Ego is not a dirty word.

[Jabberwocky]

I reject that all rejection of the ego is the same process engaged in for the same reasons. I also don't think that all Buddhists are essentially the same. Skeletal similarities by having some common scripture and tenets doesn't make them the same species.

If someone can not read the Four Noble Truths and see how for some individuals and some groups it could easily become a rejection of life, I think its because they have lost an ability to consider the 4NTs from more than a few interpretive frames. That is fine. Its a person's right to tell me I'm not capable of understanding their religion.

 

[yougene]

I could call the ego the life force or the libido and call the forces that want to suppress the ego thanatos or destrudo. Erich Fromm made a dichotomy between biophiles and necrophiles in one of his works. He used Hitler as a archetypal necrophile and Jesus Christ as an archetypal biophile. I would have chosen different examples.

Plotinus had a similar dichotomy. I believe it went something like this.
Eros is the drive towards the One/transcendent reality.
Agape is the drive towards the Many/eminent reality.
Phobos is a pathological attachment to the One and a fear of the Many.
Thanatos is a pathological attachment to the Many and a fear of the One.

Many spiritual traditions are enamored of death. I don't think I've even scratched the surface on exploring rejection of the ego. I do think analysis of ego rejection as rejection of life or an embracing of death is a very legitimate topic.

Plotinus was critical of the Gnostics for rejecting this world. But unlike Freud, Plotinus would label this as an attachment to Eros not Thanatos. Phobos in traditions isn't a rejection of consciousness. It's a rejection of consciousness embodied in the biosphere/physiosphere.

Freud's model was concerned with physiological examples of eros and agape. But one levels eros is another levels agape. Sex for example, is eros of the biosphere, but agape of the noosphere.

Alot of institutionalized religion is minds trying to shed the body( phobos ), not bodys trying to break free of the mind( thanatos ).

Possible wandering, adventuring religious orders might be be more biophillic and less destrudo.

Codifying and institutionalizing is an act of building something greater than self, is erotic in essence. The idea of codifying agape is antithetical to what it is. Wicca and other forms of nature worship are good examples though.

Attachment is not so much suffering as involvement in life which almost always is a roller coaster of highs and lows. Detachment is siting it out, for good or bad its a non-investment in life. Buddhists talk a lot about compassion and I don't doubt that they generally have good will, but their position tends to be "resign because living sucks". My position is go on and play because it might not.

Different types of Buddhism. You have Theravada Buddhism which is comparable to Gnosticism. Then you have Mahayana Buddhism which embraces both drives.

 

[Changed]

Its a person's right to tell me I'm not capable of understanding their religion.

Do you think we're simply trying to be contrarian by explaining how your understanding of Buddhist detachment is flawed?

 

[.Lucid.]

Its a person's right to tell me I'm not capable of understanding their religion.

im not even a buddhist and i couldnt tell you what the four noble truths are past the second one.. and i wouldnt classify detachment as strictly a buddhist concept. so im not pushing any type of religion.. ive just taken a bunch of acid and read a bunch of books.

and no one ever said you were incapable of understanding anything.. i was simply challenging your notions of detachment and buddhism.

 

[Jabberwocky]

Do you think we're simply trying to be contrarian by explaining how your understanding of Buddhist detachment is flawed?

No, a lot of claims about Buddhism have been made in this thread. I think the claimants are great authorities on what Buddhism is for them. Its been implied the 4 NTs are self-evident and belief free. I've disagreed with several assertions. I've also posited opinions about some situations I think occur with detachment and opposition to the ego.

I'm admitting that a non-adherent ought to tread lightly when discussing things with an adherent. Flawed is a relative term. A poem would be deeply flawed presented as a legal brief. A legal brief would be deeply flawed read as a eulogy at a memorial service. My opinions are not flawed as opinions. I'm not claiming I speak for Buddhism, I'm opining about Buddhism. It comes back to adherents tending to be sensitive about opinion and analysis I think.

this is a total misinterpretation of the idea of detachment.. detachment does not mean that you do not participate in life and have no attachments

im not even a Buddhist and i couldnt tell you what the four noble truths are past the second one.. and i wouldnt classify detachment as strictly a Buddhism concept. so im not pushing any type of religion.. ive just taken a bunch of acid and read a bunch of books.

And you are the ultimate authority on what detachment is for you. As well, your definition of detachment may coincide with millions of people's definition of detachment. However I'm free to give my opinions and observations of detachment.There are likely to be millions who have explanations of detachment that vary significantly from yours.

Edit: My twice quoted sentence: "Its a person's right to tell me I'm not capable of understanding their religion." was very poor wording and likely a defensive or even catty attitude. My transitory, ego based position of the moment aside I did also mean I've been approaching topics in a casual way that are likely very important, one might say sacred, to other people. It is the nature of discussion forums open to the public that ideas and concepts that are very important to some people get handled in a cursory way that lacks an adequate deference for how important those ideas are for the people who find those concepts incredibly important. I'll stop the meta- commentary within the thread from here on out and stick with apologetics or polemics on the issues within the first post. This did seem a debate oriented thread to me. Willow put out a position and has developed it and refined it through discussion with people who oppose it as well as people who agree.

I'm not out to convert anyone or corrupt them. I do like to mess with ideas, philosophies, and beliefs. I was late to realize that within this thread my going somewhat along with the OP's thesis in my usual chaotic fashion could disturb some people's equanimity. Its a lesson for me.

 

[.Lucid.]

lol... wow.


im bailing on this thread. 8)
good luck changed and being.. you guys are on your own lol.

 

[swilow]

suffering does not exist outside of the human mind.. pain certainly exists outside of the mind, but suffering arises as one mentally resists pain. pain and suffering are different and the two should not be confused.

Really? In what way are they different?

I can't see how a human in a deathcamp (such as befell the Jews), experiencing pain could elevate themselves above that sufferring. That physical and mental pain IS sufferring (but, of course, that statement is not always true)...

I understand that the notion of sufferring is a human idea; but everything in "consensus" reality could be called a 'figment of the imagination'. And you suggest that there are abolutes, which surely exist outside the mind- so how do the two compute?

i dont think anyone is disagreeing with this at all.. and i think you have largely misunderstood the nature of the ego and the role it plays in human life and society..

You see, I don't think I have. I have spent a lot of time thinking about the ego- I reject it with the the same force that I embrace it with. I know that some people perceive the ego as a base/instinctive/animal drive or construct (ala Freud), but I say that those drives are natural in an instinctive animal, such as humans are. And there isn't anything wrong with it.

theres a huge difference between "rejecting" the ego and disidentifying from it. if you thought A New Earth was about the rejection of, and not the disidentification with, the ego then i would suggest reading it again.

No, I know what Tolle was saying; that the ego (or more to the point, the clinging to it) is the cause of most human sufferin. I simply don't agree. What that book did for me, initially, was make me feel weak and sad, because I was caught up in the ego-games that Tolle mentions; and then I realised that these feelings were being born by the ego...And then I realised that suggesting that everything bad is based on a what could be a fictitious structure is nothing more then an idea suggested by a hugely egotistical human. So, I feel that the books glaring contradictions helped me to realise that he was wrong, on many counts, and right on some others.

so i dont know. i still dont think we're on the same page with this, and im still not really sure what youre going for here. but thats ok. you seem to have your own position (although im still unsure of what it is) and you just dont really seem opened to what other people are saying..

Well, you see- I am open. Which is why I won't accept that a part of my being is always wrong and basically not to be trusted. It simply doesn't work for me; I cannot help having my mind, and therefore I am now willing to accept its architectural foibles, and attempt to work with what I have. Not many people will ever truly sever their ties with the ego; in fact, I would suggest that no-one has ever; and therefore, attempting to do so seems a good path towards unhapiness; the very thing that rejection of the ego is meant to achieve. If life was about being happy, then we wouldn't have minds and freedom. As such, we do, and as such, suffering/unhapiness is as natural as water.

I could say that you are being close minded, but you're not- you are standing by your belief, and I respect that. I'm certainly not right- I'll never be- but I need to try and make sense of this weird life-thing we're in.

and if you really dont believe there is an absolute reality, that which your subjective reality is a part of, then there is really no point in having this discussion at all.

Hmm, fair enough. Don't be upset- I'm not trying to upset anyone; its just that I'm not conceeding that you are comepltely correct. Thats no crime. I'm trying to think, and if it bothers you, my apologies.

But please- describe the abolsute reality- but take into account the natural state/non-state called entropy.

If there was an absolute reality, then you can kiss goodbye freedom and pretty much every thought you've ever had. I refuse to do that, personally- and maybe futilely.

I like how you sort of slipped this in here... Because some Tibetans have committed crimes against humanity, Buddhism as a whole is implicated as the culprit! Buddhism as a "blind religion" is a farce-- people, on the other hand, can almost always be counted on to be blind.

Yeah, that was a slightly skewed perspective, but its true in parts. I don't like organised religion/cults, so I am biased.

I meant no offense though

lol... wow.
im bailing on this thread. 8)
good luck changed and being.. you guys are on your own lol.

Please don't. I am learning a lot through this, and I would suggest that you could learn stuff too

The only thing I know for certain, is that life is to be lived without being encumbered by fear. ZosKiaCultus.

 

[being]

From what I have read so far I see two very big misconceptions. And this is only my opinion. I don't claim this to be true. It's just what me and many other people have experienced to be true for themselves.

First suffering is not the same as pain. Suffering is not accepting the pain as it is. Suffering is not accepting the present moment as it is. Suffering is identifying yourself with your thoughts and emotions.
The greater the pain, the harder it is to not identify with it. So for example if a person towards who you have major attachment unexpectedly dies, it's very natural to have these not accepting thoughts. "Why...?"
But to take a lighter example... Someone you don't even know insults you for some random reason. Now if one is very identified with its ego, it's most likely gonna torment him for quite some time. On the other hand if your level of awareness is on the higher side, you just smilingly accept it and see, that it was actually the other persons suffering, that caused him to act this way.

Secondly it is not about rejecting the ego, but accepting it. Accepting does NOT mean, that you should give more energy to it, but just being aware of it.
It's been told many times by different people, but you still keep rambling about rejecting for some reason.
It looks as if you already have some ideas stuck in your head about what we are trying to tell you and you just ignore what's really written. ._.

 

[malakaix]

First suffering is not the same as pain. Suffering is not accepting the pain as it is. Suffering is not accepting the present moment as it is. Suffering is identifying yourself with your thoughts and emotions.

Very much so

 

[Jamshyd]

I'd like to request of the Buddhist (or those who present themselves as experts on the subject anyway) to tone down the authoritative attitude, please? .

Nothing serious has happened so far, but I would have asked the exact same of Christians or Scientologiests trying to present their views or answer to criticism the same way.

 

[swilow]

My hand is one fire; is it better that I simply pretend its nice and warm, instead of slowly turning into ash? Or just accept its burning, and maybe light a smoke?

Okay, a loaded question if there ever was one. :D

 

[being]

No need to pretend anything, that is not the reality. If you are mindful, there are three options, when there is a situation, that is causing you distress:
1. Leave from the situation
2. Change the situation
3. Accept it fully


The suffering comes from not accepting the situation as it is. For example "ARGH, my hand is burning, this is bad. I wish I didn't put my hand in this fire." Not that it would not be painful. It would be. And not that it would be easy to accept this much of pain. But if you create those feelings and thoughts of rejection toward the situation, it's only gonna be worse. To quote Bobby McFerrin: "When you worry you make it double".

Accepting does NOT mean, that you can't take any action to change the situation. It's another misconception of the mind trying to see stuff only through the egotistical point of view.

I'll try to give you another example to help you out.
You're sitting in meditation and your legs start aching.
The usual unmindful way of handling the situation would be: "Damn, this is so hard. How am I supposed to do this? Maybe I'll injure myself, if I continue. I better change the posture."
The mindful way: "There's pain." and you turn your concentration back to whatever your object of concentration was.
But!!! It does take a lot of practice to be accepting of everything. Even very advanced spiritual seekers still have some things they can't be acceptive of, unless they are enlightened.
As I told in a post before about attachment towards someone close, who unexpectedly dies, etc.
It is natural, but we can practice our level of mindfulness to be much higher than it is by default.

 

[Jabberwocky]

Plotinus had a similar dichotomy. I believe it went something like this.
Eros is the drive towards the One/transcendent reality.
Agape is the drive towards the Many/eminent reality.
Phobos is a pathological attachment to the One and a fear of the Many.
Thanatos is a pathological attachment to the Many and a fear of the One.

Thanks for pointing this model out yougene.

When talking about component selves or a psychic structure I think it is very common to associate them with drives towards something or aversions to something. What I'm wondering about identifying psychic structures or component selves like ego at the moment is if there is another way to do it then a towards/against disposition. A being oriented descriptor might be playful self, serious self, nurturing self, craving self, but all those things also have a towards or away from orientation to at least some things. I think I'm only avoiding prepositions in using adjective plus self descriptions.

 

[swilow]

No need to pretend anything, that is not the reality. If you are mindful, there are three options, when there is a situation, that is causing you distress:
1. Leave from the situation
2. Change the situation
3. Accept it fully

Ah ha! Now we are getting somewhere- I agree with you completely

Those three points are closer to truth then any noble truth.

The suffering comes from not accepting the situation as it is. For example "ARGH, my hand is burning, this is bad. I wish I didn't put my hand in this fire." Not that it would not be painful. It would be. And not that it would be easy to accept this much of pain. But if you create those feelings and thoughts of rejection toward the situation, it's only gonna be worse. To quote Bobby McFerrin: "When you worry you make it double".

Once again, agreed. I will paraphrase some higher buddhist fellow:

"Is worrying ever warrranted?"- says the mindless wisdom seeker.

"No. If you can fix a situation, worrying won't help- just fix it. If you cannot fix the situation, once again, worrying will not help- it will "make it double".

I'll try to give you another example to help you out.
You're sitting in meditation and your legs start aching.
The usual unmindful way of handling the situation would be: "Damn, this is so hard. How am I supposed to do this? Maybe I'll injure myself, if I continue. I better change the posture."
The mindful way: "There's pain." and you turn your concentration back to whatever your object of concentration was.
But!!! It does take a lot of practice to be accepting of everything. Even very advanced spiritual seekers still have some things they can't be acceptive of, unless they are enlightened.
As I told in a post before about attachment towards someone close, who unexpectedly dies, etc.
It is natural, but we can practice our level of mindfulness to be much higher than it is by default.

I've often felt that mindfullness is the incorrect term; to me, it seems that mindlessness is being desired, or at least, an abscence of mental static. Which is desireable- and could easily lead me back into this brickwall of desire/non-desire- but I'll not let it do so.

To be truthful, I have attempted to be somewhat antagonistic in this thread, but it has served the purpose of allowing ME a different view on knowledge.

I will still practise my own meditative practises; but they are inherently selfish, as the benefit is for me- to give to you? No, not really, but I cannot help someone or anything without first helping myself.

218

 

[Changed]

I have just returned from a weekend retreat at a Zen monastery and am happy to see that we've all made some progress in this thread.

However, one thing I learned this weekend: talking about these things cannot ever substitute for living them yourself! (Try sitting for two hours in the same position and tell me the first Noble Truth isn't factual :D )

 

[being]

However, one thing I learned this weekend: talking about these things cannot ever substitute for living them yourself!

A nice little quote from this fascinating documentary:
if you see through this world and let go of it... that is wisdom
if you see through it, but don't let it go... that's just "talking Zen"

 

[beagleboy]

if you see through it, but don't let it go... that's just "talking Zen

that sounds to me like a logic tool.
I overheard a random stranger in library say that artistry is sculpting or removing material, molding or adding to form an object, and burrowing in or removing material. Thats working with an animate 3-d physical universe "thing".
I'm always tryinng to organize people into agreeing with vocabulary terms on threads on BL about spirituality/psychology/mind. Never happens though. And noone on BL has their very own study or work.
This thread reminds me of a sorority girl instuctor at community college who in her intro to her course always would instruct students that "small ego is who you think you are" and "big ego is what others think about you". She offered a psychology pursuit to interested students.

has any BL'er taken psyche as their major? Did it offer anything that resembles what has been seen here? I would like the BL'er to match religious outakes.

 

[swilow]

^Intruiging- this bit: "This thread reminds me of a sorority girl instuctor at community college who in her intro to her course always would instruct students that "small ego is who you think you are" and "big ego is what others think about you..."

For those who know about Buddhism, I must say- in the last while I have been in a very very difficult bind (ala drugs/anxiety) and just recently began reading a bit of older stuff I have about buddhism...I deeply respect it as a belief system, and always have, and I find that ATM, I need that sort of wisdom. I'm frightened a lot of the time (benzo withdrawal mainly) in the last week, and have taken comfort in the idea that, yes sufferring is inevitable, but YES- the cessation of sufferring is achievable.

And, today at least, I have taken heart with the notion or knoweldge that the sufferring is transient and relatively meaningless- I have epilepsy, which was "dormant" from age 11-12 until a few months ago, and I have been blacking out and having fits- yesterday mainly. And oddly, the sensation of awareness slowing down and conciousness receding rapidly is incredibly spiritual, frightening in its build-up, but once I simply let it overwhelm me, the release is spectactular. Of course, the seizures are dangerous, but I am scripted phenobarbital, and I have been staying with my mum and uncle, who are able to help me when I have a seizure by jabbing me with a small amount of the drug. However, that doesn't allay the fear involved.

Its almost sado-masochistic, but if I dwell on this issue, it doesn't resolve or get clearer; it just frightens me; no, terrifies me. Until yesterday, I was all about resisting this overwhelming, crushing insanity- I thought it would kill- but yesterday after noon, I knew that the epic seizure was coming- they are preceeded by abscence and strange behaviour (which are essentially unoticed by me)- my uncle basically got me prepared, I lay down and the tsunami enveloped me, but this time, the sensation of acceptance took hold, and I emerged with a positive, albeit sleepy sleepy head, and feel so much better.

And I wrong, or is a lot of ego-emancipation about acceptance; not destruction of the ego, but acceptance and then subsequent "inner peace"?

 

[being]

And I wrong, or is a lot of ego-emancipation about acceptance; not destruction of the ego, but acceptance and then subsequent "inner peace"?

Exactly.
But it has to be an 'aware acceptance' or else you will fall in the grip of the ego identification.
When we go by our usual day to day activities we are rarely fully aware of what we are doing. Instead we think about stuff like "when I get this done, I'll do that" or something entirely different, never really being truly present.

I can see how it could be not so hard to be aware of what's happening, when you're going to have a seizure, tho. Since it's probably quite an overwhelming experience and all that anticipation gets your mind quite concentrated.
But as you experienced it yourself, when you concentrate on delusions made up by your mind ("I might die"), it's only gonna make you feel worse. It's a delusion, cause that's not what's happening in that moment and you have no way of knowing what's gonna happen. So the best choice you have is to just accept every moment as it is.


Hope you get better.

 

[swilow]

^Thankyou- I've enjoyed this thread