EGO

[ram peswani]

I have been told to ask questions and not write about what I think. Agreed.

How can Buddhas make so many universes without using their EGO?

[gregkavarnos]

Ego limits, it does not create and when it does create it does so solely for its own good. It does not take into account the good of others.

[muni]

I have been told to ask questions and not write about what I think. Agreed.

How can Buddhas make so many universes without using their EGO?

Buddha is certainly aware not to mistaken a phenomena/thing as his being but as the awareness of all? And maybe sees how all appaerances are not his mind itself but not apart from his mind and so his Being is the whole picture of nature? In that were is ego?

Mind's empty nature (Dharmakaya) in which uncountable appaerances are enfolding?

Apologize, my answer are questions as well.

[Seishin]

In Buddhism, the ego is a sense of what is mine, what is yours, what is good, what is bad, what I like, what I don't like, what makes me happy, what makes me sad... A Buddha is a person who has rid themselves of ego and so they don't think like this. Therefore there is no way a Buddha can make anything with their ego.

Gassho,
Seishin

[ram peswani]

[*]

Ego limits, it does not create and when it does create it does so solely for its own good. It does not take into account the good of others.

Than what about ego that helps others? what is the name for this type of ego?
I want to donate, I want to nurse a sick man, what should we call this action from point of ego/

[ram peswani]

[*]At that time the Buddha said to Shariputra, "Now, in the midst of this great assembly of heavenly and human beings, shramanas, Brahmans and so forth, I say this. In the past, under twenty thousand million Buddhas, for the sake of the unsurpassed way I have constantly taught and converted you. And you throughout the long night followed me and accepted my instruction.. Now , because I want to make you recall to mind the way that you originally vowed to follow, for the sake of the voice-hearers I am preaching this Great Vehicle sutra called the Lotus of the Wonderful Law, a Law to instruct the bodhisattvas, one that is guarded and kept in mind by the Buddhas.

"Shariputra, in ages to come, after a countless, boundless inconceivable number of kalpas have passed, you will make offerings to some thousands, ten thousands millions of Buddhas, and will honor and uphold the correct Law. You will fulfill every aspect of the way of the bodhisattva and will be able to become a Buddha with the name Flower Glow Thus Come One, worthy of offerings, of right and universal knowledge, perfect clarity and conduct, well gone, understanding the world, unexcelled worthy, trainer of people, teacher of heavenly and human beings, Buddha, World-Honored One.

"Your realm will be called Free from Stain, the land will be level and smooth, pure and beautifully adorned, peaceful, bountiful and happy. Heavenly and human beings will flourish there. The ground will be of lapis lazuli, roads will crisscross it in eight directions, and ropes of gold will mark their boundaries. Beside each road will grow rows of seven-jeweled trees which will constantly flower and bear fruit. And this Flower Glow Thus Come One will employ the three vehicles to teach and convert living beings.


Above is an extract from Lotus sutra. My questions

1. Buddha taught and converted Shariputa. Is ego working here?
2. Buddha preaching Lotus sutra. ego?
3. Shariputta offering to millions of Buddhas. again ego?
4. Buddha Flower Glow, will teach, possess a realm free from stain. Ego?

[gregkavarnos]

I want to donate, I want to nurse a sick man, what should we call this action from point of ego/

Egoless compassion. If you execute the action based on ego-centeredness then the outcome will be "negative" irregardless of the "positive" nature of the action. Intention is everything.

[gregkavarnos]

1. Buddha taught and converted Shariputa. Is ego working here?
2. Buddha preaching Lotus sutra. ego?
3. Shariputta offering to millions of Buddhas. again ego?
4. Buddha Flower Glow, will teach, possess a realm free from stain. Ego?

No, fully enlightened beings are beyond the dualistic notion of self/ego and others. Their actions are not guided by a sense of self but through a sense of wanting to liberate all beings.

[ram peswani]

Whole of Lotus sutra page after page describes, Bhoddisattvas and Buddhas doing
creating, teaching, ruling, possessing.

I thought this is EGO. Not small ego but EGO, PURE AND SIMPLE.

Again my question is where am i wrong?

[ram peswani]

[*]

If you execute the action based on ego-centeredness then the outcome will be "negative" irregardless of the "positive" nature of the action. Intention is everything.

So Is it pure and simple one word Ego or not?
Or have you different name for Bad ego and Good ego?

If some one calls himself a "BUDDHA".
Either he is mistaken and corrections will help him.
or he is really a Buddha and is it his Ego that he calls himself Buddha?
Is it not that he is simply stating a truth. And is truth not egoless?
Please your sincere reply will Help?

[ram peswani]

No, fully enlightened beings are beyond the dualistic notion of self/ego and others. Their actions are not guided by a sense of self but through a sense of wanting to liberate all beings.
[/quote]

Is my understanding that BUddhas surrender Ego after they enter NIRVAN wrong?
If wrong will someone elaborate the answer for my clarification?

[Seishin]

Ram, they do not do these things with ego, they do it with compassion

Gassho,
Seishin

[lowlydog]

Than what about ego that helps others? what is the name for this type of ego?
I want to donate, I want to nurse a sick man, what should we call this action from point of ego/

This is Dana(the act generosity), and there are three types, miserly, kindly, and kingsly. We should all try to cultivate kingsly giving, this is giving free from ego. As we practice our desire to give(caga) will naturally increase.

[gregkavarnos]

Whole of Lotus sutra page after page describes, Bhoddisattvas and Buddhas doing
creating, teaching, ruling, possessing.

I thought this is EGO. Not small ego but EGO, PURE AND SIMPLE.

Again my question is where am i wrong?

Ego = "I" or "self". This idea of a big "I" is what is referred to as atman in some branches of Hinduism. It does not really have place in Buddhism, though some Buddhist traditions do use it (Jonang, for example). Buddha (in the Pali Canon) spoke of anatman. He did not speak of a universal atman, a non-dual atman, or anything of the like.

SN 22.59
Anatta-lakkhana Sutta: The Discourse on the Not-self Characteristic
translated from the Pali by Ñanamoli Thera
© 1993–2012

Thus I heard. On one occasion the Blessed One was living at Benares, in the Deer Park at Isipatana (the Resort of Seers). There he addressed the bhikkhus of the group of five: "Bhikkhus." — "Venerable sir," they replied. The Blessed One said this.

"Bhikkhus, form is not-self. Were form self, then this form would not lead to affliction, and one could have it of form: 'Let my form be thus, let my form be not thus.' And since form is not-self, so it leads to affliction, and none can have it of form: 'Let my form be thus, let my form be not thus.'

"Bhikkhus, feeling is not-self...

"Bhikkhus, perception is not-self...

"Bhikkhus, determinations are not-self...

"Bhikkhus, consciousness is not self. Were consciousness self, then this consciousness would not lead to affliction, and one could have it of consciousness: 'Let my consciousness be thus, let my consciousness be not thus.' And since consciousness is not-self, so it leads to affliction, and none can have it of consciousness: 'Let my consciousness be thus, let my consciousness be not thus.'

"Bhikkhus, how do you conceive it: is form permanent or impermanent?" — "Impermanent, venerable Sir." — "Now is what is impermanent painful or pleasant?" — "Painful, venerable Sir." — "Now is what is impermanent, what is painful since subject to change, fit to be regarded thus: 'This is mine, this is I, this is my self'"? — "No, venerable sir."

"Is feeling permanent or impermanent?...

"Is perception permanent or impermanent?...

"Are determinations permanent or impermanent?...

"Is consciousness permanent or impermanent?" — "Impermanent, venerable sir." — "Now is what is impermanent pleasant or painful?" — "Painful, venerable sir." — "Now is what is impermanent, what is painful since subject to change, fit to be regarded thus: 'This is mine, this is I, this is my self'"? — "No, venerable sir."

"So, bhikkhus any kind of form whatever, whether past, future or presently arisen, whether gross or subtle, whether in oneself or external, whether inferior or superior, whether far or near, must with right understanding how it is, be regarded thus: 'This is not mine, this is not I, this is not myself.'

"Any kind of feeling whatever...

"Any kind of perception whatever...

"Any kind of determination whatever...

"Any kind of consciousness whatever, whether past, future or presently arisen, whether gross or subtle, whether in oneself or external, whether inferior or superior, whether far or near must, with right understanding how it is, be regarded thus: 'This is not mine, this is not I, this is not my self.'

"Bhikkhus, when a noble follower who has heard (the truth) sees thus, he finds estrangement in form, he finds estrangement in feeling, he finds estrangement in perception, he finds estrangement in determinations, he finds estrangement in consciousness.

"When he finds estrangement, passion fades out. With the fading of passion, he is liberated. When liberated, there is knowledge that he is liberated. He understands: 'Birth is exhausted, the holy life has been lived out, what can be done is done, of this there is no more beyond.'"

That is what the Blessed One said. The bhikkhus were glad, and they approved his words.

Now during this utterance, the hearts of the bhikkhus of the group of five were liberated from taints through clinging no more.

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .nymo.html

[gregkavarnos]

Is my understanding that BUddhas surrender Ego after they enter NIRVAN wrong?
If wrong will someone elaborate the answer for my clarification?

Not surrender exactly, the merely cease their attachment to the notion of a seperate "self" and "other". Anatta or anatman is how you actually exist right now, you are just not aware of it.

[ram peswani]

[*]

Ram, they do not do these things with ego, they do it with compassion

Gassho,
Seishin

My mistake on this site is that I thought Ego relates to "I" or "SELF"
And you all have been considering Ego as selfish and not selfless action.
So Greg expressing my writings as egoist is infact expressing his displeasure.
Because he thinks that by my writings "I am showing off"
So either I am right or this is my way of increasing knowledge or I am boasting.
So what is the general opinion ?

[Seishin]

My mistake on this site is that I thought Ego relates to "I" or "SELF"
And you all have been considering Ego as selfish and not selfless action.
So Greg expressing my writings as egoist is infact expressing his displeasure.
Because he thinks that by my writings "I am showing off"
So either I am right or this is my way of increasing knowledge or I am boasting.
So what is the general opinion ?

As already said:

In Buddhism, the ego is a sense of what is mine, what is yours, what is good, what is bad, what I like, what I don't like, what makes me happy, what makes me sad... A Buddha is a person who has rid themselves of ego and so they don't think like this. Therefore there is no way a Buddha can make anything with their ego.

Gassho,
Seishin

[ram peswani]

[
[*]Thus I heard. On one occasion the Blessed One was living at Benares, in the Deer Park at Isipatana (the Resort of Seers). There he addressed the bhikkhus of the group of five: "Bhikkhus." — "Venerable sir," they replied. The Blessed One said this.

"Bhikkhus, form is not-self. Were form self, then this form would not lead to affliction, and one could have it of form: 'Let my form be thus, let my form be not thus.' And since form is not-self, so it leads to affliction, and none can have it of form: 'Let my form be thus, let my form be not thus.'

"Bhikkhus, feeling is not-self...

"Bhikkhus, perception is not-self...

"Bhikkhus, determinations are not-self...

"Bhikkhus, consciousness is not self. Were consciousness self, then this consciousness would not lead to affliction, and one could have it of consciousness: 'Let my consciousness be thus, let my consciousness be not thus.' And since consciousness is not-self, so it leads to affliction, and none can have it of consciousness: 'Let my consciousness be thus, let my consciousness be not thus.'

"Bhikkhus, how do you conceive it: is form permanent or impermanent?" — "Impermanent, venerable Sir." — "Now is what is impermanent painful or pleasant?" — "Painful, venerable Sir." — "Now is what is impermanent, what is painful since subject to change, fit to be regarded thus: 'This is mine, this is I, this is my self'"? — "No, venerable sir."

"Is feeling permanent or impermanent?...

"Is perception permanent or impermanent?...

"Are determinations permanent or impermanent?...

"Is consciousness permanent or impermanent?" — "Impermanent, venerable sir." — "Now is what is impermanent pleasant or painful?" — "Painful, venerable sir." — "Now is what is impermanent, what is painful since subject to change, fit to be regarded thus: 'This is mine, this is I, this is my self'"? — "No, venerable sir."

"So, bhikkhus any kind of form whatever, whether past, future or presently arisen, whether gross or subtle, whether in oneself or external, whether inferior or superior, whether far or near, must with right understanding how it is, be regarded thus: 'This is not mine, this is not I, this is not myself.'

"Any kind of feeling whatever...

"Any kind of perception whatever...

"Any kind of determination whatever...

"Any kind of consciousness whatever, whether past, future or presently arisen, whether gross or subtle, whether in oneself or external, whether inferior or superior, whether far or near must, with right understanding how it is, be regarded thus: 'This is not mine, this is not I, this is not my self.'

"Bhikkhus, when a noble follower who has heard (the truth) sees thus, he finds estrangement in form, he finds estrangement in feeling, he finds estrangement in perception, he finds estrangement in determinations, he finds estrangement in consciousness.

"When he finds estrangement, passion fades out. With the fading of passion, he is liberated. When liberated, there is knowledge that he is liberated. He understands: 'Birth is exhausted, the holy life has been lived out, what can be done is done, of this there is no more beyond.'"

That is what the Blessed One said. The bhikkhus were glad, and they approved his words.

Now during this utterance, the hearts of the bhikkhus of the group of five were liberated from taints through clinging no more.

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .nymo.html[/quote]


This is Hinayana/ Therwada teaching.
Lotus sutra asks us to dump these teachings on the Mahayana path
after one has reached "NO SELF" state.
Our language is not same still. We have to forgive each other and stop
writing to each other directly.

[gregkavarnos]

Dear Ram,

You have been posting your view on various Buddhists forums for a number of years now. In that time you have been warned, suspended and banned a number of times. In those years people have constantly and consistently pointed out some major flaws in your view, yet you have made little or not attempts to rework your view. You insist that only you are right and everybody else is wrong. This is ego.

Have you ever considered that maybe you are not right? You see when the Buddha achieved enlightenment under the bodhi tree the five ascetics that he was practicing with (that initially rejected his teachings) saw the change and asked him to teach them. When he taught them they knew that what he said was the truth. Truth has that quality, it can be seen quite clearly. It cuts straight through all the veils. It illuminates darkness. It is obvious, simple and profound.

These are qualities that are lacking in our ignorant blurting because we are not fully enlightened. Until our enlightenment it is intelligent to rely on the words of the enlightened.

[gregkavarnos]

This is Hinayana/ Therwada teaching.
Lotus sutra asks us to dump these teachings on the Mahayana path
after one has reached "NO SELF" state.

Really? Where exactly does it say that we have to dump the teaching on anatta/anatman?