yabyum24

I've always wondered how you combine ancestor worship with a belief in rebirth.

Come on Brian, put centuries of inter-faith strife to and end and finally tell us whether it's the gourd or the sandal we're all meant to follow!

None. Some people in my neck of the woods are bizarre enough without any extra help. I've always had an interest in folklore mind. There are a few tales of restless dead and witches.

I think the key thing here, is that from a spiritual POV, it makes no difference how you 'assume' the universe to be configured. Some early Buddhists began pottering around with ideas like this which lead to the following conclusion; basically that all matter is comprised of 'partless particles' things so small that we can't talk about them in terms of having a front, back, sides or any other 3D characteristics. Emptiness, then became (for them) the realisation of this 'fact'. That things do not exist in the 'solid' way we perceive. Such people were termed Hinayanists (lesser vehicle). Buddhist emptiness has never been about clever and contrived semantics or overriding sensory data with intellectual constructs. Others later said that the universe was mind-made, and so it goes on. Illusion, reality, empty, eternal, impermanent etc. etc. - all views and ideas. Aversion and desire are the visceral products of a self-grasping mind, now there's something to work with.

Interesting link. I always ask myself, though, how would a being recall that information when in the bardo, especially If he/she can't even attain lucid dreams and maintain awareness during passage into sleep.

My 'take' on it is a bit different. The whole cause & effect scenario doesn't explain it enough. Why are we here in the first place? I'm certain we arise because we desire life. Any life at all. Think about the worst life you can imagine - a wretched kind of existence. Even that is better than nothing and we fear 'nothing'. Desire for nutriment (not extinction), to feast at the table of the senses - to lick honey off the razor's edge.

A creator can do what he wants - surely!

... so you reject the creator but accept his son?

You'd think so, but there always seems to be a 'justification' for it.

I can really relate to that. It's 99% of the reason I rarely do Buddhist boards these days. Too many self-important types strutting their stuff, rather than sharing any genuine experience.

At least this place is not governed by a crushing consensus or a handful of prima donnas laying the law down. Too orderly can become too predictable and too predictable is always boring and not good for growth.

This is indeed correct. Some half-wits with nothing better to do set the ball rolling with speculation about an ultimate basis of reality (partless particles) and a lousy definition of emptiness to prop it all up. I understand that someone felt they had to take them to task and ultimately, the Prasangikas did this. No problem, as long as we understand that it's one view versus another view. But in engaging at that level, the Prasangika scholars were necessarily entering the arena of 'views' - we may contend that their views are more coherent than the lower schools but they are intellectual fabrications nonetheless and not any kind of direct insight. Contrast all this with the teachings we have from Tilopa and Naropa. There is no comparison. They have nothing to do with such prattle. Still, you must take what's right for you at the end of the day.

Have a good night babes!

Okay so Buddha is wrong but Namdrol is never wrong. Thanks for putting me right on that.

Of course not. Think things through for yourself.

Nāḡrjuna was on his own trip. None of this stuff came from Buddha. Buddha dismissed people who approached him with such material. Nāḡrjuna was cooking this philosophical head-stuff up with his pals. It has absolutely nothing to do with real Buddhadharma. Every Mahayanist concedes that emptiness cannot be grasped by intellectual discursive material of this kind. It is at best a tool to loosen attachment. Do not mistake it for reality.

Okay, that's fine if you are happy to not think these things through for yourself. I can't make much headway with a 'believer'.

That's wrong on all counts. An illusion is like a rope coiled in the twilight. We see it as a snake but its basis cannot serve this function. A real snake could bite us. Even a dry scholar-Buddhist, like Chadrakirti or Nagarjuna wouldn't argue with the fundamental difference between those two observations. Saying that things 'exist', 'don't exist', 'both exist and don't exist', 'neither exist nor don't exist' is to fall into reification and objectification. Such views are just 'that' - views. A thicket of views, a wilderness of views, a contortion of views. Enjoy them but please don't present that stuff as Buddha's words.

Of course they do. They arise dependently. If nothing ever arose in the first place then... ...well just think about that. Buddha compared phenomena to an illusion - he never said phenomena ARE an illusion. To state that is to step over the line into speculation and errant views. It's also some kind of variety of Hindu perspective (as I seem to recall). As Namdrol himself says "All we can say about them is that they arise in dependence". Sounds about right.

Wow, there are some very contradictory views there. You are attracted to classy girls because they don't jump into bed with you but all you want to do is to get them into bed. Thrill of the hunt thing. On the other hand, if they did, then (in your view) they would be little better than a prostitute. Looks like it's a no-win situation for yourself and the lady. The classy girls sense the lack of empathy from your side and there is no way you can really fake empathy. They know that they would be just another notch on your bedpost and they don't want that. And what about the prostitutes you visit, or the ladies you meet via dating sites. They're women too and don't deserve to be seen as worthless. And don't forget (from your power uber alles perspective) that they are using you every bit as much as you are using them. Your division of women into virgins & whores is where the problem lies, neither category is genuine - people are more nuanced than that but if you are not prepared to get to know them, how will you understand that? There has been some good advice given on this thread but perhaps the best mentioned just trying to help people and make a positive difference to their lives. You can give unconditionally and not be weak. You would be surprised.

Tis done!

I'll start a new thread on that topic, rather than derail this one. But I'm busy, so it may be a few days. @Jetsun, yes you will never find it on a map or by any kind of intellectual process. CT & Starjumper, agree that "discussing" the ego is speculative at best and can hinder growth. The OP was asking for an explanation, in order to quantify the mental processes he has witnessed. There isn't one worth repeating or wasting one's time looking for. But there is a means of locating it within meditation, of turning the attention onto it - if one is ready.

Your reply has brought up three points I'd like to address. 1. The first is the "Better Person Syndrome" which 99.9% of all religious content is concerned with. This is the "I should do this, think this, believe this" moralistic whine that's just a continuation of conditioning from our childhood. "I shouldn't be hating that asshole, desiring stuff / spanking my monkey etc!" I've failed! "If God doesn't exist, karma will send me to hell instead! This is self-indulgent crap and is nowhere near finding the ego. No wonder you get fed up when you impose it on yourself. 2. The "Ego doesn't exist because ultimately all is empty" Philosophy. Be very careful with this one. Buddhists employ logic and intellect to search for the ego in the following way: Can it be located amongst it's constituent parts, or in fact elsewhere? Of course it can't, (doh!) therefore it's mere imputation, designation, projection, illusory etc. In the nature of emptiness!!! Sorry, but expecting intellect and reason to identify ego, is like expecting the son of a dictator to hand his father over to a war crimes tribunal - it's never going to happen. The above may give you a warm feeling of satisfaction but, in reality, it's just Mara's bitch. 3. "taking a proper view of Ego" won't help anything because there isn't a "a proper view of Ego", it's just ever more crap of one kind or another. The astonishing thing is, that ego does exist - can be identified and then... ... the fun starts. Buddha was desperate to teach this to people and he tried to ram the technique home, time and again. If people have since chosen to disregard it, mores the pity. The stupid thing is, it's very simple to the extent that it's suspiciously simple. Too simple to appease ego (which does not want to be discovered btw) because once that happens, the facade begins to break. Some people will tell you it's "dangerous" or that you have to be pure in order to succeed. Others will say that such teachings were only meant for Buddha's time, as people were "purer" then, and could benefit in the way Buddha intended. The Buddhist Terminology Police Dept. will insist that Buddha's teachings are only accessible if you learn a long-dead Asian language. Others will tell you that only with specific prerequisites/ lineage/ empowerments/ kusha grass under your meditation cushion etc. can you succeed. People like above choke the life out of Buddhist forums, slowly festering and spreading irresolution over time. But there's nothing Buddha taught that does not apply to anyone right now - it's universal and accessible, you just need to apply a little effort (very little in fact) and you will get results. Identifying the ego is crucial and the fist step to liberation because Buddha's teachings on Annatta etc only make sense within this context, so what you are asking is critically important, brushing it aside is the deed of a fool.

I've never really had a view on ego, apart from some discursive, theoretical junk I picked up along the way, which I've always been lax in maintaining. So a 'view' per se has been neither useful nor detrimental. My discovery of 'what' it actually is, came about through meditation. Now I have no "view" on it at all, least of all a moral one. It's not something anyone can 'decide' to abandon, as part of a glorious spiritual crusade - they're in denial if they think they can. There's nothing wrong giving love to those near to us or holding them dear. Abandoning grasping and hate does not mean turning into stone.