What's done? Who's done? You can fob this off on grammar and sit in the self-created cul de sac of (false) belief that says you don't exist or you can let go of that delusion. "I exist" is the #1 thing that you can know. It's self-****ing-evident. That-which-exists is sitting right ****ing there reading this.

What that is, what "I" is, is the question (which you won't face because of, you know, not existing and all).

There may be something that exists, but its not an I, not a you, not a self, all you are doing is moving the identification one step back , from "I am me, a separate self" to " I am awareness, the observer" The observer also isnt a "you" or an "I" by any definition of the word. Instead of playing these word games, why dont you tell me what you mean by the "I" in "I exist".

Whatever. Your argument boils down to "i am right you are wrong."

You constantly say its logical and obvious, but when asked to explain you duck and dodge. On the surface you seem to offer something to conversation; however, upon closer inspection you offer little.


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

semantics. at least your willing to admit there's something that may exist. you're recovery is well under way!

That which is reading and responding right now.

He's offering some theory. But, I don't even know what he's ducking and dodging anymore....

That tells me nothing....And its not an I

What do you expect? You don't exist. No one can tell you anything!!1

What is that which is reading and responding on your end of this conversation?

there is no "entity" here if that is what you mean. I have no idea what "that" is. Its not a separate entity, or an "I" or a "you" thats for sure.

this will be the same thing that was said of Jiddu, on the surface its possibly good but when you look at what he is saying its nonesense. But thats just misunderstanding him.

You want me to explain something to you that you have already decided cannot be so, and then you wonder why I am suggesting that is futile?

We need to start from an inquiry as to whether or not the 'human' or 'suffering' form, or 'thoughtful mind' is necessary. We have to entertain the idea of it to understand that it is not necessary, if you will entertain that, then I can explain.

Again, putting words in my mouth ... whatever.

Have you ever stopped for a second and contemplated that maybe its not the other person who is not willing to entertain a different viewpoint?

But there is something there though, right?

I think a lot of the confusion over non-self, no self, egolessness, etc ... comes from people thinking in very definitive terms.

I think the general Buddhist idea of non-self revolves around the impossibility to piece things together. That is, the problem is a person may think of themselves in very specific terms, in an enduring entity - THIS IS ME. They stitch together some moments from the past and somehow come out with this concrete entity of ME, that exists from its own side, independently.

I would think, to the Buddhist, you can never point to a self-existing ME, everything is just a collection of aggregates, is impermanent and dependent on everything else. There is no thing in itself, existing from its own side. In terms of identity, the idea of SELF or ME, only arises from a conglomeration of things - physical matter, events that we cling to, random events. Yet none of that is permanent, from moment to moment everything changes - the problem is when we cling to these ideas. We run around trying to convince ourselves that we are some self existing entity.

But to say there isn't something, there isn't a me that can read, talk, work, eat, experience the full range of emotions ... well, I think that is a stretch and contradicts experience.

That doesn’t sound right. If we start with the experiencer, the experienced and the experience, the first two needn’t be substantially real. Like in a dream where there’s no substantially real you and no substantially real others, but only the experience of a self and others, that (experience) may be all there is to reality. In other words, the self is not real; the experience of it (you) is.

I think I follow - but how would you define "substantially real"? On its face it would seem to be describing something as "real" to at least some extent.

Do you have something that you think i would be interested in knowing that you can't for the life of you find another living person that understands the way you do but a whole lineage of reputable people seem to?

Can we put this kind of bs aside and get to the content, or shall we go back to the issue of ego?

The content is direct and simple.

lol boob.

you guy will never get it right. give up! you are not going to find Buddha
The mind is empty, this his real nature.
STOP THINKING!

We are using words to communicate, and so the definitions of these words are important. So, when you say " A me that can read , talk, work, eat " you are implying an entity, a "me", that is doing these things, controlling these things. And this entity simply doesnt exist. There is no experiencer that "experiences the full range of emotions".

If you are just referring to a body, then ok, but the body isnt a me, it isnt personal, it doesnt belong to anyone. There is no observer observing, experiencing, seeing hearing or tasting.

For example, we say "It is raining " or "the cloud is raining" implying an entity that is doing the raining. But the cloud isnt "doing" anything.

Yeah, I think I can along with what you said.

We are constantly dealing with a conventional truth, the me that needs to eat, sleep, work, etc... And the deeper truth of emptiness, that ego tries to hide with a ME, as something independent and enduring.

If you feel like I am putting words in your mouth, let me know the words and we will clarify, as we should, this will turn out better than '...whatever'

Says the ego, because the ego saw something.

We should be careful about saying 'buddhist' idea, because that might be the issue here, we want to understand self, not buddhist idea of self. We might point out op was asking about buddhism, but we can also point out that buddism is the corruption of the true understanding of self.



You've just contradicted everything you were pointing at here. You say self is this manifestation and that...and then you end by saying but my self read, talked, worked, at and experienced therefore these things are real because self did them

Self doesn't read...self IS reading. There is no separate self from the act. Self didn't experience...self IS the experience.

Therefore self cannot look in the past and say 'see it is there'...because the act of looking to the past IS self.

Ok yes conventional, that everyone agrees its true, but its certainly not.
These words I can't get through, but we have to make sure we do not 'personify' the ego.

We might see that a rainbow is an illusion but agree that it is still there. But what I am talking about is a rainbow produced by mist that is controlled by a faucet. Every time we turn the faucet on mist is produced and thus a rainbow. But that shouldn't mean that the rainbow is inevitable and must be accepted as truth, fact, and imperishable.

The me, the I, the ego, the human form, should be understood so completely that it is instantaneously abolished forever. It is false, and therefore not needed.

We have to see this to move on from here, and we cannot ask "Well so what then, whats our point?" until we understand this.

Perhaps I didn't write a clear sentence.

To my understanding, the ego by providing an illusion of an enduring and permanent ME, hides the deeper truth of emptiness. That there is no enduring or permanent ME.

The capital ME meaning a person's sense of who they are... Like someone saying I am a father, lawyer and sailor.

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

This is what im taking issue with, maybe just the words here, but the ego IS the illusion, it doesn't provide the illusion, we shouldn't be separating the ego from illusion.

Sure... Ego seems to belong to the conventional.

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

I think we slipped again, with the word conventional. I think we can fix it by saying the ego IS the conventional and the conventional is the ego, one does not encompass the other.