, irrelevant of one assuming it an “appearance”. So talking about a level or realm of reality that does not include differentiations is absurd.

And again… which reality are you talking about here??? A reality that does not include the “conventional level”?

Try to find the actual edge of a cloud and see how well you fare.

Really? A Cloud? I don’t know what you are talking about, please define a cloud, and I will tell you if I recognise what you are talking about, and whether it has a definable edge or not.

You're pointing at it from the ground, eh? How about you go closer and closer? What about now?

You seem to have quite an arrogant confidence in this “cloud” thingy it seems. Well, it’s visibly defined edge would gradually become less and less defined due to the shortcoming of the kind of eyes I have, until I enter a mist and my clothes get wet, and when I reverse back it will gradually be visible and it might also rain. So? How about we take the example of a brick for a change?

Are you saying that if I take an instrument like the most advanced electron-microscope and focus onto the most smallest of quantum particle that make up my eyelash, that is supposed to prove that there is no boundary between my eyelash and the surrounding less dense air that I experience without the instrument? DIFFERENTIAION remain on any and all level of consciousness irrelevant of a micro or a macro world experienced, even your idea that there is no boundary between things fundamentally depends on a consciousness, which is further necessarily dependant on differentiations. Now you go and see how well you fare in a would without the differentiated, (without consciousness), and then come back and tell me about it my friend.

Have you heard about the two truths doctrine?

Yes I have, and I have my reservations and hence I’m kind of questioning it here, and you are helping explain it.

BTW, you did say “the enlightened being can see that the 'oasis' provides no water, …”, so I was naturally confused.

What happens is that people mistake the relative truth (mirage) to be the ultimate truth (oasis), and this is what the mirage-analogy is trying to represent.

I understand, but I’m of the mind that there is nothing beyond the relative truth, and if anyone likes to take THAT as an ultimate truth, so be it, otherwise to me it is but a simple logical fact, and see no need to indulge in absolutism.

When people make that mistake, there is suffering.

Well, it seems all have their own interpretation of ‘sufferings’, and decide for others if they are indeed “suffering”. As far as I know… Gautama Buddha originally set out to understand and conqure old age, sickness and death, which seems to be what he considered as “sufferinngs”, (aka dukkha) and help others be free of it too, which of course he could not, and most probebly was enlightened to the fact that these are biological facts so ultimatly it is futile, so let me go and have some milk and stop starving myself to death! Now the only alternative left would have been to help remove mental anguesh resulting from unreasonable emotions, (which I would also help any fellow being to get rid of), and may have thought what better way than to have your cake and eat it too by pronouncing old age, sickness and death as “illusory”, but of course in a very different and deeply profound sense.

So I would like to know when and who was the first to misinterpret ‘dukkha’, which was actually aimed at old age, sickness and death, and replace it with “ignorance of (as in) NOT knowing the “true” nature of existence?

And compassionate beings attempt to remove that mistake from their mindstream. One way to do that is to use analogies, because they are things that ordinary beings can understand, even though the analogies are due to their dualistic nature always limited. But in the end, the analogies and the methods (the four noble truths, emptiness, two truths doctrine, etc) must all be let go for complete enlightenment to occur.

So are you completely enlightened?

[Is.]

For the third time… I would like to know one essential thing… tell me, what exactly does the ‘mirage’ analogy actually point to?

People believe subjects and objects appear one way - as intrinsicially existing - while the reality is that they are dependent arisings, which makes intrinsic existence impossible. So instrinsic existence = the illusory oasis appearing to the mind of the uneducated person. Dependent arising = the mirage appearing to the mind of the educated person. The former will suffer needlessly, the latter will not.

Does it mean that what an individual experiences as an individual, is all just like the mirage, including ones individuality?

Yes, but that is not to deny conventional individuality.

Yes, there is no individual separate from life but life cannot be without individuality (finite things) either, and that which happens is say only but appearances, but for which consciousness is absolutely necessary, for which an individual point of reference is necessary too, otherwise no-one will get “enlightened”; for example, you are enlightened and I am not.

Nobody ever gets enlightened. The apparent separate nature of the person is seen as empty by the person, whereby the person dissolves like snowflake falling into a lake. What is left is ineffable suchness, in which there can be no duality. So there can be no Sapius separate from Is, and no Is separate from Sapius. Only in thought do these characters conventionally exist. It is the same with finite things.

"O daughter, how is a Bodhisattva victorious in battle?"
"Manjushri, when analyzed, all phenomena are unobservable."
- Superior Sutra of the Sport of Manjushri.

differentiation is a fundamental necessity for consciousness

That's correct. So when differentiations are seen as empty of inherent reality, consciousness stops. Consciousness too is only an idea. What is true is this. There is no consciousness separate from the world, and no world separate from consciousness. With the end of the world, consciousness ends. With the end of consciousness, the world ends.

So talking about a level or realm of reality that does not include differentiations is absurd.

Differentiation is a product of mind.

http://www.qualitytrading.com/illusions/images/sax1.gif

Some minds differentiate this appearance as a woman. Other minds differentiate this appearance as a saxophone player. Which mind is correct?

You also ask, how do we function in a world without inherent differentiation? The answer is that the complete negation of inherent differentiation doesn't negate conventional differentiation in any way. For example, you say the appearance over there is a beautiful painting? In reality, it is not a painting. There is no painting to be found under ultimate analysis. But I would never ever say something ridiculous like that outside the context of forums like this. Of course it is a beautiful painting!

So are you completely enlightened?

Frog.

[Cahoot]

This thread began with the posting:

If there was such a thing as having no ego, which I think is probably impossible, then this person would have no problem with me coming over and blowing their head off with a shotgun.

Ego keeps you alive.

Consider the egoless one to be like a tiger, who is also egoless.

Go after a tiger with a shotgun and you may very well find yourself ... after you have crapped your pants and dropped your gun out of fear ... to be the one who is beheaded, gutted, and eaten.

Ego maintains the self-satisfying illusion of control over the world and will gladly sacrifice your life for the sake of that illusion.

[Sapius]

Is: People believe subjects and objects appear one way - as intrinsicially existing - while the reality is that they are dependent arisings, which makes intrinsic existence impossible. So instrinsic existence = the illusory oasis appearing to the mind of the uneducated person. Dependent arising = the mirage appearing to the mind of the educated person. The former will suffer needlessly, the latter will not.

Well I am fully aware that absolutely everything arises interdependently, but I don’t seem to suffer in any way when I believe that YOU may have something worthwhile to say, although you are like a mirage, unless YOU say that YOU have no intrinsic words or wisdom to offer, in which case I can safely ignore YOU. Can/should I?

S: Does it mean that what an individual experiences as an individual, is all just like the mirage, including ones individuality?

I: Yes, but that is not to deny conventional individuality.

So if YOUR individuality is just like a mirage, why should I pay any attention to YOU? How could you ever be able to offer anything real enough to quench my thirst!?

Further more, either there could be individuality or not, law of the excluded middle as they say, so what other kind of individuality is there other than this “conventional” one… the one that thinks, acts and reacts as an individual? If it is not you who thinks acts and reacts… please say so plainly… so I may simply get up and walk away.

Nobody ever gets enlightened.

Well then… why are you wasting your time then …?

The apparent separate nature of the person is seen as empty by the person, whereby the person dissolves like snowflake falling into a lake. What is left is ineffable suchness, in which there can be no duality.

No duality? Impossible! One cannot have memory of an unconscious episode, and claiming some ineffable suchness of ‘no duality’ is logically impossible. No duality means no existence, and no existence is logically impossible, so ‘no duality’ could only be a product of a deluded or a wishful mind which all the while remains in and off duality however.

S: differentiation is a fundamental necessity for consciousness.

I: That's correct. So when differentiations are seen as empty of inherent reality, consciousness stops. Consciousness too is only an idea. What is true is this. There is no consciousness separate from the world, and no world separate from consciousness. With the end of the world, consciousness ends. With the end of consciousness, the world ends.

I think you have a very limited definition of ‘consciousness’, or that you seem to believe that consciousness is ‘intrinsic’ to YOU in this instance. I don’t see the possibility of either ‘consciousness’ or the ‘world’ ever having a beginning or end, which means existence to me, and that there could be nothing beyond or more than just that.

Some minds differentiate this appearance as a woman. Other minds differentiate this appearance as a saxophone player. Which mind is correct?

Honestly… I don’t think you are that thick my friend… however… the point is... DIFFERENTIATION is the KEY to either experiencing or interpreting it as EITHER this or that, or something entirely different, how does that even matter in any case, and how is it even relevant I wonder???

You also ask, how do we function in a world without inherent differentiation?

Not ‘inherent differentiation’ but that differentiation has to inherently, necessarily, be there all the while if existence has to eternally be what it is. No sense of differentiation, no existence, and no existence is not possible, so differentiation has to go hand in hand with existence, eternally.

The answer is that the complete negation of inherent differentiation doesn't negate conventional differentiation in any way. For example, you say the appearance over there is a beautiful painting? In reality, it is not a painting. There is no painting to be found under ultimate analysis. But I would never ever say something ridiculous like that outside the context of forums like this. Of course it is a beautiful painting!

What lies beyond context... including the claim that there lies something beyond context? I think we wishfully delude ourselves into thinking about and embracing some illogical level of some profound immortality to satisfy an inherent need of the ego to feel on top of it all.

So there can be no Sapius separate from Is, and no Is separate from Sapius. Only in thought do these characters conventionally exist. It is the same with finite things.

Really? Ok… I take it WE are done then…

I: and compassionate beings attempt to remove that mistake from their mindstream. One way to do that is to use analogies, because they are things that ordinary beings can understand, even though the analogies are due to their dualistic nature always limited. But in the end, the analogies and the methods (the four noble truths, emptiness, two truths doctrine, etc) must all be let go for complete enlightenment to occur

S: So are you completely enlightened?

I: Frog.

How profound :)

One thing is for sure, Is, your ego (sense of "I", individuality) seems to be doing quite well, but most probably you seem to believe otherwise I think. Good for you I guess.

[paco]

If there was such a thing as having no ego, which I think is probably impossible, then this person would have no problem with me coming over and blowing their head off with a shotgun.

Ego keeps you alive.

skipair,

The dillusional world makes perfect sense. Everyone believes the world is round, while, I still believe the world is flat...You creat your own truths and wise sayings.

[Is.]

Well I am fully aware that absolutely everything arises interdependently, but I don’t seem to suffer in any way when I believe that YOU may have something worthwhile to say, although you are like a mirage, unless YOU say that YOU have no intrinsic words or wisdom to offer, in which case I can safely ignore YOU. Can/should I?

Do whatever you'd like.

"The pacification of all objectification
And the pacification of illusion:
No Dharma [intrinsic words of wisdom] was taught by the Buddha
At any time, in any place, to any person"
-Nagarjuna, MMK XXV: 24

The only question is if you experience suffering or not. If you don't, you're free; you don't need anything. However if you do, listen to the words of those who through compassion emerge from the void, taking human or any form, to help release you from the chains of ignorance.

How could you ever be able to offer anything real enough to quench my thirst!?

Angels can not quench your thirst. But they can point out the way to the river.

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/15/22384 ... a5.jpg?v=0

Further more, either there could be individuality or not, law of the excluded middle as they say, so what other kind of individuality is there other than this “conventional” one… the one that thinks, acts and reacts as an individual? If it is not you who thinks acts and reacts… please say so plainly…

There are no individuals apart from conventional designation. So, you ask, who then is doing the thinking, the reacting, the seeing, etc? Ultimately, God. Which is to say - no one. Conventionally, I could answer the question by taking a 3-p perspective, using a modernist worldview: the brain having evolved through natural selection is doing it; the human brain is the most complex object (process) in the whole of the known universe. The independent and separate sense of ego arising from the functionings of the brain as a convenient and survival-enhancing way to interact in the world is an illusion. There is no separation; there are no intrinsic boundaries.

Well then… why are you wasting your time then …?

There is suffering in the world. The truth about suffering is that it can end. So, why not?

No duality means no existence, and no existence is logically impossible, so ‘no duality’ could only be a product of a deluded or a wishful mind which all the while remains in and off duality however.

Because you are lost in ignorance, you are either caught in the extreme of permanence (existence), or the extreme of annihilation (nonexistence). The middle way of non-duality transcends both of these extremes.

"Having past into Nirvana, the Victorious Conqueror
Is neither said to be existent
Nor said to be nonexistent.
Neither both nor neither are said."
-Nagarjuna, MMK XXV: 17

DIFFERENTIATION is the KEY to either experiencing or interpreting it as EITHER this or that, or something entirely different, how does that even matter in any case, and how is it even relevant I wonder???

If X is neither this, nor that, what is differentiated?

No sense of differentiation, no existence, and no existence is not possible, so differentiation has to go hand in hand with existence, eternally.

Because you still view yourself as a separate entity with existence, differentiated from what is thought to be not-you, you equate no differentiation with nonexistence. If you see directly that there is no separate entity, neither existence nor nonexistence will make any sense.

One thing is for sure, Is, your ego (sense of "I", individuality) seems to be doing quite well, but most probably you seem to believe otherwise I think. Good for you I guess.

Excerpt from the Demonstration of the Inconceivable State of Buddhahood sutra:

The Buddha asked, "Manjushri, would you not say you have attained saint-hood?"

Manjushri asked in turn, "World-Honored One, suppose one asks a magically produced person: 'Would you not say you have attained sainthood?' What will be his reply?"

The Buddha answered Manjushri, "One cannot speak of the attainment or non-attainment of a magically produced person."

[DWD]

There are no individuals apart from conventional designation. So, you ask, who then is doing the thinking, the reacting, the seeing, etc? Ultimately, God. Which is to say - no one.

Correct.. if you take a moment to carefully check , do you actually decide to bring into manifestation the words of a particular thought?
No.. thoughts come of their own volition and you actually think they are yours. Part of the illusion of maya.

No duality means no existence, and no existence is logically impossible, so ‘no duality’ could only be a product of a deluded or a wishful mind which all the while remains in and off duality however.

Non duality is a concept of the ego and when the ego drops away all concepts are meaningless . It is not possible to understand the state of no ego or non dual since understanding/logic is implied with the ego. The non dual concept is simply a pointer to what is and the ego can't wrap itself around non existence of itself.

DIFFERENTIATION is the KEY to either experiencing or interpreting it as EITHER this or that, or something entirely different, how does that even matter in any case, and how is it even relevant I wonder???

It is the ego that judges and differentiates.
The world and consciousness are one seamless flow, there is nothing to differentiate. The first error is that you believe that 'I" exists .....seperately.
Without differentiating , experiencing still happens , unimpeded by judgements , stress and need.

If you see directly that there is no separate entity, neither existence nor nonexistence will make any sense.

When you see this , existence or not is not even a consideration except for discussion with someone who doesn't see.
Existence or not is a concept about manifestation , including the ego . Consciousness is unborn , formless , without boundaries, immutable . Can you find any boundaries to your awareness or when it starts or stops?

[Sapius]

Is: Do whatever you'd like.

Sure, I will, as surely can you, just that you (ambiguously) deny and accept it. Do not underestimate this freedom of individuality which facilitates the telling of ones own story to begin with.

The only question is if you experience suffering or not. If you don't, you're free; you don't need anything. However if you do, listen to the words of those who through compassion emerge from the void, taking human or any form, to help release you from the chains of ignorance.

Firstly, it is YOU who defines what ignorance means; then it is YOU who imagines who (other individuals that is) are suffering or not; which is quite an egoistic indulgence... and then say…

There are no individuals apart from conventional designation.

Which is also quite a work of an individual ego. "I".

So, you ask, who then is doing the thinking, the reacting, the seeing, etc? Ultimately, God. Which is to say - no one.

Not really, but if is it Ultimately (with a capitol U) God, which is further to say – no one, then again I ask, why exactly should I pay attention to “YOUR” story my friend!?

Conventionally, I could answer the question by taking a 3-p perspective, using a modernist worldview: the brain having evolved through natural selection is doing it; the human brain is the most complex object (process) in the whole of the known universe. The independent and separate sense of ego arising from the functionings of the brain as a convenient and survival-enhancing way to interact in the world is an illusion. There is no separation; there are no intrinsic boundaries.

No, I do not believe just the “brain” is involved as far as consciousness is concerned, but that does not in any way tell me that there is no separation between a subject (sense of self) and an object (that which facilitates such sense of self, be it even an idea if you like); if consciousness or existence is to be what it IS.

There is suffering in the world. The truth about suffering is that it can end. So, why not?

Really? What sufferings? I cannot believe this coming from someone who believes that NO ONE becomes enlightened, because there is no individuality to begin with, so who do YOU think is suffering?

Because you are lost in ignorance, you are either caught in the extreme of permanence (existence), or the extreme of annihilation (nonexistence). The middle way of non-duality transcends both of these extremes.

Excuse me? Thinking about existence AND nonexistence is none other than existence already, (unless you illogically believe nonexistence exists), and THINKING of duality AND non-duality is EXISTENCE too. What makes you think “non-duality” is the middle way? Doesn’t duality stand on its other extreme so to speak? If you said you do not consider or value either one over the other, then I could believe you are kind of unbiased, delicately balancing yourself on the middle way.

Please… start thinking for yourself and stop believing those fancy and ego pampering tales you have heard. It is absolutely reasonable to not indulge in any sort or extremes, but lets not make that a religion.

"Having past into Nirvana, the Victorious Conqueror
Is neither said to be existent
Nor said to be nonexistent.
Neither both nor neither are said."
-Nagarjuna, MMK XXV: 17

Sigh… what an ego boosting emotional injection…. ironically, in which neither both nor neither are said, but the "Victorious Conqueror" still likes to talk the most… hypocrisy perhaps…?

Sap: DIFFERENTIATION is the KEY to either experiencing or interpreting it as EITHER this or that, or something entirely different, how does that even matter in any case, and how is it even relevant I wonder??

Is: If X is neither this, nor that, what is differentiated?

Really? How did you come up with X to begin with? What do you mean/understand by X? How do you recognize X?

The differentiated is You my friend! Which is NOT the X. It is the X that makes you a you, which has to necessarily be NOT you, (duality), to even make a claim of non-duality, which means duality persists even when claiming/thinking non-duality. You can deny all you like, but that is confirmed in denial too.

Sap: No sense of differentiation, no existence, and no existence is not possible, so differentiation has to go hand in hand with existence, eternally

Is: Because you still view yourself as a separate entity with existence, differentiated from what is thought to be not-you, you equate no differentiation with nonexistence. If you see directly that there is no separate entity, neither existence nor nonexistence will make any sense.

Hahahaaa… It’s always funny to see how one projects their unfounded assumptions onto others and believe that their individual subjective judgments are divinely true.

Well, nonexistence does not make sense to me, and THAT sense of “not make sense to me” is EXISTENCE itself too. Even your nonsense that ‘neither existence nor nonexistence will make any sense” is EXISTENCE my friend. You cannot escape existence even in that which does not make sense to you, including the “concept” of “existence” so to speak.

Excerpt from the Demonstration of the Inconceivable State of Buddhahood sutra:

The Buddha asked, "Manjushri, would you not say you have attained saint-hood?"

Manjushri asked in turn, "World-Honored One, suppose one asks a magically produced person: 'Would you not say you have attained sainthood?' What will be his reply?"

The Buddha answered Manjushri, "One cannot speak of the attainment or non-attainment of a magically produced person."

"…but one should simply swallow whatever the magically produced (particularly individual) person sprouts, like YOU or ME, Manjushri."

I think stuff like this "magically produced person" or "Victorious Conqueror" is what egotistically attracts one to believe in some sort of "immortality", be it even in imagining that "I" am ALL, or am one-with-all, or that "no separation" thing, and the next moment one goes about "conventional" life however, without realizing that the thought of "magically produced person" is actually conventional too, in and of existence however.

[Sapius]

DWD: Without differentiating , experiencing still happens , unimpeded by judgements , stress and need.

That is logically impossible, since differentiation is a fundamental necessity for consciousness to be what it is.

One does not need to verbally or conceptually differentiate between a self and non-self if that is what you are alluding to, for if that were true, absolutely nothing could coherently interact with its environment, including say a new born who has not yet mastered a language nor the "mind".

[divine focus]

That is logically impossible, since differentiation is a fundamental necessity for consciousness to be what it is.

One does not need to verbally or conceptually differentiate between a self and non-self if that is what you are alluding to, for if that were true, absolutely nothing could coherently interact with its environment, including say a new born who has not yet mastered a language nor the "mind".

Isn't non-differentiation equally necessary? If you isolate a first-person perspective from the second-person, the first-person shows no differentiation (excepting any judgment). The second-person is where differentiation comes into play (ideally).

[Sapius]

Isn't non-differentiation equally necessary?

Hi DF, I’m not sure what your point is… equally necessary for what? Can you give an example?

If you isolate a first-person perspective from the second-person, the first-person shows no differentiation (excepting any judgment).

What are you exactly talking about, DF? What does ‘excepting any judgment’ mean? Whatever the perspective, if you consider THAT perspective as a conscious one, then it is necessarily operating through differentiating one thing from another, if not, then it is not consciousness, and can have no memory of a “non-differentiated” moment, ever.

The second-person is where differentiation comes into play (ideally).

If YOU were the only conscious thing is all of Totality, and given that YOU will always remain a part of Totality, you would still need to differentiate between “your” SELF and the rest of Totality, which by definition, would NOT be YOU, irrelevant of whatever that is. So unless you cannot differentiate between your-self and all that is not your-self, you cannot be considered to be CONSCIOUS to being with.

So what has this first or second person perspective, or application of non-differentiation, say as in ‘I do not differentiate between ______ and ______”, got to do with the fundamental necessity that consciousness already demands – and that being the capability to differentiate, otherwise that would be unconsciousness.

If you prefer not to differentiate between any two definable things, which are necessarily NOT one and the same thing by definition, then fine, but since you are a conscious thing, you helplessly are already in the category of differentiators, like it or not.

[DWD]

DWD: Without differentiating , experiencing still happens , unimpeded by judgements , stress and need.

That is logically impossible, since differentiation is a fundamental necessity for consciousness to be what it is.

One does not need to verbally or conceptually differentiate between a self and non-self if that is what you are alluding to, for if that were true, absolutely nothing could coherently interact with its environment, including say a new born who has not yet mastered a language nor the "mind".

Consciousness is what it is without interacting with its environement.Consciousness is the environement. . It is the ego which does that.
Interacting with the environment is not only possible without differentiating ,many Awake masters live life as such . LIfe unfolds around them wthout any controlling or needs or preferences from them . The personality still appears to function through them , but their awareness watches it all unfold and the personality has nothing to do with that which they truly are and are fully aware of.
OF course it is illogical and impossible for the ego to conceive of itself not existing or what that would be like.
Hence.." the great peace that defies all understanding " is a good description of the egoless being's experience.

[Sapius]

DWD: Consciousness is what it is without interacting with its environement. Consciousness is the environement. .

Well, I guess that settles it then! Consciousness is all that there is… right?

It is the ego which does that.

Which again cannot be anything other than ‘consciousnesses’, for that it all that there is. Or do you wish to be a bit inconsistent and hence incoherent here?
If the environment is itself none other than consciousness, how could ‘ego’ not be consciousness too!?

Interacting with the environment is not only possible without differentiating ,many Awake masters live life as such .

Your first half of the sentence seems to be incomplete, but I get the idea. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

You mean that “that is not only possible but is a FACT! And I believe so… reason being that the ones that I believe to be the “awakened” ones, SAY SO!” You see, if you believe what they say, good for you, but I don’t have to believe them… do I? There are many religions based on exactly just that, OR, how an individual or ‘ego’ (in your books) interprets it. So I have no reason to believe what your ego interprets it as.

LIfe unfolds around them wthout any controlling or needs or preferences from them . The personality still appears to function through them , but their awareness watches it all unfold and the personality has nothing to do with that which they truly are and are fully aware of.

Have you anything to say for yourself or will it always be about “them”?

OF course it is illogical and impossible for the ego to conceive of itself not existing or what that would be like.

But for consciousness it’s possible and logical… right? It seems the entire environment is consciousness except the ‘ego’. So at least you differentiate between consciousness and ego… good to hear that.

Hence.." the great peace that defies all understanding " is a good description of the egoless being's experience.

You mean ‘experience THAT which defies understanding’? And what exactly do you understand or know about ‘experiencing’ itself, as in what it involves or what does it mean? Including what does it mean to be conscious.

[divine focus]

Isn't non-differentiation equally necessary?

Hi DF, I’m not sure what your point is… equally necessary for what? Can you give an example?

If there is a need for differentiation (an action), what is being differentiated?

So what has this first or second person perspective, or application of non-differentiation, say as in ‘I do not differentiate between ______ and ______”, got to do with the fundamental necessity that consciousness already demands – and that being the capability to differentiate, otherwise that would be unconsciousness.

The "application" of non-differentiation (first-person) is not "I do not differentiate." Any statement is second-person. You might say unconsciousness comes before consciousness, but unconsciousness (in this meaning) is the basis of knowledge (differentiation). How "unconscious" can it be?

Maybe we should differentiate between second-person unconscious ("la-la land") and the first-person. The self as individual is created in the second-person, so to not know yourself is not the same as "being."

[Tomas]

If there was such a thing as having no ego, which I think is probably impossible, then this person would have no problem with me coming over and blowing their head off with a shotgun.

Ego keeps you alive.

skipair,

The dillusional world makes perfect sense. Everyone believes the world is round, while, I still believe the world is flat...You creat your own truths and wise sayings.

SnoCaine has it right :-)

[Sapius]

DF: If there is a need for differentiation (an action), what is being differentiated?

Are you saying differentiation = action?

What I’m saying is…. differentiation takes pace much before any “action” comes into the picture.

Consciousness itself already requires that a thing differentiates its – self from all that it is NOT, so the NEED to “differentiate” (any further, as in “action” words or deeds), OR not at all (in the sense of physical or mental “action”), does not even arise. Differentiation is a fundamental necessity for consciousness to be what it is much before any “action”.

The "application" of non-differentiation (first-person) is not "I do not differentiate." Any statement is second-person.

I’m sorry, I don’t get this first/second person thing. You will have to elaborate on it.

You might say unconsciousness comes before consciousness, but unconsciousness (in this meaning) is the basis of knowledge (differentiation). How "unconscious" can it be?

Again I’m not sure what you are saying here…

Why would I say unconsciousness comes BEFORE consciousness? And are you saying unconsciousness = knowledge = differentiation? And are you asking how “unconscious” can “unconsciousness” be? ...because you see ‘unconsciousness’ as the BASIS of knowledge (=differentiation)?

Do you believe consciousness springs out from some fundamentally unconscious state of affairs?

Maybe we should differentiate between second-person unconscious ("la-la land") and the first-person. The self as individual is created in the second-person, so to not know yourself is not the same as "being."

Well, the above sounds to me as la –la landish as it can get with this “second-person” thing. Please elaborate on this first and second person theory, and further more, please note that neither grammar nor my English is that good.