Guest guest Posted August 31, 2004 Report Share Posted August 31, 2004 > > >And what makes a ME separate?> The questio is an odd one. It is the other way around... separation makes a " me " ... > > What a ME is, is what makes a ME separate; > > > > A ME includes the physical body, subtle bodies, mind, thoughts, > > intellect, emotions, and the capacities related to all of these, > > functioning as one. ....ust as it is separation that makes " physical body " , " subtle bodies " , etc. None of these are realities, but rather *constructs*. Separation is in essence attention to such constructs as significant. When there is not separation then such/all constructs are taken as merely constructs, and nothing is taken as especially significant. The death of the so-called ego is really the death of " significance " , the end of anything being taken as *vitally important* etc. > At the level of objects things are separate, at the level of non- > separation there are no objects to be separate. Absolutely, yes. Bill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 31, 2004 Report Share Posted August 31, 2004 Hi Bill, > > > >And what makes a ME separate?> > The questio is an odd one. > It is the other way around... separation makes a " me " ... Yes, what makes a ME what it is is what makes a ME separate. > > > What a ME is, is what makes a ME separate; > > > > > > A ME includes the physical body, subtle bodies, mind, thoughts, > > > intellect, emotions, and the capacities related to all of these, > > > functioning as one. > ...ust as it is separation that makes " physical body " , " subtle bodies " , etc. > None of these are realities, but rather *constructs*.> No, 'these' are real, the construct is in the *dividing* of man into a *different number of bodies*, what this division represents is real, as are the differences that allow us to make the definition, and it is phenomenally as real as any other object. Separation is > in essence attention to such constructs as significant. When there is > not separation then such/all constructs are taken as merely constructs, > and nothing is taken as especially significant. The death of the so- called > ego is really the death of " significance " , the end of anything being taken > as *vitally important* etc. Yes, the ego does not die, or cease to exist, nor does it have to cease to exist or a striving happen for it to be thrown away. The 'death of the ego' is not just the death of significance, that anything means or is the death or finishing of an ego is ('still') happenings to the ME itself, that might make or does make something happen to an ego, but the ego is still there, *significance* may cease, other things may happen, but all these are a changing ME including ego. The 'death of an ego' is the vanishing of a ME as being what ''''''''''you''''''''''' are. That is all that can really be said or all I can think to say unless you will give me some more quotation marks > > At the level of objects things are separate, at the level of non- > > separation there are no objects to be separate. > Absolutely, yes. Kind Regards, Scott. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 1, 2004 Report Share Posted September 1, 2004 > > > What a ME is, is what makes a ME separate; > > > > > > A ME includes the physical body, subtle bodies, mind, thoughts, > > > intellect, emotions, and the capacities related to all of these, > > > functioning as one. > ...ust as it is separation that makes " physical body " , " subtle bodies " , etc. > None of these are realities, but rather *constructs*.> No, 'these' are real, the construct is in the *dividing* of man into a *different number of bodies*, what this division represents is real, as are the differences that allow us to make the definition, and it is phenomenally as real as any other object. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> " ... as phenomenally as real as any other object.... " Hmmmm Don't see it as you do, Scott. But to explain the difference would take a lot of words, it seems. But I'll give a short stab at it: Imagine looking at some clouds in the sky and seeing a face. Is the face you see a " real object " ? Someone else looks at the same clouds and sees a bunny rabbit, but not a face. What is *really there*? A fly in your room sees the portion of your room that corresponds to your computer screen. Do you say that the fly sees your computer screen? No really. The fly's visual information is not organized in that way. You might say that what we see is just " pixels " that can be organized in myriad ways. A person on a very strong psychedelic drug might not see a computer screen either. The way the visual information is organized corresponds to what I called a " construct " . All perception is that way. We don't see " reality " ... what we call our visual experience are the constructions of our brain. The whole " you are not the body " thing is about learning to not interpret your experience around the " body " construct. There is nothing " real " about the body because it is just a construct, one way of organizing the information. No objects are real, as I see it, in any ultimate sense. They are provisional... tentative. As I said, it is not something that I can put forth in a short remark. But perhaps that gives you some idea of where I am coming from on the topic. <<<<<<<<<<<<<< Separation is > in essence attention to such constructs as significant. When there is > not separation then such/all constructs are taken as merely constructs, > and nothing is taken as especially significant. The death of the so- called > ego is really the death of " significance " , the end of anything being taken > as *vitally important* etc. Yes, the ego does not die, or cease to exist, nor does it have to cease to exist or a striving happen for it to be thrown away. The 'death of the ego' is not just the death of significance, that anything means or is the death or finishing of an ego is ('still') happenings to the ME itself, that might make or does make something happen to an ego, but the ego is still there, *significance* may cease, other things may happen, but all these are a changing ME including ego. The 'death of an ego' is the vanishing of a ME as being what ''''''''''you''''''''''' are. >>>>>>>>>>> Maybe you are saying the same thing as me here... not totally sure. I am saying that the notion of ego is the same as the notion of a " me " . Which is different, btw, from using the word " me " . By the notion of a " me " I mean a sense of a persistent entity corresponding to a so-called " me " . There is no persistent entity whatsoever. Bill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 1, 2004 Report Share Posted September 1, 2004 Hi again, > > > > What a ME is, is what makes a ME separate; > > > > > > > > A ME includes the physical body, subtle bodies, mind, thoughts, > > > > intellect, emotions, and the capacities related to all of > these, > > > > functioning as one. > > > ...ust as it is separation that makes " physical body " , " subtle > bodies " , etc. > > None of these are realities, but rather *constructs*.> > > > No, 'these' are real, the construct is in the *dividing* of man into > a *different number of bodies*, what this division represents is > real, as are the differences that allow us to make the definition, > and it is phenomenally as real as any other object. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > " ... as phenomenally as real as any other object.... " Hmmmm > Don't see it as you do, Scott. But to explain the difference > would take a lot of words, it seems. But I'll give a short > stab at it: > > Imagine looking at some clouds in the sky and seeing a face. > Is the face you see a " real object " ? Someone else looks at > the same clouds and sees a bunny rabbit, but not a face. > What is *really there*?>>>>>>>> Yes, this is how *perception* works, and not just our perception, each being perceives differently. All beings perceive and their perception subjectifies, but the cloud is still real, all objects are real, they are not real *in themselves*. And, whatever being is perceiving that is also a part of the phenomenon, perceived and perceiver are not two. > A fly in your room sees the portion of your room that > corresponds to your computer screen. Do you say that the > fly sees your computer screen? No really. The fly's > visual information is not organized in that way. You > might say that what we see is just " pixels " that can > be organized in myriad ways. A person on a very strong > psychedelic drug might not see a computer screen either. > The way the visual information is organized corresponds > to what I called a " construct " . All perception is that way. > We don't see " reality " ... what we call our visual experience > are the constructions of our brain. Yes, every being perceives that one thing differently, and the whole, you are I *subjectify* the whole through ourselves even as a thought arises, so too with our perception and our filtering of reality through our personal bias and inherentness which occurrs in every reflected self, ME, and every reflected ME exhibits this influence to susceptibilities and tendencies *as that reflected self / ME*, including Nisargadatta, Ramana Maharshi, and any other human being or sage, ''''realized'''' or not. This subjectification also applies to all other beings and any-thing capable of conscious perception. > The whole " you are not the body " thing is about learning > to not interpret your experience around the " body " > construct> I have mixed thoughts about the whole 'you are not the body thing' the 'you are that', the 'you are what you are looking for' thing that you read or hear in Advaita circles. 'You are not the body', 'You are that which you are looking for' Are these fair comments? 'You are that which you are looking for'? No, *you* are not that which you are looking for, and any searching is only being done and can only be done by a ME, so long as there is a you looking you are bound as the ME that *you* are. You are also not what you *think* you are, and by thinking of yourself as a ME you are bound. *A ME thinks of itself as such* 'You are not the body' Well, what I am then? Yes, a ME goes around thinking well what I am then, but it is *never* a ME who finds out who they are. >There is nothing " real " about the body because > it is just a construct, one way of organizing the information. The body is real, it is not a concept or a construct. The ME is also real, it is not a concept or a construct. When I said that what makes the subtle body division real is *just as real as all other phenomenon*, I am assuming that one is not grading reality to its realness and a thought is being spoken of as less real than a tree. A thought is just as real as a tree, and an emotion just as real as a airplane. > No objects are real, as I see it, in any ultimate sense. > They are provisional... tentative. The body is real, and objects are real, they are just not inherently real of themselves. *No-THING is* . This sounds like a silly statement but it is very clear and precise; no-THING IS ( of itself real ). > As I said, it is not something that I can put forth in > a short remark. But perhaps that gives you some idea > of where I am coming from on the topic. Yes, sure. I hope my explanations shed some light too on what I mean. Maybe they won't maybe they will do more to confuse! Maybe thats a good thing! > <<<<<<<<<<<<<< > Separation is > > in essence attention to such constructs as significant. When there > is > > not separation then such/all constructs are taken as merely > constructs, > > and nothing is taken as especially significant. The death of the so- > called > > ego is really the death of " significance " , the end of anything > being taken > > as *vitally important* etc. > > > Yes, the ego does not die, or cease to exist, nor does it have to > cease to exist or a striving happen for it to be thrown away. > > The 'death of the ego' is not just the death of significance, that > anything means or is the death or finishing of an ego is ('still') > happenings to the ME itself, that might make or does make something > happen to an ego, but the ego is still there, *significance* may > cease, other things may happen, but all these are a changing ME > including ego. > > The 'death of an ego' is the vanishing of a ME as being > what ''''''''''you''''''''''' are. > >>>>>>>>>>> > Maybe you are saying the same thing as me here... not totally sure. > I am saying that the notion of ego is the same as the notion of a " me " . No, it looks as though we mean different things. When I am speaking of a ME it *includes* the ego but is not only the ego; The ego and the thinking mind etc and the capacities of a ME which do not exist without the mind / body. The mind and body are mutually dependent for a ME to function. We cannot distill an ego out of this, the ME, or personal self. The only way we can is as a definition, but remember that this ego is not independent of the mind / body, in fact an ego is dependent upon it. It might help you to understand how I am speaking of a ME if I say the following; *Everything* a ME is, is temporal, when a human being dies everything that a ME *is* is lost. A ME is not eternal and a ME is not just an ego. A ME is the mind / body being that thinks of itself as such, it is how you as a person think about youself with *all* your inherentness. ( I am not including or considering in the above explanation the notion of re-incarnation or after death here, not because I am saying it is not correct but that it will just confuse the issue more ) > Which is different, btw, from using the word " me " .> Yes, I am not meaning or using 'me' in the grammatical English context. >By the notion of a > " me " I mean a sense of a persistent entity corresponding to a so- called > " me " . There is no persistent entity whatsoever. Do you mean by persistent 'on ongoing continued existence without change', or 'an ongoing continued existence with change'? If you are saying above that your 'me' corresponds to ego and now that this ego does not continue, this is not correct. The ego exists ( your 'me' ) for the entire life of a human being and exists ( with inherentness ) even in '''realized''' beings. The ego does not die or cease to be, as long as a human is alive '''realized or not'''' the ego is still present, and a ME still there, a ME or what you call a 'me' or ego does not disappear, and the 'ego' you call a 'me' is 100% dependent on what I term a ME and have tried to explain in the previous paragraph. Now, if you are saying that this ego is a fluctuating thing with no more credible steadfastness as an on-going entity that anything else phenomenal than yes I can see what you are getting at and agree, but if you are saying that the ego or what you call a 'me' simply ceases to continue to be or never was or that what I have spoken of as a ME ceases to exist under 'normal life circumstances' or never was existent or ceases to exist at 'realization', 'enlightenment' etc then no I do not follow what you are saying and disagree. 'Your and my' MEs how we have both defined them, do not vanish or cease to be over the lifetime of a personal self human being, it ceases to be what ''''''''one'''''''' is; it never ever was what 'one was'. Kind Regards, Scott. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 2, 2004 Report Share Posted September 2, 2004 Yes, a ME goes around thinking well what I am then, but it is *never* a ME who finds out who they are. >>> well said <<< A thought is just as real as a tree, and an emotion just as real as a airplane. >>>> I don't feel a need to ascribe " realness " to things. As far a airplanes go, if I should get on one, I don't need to remind myself that the airplane is real or unreal. I simply find myself climbing the steps, entering the door, finding a seat. It is all very dreamlike. Whenever do I need to say, " Hey, this is a *real* object! " If I get on an airplane in a dream it is just as real as far as I am concerned as getting on an airplane in " reality " . As I say, it is *all* very dreamlike. As for thoughts and emotions, I don't find myself considering *distinct* thoughts and emotions per se. How can I speak of the realness of something that doesn't have a distinct existence in the first place... (More below...) > > Maybe you are saying the same thing as me here... not totally sure. > > I am saying that the notion of ego is the same as the notion of > a " me " . > > > > No, it looks as though we mean different things. > > When I am speaking of a ME it *includes* the ego but is not only the > ego; > > The ego and the thinking mind etc and the capacities of a ME which do > not exist without the mind / body. > The mind and body are mutually dependent for a ME to function. > > We cannot distill an ego out of this, the ME, or personal self. > > The only way we can is as a definition, but remember that this ego is > not independent of the mind / body, in fact an ego is dependent upon > it. > > It might help you to understand how I am speaking of a ME if I say > the following; > > *Everything* a ME is, is temporal, when a human being dies everything > that a ME *is* is lost. > > A ME is not eternal and a ME is not just an ego. > > A ME is the mind / body being that thinks of itself as such, it is > how you as a person think about youself with *all* your inherentness. > > > ( I am not including or considering in the above explanation the > notion of re-incarnation or after death here, not because I am saying > it is not correct but that it will just confuse the issue more ) > > > > > Which is different, btw, from using the word " me " .> > > > Yes, I am not meaning or using 'me' in the grammatical English > context. > Well, you seem to have a very distinct notion of what a " ME " is.... But *for me* (irony intended) it comes down to ownership. Without a sense of ownership there is no basis for a " sense of ME " . There is never any " ME " , really, but there can be a sense of one, and that is strictly illusion. I also equate the notion of " ego " to the same " sense of ownership " . I still don't see a significant, meaningful distinction between the notions of " ME " , " ego " , and " ownership " . Ownership is the more important notion, in my view. The other two notions cannot stand except for ownership. Cut away ownership and they fall. And that is all that is important. > > >By the notion of a > > " me " I mean a sense of a persistent entity corresponding to a so- > called > > " me " . There is no persistent entity whatsoever. > > > Do you mean by persistent 'on ongoing continued existence without > change', or 'an ongoing continued existence with change'? I dont' mean an ongoing continued existence (with or without change), as I consider that there is no entity that has an ongoing continued existence. > If you are saying above that your 'me' corresponds to ego and now > that this ego does not continue, this is not correct. > The ego exists ( your 'me' ) for the entire life of a human being and > exists ( with inherentness ) even in '''realized''' beings. Different people have different definitions of " ego " . Nisargadatta, for example, used it in a different way from the typical way it is used on lists such as this. > The ego does not die or cease to be, as long as a human is > alive '''realized or not'''' the ego is still present, and a ME still > there, a ME or what you call a 'me' or ego does not disappear, and > the 'ego' you call a 'me' is 100% dependent on what I term a ME and > have tried to explain in the previous paragraph. I still don't know what you mean by " ego " , Scott. To give attributes of a thing does not define it. To say, " The ego does not die or cease to be, as long as a human is alive... " does not constitute a definition. > Now, if you are saying that this ego is a fluctuating thing with no > more credible steadfastness as an on-going entity that anything else > phenomenal than yes I can see what you are getting at and agree, > but if you are saying that the ego or what you call a 'me' simply > ceases to continue to be or never was or that what I have spoken of > as a ME ceases to exist under 'normal life circumstances' or never > was existent or ceases to exist at 'realization', 'enlightenment' > etc then no I do not follow what you are saying and disagree. > > 'Your and my' MEs how we have both defined them, do not vanish or > cease to be over the lifetime of a personal self human being, it > ceases to be what ''''''''one'''''''' is; it never ever was what 'one > was'. OK. So we have different points of view. I consider that there never was a ME/ego, that such was only an appearance, that *all* is only appearance. There is no substance or significant " existence " anywhere. All things are ultimately empty, and only apparent. Truth is the realization of the inherent emptiness of things. Bill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 5, 2004 Report Share Posted September 5, 2004 Hi Bill, <<< A thought is just as real as a tree, and an emotion just as real as a airplane. >>>> <I don't feel a need to ascribe " realness " to things. As far a airplanes go, if I should get on one, I don't need to remind myself that the airplane is real or unreal. I simply find myself climbing the steps, entering the door, finding a seat. It is all very dreamlike. Whenever do I need to say, " Hey, this is a *real* object! " If I get on an airplane in a dream it is just as real as far as I am concerned as getting on an airplane in " reality " . As I say, it is *all* very dreamlike.> Yes, me too, except I'm scared of flying I was pointing out what makes a ME what it is is just as phenomenally real as *any other phenomenon* and that reality cannot be graded to *it's* realness. All phenomenon are *equally* real whether it be a tree, thought or salad bowl. A ME, everything a ME is is phenomenal, and the different levels that we ascribe as existing in the makeup of this ME and what allows us to determine these different levels are phenomenally as real as any- thing else. >As for thoughts and emotions, I don't find myself considering *distinct* thoughts and emotions per se. How can I speak of the realness of something that doesn't have a distinct existence in the first place...> This might not be how you are seeing them, but thoughts are distinct *things*, they also have 'lives of their own' so to speak or can have And they arise for reasons and we also have control over our thinking and can investigate it. In saying this I am not disputing *your perception* but saying that what I have said is another possible perception and another possible perception for *you* if you so wanted to perceive that way. > > Maybe you are saying the same thing as me here... not totally sure. > > I am saying that the notion of ego is the same as the notion of > a " me " . > > > > No, it looks as though we mean different things. > > When I am speaking of a ME it *includes* the ego but is not only the > ego; > > The ego and the thinking mind etc and the capacities of a ME which do > not exist without the mind / body. > The mind and body are mutually dependent for a ME to function. > > We cannot distill an ego out of this, the ME, or personal self. > > The only way we can is as a definition, but remember that this ego is > not independent of the mind / body, in fact an ego is dependent upon > it. > > It might help you to understand how I am speaking of a ME if I say > the following; > > *Everything* a ME is, is temporal, when a human being dies everything > that a ME *is* is lost. > > A ME is not eternal and a ME is not just an ego. > > A ME is the mind / body being that thinks of itself as such, it is > how you as a person think about youself with *all* your inherentness. > > > ( I am not including or considering in the above explanation the > notion of re-incarnation or after death here, not because I am saying > it is not correct but that it will just confuse the issue more ) > > > > > Which is different, btw, from using the word " me " .> > > > Yes, I am not meaning or using 'me' in the grammatical English > context. > >Well, you seem to have a very distinct notion of what a " ME " is.... But *for me* (irony intended) it comes down to ownership> An ego or individuality claiming ownership and the thoughts that occurr are not independent of the makeup of bodies that man is an expression of over many different levels that comprise him. >Without a sense of ownership there is no basis for a " sense of ME " . > Yes, the ME thinks of itself as such. >There is never any " ME " , really, but there can be a sense of one, and that is strictly illusion.> >I also equate the notion of " ego " to the same " sense of ownership " . >I still don't see a significant, meaningful distinction between the notions of " ME " , " ego " , and " ownership " . >Ownership is the more important notion, in my view. >The other two notions cannot stand except for ownership. Cut away ownership and they fall. And that is all that is important.> Ownership is a ME thinking of itself as such. > >By the notion of a > > " me " I mean a sense of a persistent entity corresponding to a so- > called > > " me " . There is no persistent entity whatsoever. > > > Do you mean by persistent 'on ongoing continued existence without > change', or 'an ongoing continued existence with change'? I dont' mean an ongoing continued existence (with or without change), as I consider that there is no entity that has an ongoing continued existence. > If you are saying above that your 'me' corresponds to ego and now > that this ego does not continue, this is not correct. > The ego exists ( your 'me' ) for the entire life of a human being and > exists ( with inherentness ) even in '''realized''' beings. Different people have different definitions of " ego " . Nisargadatta, for example, used it in a different way from the typical way it is used on lists such as this. > The ego does not die or cease to be, as long as a human is > alive '''realized or not'''' the ego is still present, and a ME still > there, a ME or what you call a 'me' or ego does not disappear, and > the 'ego' you call a 'me' is 100% dependent on what I term a ME and > have tried to explain in the previous paragraph. >I still don't know what you mean by " ego " , Scott. To give attributes of a thing does not define it. To say, " The ego does not die or cease to be, as long as a human is alive... " does not constitute a definition.> The sense of *individuality and how you think about yourself*, which includes self image, this exists over ones entire lifetime, it does not and cannot dissapear. > Now, if you are saying that this ego is a fluctuating thing with no > more credible steadfastness as an on-going entity that anything else > phenomenal than yes I can see what you are getting at and agree, > but if you are saying that the ego or what you call a 'me' simply > ceases to continue to be or never was or that what I have spoken of > as a ME ceases to exist under 'normal life circumstances' or never > was existent or ceases to exist at 'realization', 'enlightenment' > etc then no I do not follow what you are saying and disagree. > > 'Your and my' MEs how we have both defined them, do not vanish or > cease to be over the lifetime of a personal self human being, it > ceases to be what ''''''''one'''''''' is; it never ever was what 'one > was'. >OK. So we have different points of view.> Or different ways of describing. To put it simply as I can; the ego, and all the inherentness that makes you what you are as a separate ME, does not and cannot vanish, even in ''''realized persons'''', it exists and everything that makes a ME what it is exists up until the death of the personal self. ( not considering incarnation in this ). >I consider that there never was a ME/ego, that such was only an appearance, that *all* is only appearance> There *still* is an ego and a ME right now, and it will exist up until when *you* die. As I said it depends what you mean by *persistent*, do you mean persistent ongoing changing or on-going non-changing. No-thing is of itself real; duck, ME, chair, airplane, donut, computer, nothing-is. >There is no substance or significant " existence " anywhere.> There is substance. But why use the word 'significant' with the word existence in a negative sense. If you say there is no significant existence anywhere, you might also say there is no insignificant existence anywhere? >All things are ultimately empty, and only apparent> You say the above, I say no-THING IS. These both try to convey the same meaning. >Truth is the realization of the inherent emptiness of things.> No, that is *A* truth. The inherent non-reality of things not existing in themselves is *a* truth. I take your point, but, what is truth? There are many *truths*. But, truth *does not exist* at the level of unitary consciousness. Truth depends and relies on defining consistencies between a 'ME' and the outside world. Truth does not exist in unity. That is not a criticism of what you have said, it is one truth. But there is no THE truth, living truth, single truth, ultimate truth etc. There are many truths that are defined within dualism. Kind Regards, Scott. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.