EGO

[Seishin]

Ram,
The Lotus Sutra is the pan-ultimate sutra in my opinion, however, if you do not have grounding in the basics of Buddhism you will not understand the Lotus Sutra. This is exactly what has happened.

Gassho,
Seishin.

[ram peswani]

[*]

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

Read Lotus sutra carefully, slowly, contempelate on what you read.
Ultimate teaching and absolute TRUTH is anatta/ anatman. All dharmas are
empty.
And yet Lotus sutra uses this WISDOM to reach Buddhahood.

[ram peswani]

[*]

Ram,
The Lotus Sutra is the pan-ultimate sutra in my opinion, however, if you do not have grounding in the basics of Buddhism you will not understand the Lotus Sutra. This is exactly what has happened.

Gassho,
Seishin.

Is disagreeing option available to me?

[Seishin]

We all disagree from time to time, but when EVERYONE tells us we are wrong, we must take a long hard look at ourselves.

Gassho,
Seishin.

[ram peswani]

[*]

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.

Dear Greg,

Your greatest blunder is that you have neither read lotus sutra nor are ready for it,
yet you write and challange. Stop now, your negativity is hurting you.

[gregkavarnos]

[*]

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

Read Lotus sutra carefully, slowly, contempelate on what you read.
Ultimate teaching and absolute TRUTH is anatta/ anatman. All dharmas are
empty.
And yet Lotus sutra uses this WISDOM to reach Buddhahood.

YOU said that the Sutta on anatta/anatman that I posted is a Hinayana/Theravadra teaching and, according to the Mahayana, must be dumped. I asked you where in the Mahayana does it say that the teaching on anatta/anatman must be dumped and you now tell me that the teaching on anatta/anatman is the absolute truth.

It is quite clear that you have no idea what you are talking about, that is why you keep contradicting yourself.

I have read the Lotus Sutra. I personally do not consider it the most profound Mahayana Sutra. I prefer the Lankavatara Sutra or the Prajnaparamita Sutras. The problem is not with my understanding of the Lotus Sutra, I claim neither to understand nor to not understand it, the problem is that you have not gone to a qualified and realised teacher to clear up your understanding of the Lotus Sutra. I do not need to know the Lotus Sutra in order to know that you have very little understanding of Buddhism in general. This is due to the fact that you have not gone to a qualified and realised teacher to explain the basics of Buddhism to you. Unfortunately for you, until you do this, you will continue to post contradictory and irrelevant nonsense. Until you find a teacher and allow yourself to learn from them, I doubt whether your continued presence at Dharma Wheel will be of any value to you or the members of Dharma Wheel.

[ram peswani]

[*][quote="gregkavarnos"]

It is quite clear that you have no idea what you are talking about, that is why you keep contradicting yourself.


Hinayanist/Therwadra will never understand the contradictions that Lotus sutra teaches.

It is sutra in which the path is full of contradictions.

So while accepting Annata/anataman is absolute truth.
(Buddhas abide in that Truth)
And yet Buddhas use Good EGO (compassion Ego) to build the universe..
A prolonged use of Good Ego has then to be calmed down (Transceded/cultivated ) in meditation
by abiding in Emptiness (truth of Annata).
By doing this contradiction repeatedly some change happens in your physical and other bodies.
This is the path of growing of Bhoddhisattva. It is a long and sometimes painful process.
All that I am writing repeatedly is to be EXPERIENCED.
Reading words will have limited effect.

I have written this and many details before. Read them carefully.
One can not write in so much details on Lotus sutra without understanding/ mastering
Lotus sutra.

Lotus sutra is the ultimate fruit of Buddhism, without accepting it one is going to get nothing.
If Lotus sutra is beyond you than Hinduism/ Gita is simpler and at the end there are some rewards.

[ram peswani]

Ram,
The Lotus Sutra is the pan-ultimate sutra in my opinion, however, if you do not have grounding in the basics of Buddhism you will not understand the Lotus Sutra. This is exactly what has happened.

Gassho,
Seishin.

Without EXPERIENCING basics of Buddhism , lotus sutra cannot be understood.
So I know the basics.
The difficulty is of expressed words for one who has only experienced.
Now This good ego, bad ego, compassion ego, love ego is all EGO.

Ego is SELF (both bad and good)
Egoless is NO SELF

[Seishin]

It is clear that what you describe as "good ego" is only your interpretation. No where in any sutras does it say "good ego".
You do not know the basics. You confuse Buddhism with Hinduism constantly. You ask to be shown where you are wrong, we show you and then you say that we are wrong because you are the ONLY one who truly understands. When you try to show us how right you are you contradict yourself.

I've said it before and I'll say it again. This is a Buddhist forum for discussion Buddhism. Your comments are tiresome and circular. If I were a mod......

[gregkavarnos]

So while accepting Annata/anataman is absolute truth.
(Buddhas abide in that Truth)
And yet Buddhas use Good EGO (compassion Ego) to build the universe..
A prolonged use of Good Ego has then to be calmed down (Transceded/cultivated ) in meditation
by abiding in Emptiness (truth of Annata).
By doing this contradiction repeatedly some change happens in your physical and other bodies.
This is the path of growing of Bhoddhisattva. It is a long and sometimes painful process.
All that I am writing repeatedly is to be EXPERIENCED.
Reading words will have limited effect.

Self-centred positive actions cannot lead to enlightenment, they can only lead to a positive rebirth either as a human with the resources needed to practice Dharma or as a Deva. Buddhas are beyond ego. They have realised emptiness of self and others and are not constrained by dualistic notions. Where there is self-centredness there is no Buddha. Buddhas do not need to meditate. Meditation is a practice that leads to enlightenment, once you are enlightened... Buddhas are not constrained by body or form. Since they are beyond dependent arising/conditioned existence, having overcome ignorance, they do not have mind and form/body skhanda. They can manifest as a mind and form/body combination, but it is completely illusory and merely for the benefit of beings that have not overcome dualism (ie us)

I have written this and many details before. Read them carefully.
One can not write in so much details on Lotus sutra without understanding/ mastering
Lotus sutra.

One can write reams of gibberish without understanding or mastering any sutra or sutta. This is exactly what you are doing

Lotus sutra is the ultimate fruit of Buddhism, without accepting it one is going to get nothing.
If Lotus sutra is beyond you than Hinduism/ Gita is simpler and at the end there are some rewards.

Thanks for your advice but I am not interested.

[Karma Dondrup Tashi]

Up seems to be at war with down here.

But they are neither the same nor different.

Truth is neither homogeneous nor heterogeneous, but analogical.

That in fact is compassion.

[Rakshasa]

@Ram

Ego is grasping.


By the way, I have already told you that Bhagavad Gita is a complete rip off of Buddhism. Think of it this way. Buddha emerged, converted thousands, died, his followers further converted and multiplied, until they became extremely popular after 400 years. This created envy amongst the Brahmins so they created a mythical hero Krishna - no historicity he has - copied concepts from Buddhism, colored them in such a way as to glorify their ancient Vedas, give divine sanction to caste system, recognize superiority of Brahmins etc etc. Krishna has extremely contradicting accounts in Mahabharata, Gita, and dozens of Puranas. You can go to all scholars and get it confirmed that Mahabharata originally contained 11000 verses and BG was added later on. If you read both Lotus sutra and BG you would know that both mention the parable of the Prodigal's son and even the words are almost the same?

Sorry, Bhagavad Gita is a Brahmanic fraud and so its a crap.

[gregkavarnos]

Up seems to be at war with down here.

But they are neither the same nor different.

Truth is neither homogeneous nor heterogeneous, but analogical.

That in fact is compassion.

Care to be a little less cryptic?

Like: What do you consider the "up' and "down" in this conversation that are neither the same nor different?

What do you mean by the term "analogical truth"? When one says truth is analogical it means it is heterogeneous. The term analogical means "dependent on". If truth is dependent on "a" then it is heterogenous to "b". If there is only one truth, then it is homgenous and not analogical.

[Karma Dondrup Tashi]

Our dear troll Ram states that compassion is an ego (down). Many here appear to be responding that compassion is ego transcended (up).

But what is there to be transcended? As we all know, there is no difference ... "form is emptiness and the very emptiness is form".

And yet we also all know there is a difference ... "in emptiness there is no form".

This is to say, that up and down, a diversity of different things, are in a relationship of essential unity, and that the first and principal method of knowledge for recognizing this relationship is therefore neither diversity nor unity but the method of analogy.

Since at the root of the diversity of phenomena their unity is found, in such a way that they are at one and the same time different and one, they are neither identical not heterogeneous but are analogous in so far as they manifest their essential kinship.
Anonymous

[wisdom]

Don't worry about what ego is, only worry about doing things that break it down. You won't "get" what ego is until you don't have one anymore, then you also won't be compelled to talk about it anymore because it stops mattering in the slightest.

[gregkavarnos]

Our dear troll Ram states that compassion is an ego (down). Many here appear to be responding that compassion is ego transcended (up).

Maybe I read it a little different. I read that ram peswani says that compassion comes from ego, whereas I am saying that true compassion cannot be found within the sense of self, because it is too confining. I am saying that we need to let go of self-centredness in order to express true compassion. Happiness, for example, can be found in conditioned existence but true happiness born of equanimity takes one beyond (transcends) conditioned existence. In the same way compassion (or compassionate acts) can manifest via the ego (I can feel compassion for somebody I like) but true compassion born of equanimity (ie feeling compassion for all beings) is beyond the confines of self-centeredness. The compassion of a Buddha is not identical to the compassion of somebody that continues to cling to dualistic notions, a Buddhas compassion has transcended dualism and (in the process) ego-centredness. I cannot even begin to conceive of how a being that has transcended dualism can still be trapped in ego-centredness.

But what is there to be transcended? As we all know, there is no difference ... "form is emptiness and the very emptiness is form".

And yet we also all know there is a difference ... "in emptiness there is no form".

I would not say that there is no difference, I would say rather that it is like the two sides of a coin: obviously different but ultimately one.

This is to say, that up and down, a diversity of different things, are in a relationship of essential unity, and that the first and principal method of knowledge for recognizing this relationship is therefore neither diversity nor unity but the method of analogy.

Since at the root of the diversity of phenomena their unity is found, in such a way that they are at one and the same time different and one, they are neither identical not heterogeneous but are analogous in so far as they manifest their essential kinship.
Anonymous

Now I get what you are saying. You see, when I see the word analogous I take it back to its Greek root: ανάλογο or ανάλογα. This can be used to describe similarity, but can also be used to describe dependence upon. You defined it as ανάλογο whereas took it that you meant ανάλογα.

[gregkavarnos]

Don't worry about what ego is, only worry about doing things that break it down. You won't "get" what ego is until you don't have one anymore, then you also won't be compelled to talk about it anymore because it stops mattering in the slightest.

Sez YOU!

[Karma Dondrup Tashi]

Maybe I read it a little different. I read that ram peswani says that compassion comes from ego, whereas I am saying that true compassion cannot be found within the sense of self, because it is too confining. I am saying that we need to let go of self-centredness in order to express true compassion. Happiness, for example, can be found in conditioned existence but true happiness born of equanimity takes one beyond (transcends) conditioned existence. In the same way compassion (or compassionate acts) can manifest via the ego (I can feel compassion for somebody I like) but true compassion born of equanimity (ie feeling compassion for all beings) is beyond the confines of self-centeredness. The compassion of a Buddha is not identical to the compassion of somebody that continues to cling to dualistic notions, a Buddhas compassion has transcended dualism and (in the process) ego-centredness. I cannot even begin to conceive of how a being that has transcended dualism can still be trapped in ego-centredness.

Yes. Final thought - language is tricky. "Self-centered" usually means "selfish". Are all "dualisms" "selfish"? And does "ego" therefore always mean "selfish"? Is there such a thing as a "self" that is not "centered" and which can therefore be "compassionate"? Does a bodhisattva need to return to dualism in order to exercise compassion? It seems to me this may be part of what our puppy is so desperate to convey. Prajnaparamita is full of paradoxes like this about compassion which I can't begin to understand. Since I likewise "cannot begin to conceive", I have evidently said too much already.

[oldbob]

Maybe I read it a little different. I read that ram peswani says that compassion comes from ego, whereas I am saying that true compassion cannot be found within the sense of self, because it is too confining. I am saying that we need to let go of self-centredness in order to express true compassion. Happiness, for example, can be found in conditioned existence but true happiness born of equanimity takes one beyond (transcends) conditioned existence. In the same way compassion (or compassionate acts) can manifest via the ego (I can feel compassion for somebody I like) but true compassion born of equanimity (ie feeling compassion for all beings) is beyond the confines of self-centeredness. The compassion of a Buddha is not identical to the compassion of somebody that continues to cling to dualistic notions, a Buddhas compassion has transcended dualism and (in the process) ego-centredness. I cannot even begin to conceive of how a being that has transcended dualism can still be trapped in ego-centredness.

Yes. Final thought - language is tricky. "Self-centered" usually means "selfish". Are all "dualisms" "selfish"? And does "ego" therefore always mean "selfish"? Is there such a thing as a "self" that is not "centered" and which can therefore be "compassionate"? Does a bodhisattva need to return to dualism in order to exercise compassion? It seems to me this may be part of what our puppy is so desperate to convey. Prajnaparamita is full of paradoxes like this about compassion which I can't begin to understand. Since I likewise "cannot begin to conceive", I have evidently said too much already.

all and All,



"cannot begin to conceive" is about as good as it gets. This is progress.

Thank you Greg and KDT for rescuing the thread by elucidating issues that are meaningful and understandable, though perhaps, they cannot be conceived. Hurrah for dialog.

My 2 cents, is that one who is "Thus Gone" is beyond ego or any sense of self, or no-self, and that spontaneous acts of compassion can arise without any sense of duality / doer, doing or recipient of action.

How this happens, I cannot begin to conceive.

That said,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_%28Internet%29

Trolls give me the opportunity to see my ego at work. In slicing and dicing the trolligiisms (coming up with a beautiful but irrelevant text citation; faulty logic; circular reasoning; true statement, true statement, false statement; playing victim, etc.) I can ALWAYS have my view win, but something does not feel right about this.

Troll-wacking is just not Buddhist - it is not kindly.

This in NOT what I want to be about. It should NOT be what DW is about.

For a troll, having a dialog, about an issue, is not what it is about and this MUST be recognized: by the trolls, by the troll-wackers and by the mods.

For trolls, I think that troll slaps, and rejection, are a source of ego - perhaps a kind of S&M game. We all need to recognize that this is not healthy and that it takes two to play.

I think the mods need to really be attentive to when someone is acting in a troll-like manner - and gently call them on this, in a PM.

It is telling the troll that they do NOT have permission to get troll slapped, and rejected, AND that that they do NOT have permission to disrupt a dialog.

This is a mod PM thing. I think Greg, and the other mods, could do this very well. Maybe make up several standard troll warning messages that wouldn't take too much time to super-copy and send.

Please PM me if anyone wants to see some sample troll warning messages.

The key point is that trolls AND troll wackers, should NOT be allowed to disrupt discussion forums for the benefit of their EGO.

Perhaps there can be a thread where trolls and troll wackers can relate to each other without making problems for anyone: "Troll land."

[wisdom]

Don't worry about what ego is, only worry about doing things that break it down. You won't "get" what ego is until you don't have one anymore, then you also won't be compelled to talk about it anymore because it stops mattering in the slightest.

Sez YOU!

Haha, yep!