now from my personal understanding ego/i is a construct of the mind. the pointer if you will.
to me and this is mine. i imagine this pointer/ego/i with my mind.
if i give up it and have just mind well this is it.
it can develop and is the formal opposite of what i believe to be ego.
developing as a peeling away and ridding further of ego. not a way to be perfect. this is already so. ego affects the perfection. simply put. or obscures it. ive seen. so.
now i feel this to be very true.
so bascially put when ego doesnt move this is what i need. this is what i really want. this is real mind. the inbetween ego.
i consider it fake or false but at the same time like a dream it is real. like a thought.
to me the pointer at our thoughts is ego. there is or should be just thought and nothing else. thoughts not being bad in and of themselves.
i dont feel insecure in this knowledge or if you would disagree. as this would be to me ego or monkey mind or the hurried mind or what have you. nor do i desire anything more to learn. maybe unlearn to be honest.
this is mine.
thank you for your reply. shayne
MUGA: Shayne, Actually, what's the question, friend?
WOODSMAN: I could have said that. I mean the question part. huhu Oh, why does it seem that some people are my friends, ones I like to spend time with, and ones who I do not? This is a question for muga or the dom, shayne sorry. And I want a short answer please, thanks.
MUGA: Dear Woodsman, Ever heard it explanined as "All are equal, but some are more equal than others"?
SHAYNE: actually it was a statement and i wondered how you felt. so a question as to what your thoguths where? yes it is intellectual and not really it. as this is ...personal to use a better word.
thanks muga, shayne
The d.o.m.: Mr. Shayne,
Have been reading several postings of yours and some others, the words such as self/no-self, ego/no-ego, I/no-I, me/no-me...were mentioned many times - for example, in the post of yours above. However, the d.o.m. is not sure what you and other posters mean with those words because there were nothing has been pointed out of the thing (self/ego/me/I...)specifically or visiblly. If we do not "see" or know that "thing" clearly, and if we are not sure about it, how could we talk about it, let alone to get rid of it or to peel it layer by layer as you and some others have said?
That's why the d.o.m. has a question: What is it that you called "ego" or "self" or "me"? Could you or anyone else point it out specifically then others can see it before we go any further?
We are exploring ourselves, learning of ourselves together as friends. No one here is a teacher/master/leader or student/disciple/follower in this matter.
SHAYNE: i can't find one.
i asked what a bug was the other day. i found that it really didn't exist.
i can point to a bug and say bug but what is its seperation from all of life.
same with me.
now it might be said that where is mind seperate from what i just posted. i just said i cant find one. but thats it. this i.
now i find if i attempt to intellectually understand what you said i get confused.
well ill not discuss ego no more. cause its just a word and makes no sense to me no more.
so ill say to you. it is that which questions that is confused that is the culprit. that which is attempting to understand instead of getting what you say directly.
now i won't say get rid of...maybe thats a wrong word. maybe its understanding whats its doing. being it. which i have always been.
so wrong use. or our misunderstanding of it.
so attempting to even understand is wrong too. or wrong use of. just seeing directly. without the attempt.
but i must say the less that it questions and seeks and attempts to understand the more clearer it becomes. the less its in a hurry. the less it moves. so peace is non moving. or real nirvana.
ok thank you, mr.d.o.m.
i appreciate your comments very much. to me this is and will always be the heart of the matter. but again this is just me. i also know that my appreciating your comments could be construed as insecurity or lack of understanding.
to me this is what i know. it seems obvious to me.
Fom the d.o.m. "That's why the d.o.m. has a question: What is it that you called "ego" or "self" or "me"? Could you or anyone else point it out specifically then others can see it before we go any further?
CHARLES: We could examine different definitions for these words, but they all boil down to an inadequate attempt to describe something of mind right here and now. In some schools of Western psychology, "ego" is simply a conceptual construct used to refer to the analytical decision-making aspect of mind, while in others it refers to a human being's immediate experience of perspective and identity. In many cases, it seems that some of us on this list use "ego" to talk about aspects, functions or patterns of mind that we think are bad, deluded, or confused. Most commonly, this negative judgment attached to the word "ego" is about thoughts, feelings and action that serve the pleaseure of that person at the expense or exclusion of others, which we commonly call "selfishness".
There is also a lot of talk about destroying this "ego", but by whatever definition one wishes to use of it, that talk ends up meaning destroying, or pretending to destroy, something of this mind right here and now.
Try as we might to make use of such words, even in a positive way, it remains that the end effect in any case is that they serve to mentally fragment and build artificial or illusory compartments in this mind right here and now.
d.o.m. said, "We are exploring ourselves, learning of ourselves together as friends. No one here is a teacher/master/leader or student/disciple/follower in this matter."
Yes, d.o.m., these are just more words for fragmenting and compartmentalizing.
STEPHEN: "According to this dualism, spiritual experience and the experience of ordinary, everyday life are two different dimensions of reality, two mutually exclusive universes. This reflects the idea that the goal of spirituality is to exit the "mundane" and attain the "transcendental," the holy, God. Much of modern culture, from our consumerist economy to our systems of socializing and educating our children, is reflective of this kind of dualism, and Western Buddhism has not escaped its grip."
Dear Charles, The thing here is about none separation and none dualism. We are one thing trying to observe ourselves. When one speaks of ego, id, self or soul; it produces dualism. When one recognizes student, teach or master we are separated. MU
CHARLES: Yes! That's indeed the point - this mind, right here and now.
STEPHEN: Dear Charles,
The D.O.M. is speaking allegorically. He would have you point out separations which do not exit. MU.
CHARLES: Yes, that's clear. It seemed there was an opportunity to help pour some of the tea, as you are doing. Thank you, Stephen.
SHAYNE: ok. i see your point. i kind of said this later in my previous post though.
i also understand about how you can not objectivly isolate the subjective nature of man. its too personal.
but wrong use of mind is wrong use. its what we do with it. it can point in any direction.
if i feel insecure and realize it this can not be anything but good. or if i help another.
you are right though. i shouldnt exclude that which i do not think or feel is not correct mind. as all is part of this world and i wont change it. this would be selfish.
as far as a formal opposite of ego i was wrong. it is just simply various states of mind. but a state of mind i desire.
i can't help but to say when i am insecure or someone i know is i find this to be....need to be corrected so they are not. or someone who concentrates to much on the negative way they feel and are hypocondriactes. so maybe not wrong use but not knowing we are pointing to it. so direction.
well..still words. still concepts. that which is silent in me that has no words knows itself anyway.
LYNN: Does recognition require a dualistic view?
STEPHEN: No, recognition needs the view that there are no differences. MU
SHAYNE: well i'm not going to dig deeper. this digging deeper isnt getting it.
and this donates me at a loss. so why dig?
if i say i dont get it. well thats insecurity.
i won't have this either.
ego is a false sense of seperation. thats my ego. that is not real. a false sense of the pointer seperate from what it points.
there. thats its.
From Lynn "Does recognition require a dualistice veiw?"
CHARLES: Good question. The answer depends upon what is meant by "recognize". The word literally means "to know again", which carries the connotation of past and present, hence a dualism. Dualism is also present in any activity of the mind that takes the form of a subject-object relationship. The thought which might be expressed as "that's an apple", or "there's an apple", or even "this is an apple" is a form of dualism because because there is a distiguishing of "apple" from the observer.
But, we might ask, so what?
If we say dualism is this or that, or not this or not that, or we say it is something to avoid or deny, then ironically we only make more of it! Hah hah!
STEPHEN: The question is "Are you an apple?" Does not your discrimination depend on your view of self and is that not garbage. MU
CHARLES: It doesn't matter what one's view of self may be, the moment any discrimination is made, even if it seems just a name, dualism is also made in that moment. This is the way of words and thinking. As for garbage, well, that's usually a word for things that we don't want anymore. :-)
LYNN: so, one might say that past holds it's own future? and future holds it's own past? then what about this "right now?" does it hold anything?
CHARLES: Lynn, Yes and no. Everything and nothing!
It holds and does not hold. These are just ways of thinking and speaking about what cannot be thought and cannot be said.
CHARLES: Lynn, You asked, "so, one might say that past holds it's own future? and future holds it's own past?"
The past is called "memory" right here and now in this mind. The future is called "projection" right here and now in this mind. If the past is being remembered, it is happening right here and now in this mind, and isn't anywhere or anytime else. If the future is being projected, it is happening right here and now in this mind, and isn't anywhere or anytime else.
What happens when this mind is neither remembering nor projecting?
MUGA: ///////Could you or anyone else point it out specifically then others can see it before we go any further?" -d.o.m.- ////////////////////////////////
There's this guy in the White House who yelled obsenities to his college 3 days ago. He's right below the current president.
When asked about it he said he did not resent it and that it needed to be said as he felt better after saying such uncalled-for phrase.
Well, that's ego and everyone could see it and hear it and touch it.
The ego is false and as such needs to be defended. If it were real that he needed to say it, he could have gone to the W.C. and said it 1,000 times till feeling better, in private. That's the ego. It's false, but it is not invisible.
Now when he goes to the W.C. and attends the true call of his nature, he really feels better after getting rid of his toxic produce. Thats reality. It does not need to be defended. He knows it's toxic and offensive and puts it away in private, without pride.
SHAYNE: yes i agree muga. and by the way there is no past, present or future or now. these are "things" the ego points to.
non existant if not thought about.
MUGA: Shayne friend, Just to point out that when we say "they don't exist" we just as well get into trouble as when we say "they do exist".
Illusion does not mean either ot the two extremes, but that the view and judgement of the view are not complete.
So, for any one in persue of the Truth on the 'time illusion', since understanding the 'past', the 'present', and the 'future' are somewhat difficult to grasp, old muga will suggest to start by studying the "always" and the "never".
If those two easier terms can be figured out as to their true meaning, all other similar adverbs can be handled better.
SHAYNE: and i've felt and known for a very large portion of my life what is and what isnt this ego. including my own at various times.
LEHISH: >the view and judgement of the view are not complete.< -muga-
MUGA: Shayne, When we think we know or 'have gotten it' we err.
Knowing includes not knowing. Else we are grasped to the polar point of knowing.
CHARLES: muga said: "'always' and the 'never'. If those two easier terms can be figured out as to their true meaning, all other similar adverbs can be handled better."
Ha ha! "Easier"! That's a good joke, brother muga.
As muga knows, no matter what illusion we try to master, framing and reframing it with our words doesn't make it go away. Name your poison - ego, past, dualism, whatever. We are always just pointing through the illusion from some perspective.
logic fails the dogs chase their tales think one and not two, or two and not one, think either, both, or none, each way passes through tears and wails
ok yes. now and forever are the same. so is past present and future. but still things the mind dont need. that they do not need to grasp.
pointing at something someone else has or doesnt have isnt it. not knowing includes knowing as well
besides the only "point" i make is any pointing done with "mind" as a seperate thing from which it points is false.
anxiety and insecurity are this. unable to latch unto anything or the desire too creates this.
when done with it it ends. the ego vanishes the mind stops pointing inward or outward. you have in and out. both. but this both doesnt need to be. it is already.
i say the pointing can be false. it creates all differant kinds of maladies.
no mind in zen. is this not a state described as non state?
that and intuition. my intuition does not come from pointing. i notice it subtley by itself. and im very intuitive. intuition is without a doubt something of zen. it enters my awareness no different than what i see or hear.
to me this is how i see it. and muga i find you and d.o.m. and all else here very smart. so bear with me.
when i close my eyes there is the sound of say birds, cars, the feeling of porch i sit on and the cigette in my hand ect...
now ego points at these things seperatly. i can point them out. its not correct mind. they are not seperate.
if i don't point. if ego doesnt arise it is all at once. it still exists without me consciously pointing to it. i still hear without the ego or pointer or awareness. or attention.
so what is this?
maybe mind is this and the pointer? but i dont need this either. this would be ego pointing at and latching unto this as well.
besides im beginging to think zen is just an obsessive/compulsive malady with the truth and the mind. i read where zen people being put away with the great zen disease. haha. actually i dont beleive this. like any thing it can be abused or seen wrong.
but i do say none of this zen stuff. cause it all negates itself and is meant too, so you're not attached to it so you can see directly.
TESTER: Dear Muga,
I disagree with your analysis of the guy in the White House who yelled obsenities about his college. I may sound argumentative but this is my current belief.
The guy in the White House said that, “He did not resent it and that it needed to be said as he felt better after saying such uncalled-for phrase.”
Muga says, ”Well, that's ego and everyone could see it and hear it and touch it.”
Even though you call it “ego,” at that moment his “ego” is who he is.
Muga says, “The ego is false and as such needs to be defended. If it were real that he needed to say it, he could have gone to the W.C. and said it 1,000 times till feeling better, in private. That's the ego. It's false, but it is not invisible.”
1. THE EGO IS NOT FALSE. It may not be deep -- or undesirable -- but it is not false. 2. That the guy had a different way to handle the desire to shout obsenities about his college did not make his way “FALSE.” And finally, 3. Does it matter that he said it? If so, considering that everyone is always a stranger to everyone else, to whom could it matter?
Muga says, “Now when he goes to the W.C. and attends the TRUE CALL OF HIS NATURE , he really feels better after getting rid of his TOXIC produce. That’s REALITY. It does not need to be defended. He knows it's TOXIC and offensive and puts it away in private, WITHOUT PRIDE.”
“True nature” conjures up “false nature.” “Toxic” conjures up “innoxious/non-toxic.” “Reality” conjures up “unreality.” “Private” conjures up “public. And “without pride” fills the air with “pride.”
Isn’t this a “game” that Masters play with students? Isn’t it a cover-up for the push for “compassion” – which, at best (or worst), can be viewed as an obsenity and at worst (or best) a fiction?
When one expresses his “ego” he is in just as much reality as when his ego expands until it disappears, (if it ever does) and isn’t he still in the same reality – meaning, this “thusness”?
I believe that the fully enlightened person can kill -- and not experience a feeling about it – good or bad. Libertinism can be the end result of complete enlightenment. And, if one is logical, (pass conjuring up illogical) couldn’t/shouldn’t an enlightened one be capable of libertinism?
Do Buddhist Masters fear that this can happen?
did you see pictures of saddam hussein and his insecurity. that was ego. left alone in that hole he was facing himself. he knew his wrongs.
he had nothing. and for the first time he was alone with his own ego on a grand scale.
i seen it.
From shayne, ///if i don't point. if ego doesnt arise it is all at once. it still exists without me consciously pointing to it. i still hear without the ego or pointer or awareness. or attention.
so what is this? ///
The d.o.m.: Mr. Shayne,
"so what is this?"
Would you like to drop everything else off and go with this question of yours only until the answer comes to you?
P.S. No one else could answer it for you.
no. it is my buddha nature.
to me when i have just nothing left and face this nothing and run no more than the emptiness is me and my buddha nature.
either way words. ego dropped whats left?
like any question what about the questioner?
im sure thats what your getting at with me.
but i desire no more questions and no more answers. this i vanishes and is replaced by it.
i am not sure what you are getting at with me. i do feel you might be testing me though. attempting to confuse.
so i wont not be unsure either.
The d.o.m.: Mr. Shayne,
On the road, the d.o.m. has not met anyone who came with his zen to unlearn or attachments to detach...
SHAYNE: empty your cup first is what i meant by that. so i'll dispense with this as well.
as any thought can come and go so can these "principles" or "philosophy" or zen.
besides i dont think of them while doing certain things. alot of things.
or really "keep" much.
emptiness? ha! zen? ha! morals? ha!
what we need is not what we think we do. we dont need more.
in other words the eptimoe of this is to have nothing to keep.
/////Ha ha! "Easier"! That's a good joke, brother muga. -Charles- /////////////////////////
Good wise friend Charles,
When it was said "The Never and the Always are easier to handle", for muga it means that no one can point them out in a calendar, as can be done for 'Yesterday', 'Today', or 'Tomorrow', and ask for any thing to be delivered on time. They are easy to use because they connote no responsibility whatsoever.
And, will point out also that 'Never' and 'Always' are such favorite adverbs in the language of our confused minds.
We just couldn't live without them.
yeah i agree muga. they are already. an empty attribute just like morals. if the mind is not preoccupied with past present future or now we have this.
just like when are minds are not preoccupied with jealousy, greed ect...we have morals.
nothingness is greater than somethingness.
hope you are not defending anyone's delusions.
Here's some reply on your view-points:
"I believe that the fully enlightened person can kill -- and not experience a feeling about it – good or bad. Libertinism can be the end result of complete enlightenment. And, if one is logical, (pass conjuring up illogical) couldn’t/shouldn’t an enlightened one be capable of libertinism? -Tester-
/////////////////////////////////////////////// Friend, if it means anything, will point-out that unless you are claiming enlightment, your beliefs about what and enlightened person can do and experience will continue to be illusory.
On killing and such questionable things, if you do not claim enlightment, muga suggests you go by your common sense.
If common sense does not seem to be readily available, then go by the precepts (Buddhist, Christian, or other well-intended ones).
If you don't want to believe in religious precepts claiming 'true freedom', then ask your parents, or relatives, or good-friends.
If you still don't believe them, go by Moral and Civil Law.
If you don't want to go by that either, then be prepared to face the consequences.
To your question on Libertinism, the same reply would be given. /////////////////////////
Do Buddhist Masters fear that this can happen? -Tester-
Again, friend, we can not experience the emotions of others. But we know, have experienced, have read-about, have seen, have been told, and so-forth, that emotions or lack of emotions are not a reliable truth.
Gautama The Buddha, the Master of Masters advised on 'not killing', even if he feared or not feared anything.
Will also say that intellectual peace is not True Peace.
Thanks for your sincere willingness to discuss these things.
May we all realize True Peace.
///When one expresses his “ego” he is in just as much reality as when his ego expands until it disappears, (if it ever does) and isn’t he still in the same reality – meaning, this “thusness”? -Tester- //////////////////////////////////
would say on the above:
If we compare Reality with a university, where a university is a place for dissemination and acquisition of pragmatic knowledge, we can not deny that fools as well as wise fellows attend a given university.
Just as well, we can not deny that fools, as well as wise fellows abide in Reality.
TESTER: Maybe I am defending someone's delusions but, for this purpose, forget scripture and propaganda. Would a true monistic one who kills be a "fool"? Isn’t that logically impossible? And wouldn't it be empirically impossible too in a monistic society? I don't believe that one can pick and choose how one will be enlightened.
////I don't believe that one can pick and choose how one will be enlightened. -Tester- ////////////////////////
If you are true to your belief, then what-for the questions on enlightment?
Muga wrote, "Good wise friend Charles,"
CHARLES: Ha ha! "Good wise"! Another good joke. But "friend", yes.
You made useful points about "always" and "never". Maybe nobody here will get attached to them.
"We just couldn't live without them."
Ho Ho! Muga's on a roll! :-)
FATNHAPPY: you guys are silly , here's some celantro hummus and pita and some iced chi . there alittle too much cinnamon but its still good .anyone ehant to help in the garden latter?
The d.o.m.: First of all, the d.o.m. would like to say 'thanks' to every of you, especially Mr. Charles, Mr. Muga, and Mr. Shayne..., for each of you have pointed out or showed what the word 'self' or 'ego' or 'me' means. However, the d.o.m.'s knowledge about the definitions or concepts of the self/ego/me that came from philosophies or other sources...is very limited. Therefore, he would like to look at himself for what he might see and tell.
For example, when he was upset or angry, he looked at the anger he saw himself, and he looked at himself he saw the anger.
In other words, Apart from the d.o.m., nowhere else the anger could be seen at that moment. Apart from the anger, nowhere else the d.o.m. could be seen at that moment.
So, it might be said: The anger was the 'self' or the 'ego' or the 'me'.
The same with desire or or greed or folly.
The same with body or mind or soul.
Also the same with experience or knowledge or achievement or philosophy...
when any of those gets hurt.
yeah. i am it. you're just coming from the aspect of non ego.
not the i standing over and above me. or the dualism inheritant in man to control himself. bad little me. i need to behave.
but the schism between mind and body and man and universe is a real thing. fake with the split. i am this the world is that. which is wrong.
because one if you take objectivity to the extreme there is nothing that cant be seen this way. than whats really objective? the observer cant objectivly observe himself?
so yes i agree with what you say. but the ego is real and need to be dispensed with. yes it is mine.
besides...doing the wrong thing rises ego in all. makes for the insecurity. especially anger...and its outcomes.
and you do know this. and you are not limited in what you've learned.
thanks mr.d.o.m. again.
FATNHAPPY: but to be angry in the moment is the key. anger is healthy but prolonged anger is unhealthy. be angry now and not twenty minutes from now. be now not then.
MUGA: From muga's concoctions:
An actual Roshi asked a student:
So you've seen the ego, you say?
Yes, master, I have.
And can you describe it to me?
Yes, master: medium-sized, with a beard.
And was the ego male, or female?
At this point, the student realized that foolishness can only be prevented by paying attention, regardless of rank, did not answer, bowed, and left never to return.