The great self sees it's reflection in intelligence and erroneously believes that reflection to be itself. This leads to false identification with mind and body as self.

Ultimately all beings are, is ego. And this is what enabled Buddha to say there are no beings (as all being are egos and ego is ultimately false perception).

When the great self becomes aware of its true nature and not just its refection, ego ceases. This is liberation. This is enlightenment.

In this way all beings are brought to liberation though there are no such things as beings.

When the great self sees itself, it becomes selfless. This is what enabled Buddha to talk of not self

That's not much fun, can't we have some adventures before the big nothingness?

The great self sees it's reflection in intelligence and erroneously believes that reflection to be itself. This leads to false identification with mind and body as self.

Ultimately all beings are, is ego. And this is what enabled Buddha to say there are no beings (as all being are egos and ego is ultimately false perception).

When the great self becomes aware of its true nature and not just its refection, ego ceases. This is liberation. This is enlightenment.

In this way all beings are brought to liberation though there are no such things as beings.

When the great self sees itself, it becomes selfless. This is what enabled Buddha to talk of not self

Great thread, I agree with your perspective.

That's not much fun, can't we have some adventures before the big nothingness?

Fun is only temporary, there is not a big nothingness, but a big eternal brightness. If you are aware that fun is temporary, you will not seek it no more, because it will always be temporary. One day, you will realize that this fun is really inside you, and external factors should not determine this, but your inner-experience. So you can be in control of your emotions, not let the outside world be a cause of your emotions, because you are the master of your own body. This is the first step towards enlightment, be in control, and mostly, in awareness of our own emotions.

Fun is only temporary, there is not a big nothingness, but a big eternal brightness. If you are aware that fun is temporary, you will not seek it no more, because it will always be temporary.

I disagree.
I think humans are capable of having fun, whilst letting go of attachment and desire.
I think they are capable of love without attachment.
I think they are capable of experiencing pain, and allowing it to pass through them.
I think they are capable of experiencing the full spectrum of human existance, while not holding onto life with the desperation of attachment.

This is the main point I disagree with the Buddha about.
Enlightenment is not ceasing desire and passion - enlightenment is living life with desire and passion, while being capable of relinquishing attachment.
The Buddha did not seem to think this was possible - I do.

I disagree.
I think humans are capable of having fun, whilst letting go of attachment and desire.
I think they are capable of love without attachment.
I think they are capable of experiencing pain, and allowing it to pass through them.
I think they are capable of experiencing the full spectrum of human existance, while not holding onto life with the desperation of attachment.

This is the main point I disagree with the Buddha about.
Enlightenment is not ceasing desire and passion - enlightenment is living life with desire and passion, while being capable of relinquishing attachment.
The Buddha did not seem to think this was possible - I do.

You speak of dessire and passion, but you do not know what you speak of my friend, I don´t even know what I speak of.

Fun, as we know it, is temporary, but we can be in control of our emotions, we can be aware of the love, and make it grow in each of the cells of our body. We can make the love last forever, because we are the masters of our bodies. When I say external circumstances should not have an impact on our emotions, I am saying damaging emotions, like anger, hate, envy, because it is our ego that makes us feel this things. These things are poisonous to us, if we are aware of that, they just vanish.

I do believe we need to experience the full extend of hate, but not towards others, but within ourselves when hate is manifested. This is the only way hate will go away from our emotions.
The same happens with love and hapiness, we see a friend from a long time, and we experience hapiness, but this won´t last for long, when you start talking, you forget about your feeling and begin thinking about other things. This is not the way to experience hapiness, when we feel it, we should become the hapiness, and understand it. This way, we start realizing emotions are a product from within us, and not from the outside.

If you don´t agree with me on this one, it is ok, it is good. Because the paths towards enlightment are as many as there are people on this planet. We should seek it within ourselves...

You speak of dessire and passion, but you do not know what you speak of my friend
I think I do.


Fun, as we know it, is temporary, but we can be in control of our emotions
No we can't.
We can labor under the illusion of control over out emotions, but we can't control them.
We can, however, disallow them from controlling us - which is an entirely different thing.
We can shut them out entirely, with much practice, but that is not healthy at all.


When I say external circumstances should not have an impact on our emotions, I am saying damaging emotions, like anger, hate, envy, because it is our ego that makes us feel this things. These things are poisonous to us, if we are aware of that, they just vanish.
They are only damaging to us if we allow them to be.
That's my point.
I can burn with rage, and that rage will only damamge me if I can not let it go and move beyond it.
Denying the "darker" side of the human experience is not the answer, because thenyou are being dishonest with yourself.
The answer is to experience these emotions, explore them, understand where they are coming from and not allowing them to control you.
If you deny them, they will continue to exist, grow and harm you, but you won't even know about it.
Rather than confronting that which seeks to harm you, you affor it the opportunity to sneak up on you in a dark alley.


This is not the way to experience hapiness, when we feel it, we should become the hapiness, and understand it. This way, we start realizing emotions are a product from within us, and not from the outside.
I couldn't agree more.
This, however, stands true for all emotions, not just the "bad" ones.


If you don´t agree with me on this one, it is ok, it is good. Because the paths towards enlightment are as many as there are people on this planet. We should seek it within ourselves...
Of course.
I very much enjoy learning and attempting to understand what other people believe and why, though.
I will always ask and challenge others - more often than not, I am doing so to challenge myself.

ok lets get things straight here with Raven...

Fun --> it has to be thought off right? humans can let go / relinquish and can have fun... you are self contradicting yourself Raven. Having Fun / being Angry / giving something up / liberation sense are all thoughts, thoughts are connected to your physical self.

Yogasutram says these are modes of mind, when these modes are gone, you become one with your greater self, which is thoughtless all pervasive.

Threads interesting. Almost hits the sweet spot. I"ll examin the language closely to see if we are not in sync.

Later
Rick

Threads interesting. Almost hits the sweet spot. I"ll examin the language closely to see if we are not in sync.

Later
Rick

Putting into words the understandings we think we have achieved is the most difficult thing. Probably because by the time it is filtered down through our lower mental faculties it is no longer the pure thought that it started as. (The Tao that can be described is not the real Tao… etc )

What I am saying though is that when people say ‘my ego’ or ‘his ego’ it is virtually an oxymoron, because the thing that says my... is the ego. The thing that says ‘my leg’ or ‘my mind’ is the ego.. so to say ‘my ego’ is like a dog referring to itself as ‘my dog’.

That is why there are no beings, there is just ego - which is the false belief of the ‘true nature of reality’ that it is separate beings.

That is why Buddha talked of no beings.

Enlightenment is the experiential (not intellectual) realisation of this.

The great self sees it's reflection in intelligence and erroneously believes that reflection to be itself. This leads to false identification with mind and body as self.

Ultimately all beings are, is ego. And this is what enabled Buddha to say there are no beings (as all being are egos and ego is ultimately false perception).

When the great self becomes aware of its true nature and not just its refection, ego ceases. This is liberation. This is enlightenment.

In this way all beings are brought to liberation though there are no such things as beings.

When the great self sees itself, it becomes selfless. This is what enabled Buddha to talk of not self

I prefer to ascribe to Jungian's view that the Ego is all that is consciousness, and Self is the entire unison of a person's entire being—the collected works of consciousness and unconsciousness, special edition in one volume.

Somehow, what I'm perceiving from these "enlightened" topics is the ego clearly wishing to declare itself perfect but is intelligent enough to deduce that it is not, hence it does so by assuming itself as Self—these egotistical people are inventively astute enough to comprehend that the Self cannot respond since to do so would contradict its very existence. So by disparaging the whole mechanism of Ego, these people can sit on their high stools and eat their cake too. The height of priggishness if you ask me, and another example why some people are overbearing braggarts. This disparagement of Ego also handily discredits anybody whose consciousness forces them to swallow their cake too hastily, giving them heartburn (the agony!).

What they dread and mercifully don't want to acknowledge, though, is that their Selves might be just as ugly as themselves. Now there's a reflection! But my-oh-my, which comes first? Therein lies their dilemma. Lol.

I disagree.
I think humans are capable of having fun, whilst letting go of attachment and desire.
I think they are capable of love without attachment.
I think they are capable of experiencing pain, and allowing it to pass through them.
I think they are capable of experiencing the full spectrum of human existance, while not holding onto life with the desperation of attachment.

This is the main point I disagree with the Buddha about.
Enlightenment is not ceasing desire and passion - enlightenment is living life with desire and passion, while being capable of relinquishing attachment.
The Buddha did not seem to think this was possible - I do.

I sort of agree. But why 'let go' of desire. Desires seem to come and go on their own, especially when they are satisfied. I desire some fresh air. I go out. I desire some sex. I have it. When I was 18, OK, more desire, for sure, right off. But then, with the right woman, no reason to 'let go' of this desire.

When I reread the above quote I wonder if you really do think we should let go of desire since you speak against the need to cease it.

In general I agree with your disagreement with the Buddha.

It is generally looked as a sin (I mean this literally, though it will bother dogmatic Buddhists to see that word here) to say that the Buddha was not perfect in all his understandings. (Or Jesus or ___________) I think it is almost too frightening for people to face the possibility that these 'perfect' beings might actually just have solved certain aspects of problems, but also formed systems based, partly on biases (psychological, gender based, cultural...) held at that time. Even though they were able to free themselves of much of this, it seems clear to me they still had biases that only more history and experience have helped us see through.

You speak of dessire and passion, but you do not know what you speak of my friend, I don´t even know what I speak of.

I (in addition to Raven) think he does know what he is speaking about.



Fun, as we know it, is temporary, but we can be in control of our emotions, we can be aware of the love, and make it grow in each of the cells of our body. We can make the love last forever, because we are the masters of our bodies. When I say external circumstances should not have an impact on our emotions, I am saying damaging emotions, like anger, hate, envy, because it is our ego that makes us feel this things. These things are poisonous to us, if we are aware of that, they just vanish.

As always Buddhists and many others have a kind of dualism. What is outside must be accepted as it is, but what is inside, often, needs to be controlled or 'vanished'. If you point out this dualism, it is generally denied, but there it is.

Anger, even hate, have their place in the natural responses to certain things. They are not damaging in response to attacks of various kinds. Clinging to these emotions, developing an unchanging perpetual stance, postion or attitude, OK, that is damaging. but I think Buddhists need to start looking into the fears they have about strong emotions and all the judgements they have formed in relations to these.

If you cannot accept what is inside you, you will never accept what is outside you. This may take the form of being condescending in relation to those who do not control their emotions or judge their emotions as much as you do.

This condescension is not loving, nor even compassionate.

The great self sees it's reflection in intelligence and erroneously believes that reflection to be itself. This leads to false identification with mind and body as self.

Ultimately all beings are, is ego. And this is what enabled Buddha to say there are no beings (as all being are egos and ego is ultimately false perception).

When the great self becomes aware of its true nature and not just its refection, ego ceases. This is liberation. This is enlightenment.

In this way all beings are brought to liberation though there are no such things as beings.

When the great self sees itself, it becomes selfless. This is what enabled Buddha to talk of not self
From my own personal experiences this is not really true...

There is no "ego" to speak of...when people experience suffering it is because they are attached to something....they are compelled by their impulses....their defiling impulses cause them suffering...it has absolutely nothing to do with an "ego" from my own personal experiences...

Also, where does the Buddha say there is no beings? If there are no beings...then there is also no suffering...there is no point in achieving liberation...

Fun --> it has to be thought off right? humans can let go / relinquish and can have fun... you are self contradicting yourself Raven. Having Fun / being Angry / giving something up / liberation sense are all thoughts, thoughts are connected to your physical self.
Yes.
Fun, and every other sensual experience is most certainly connected to your physical self.

This I am not arguing.
What I am saying is that it is possible to experience life in it's full sensual splendor, and STILL be free of attachment.
You can experience life, enjoy the sensuality of life, love and even desire and STILL be free of samasara.
What it takes to be free of samsara is quite simply a lack of desire to come back.
"I am not doing this, this is happening through me."
I can love someone passionately, and let them go when they're gone.
I can enjoy a sensual experience, and move on satisfied and appreciative when it is through.
I can experience without attachment.

The Buddha was searching for balance in his middle way, but to deny the physical senses and deny the ego is not balance.
To accept, understand and know the ego for what it is, is balance.
To not allow oneself to be controlled by the ego and desires is balance.


Ultimately all beings are, is ego.
I couldn't disagree more.
I believe that the "self" is the balance of the three aspects of what a being is.
1.) The emotional aspect (not quite the right word for this, but it is the best I have for the time being).
This is what people refer to as the "soul", the "spirit", the "essense" or any of a number of other words to define the unchanging nature of the being. (Yes, there IS an unchanging nature.) In the argument of nature over nurture - this is nature. This is the seat of emotions.

2.) The physical aspect. This is fairly self-explanatory. It is the body. What the self uses to see, hear, taste and smell the world around it.

3.) The mental aspect. Quite simply, intellect.

Ego resides in the mental aspect.
I am working on putting this concept of "Trinity of Self" together in a succinct paper, and when I do so I will post it.



I sort of agree. But why 'let go' of desire. Desires seem to come and go on their own, especially when they are satisfied. I desire some fresh air. I go out. I desire some sex. I have it. When I was 18, OK, more desire, for sure, right off. But then, with the right woman, no reason to 'let go' of this desire.
What I mean by letting go of desire is allowing it to pass through you, without clinging to it.
If you cling to your desire to have sex, you will become obsessed with it.
You should know and understand desire for what it is.
You should be able to discern the difference between desire and need.
You should be able to deny yourself your desires if the situation calls for it, and not cling to them.
You should be able to control yourself and not allow your desires to control you.

To deny that desires exist is not enlightenment, it is denial.
To accpet that they exist, and that they exist for a reason... to understand yourself and understand where the desires come from from... to know yourself well... to allow indulgence in sensuality without attachment... balance is enlightenment.

There is no "ego" to speak of...when people experience suffering it is because they are attached to something....they are compelled by their impulses....their defiling impulses cause them suffering...it has absolutely nothing to do with an "ego" from my own personal experiences...
...

It is the ego that attaches, no ego = no attachement.


It is only through a sense of me, my and mine that attachment is possible.



Also, where does the Buddha say there is no beings?...


Throughout the Diamond Sutra, the perfection of wisdom - one of the key buddhist works.

and in many other sutras - the Lankavattara comes to mind but I would have to check that.



If there are no beings...then there is also no suffering...there is no point in achieving liberation...

This is indeed the buddhist riddle ... solve this and you get a step closer to enlightenment.;)

I couldn't disagree more.
I believe that the "self" is the balance of the three aspects of what a being is.
1.) The emotional aspect (not quite the right word for this, but it is the best I have for the time being).
This is what people refer to as the "soul", the "spirit", the "essense" or any of a number of other words to define the unchanging nature of the being. (Yes, there IS an unchanging nature.) In the argument of nature over nurture - this is nature. This is the seat of emotions.

2.) The physical aspect. This is fairly self-explanatory. It is the body. What the self uses to see, hear, taste and smell the world around it.

3.) The mental aspect. Quite simply, intellect.

Ego resides in the mental aspect.
I am working on putting this concept of "Trinity of Self" together in a succinct paper, and when I do so I will post it.
.


I would say that the emotional aspect, as in a person's emotions, is even more tied into ego than the mental.

But then reading your definition of emotional aspect i.e. the unchanging, I would say this is more like what I am terming the great self. So in that case we are not too far away from each other.

1. A great self - but understand this as not an individual being and not a person's emotions. This is the true nature of reality.
2. Ego - all mundane mental and emotional activity
3. Physical body

but a physical body is not really a being without the ego?




What they dread and mercifully don't want to acknowledge, though, is that their Selves might be just as ugly as themselves. Now there's a reflection! But my-oh-my, which comes first? Therein lies their dilemma. Lol.

But the Self that is being talked of as the great self, is not an individual self or person, therefore there cannot be 'their selves' and 'themselves', as both belong to an individual being. Great self is more akin to the idea of Brahman by definition i.e. a non dual entity..

Vital one,
Here are some excerpts from an online Diamond sutra, you may find of interest.

http://web.mit.edu/stclair/www/diamond.html


Section III. The real teaching of the great way
Buddha said: Subhuti, all the bodhisattva-heroes should discipline their thoughts as follows: All living creatures of whatever class, born from eggs, from wombs, from moisture, or by transformation, whether with form or without form, whether in a state of thinking or exempt from thought-necessity, or wholly beyond all thought realms-all these are caused by me to attain unbounded liberation nirvana. yet when vast, uncountable, immeasurable numbers of beings have thus been liberated, verily no being has been liberated. Why is this, Subhuti? it is because no bodhisattva who is a real bodhisattva cherishes the idea of an ego-entity, a personality, a being, or a separated individuality.

Section XXV. The Illusion of Ego
Subhuti, what do you think? Let no one say the Tathagata cherishes the idea: I must liberate all living beings. Allow no such thought, Subhuti. Wherefore? Because in reality there are no living beings to be liberated by the Tathagata. If there were living beings for the Tathagata to liberate, He would partake in the idea of selfhood, personality entity, and separate individuality.
Subhuti, though the common people accept egoity as real, the Tathagata declares that ego is not different from non-ego. Subhuti, whom the Tathagata referred to as "common people" are not really common people; such is merely a name.

I would say that the emotional aspect, as in a person's emotions, is even more tied into ego than the mental.
Perhaps.
Maybe the ego comes about through interraction of the emotional and intellectual.
Neuroses, for example, involve emotions, of cpurse, but are seated in the intellect.

This is what people refer to as the "soul", the "spirit", the "essense" or any of a number of other words to define the unchanging nature of the being. (Yes, there IS an unchanging nature.) In the argument of nature over nurture - this is nature.

I think "unchanging" is not quiote the right word here.
As I said, I am still trying to put this into words.
This aspect may grow, but does not change in the way that people change - it does not change in the way that the self changes.

I read somewhere that Hindus believe that, although we do not consciously recollect past lives, our soul gains wisdom with each lifetime.
This, I think, is a fair analogy to express what I am failing to.
Your "essence" (Great self, if you prefer) may not change at all in a lifetime, and if it does, it will be only slightly.
As evolution of a species is gradual process that takes many generations to recognize the change taking place, such is the evolution of the essential aspect of the self.
I am not going to grow gills, but many generations from now, my great great ... grandchild may, and I contributed to that change in some small way.

Does that make sense?

but a physical body is not really a being without the ego?

A physical body is one of the three aspects of the self.

You guys seem to know what you are talking about, so permit me to add this thought to the thread in order to see what you make of it:

I believe we are mostly animals, if not 100%, we are at least 99% animals, we are sexual beings. We are also, the only known animal with conscience, but the cyclic struggle between the animal and the "saint", is a waste of sexual energy, life energy. We are all in this struggle. In order to accumulate energy, we need to make the animal and the saint into 1 and only center, because that is our nature, then and only then, we can make the center dissapear...
I believe our Ego is what stands between the animal and the saint, it is indeed a big breach, that needs to dissipate to centralize our very nature, it is like a shell, a hard shell we create to be "appropiate" to society, that is how society control us, no one can control a free-spirit, (without the shell).

Like for example, a kid is dancing around somewere (you can see no ego involved here), just for the fun of it. Then his mother comes, and tells him not to dance in there, because it is inappropriate. So the kid created the Ego, in order to be "appropriate" in the eyes of society. But in our inner-self, there is no such thing as appropriate or inappropriate behaviour.

Or like a person, that is told that sex is evil, very common ammong religions. Then this person incorporate this "sex is evil" thing into himself, not his real self, but his ego. So this person grows up, and start seing everything is sexual (in his eyes), and sees that everyone is having sex. He starts to judge these people having sex, and he believes he is better, because of his Ego; this creates an intensive internal struggle, and the ego is fed with this struggle. It is what ego is all about, it feds on internal struggle.

He who is free of internal struggle (blissfullness) has no ego, because in the light of awareness, the ego vanishes by itself...

It is the ego that attaches, no ego = no attachement.


It is only through a sense of me, my and mine that attachment is possible.

But there is no "ego" from my personal experience....there is only attachment, impulses, insecurity, etc....not any type of "ego"....



Throughout the Diamond Sutra, the perfection of wisdom - one of the key buddhist works.

and in many other sutras - the Lankavattara comes to mind but I would have to check that.

Vital one,
Here are some excerpts from an online Diamond sutra, you may find of interest.

http://web.mit.edu/stclair/www/diamond.html


Section III. The real teaching of the great way
Buddha said: Subhuti, all the bodhisattva-heroes should discipline their thoughts as follows: All living creatures of whatever class, born from eggs, from wombs, from moisture, or by transformation, whether with form or without form, whether in a state of thinking or exempt from thought-necessity, or wholly beyond all thought realms-all these are caused by me to attain unbounded liberation nirvana. yet when vast, uncountable, immeasurable numbers of beings have thus been liberated, verily no being has been liberated. Why is this, Subhuti? it is because no bodhisattva who is a real bodhisattva cherishes the idea of an ego-entity, a personality, a being, or a separated individuality.

Section XXV. The Illusion of Ego
Subhuti, what do you think? Let no one say the Tathagata cherishes the idea: I must liberate all living beings. Allow no such thought, Subhuti. Wherefore? Because in reality there are no living beings to be liberated by the Tathagata. If there were living beings for the Tathagata to liberate, He would partake in the idea of selfhood, personality entity, and separate individuality.
Subhuti, though the common people accept egoity as real, the Tathagata declares that ego is not different from non-ego. Subhuti, whom the Tathagata referred to as "common people" are not really common people; such is merely a name.
Thanks for providing sources...I had to ask because a lot of people enjoy saying the Buddha says things he really never says....



This is indeed the buddhist riddle ... solve this and you get a step closer to enlightenment.;)
I don't think its right to say there is no beings....there is...but nature is the only doer...but there is still a you and I because you and I experience different things...

But there is no "ego" from my personal experience....there is only attachment, impulses, insecurity, etc....not any type of "ego"...

Define ego, please.
In your own words.
When you say that the ego does not exist, what is it you are saying does not exist?

Ultimately all beings are, is ego. And this is what enabled Buddha to say there are no beings (as all being are egos and ego is ultimately false perception).
Please explain. You are proclaiming that all beings are false perception.
I don't understand what this means or what you are trying to say. As a devout Christian, I don't believe in Buddhism in the slightest. However, I enjoy learning about some of these nutty ideas. Thanks. Sorry if I didn't read through all of the posts.

Originally Posted by Chewing Gum
What they dread and mercifully don't want to acknowledge, though, is that their Selves might be just as ugly as themselves. Now there's a reflection! But my-oh-my, which comes first? Therein lies their dilemma. Lol.
Originally Posted by Light Travelling
But the Self that is being talked of as the great self, is not an individual self or person, therefore there cannot be 'their selves' and 'themselves', as both belong to an individual being. Great self is more akin to the idea of Brahman by definition i.e. a non dual entity..

So you're saying there is only one self, and that Self is the same self I perceive to be incorporated into my being? Hence, you're saying, my being is your being, your being her being, her being his being, etc, etc, all culminating into one gigantic being splintered into billions of wayward egos.

Makes absolutely no sense to me. Furthermore, it doesn't sync up with my experience of myself. So am I to negate a lifetime's worth of experience just to accommodate the distain for your ego? Fat chance.

This I am not arguing.
What I am saying is that it is possible to experience life in it's full sensual splendor, and STILL be free of attachment.
You can experience life, enjoy the sensuality of life, love and even desire and STILL be free of samasara.
What it takes to be free of samsara is quite simply a lack of desire to come back.
"I am not doing this, this is happening through me."
I can love someone passionately, and let them go when they're gone.
I can enjoy a sensual experience, and move on satisfied and appreciative when it is through.
I can experience without attachment.


its a joke. You say you can desire, which off course results in actions, actions results in fruits attained, if they are according to your desire, you feel attached, when you loose any of fruits you are back to desiring stage. So how can someone be disinterested with such a cycle.

That is the essence of doing fasting in hinduism or any other religion for that matter. You give up one thing for a day and devote it to qualified absolute truth or absolute truth itself, by saying that this aspect of maya which i see because i am blinded my false self (which exists separate from brahm / absolute truth) or feel, or taste , i give it up today. :-|

Rick

wow guys, instead of explaining, read wikipedias "Brahman" discussion, it seems decent. (I wont qualify it as absolute gospel or something, but its a start)


Rick

I read somewhere that Hindus believe that, although we do not consciously recollect past lives, our soul gains wisdom with each lifetime. ?

Broadly speaking true, the soul though is termed Jiva (in Hinduism) which is a slightly different concept to Atman, Brahman



This, I think, is a fair analogy to express what I am failing to.
Your "essence" (Great self, if you prefer) may not change at all in a lifetime, and if it does, it will be only slightly.
As evolution of a species is gradual process that takes many generations to recognize the change taking place, such is the evolution of the essential aspect of the self.

Does that make sense?


You do make sense although I would not agree. To me, the great self does not change, what changes is the Jiva - approximately soul, which I believe to be the reforming of the ego i.e. emotional and mental energies from past lives.

But yes, I do believe we retain wisdom from past lives, albeit sub consciously.

Please explain. You are proclaiming that all beings are false perception.
I don't understand what this means or what you are trying to say. As a devout Christian, I don't believe in Buddhism in the slightest. However, I enjoy learning about some of these nutty ideas. Thanks. Sorry if I didn't read through all of the posts.


Well to explain it in Christian terms I will offer the following passage;

John 14:20
“On that day you will realize that I am in my Father, and you are in me, and I am in you.”

What Jesus is saying is that the real part of us is the same as the real part of him which is the same as God. Or god is in me and in you.


What he is alluding to is the non dual nature of reality. That aside from our ego selves we are all of the same nature, which is the same as the nature of God.

For the sake of your better understanding, you can equate God the father with Brahman;
Jesus as self realised i.e. He no longer identifies himself with the ego self but has realised himself as Brahman (god); and us as ego identified beings. (i.e. suffering from false perception).

(although technically the Christian concept of god is quite different from Brahman of vedanta and more akin to the more dualistic paths of Hinduism eg Vaishnavism).


I don't believe in Buddhism in the slightest.


wow guys, instead of explaining, read wikipedias "Brahman" discussion, it seems decent. (I wont qualify it as absolute gospel or something, but its a start)
Rick

I am talking more about Hinduism here than Buddhism. Although I am mixing some Buddhist concepts in.

What I am interested in is non dual philosophies (and not just from an academic point of view – that is where my beliefs lie), which certain branches of Hinduism, as well as Buddhism contain. In particular Vedanta from Hinduism and Mahayana from Buddhism.

My opening post has a couple of Upanshadic statements regarding the self and ego coupled with some Buddhist sayings. My interest lies in these shared areas of philosophy between the two. As they both advocate a non dual reality… there can only be one non dual reality, so they are both describing the same thing in different ways.

I have been reading the Maitri Upanishad recently which is a later Upanishad, it seems to have been written post Buddha. There seems to be some synthesis of Buddhist and Hindu thought within – very interesting.

So you're saying there is only one self, and that Self is the same self I perceive to be incorporated into my being? Hence, you're saying, my being is your being, your being her being, her being his being, etc, etc, all culminating into one gigantic being splintered into billions of wayward egos.

You almost got it right, except that the Egos, are exactly what are separating each of us with the "whole". The Egos cannot be together, "Ego" causes separation from existance. And existence is what you are saying is the "one gigantic being", some may call it God...


Makes absolutely no sense to me. Furthermore, it doesn't sync up with my experience of myself. So am I to negate a lifetime's worth of experience just to accommodate the distain for your ego? Fat chance.

That is good, that you only believe what you have experienced for yourself, that attitude will help you look pass all the lies that can be presented to us. Just by saying something, it is half lie, half truth, because it always have a counterpart... So words are never accurate.

The thing is, you can experience this for yourself, just with the acknowledgement that each of us is born without an Ego, we are born enlightened. And society, starting with our parents, creates this Ego to control us. We all have an ego, and it is so big, it is you only obstacle to see things as they really are...

A society will never accept a being without an Ego, NEVER.

Is ego a survival tactic?
Is survival an ego tactic?

Is ego a survival tactic?
It is a tactic in order to survive society standards, yes.


Is survival an ego tactic?
Survival of the body is an ego tactic, yes.

its a joke. You say you can desire, which off course results in actions, actions results in fruits attained, if they are according to your desire, you feel attached
Not necessarily.
Why do you insist that one will necessarily be attached, as opposed to enjoying the moment and allowing it to pass through with no attachment or yearing? Because that's necessarily how it works for you?

It doesn't have to work that way.

The "self" is in a constant state of flux.
Everything you learn, everything you see, every bit of information you take in (consciously or subconsciously) affects you in some way.
Who you are now is not who you were mere seconds ago.
Do you agree with this?

This "self", therefore, can only truly exist in the moment.
To wallow in the past over what one did have, or to look forward to what one might have, one is ignoring and neglecting the "self" - this person is unbalance and unhappy.
This person is suffering due to attachment.

To live in the moment, is to be unattached.



when you loose any of fruits you are back to desiring stage.
Not necessarily.
This is the point of "letting go".
Once the moment is gone, it is gone.
One can enjoy the moment and appreciate it for what it is, and when what it is ceases to be, it can be let go.
"I am not doing this, this is happening through me."


So how can someone be disinterested with such a cycle.
Through hard work, self discipline and wisdom - the path to enlightement.


That is the essence of doing fasting in hinduism or any other religion for that matter. You give up one thing for a day and devote it to qualified absolute truth or absolute truth itself, by saying that this aspect of maya which i see because i am blinded my false self (which exists separate from brahm / absolute truth) or feel, or taste , i give it up today. :-|

When I fast, I do so for many different reasons.
Partly it is to test and reinforce my ideas about, and discern the difference between, needs and desires.
To help recognize the delight in partaking in desires mindfully.
To test and push my limits and self discipline.
To meditate and get to know myself and my body better (my last fast, I learned that I should put small amounts of sugar and salt in electrolyte infused water if I want the fasting to be productive for more than 5 days, for example).

You do make sense although I would not agree. To me, the great self does not change, what changes is the Jiva - approximately soul, which I believe to be the reforming of the ego i.e. emotional and mental energies from past lives.

But yes, I do believe we retain wisdom from past lives, albeit sub consciously.
If your great self does not learn or grow, what is it that grows in order to get nearer to enlightenment?
Is it not the great self that is reborn?
If it is, and with each lifetime you gain more wisdom, then the great self MUST grow.
If it is not, then the great self is no less temporary and fleeting than the ego, and is not unchaning, still.

Wisdom_Seeker and Light Travelling,
I would like to pose this same question I asked of VitalOne (which he seemed to miss) to you.


Define ego, please.
In your own words.
When you say that the ego does not exist, what is it you are saying does not exist?

The great self sees it's reflection in intelligence and erroneously believes that reflection to be itself. This leads to false identification with mind and body as self.

Ultimately all beings are, is ego. And this is what enabled Buddha to say there are no beings (as all being are egos and ego is ultimately false perception).

When the great self becomes aware of its true nature and not just its refection, ego ceases. This is liberation. This is enlightenment.

In this way all beings are brought to liberation though there are no such things as beings.

When the great self sees itself, it becomes selfless. This is what enabled Buddha to talk of not self
it seems you are mixing the terms "awareness" and "being" since a being has a sense of awareness and awareness has a sense of being.

In the vedas there are three notions of liberation from of false ego, and the one most pertinent to buddhism is merging into brahman - in that state there is no distinction between knowledge, the knower and the goal of knowledge - in otherwords there is no sense of "I" to speak of, what to speak of what the "I" is experiencing - anyway in such a discipline the topic of discussion is not so much what liberation entails (since there is nothing to discuss, or more correctly nothing that exists on the platform of enabling discussion or expounding of experience)) but how the material world and all it entails is illusory.

ahh we are back to this again are we? i will post in this thread but not today, its way too late for this.

peace.

Wisdom_Seeker and Light Travelling,
I would like to pose this same question I asked of VitalOne (which he seemed to miss) to you.
Sure, but it seems you are confusing me with someone else (=.


"Define ego, please.
In your own words.
I did it in this same thread, post #21.
For me, ever since we are born, society starts cutting your wings off. We form kind of a shell in order to behave as the current society standards. This is what I call the Ego, it is the shell.
We need to break that shell (Ego) in order to reach inner-peace, this is what love does naturally, it is the only human feeling that makes the shell disappear temporarily in a natural way, without effort. But is hurts to break the shell, it is a hurtfull process to reach a blissfull state.
The Ego strenghten itself whit our internal struggle between the animal and the inner-self. This means our life-energy is being wasted in all directions, we do not centralize it. If we manage to concetrate the energy in our inner-center, then the energy starts to accumulate, and like the water that reach a given temperature, it transforms itself into a higher state of consciousness, it explodes, then there is no center.
When our energy is being wasted, it manifest itself in sexual energy, and that is the main problem in some religious dogmas, they do not accept the fact that our energy is manifested in a sexual way. But if we manage to transform this energy, as in an inner-alchemy process, the energy starts transforming into a higher plane, that is consciousness. From sex to consciousness. Then, the brahmacharya...

If we are able to break the shell, our wings are set free again, and no society will be able to control you, or accept you.


When you say that the ego does not exist, what is it you are saying does not exist?"
I never said the ego doesn´t exist, are you confusing me with someone else maybe?

Maybe I once said, that in an awaken person, the ego is no more.

If your great self does not learn or grow, what is it that grows in order to get nearer to enlightenment? .

Nothing grows. There is a soul that thinks it is a being, a mind / body, through the process of ego. This belief is false though. In reality the soul is pure being , non dual, pure awareness. It does not have to grow or learn to achieve this, as it is its real nature. It is a process of overcoming false perceptions of being an individual being (ego) and resting in a state of pure awareness. (Brahman or Tathata)



Is it not the great self that is reborn?
.
I would say not.. The great self is unborn. It is never born nor dies. It is a state of pure being.

The soul is reborn. but the soul is a non permamnent aspect of being. so even though we talk of a soul in this world, in absolute terms the soul is illusion as well.



If it is, and with each lifetime you gain more wisdom, then the great self MUST grow.
If it is not, then the great self is no less temporary and fleeting than the ego, and is not unchanging, still.

The wisdom is in seeing the illusion for what it is – nothing grows, nothing changes.

The state that is sought after in meditation is one of pure awareness with no sense of separateness. In meditation if one can achieve a state of samadhi then the sense of subject and object is lost; the knower and known are the same. I have never achieved this, but even on the rare occasions in meditation when I just achieve an effortless and steady concentration, I can get a glimpse of what pure being must be like. Maybe you have achieved more than me in your meditations, so you must have an idea of what a pure state of unchanging being must be…. This is an idea of the great self.


Wisdom_Seeker and Light Travelling,
I would like to pose this same question I asked of VitalOne (which he seemed to miss) to you.

Ego is the false identification with mind / body that gives the sense of being a separate individual being.

False identification by what - by the great self, pure being, pure awareness, oneness, sameness, Tathata, Brahman, non duality.

it seems you are mixing the terms "awareness" and "being"
.
I don’t see how?


merging into Brahman - in that state there is no distinction between knowledge, the knower and the goal of knowledge - in other words there is no sense of "I" to speak of, .

I agree with that.



but how the material world and all it entails is illusory.

I believe that the material world does exist. Prakriti is real, this is admitted in a number of vedic systems, but prakriti is not sentient nor can it be the cause of anything. The illusion if not seeing Brahman (or Purusha) for what it is and not seeing prakriti for what it is – we confuse the two.

The illusion is how we perceive the material world , in particular that we perceive individual beings in the material world and subscribe sentience to the material world. i.e. that we think that the flesh and tissues of our brains is sentient.

Actually, I can explain all this better with an analogy.

It is like sunlight reflected onto water.

The sun is the great self
The reflection is the soul
The water is the material world.

The sun(great self) is real and permanent
The water (material world) is real but constantly changing.
The reflection (soul) is not ultimately real but neither is in completely non existent either, after all , it can be seen.

The ego comes into all this when the reflection (soul) thinks that it is really the water it is reflected on (matter) and does not realise it is really the sun. The ego is the process whereby the soul thinks it is a mind / body and from theer come me, mine and all the suffering that causes.

Enlightenment is when the soul realises it is the sun not the water. i.e. when the soul realises it is the great self reflected and is not matter (a body / mind).

Hope that makes it clearer..

Light travelling


“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
it seems you are mixing the terms "awareness" and "being"
.
”
I don’t see how?

You said "When the great self becomes aware of its true nature and not just its refection, ego ceases. This is liberation. This is enlightenment."
after asserting earlier that a sense of being is ultimately false.
My question is what is doing the awareness thing in the above quote??


“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
merging into Brahman - in that state there is no distinction between knowledge, the knower and the goal of knowledge - in other words there is no sense of "I" to speak of, .
”
I agree with that.
do you also agree that there is no capacity for such a discipline to venture into discussions on the experience of liberation?


“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
but how the material world and all it entails is illusory.
”
I believe that the material world does exist. Prakriti is real, this is admitted in a number of vedic systems, but prakriti is not sentient nor can it be the cause of anything. The illusion if not seeing Brahman (or Purusha) for what it is and not seeing prakriti for what it is – we confuse the two.
do you think that the the living entity is purusha, prakrti or perhaps something else?


The illusion is how we perceive the material world , in particular that we perceive individual beings in the material world and subscribe sentience to the material world. i.e. that we think that the flesh and tissues of our brains is sentient.
do you think that individual sentience is ultimately illusory or eternal?

Light travelling

You said "When the great self becomes aware of its true nature and not just its refection, ego ceases. This is liberation. This is enlightenment."
after asserting earlier that a sense of being is ultimately false.
My question is what is doing the awareness thing in the above


I would say that the sense of ‘individual’ being is ultimately false. ‘Being’ per se is not false i.e. I do not mean 'a being' just 'being' (the verb rather than the noun). It is this being that is doing the awareness. I would also say that this being is awareness. In fact I would use being, awareness and consciousness synonymously in this context.




do you also agree that there is no capacity for such a discipline to venture into discussions on the experience of liberation?


Only the liberated can really discuss liberation.

But even though we do not have the capacity to properly discuss such subjects, I believe that to not discuss them at all would be a greater error.

There is quote I like from the Lankavatarra Sutra (Sagathakam 15)
“The original source on which all sentient beings are dependent is beyond all theorization; all doings cease and emancipation obtains, knowing and known are transcended”.



do you think that the the living entity is purusha, prakrti or perhaps something else?


I think purusha, prakrti are two aspects of the same entity. This entity (called different things by different people) has a higher and lower nature; a manifest and un-manifest nature, both of which are of course dualistic states, but ultimately all this is one – the higher and lower are really one. This is to be realized.




do you think that individual sentience is ultimately illusory or eternal?

I think the sentience is real and eternal but the individuality is illusory



I will offer a quote from the Brahma Sutra 1.iii.19
“The supreme lord is but one, unchanging, eternal, absolute consciousness, but like a magician he appears diversely through Maya, otherwise known a Avidya. Apart from this there is no other consciousness as such.”