Falso.

The self is an illusion. True.
You are not a self. True.
You don't exist. False.

Are you using "ego" and "self" as synonyms? I'm not sure they are. I'll just use "self".

"self" is, largely, a product of (unconscious) "thinking". Cease from that type of thinking and "self" is gone. Resume that type of thinking and "self" prevails even if you believe "self" is an illusion and not real.

Heh ok. if you are not a self ,then what are you? What are you even pointing to with the word "you"? because you are obviously meaning something different from the usual definition, a separate individual or entity, who has ownership of the body, who is given the gift of life, who is born and who dies.

we need to slow down, because here the words 'you' and 'exist' can have completely different context when talking about dissolving time and ego.

this kind of word clarification is good for this kind of discussion, now what is ego to you then?

These are the questions we need, as you understand the concept, you haven't fully rejected it, if you had these questions wouldn't come up.


This question isn't valid in the first place, it is your 'self' that is asking. The "I" says 'but I AM here", therefore I exist. If we start from the assumption we are not here, this question is not rooted in logic.

Its much like saying "If the world ISN'T flat then what happens when you drive off the edge". But there is no edge in the first place!

This is all a logical understanding FIRST and then to be applied 2nd.

This is a very important question too because defining YOU or SELF is the dissolution of it.

but what about the individual or entity that does not have life.

I see ego as a kind of basic template needed to function in the world (to differentiate the input of the senses, the natural remembering that continously automatically occurs (where's my keys, where's the sandwich ingrediants, who's that talking to me on the phone, wait this is a phone in my hand, etc)). Are you using ego and self as synonyms?

Sorry man, if you don't exist, it's sort of a waste of time to explain or converse with you, no?

The question is perfectly logical to ask to someone who believes, like AJ does, that some form of self exists. Just because I dont believe a self exists does not make my question illogical. I can ask, "so, what does bigfoot eat" without believing in bigfoot.

ok. I would have preferred a straight answer though.

What would have preferred a straight answer???

I'm not saying a form of self exists. I just said above that the self is an illusion, (not real, doesn't exist).

Yes essentially they are. We have to remember through all this confusion with semantics and perceptions and conditioning, different things can happen where we can put different words to similar thoughts and understandings. So we should go slow.

but we can also slightly miss small things that are important for a total understanding.


So its essentiall all thinking, without ANY type of thought there can be no self or ego (self/ego). And yes bring the thought back and the self is back however, once we see this logically, its important to point out, the nature of the self changes, it becomes an external thing, not external meaning in this world....external meaning outside our true nature, Its not longer seen as 'me'.

When we understand all this we can understand the difference betwee me/self or me/truenature
Yes we believe old type of thought is needed for these things, and even jiddu admits many times it is necessary but I'm convinced he passed on the fact for simplicity and speed in discussion.

surely you don't need to think to catch a ball. Many high level athletes will tell you thinking gets in the way of the act, and slows you down (bruce lee would).

So the question arises can the mind function daily without this ego or thoughts, and when we understand or see the obviousness that it CAN we are able to begin the process of dissolving thought FOREVER.

In this the question comes up, what happens to the me, when thought is eradicated forever.

In this I think we have separated a piece of the self/ego that wasn't' needed and you 'thought' perhaps was.

Sure we can use a different word, like 'makes an incorrect assumption'. Or 'invalid' Everything still stands though.

Whatever that template is (that I'm calling "ego"), I experienced not having it active. All sound, motion, colors... everything was just one big...one, everything was one thing. I couldn't walk, drive, eat, pee, nothing; I was just one with the one thing. That's the template I'm talking about and it's no big deal. I'll just stick with the word self tho.

Do we agree when we hold no thoughts, we can produce this state?

Agreed.

Sent from my HTC Sensation 4G using 2+2 Forums

First, there's a difference between thinking and thoughts. DUC?

And yes, you can produce the state right now. Simply, cease from thinking. Practice, and eventually that state should stablize. It's commonly called the observer state. Behind the observer state, is another state that can be experienced and eventually stablized. Past that, I can't speak for certain.

EDIT: oops, that's not the state you were talking about. I don't know how to "produce" the "no-template" state I mentioned....

I don't follow your first paragraph.

Why do I have to agree with you before you explain your logic?

Your third paragraph is condescending and you are jumping to conclusions. Please don't put words in my mouth.

I never said I was right, its ii usr my understanding of what I have read, listened to and experienced. Do you accept the possibility that you could be off in your understanding?

Sent from my HTC Sensation 4G using 2+2 Forums

oh snap. you just got got.

Well you might point out what you are pointing at so we are clear. Because we might find we agree but we might find they are one and the same and there differences too are illusory.

Ok yes, or 'choiceless awareness' I don't think practice is involved though, instead a logical understanding will end the validation of a thoughtfull state.

So can one drive a car with 'choiceless awareness'

I question this somewhat, maybe we should go into after we deal with the choiceless state and its implications.

well I am suggesting they are the same I think.

Self is suffering but I am point out there is no implication that suffering must always exists just because self is suffering. People generally say suffering must always be because of course (what they think is of course) self must always be. But thats not true that self in this sense must always be.

Furthermore to suggest such a thing is possibly to succumb to the conditioning that we all must admit, that we are to remain ignorant to the suffering of the rest of the world. Or perhaps we dont' admit that nationality, democracys, our school systems, birth/school/job/family/taxes/death etc condition in us an ignorance towards others.

You have to uncondition the belief that suggests there is no validity to what I am going to say. In others you know from logic we are taught in school that you can't explain something to someone when they have already made up there mind about.
I have not put words in your mouth, nor are my words condescending. However if you take them a certain way they will sound that way, but that is your doing.

You asked me and I told you the direct honest answer. Your conditioning will not allow me to explain yet, so we must enquire into this piece that I claim is conditioned and you claim is not.

We often believe we can judge a person on whether they are condescending or not. But when we do this to someone who doesn't' believe in higher or lower, then its clearly our own insecurities that bring this type of analysis about.

Also make sure, as a fail safe, that when you ask someone an important question, that you don't automatically feel offended just because it questions the root of your belief.

I'm positive that you feel that is not a justifiable reaction to a spiritual discussion. To be blunt and Christian like-Buddha would never be offended or feel condescended if someone said his religion or belief or non belief was wrong.

There should be no emotion in this.
There is no possibilty I am wrong, and you will know this once your first understand what I am suggesting.

In other words I have seen this understanding.
You have to allow it to be possible I understand something that you aren't seeing clearly
Then I will show it to you
Then I will ask you if its possible I'm wrong.

Don't just say 'Oh you think your right and not wrong so therefore you are just arrogant' find out what I am saying then point out the illogics.

rofl really? ok, im done

Sent from my HTC Sensation 4G using 2+2 Forums

funny you roll your eyes first and end the equiry at that. Instead of equiry to see what I am saying and then deciding. Whats worth someone claiming they are not wrong, or someone who laughs at them without checking to see if they are correct or wrong.

I'm claiming you are conditioned to scoff at truth.