Progress in consciousness?

Ego is what our 'adventure' has led us to be, the totality of our experiences .... what we see ourselves to be. A constantly changing vision of who we are is a discovery that can only be made with the death of the ego. We only mourn the passing of our thoughts.

Alikimr, let's see if I can straighten this out. I said that:
"from my perspective the phrase "spiritual suicide" is an oxymoron. Ego suicide, on the other hand, is a form of "spiritual birth."
To me "ego suicide" is no suicide, literally speaking, because the ego does not exist in reality, only in illusion. But to see through the illusion is to achieve a kind of spiritual birth. So, seeing through the illusion is what I meant by "ego suicide." Does that work?

Gelisgesti:
Why should you MOURN the passing of your thoughts? Why do you not rejoice in their
memory, (if indeed you can have a memory without
thoughts), particularly those that led you to your enlightenment?
I disagree with your statement, also,
that changing vision of who we are can only be made with the death of the ego. The Greeks had a word for who we are......it is ego....ME. and
alive, not dead!

JLN:
I really appreciate your explanation of your position.....the problem is that I disagree with your
major reflection on our Ego......that ..."it does not exist in reality, only in illusion" .
The only way that your proposition has any validity is if WE do not exist.

To accept your statement is to believe that life begins and ends with the flesh. We do not simply blink in and out of existence. There is an orderly process called life. We are that which understands that death is merely 'perpetuation' of life. Grief ends with this understanding ...... the memory that thought produces is a seed ..... from the seed thought is produced.
What is the product of the seed, a flower, or the seed? Or is it the nectar that supports the butterfly? Look around, we are not separate from life, we share the totality in thought ..... the gate that gives me death is the gate that gives me life .... begin again.

I believe this to be untrue, we can easily exist and be observed by others (or even without being observed) and still be a real part of reality without ego. Yet, it is JLN's view that this is just as illusionary as the ego itself. He shall therefor attempt proof that nothing exists, not reality, not our vessel, not our ego, nothing. To realise this from the far end(where we are) and to realise first and foremost that WE do not exist, starting from our ego which too does not exist, accepting its death. Or the end of the illusion(first illusion, first step) thus seeing the true nature(or at least the beginning) of things. It is in that sense, spiritual birth.

To clear the air a little, my previously used term indicating spiritual death might cause confusion. This has already been corrected to ego death or spiritual birth. Spiritual death would be a WHOLE other ballpark and would far from be included in our lifetimes.

Alikimr, our problem is that you have misinterpreted my position on the ontological status of ego. We exist (and that is problematical: see below), but our egos do not except as subjective orientations (which is what I mean by illusion). And keep in mind that we were born with bodies and functioning minds, but only gradually did we develop a sense of ego, a sense of not being "other." To me ego is the delusory sense that "I" am separate from and surrounded by the objects of my perception, that I am IN but not truly Of the universe.
I do not say that nothing exists (Tywevel MIGHT be interpreted to say that); I say that all that we consider real exists as our constructions, even scientific entities like quarks, atoms, molecules, strings, etc. etc., the so-called ontological realities underlying our experienced or apparent world. They are also constructions. I have no way of knowing what is the ontological foundation for our conceptual constructions; I consider their epistemological foundation to be primarily cultural: we define the world pretty much as our ancestors have taught us to. The "objective" reality underlying the process of illusion construction I cannot know. I do "sense", however (and I have no way of proving the validity of this intitive sensation) that there is not just nothing. I am not a nihilist. I just believe that all that we experience as real is illusion, IN THE SENSE THAT the world AS WE EXPERIENCE IT is a product of our creative constructive activity, that its specific form(s) does not exist apart from the activities of human minds. I might argue that there is NEITHER something (as we construct it) NOR nothing (if that were so we would not be having this discussion).
I leave the problem of the ultimate ontological character of Reality to the more metaphysically inclined (even though I enjoy speculating in that murky pond); my only concern is my true nature and how that nature interacts, relates to, is unified with, the World (which includes and doesn't surround me).

By the way, Alkimr, I DO appreciate how you compel me to clarify and refine my position(s), if that is what I have done here.

JLN:
Once again I must say that I agree with most of what you say everytime you take the trouble to clarify and refine your statements in reply to my queries......your patient articulation of
your position is a joy to contemplate as I consider all the points that are honestly defended and expounded , and which I must address, needless to
say, with care.
You say "that all that we experience as real is an illusion......that its specific form(s) does not exist apart from the activities of human mind". The
first part of the above comes dangerously close to
the position of Bishop Berkelly's idealistic belief that
unless you are there to see the tree in the foresy it doesn't exist kind of thing....but the rider you have attached to it, that is, the last part of the quote, says to me that the tree is there, in fact, but what it looks like and what it "does" is wholly defined by the human mind. Is this an over simolification of your statement? At any rate, I agree with it ,with
the proviso that I find the inference that this experience , as well as all other such experiences
are an illusion.
I also have no hesitation whatever in
being fully aware that I am IN and truly part of the
universe which my mind is subjectively orienting.
Irrespective of the above, I agree with the last sentence of your post that starts with "I
leave the problem of the ultimate ontological character of Reality to the more metaphysically
inclined.........my only concern is my true nature and how that nature interacts.....with the World.......
......". And I can assure you that I agree with it as whole-heartedly as you do.
I sense that there is something Holistic
going on here......!!!

JLN:
I did not edit my last post carefully enough and I would like to add a few missing words to line 18....as follows.....'are an illusion, "is unwarranted".

ah, the eternal debate continues...

...and everyone is still saying the same things.

take comfort in this routine, as you do the sunset

it never ends.

Perhaps this is indeed part of the eternal quest.

It makes some sort of strange sense that we should talk in circles: we are on this sphere, going around in circles. Our bodies are composed of atoms with electrons going around & around in circles. Our entire solar system is going around in circles. (feel free to substitute ellipse for circle)

Why shouldn't we go around in circles with our thoughts on consciousness, also?

Though perhaps if one looks a bit deeper, it isn't quite a circle. Hopefully, it is more of a spiral, however flattened that spiral may be.

Alikimr, you said: "....but the rider you have attached to it, that is, the last part of the quote, says to me that the tree is there, in fact, but what it looks like and what it "does" is wholly defined by the human mind. Is this an over simplification of your statement?"
Not at all. It's good to be on the same wave length.

Hi, Stuh, long time no see.

Agreed.

Hi Stuh, it seems you're right.

Once words are eliminated from this confusing process of interaction, we all agree and see the truth as it truly exists, I only disagree where words oversimplify the true nature of things as we all know it.

Wrong forum, but I'd like to bring up that the mental construct of 'self' is inevitably constructed at young age. Both for humans as for chimps(perhaps at later age). But for an ourang outang for example, this will not be the case. Are most animals superior because they are meditative of nature and simply _are_. They know and do what most humans have forgotten, the true meaning of life, to be.

yeah, I'm still here.

but I'm doing my best to keep from posting in this section...I have so few questions, and so much confidence in my own answers, that I can only make enemies and stress here.

Rex:
You say "Once words are eliminated from this confusing process of intraction we all agree..........."
What possible interaction other than this medium that we are presently engaged in, are you talking about?
And I would certainly be profoundly greatful
if you would let me know what you know
"the true meaning of life" is ., .....a meaning which you suggest the human animal , unlike other animals, has forgottten.

Stuh, you say that "I'm doing my best to keep from posting in this section...I have so few questions, and so much confidence in my own answers, that I can only make enemies and stress here." That is considerate of you, but I think that most people here (with the possible exception of Alkimir) have so few questions and so much confidence in our own opinions. Yet we manage to engage one another without making enemies and stress. Your problem, if you have one, is not your confidence.

Alkimir, one of the answers often given to the question of what is the meaning of life is simply to live. I think Rex was indicating that when he refers to the higher primates' freedom or ability to simply be. A (relatively) enlightened person has not answered the question of the meaning of life; s/he has simply given up the question. As they say, no problem. I do feel that one form of liberation or enlightenment results from getting rid of unnecessary problems and questions.



_________________

Is love love sans the temperance of hate? Dualistic bullshit? Oh really! To confound one's existence by fixating on the exoderm is the crux of our ignorance. To fiind the secret look to a babys first smile, so complex, so simple.

JLN:
I was not seeking an answer to the so called and often referred to "meaning of life", I was just surprised that Rex implied that there was one......but as you stated, he probably meant exactly what you said.....and which I appreciate.
I always considered that behind your
Buddhist Essence there was the Existential primacy
of thought, or better still, you are an Existentialist
that preceeds that Essence.
What sayest thou to that assertion, by an Existentialist like me whose Essence has not yet been determined ?

Alikimr, I suppose I AM an existentialist, at least insofar as I feel that "existence precedes essence". Reality is fundamentally "empty" (buddiist: "sunyatta"). It's just what it is and it is process (continual becoming), not substance (beings), but that's another point. We do not construct the world itself; its bald or empty existence is mysteriously given, and that includes ourselves and our having been mysteriously "thrown" into the world among other existences. But we DO construct our experienced world's meaningfulness, its essences.

JLN explained my previous point correctly.

The last couple of posts confused me though. I always looked at buddhism somewhat nihilistic. In essence that is. But to put it dualistically up against existentialism. As nothing versus something and mix essence in between is confusing in my terminology.

My view thus far has been (this week at least :p, just kidding) that in essence nothing exists, because. Well, I've posted this before(I think) but I'll do it again:

Engi:
(Inter)dependent origination (Sanskrit = pratitya samutpada).

In Buddhist philosophy, phenomena have no unchanging essences. Rather, they originate and exist only in virtue of material and causal conditions. Without these material and causal conditions, there would be no phenomena. Furthermore, since the material and causal conditions upon which all phenomena depend are continually in flux, phenomena themselves are one and all impermanent. Since whatever is impermanent and dependent for existence on conditions has no absolute status (or is not absolutely real), it follows that phenomena (what are ordinarily called "things") are have no absolute or independent existential status, i.e., they are empty. To cultivate a cognitive state in which the empty status of things is manifest is to realize or attain enlightenment. The realization of enlightenment, in turn, confers a degree of cognitive freedom and spontaneity which, among other (and arguably more important) benefits, facilitates the performance of martial techniques in response to rapidly changing circumstances. (see KU)


The phenomena is real, it exists, but in essence it is empty, it does not exist in essence. I suppose your use of essence IS the (my view of) existence, the interdynamic relationship creating some 'thing' (or at least, that which we call things)
whose Essence has not yet been determined
To be determined led me to believe the previous statement because you're talking about something that can 'change', not something that simply IS. Nothing simply IS.

But I suppose we agree on everything here except the words which we use to describe it(that's what I was suggesting earlier, and I'm not suggesting another means either. We're not here looking for the bigger answers, we're here looking for the hows, we can't find the whys here. May seem like a shocking view for some of you, but I believe it could possibly be true). It can be found within you. Or out there, in nature. Or better yet:

Like Gelisgesti says (and I know of no better way to end and settle any philosophical discussion):
To find the secret look to a babys first smile, so complex, so simple.