"There is no-one" as the ultimate defence

[Iamit]

Mind which has constructed a character (ego) in the attempt to deal with conditioning which implants the idea that the organism is no good, may select (resonate with) the proposition "There is no-one" to solve that discomfort.

In this sense the proposition is the perfect defence as it asserts that the organism does not exist at all and absolves it of all responsibility.

This is not meant to denigrate this solution but to explore the mechanisms that might be involved in so called enlightenment.

[Ground]

Originally Posted by Iamit

Mind which has constructed a character (ego) in the attempt to deal with conditioning which implants the idea that the organism is no good, may select (resonate with) the proposition "There is no-one" to solve that discomfort.

'ego' is the invention of psychoanalytics. Since I am not a follower of the view of psychoanalytics and can only refer to myself. I myself am not 'ego'.
So the relevant questions are:
What am I?
and
How do I appear to myself?
and
Is the way I appear to myself spontaneously and non-analytically consistent with other facts that I can (analytically) know about myself?

If the way I appear to myself spontaneously and non-analytically is inconsistent with facts I can (analytically) know about myself then from a rational perspective I actually do not exist the way I appear to myself spontaneously and non-analytically.

Since so far I have been what appeared to me as myself spontaneously and non-analytically I do not exist (as that I).

So what am I if I am not what I thought I was so far?

Now I could take your 'Mind which has constructed' but consciousness is the coordinator of perception of body and other phenomena, volition, feeling. So obviously 'I' am kind of reflection of consciousness, volition, feeling and body only but not that I that appeared to exist spontaneously and non-analytically.

Originally Posted by Iamit

In this sense the proposition is the perfect defence as it asserts that the organism does not exist at all and absolves it of all responsibility.

That is not correct. The question is: What is the relation between the appearance of me and 'the organism' which stands for 'the body'.

Originally Posted by Iamit

This is not meant to denigrate this solution but to explore the mechanisms that might be involved in so called enlightenment.

Although not being a buddhist I think the buddhist approach is far more convincing than yours

[Iamit]

Originally Posted by Ground

'ego' is the invention of psychoanalytics. Since I am not a follower of the view of psychoanalytics and can only refer to myself. I myself am not 'ego'.
So the relevant questions are:
What am I?
and
How do I appear to myself?
and
Is the way I appear to myself spontaneously and non-analytically consistent with other facts that I can (analytically) know about myself?

If the way I appear to myself spontaneously and non-analytically is inconsistent with facts I can (analytically) know about myself then from a rational perspective I actually do not exist the way I appear to myself spontaneously and non-analytically.

Since so far I have been what appeared to me as myself spontaneously and non-analytically I do not exist (as that I).

So what am I if I am not what I thought I was so far?

Now I could take your 'Mind which has constructed' but consciousness is the coordinator of perception of body and other phenomena, volition, feeling. So obviously 'I' am kind of reflection of consciousness, volition, feeling and body only but not that I that appeared to exist spontaneously and non-analytically.


That is not correct. The question is: What is the relation between the appearance of me and 'the organism' which stands for 'the body'.


Although not being a buddhist I think the buddhist approach is far more convincing than yours

What is meant by ego is the character mind has created as a solution to the problem of rejection. If it doesn't mean that for you then for the purposes of consideration lets just call it the person or personality that constitutes the character. These terms are interchangeable for me so just choose the one you prefer and don't get too stuck on the differences.

What does your character actually feel like? Does it feel like a construction. Are you aware of it as defensive in any way? As something you present whilst 'you' are "behind" it somewhere. Lets leave it there for the moment in case we get to bogged down.

[Ground]

Originally Posted by Iamit

What does your character actually feel like? Does it feel like a construction. Are you aware of it as defensive in any way? As something you present whilst 'you' are "behind" it somewhere. Lets leave it there for the moment in case we get to bogged down.

Let me briefly delineate a valid method to achieve direct experience of 'selflessness' or emptiness of oneself:

1. you have to indentify 'I, me, my, mine' how it appears.
2. you have to ascertain that the absence of inherent existence (= absence of truth) follows from the reason.
3. you have to establish the presence of the reason in 'I, me, my, mine'.

This is a valid meditative rational and analytical approach. It is an approach of a buddhist analytical philosophy. However when reasoning and logical thinking do not resonate with an individual then this approach may not be applicable for this individual.

So you see this may be the difference between our perspectives: you take the perspective of belief statements whereas I take the perspective of rationality and analysis.

[Iamit]

Originally Posted by Ground

Let me briefly delineate a valid method to achieve direct experience of 'selflessness' or emptiness of oneself:

1. you have to indentify 'I, me, my, mine' how it appears.
2. you have to ascertain that the absence of inherent existence (= absence of truth) follows from the reason.
3. you have to establish the presence of the reason in 'I, me, my, mine'.

This is a valid meditative rational and analytical approach. It is an approach of a buddhist analytical philosophy. However when reasoning and logical thinking do not resonate with an individual then this approach may not be applicable for this individual.

So you see this may be the difference between our perspectives: you take the perspective of belief statements whereas I take the perspective of rationality and analysis.

That's clear and understood, thanks. Glad its working out for you:) You are clearly not concerned about information that may be hidden from you that may contradict/demolish you rational analysis (evidence). Hope that doesn't happen to you but not doubt you will carry out another rational analysis and find yet more evidence to overcome that demolition.....until the next time:)

Good luck

[Ground]

Originally Posted by Iamit

That's clear and understood, thanks. Glad its working out for you:)

I am not the only one. It is an accepted method since many individuals succeded in validating it.

Originally Posted by Iamit

You are clearly not concerned about information that may be hidden from you that may contradict/demolish you rational analysis (evidence).

There isn't any. See ... once you experience emptiness of yourself based on rational analysis the same analysis applies to all other phenomena/objects. Why is this? It is because every single experience of emptiness reveals the nature of mind which is applicable to all phenomena/objects of mind since there are no phenomena/objects beyond mind.

[Iamit]

So was the passenger in the coach:)

[Ground]

Originally Posted by Iamit

So was the passenger in the coach:)

Pure Iamit, you're stuck.

Sometimes one may come across something which rings a bell. But that's a transient experience and tinnitus shouldn't be confused with it.

[Iamit]

Originally Posted by Ground

Pure Iamit, you're stuck.

Sometimes one may come across something which rings a bell. But that's a transient experience and tinnitus shouldn't be confused with it.

Good luck and I wish you well with your rational analysis. Glad it works for you.

[naturesflow]

Originally Posted by Iamit

Good luck and I wish you well with your rational analysis. Glad it works for you.

Are you dismissing what was offered because you believe your know more and that the view of emptiness speaks for itself? Or is good luck and I wish you well more an offering to let what was offered go deeper in you? I could be confused so I am not aiming this directly at you.

I am not saying your stuck as ground has said. I don't see stuck in my emptiness that is where he and I differ.

I am more curious that the reflection of rational analysis wont allow you to go deeper in yourself to reflect beyond good luck and I wish you well. Cant you go there in yourself to know more?

I mean it seems obvious your wanting to show more to ground through your view of what you shared, but in the offering back, it appears you don't think there is more in this way?

If one is confidently allowing the experience of emptiness to speak and the other is confidently allowing himself through his view to let the other know there is more, why wouldn't he open to know more himself?

In some way in my emptiness and awareness of more inclusion in myself, that you are both in a spot of contradiction, which to me shows me you cant see past your own noses..hehehe