Simple_Jack

No, not necessarily because they make the distinction between the Freudian term and how Buddhism uses it. Though, I do think that using the term "egolessness" can be misleading and vague when it comes to describing no-self and sunyata in Buddhism. From the lectures I've attended, seeing how translators of sutras and works by past masters used it, and how current masters use "ego/ego-grasping:" It is always referring to the self/Self and self-grasping respectively. Whereby "egolessness" is referring to anatman (in other words, how phenomena are lacking intrinsic existence.) It's inevitable that with the transmission of the buddhadharma here in the West, that translators or those lecturing on the principles of Buddhism, are going to convey the teachings in a lexicon familiar to Westerners. The Pali canon is very precise and consistent in the refutation of the views of both eternalists and nihilists (that is why IMO, it should be considered the base for understanding the higher teachings of Mahayana Buddhism.) It clearly explains Right View as seeing the 5 aggregates as a relative process of interdependent arising. Though let's face it, there can also be discrepancies with anatta, which can lead to the misunderstanding that it's some sort of affirming-negation like the "neti-neti" of Advaita Vedanta. There's also the possibility of people seeing "no-self" and concluding that it is the same as in Neo-Advaitan terms when referring to the "egoic-mind" or the "small-self" (when in fact it is about the non-reification of the aggregate of consciousness as an unchanging, eternal, absolute Self or any of the aggregates for that matter.)

Though, here's another sutta detailing what the buddha taught as the middle way free from all extremes:

.

I'm quoting a huge chunk of Nagarjuna's Bodhicittavivarana http://www.dalailama...ana_English.pdf (an alternate translation that separates a chapter of verses according by topic http://web.mit.edu/m...rana_verses.pdf. The former is a better translation, but the latter is helpful to understand the context of the verses) For anyone wondering why plantain trees are used as a simile for mental formations: They have hollow trunks, thus representing "corelessness." Here's something from Dzogchen: These are excerpts from Longchenpa's The Treasury Of Natural Perfection [Natural Perfection: Longchenpa's Radical Dzogchen by Keith Dowman http://books.google....8;q&f=false:]

Haha, Keanu Reeves...."Little Buddha" is definitely NOT a credible source of information on Buddhism. Look into the BBC documentary for info that is straight out of the Pali cannon/Agamas: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CeQoeNH70fk Buddha never described his experience as "seeing the ego as illusion" or describes emptiness as "seeing through the illusion of ego." This is a Western concept, which doesn't exist as a valid indicator of experience in Buddhism. Anything associated with Freud or Jung pertaining to an Id, ego, super-ego, conscious and unconscious/collective unconscious are non-existent as indicators of conditioned experience in Buddhism. There's only ever ignorance, which drives the whole 12-fold chain of dependent origination. http://www.accesstoi....15.0.than.html in·her·ent/inˈhi(ə)rənt/ Adjective Existing in something as a permanent, essential, or characteristic attribute Buddhism describes emptiness of all phenomena as free from the four propositions: It exists. It doesn't exist. It both exists and does not exist. It neither exists nor does not exist. http://www.accesstoi...2.086.than.html http://www.dharmawhe...f=48&t=7701: Since you're big into Dzogchen here's another quote from that thread: http://www.accesstoi...i/wheel277.html "He who sees Dependent Arising sees the Dhamma; he who sees the Dhamma sees Dependent Arising." Notes: In layman terms "subconscious" is used instead of "unconscious." Basically, you won't find Buddha describing anything that pertains to a conscious/subconscious/unconscious division; a "ego/egoic mind" nor a "non-ego/egoic mind." There's only avidya/avijja (ignorance) as the cause, for the conditioned arising of both emotional and cognitive obscurations. An explanation of the above can be found here http://www.dhammawhe...f=24&t=4603

You can read a lot more of the posts from the "Turiya VS Dzogchen" thread here http://sgforums.com/...8/topics/455181: A quote from Malcolm explaining the differences with Dzogchen http://www.dharmawhe...php?f=66&t=7420: So, what is non-duality in Buddhist terms? Here in this thread Malcolm makes a case of Dzogchen being inline with what Madhyamaka teaches; where "non-duality" does not share the same meaning between Advaita and Buddhism. http://www.dharmawhe...t=5370&start=80:

"Substrate consciousness" sounds like it would be the alaya (kun-gzhi) which is described as the state of ignorance in dzogchen http://www.dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=48&t=6942 Unfortunetely the "Turiya VS Dzogchen" thread was taken down from DW, though there's a couple links to some quotes from that thread. From what I took from that thread [http://thetaobums.com/topic/23648-awareness-of-non-meditation/page__st__48:] According to ChNN, a person isn't truly considered a dzogchen practitioner, until you've reached the stage of released shine. A person brought this up on DW http://www.dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=48&t=10080 The above descriptions of released shine sound like a more advanced stage of practice, one that isn't contrived like "regular shine."

If there's one thing you should come away with from this thread: It's to not succumb to the word "Awareness" when reading something from dzogchen, mahamudra, or anything related to Buddhism. Think of it in terms of dependent origination (i.e. a sense consciousness arises with the meeting of a sense organ and a sense object).

Some quotes from DW[http://www.dharmawhe...=9709&start=160] putting it into dzogchen terms: " SSJ3Gogeta wrote: 1. Rigpa is not a thing. 2. Rigpa means knowledge. 3. If anything the universe appears because of ignorance (marigpa) as explained by Malcolm above. Malcolm wrote: Rigpa, in all Dzogchen texts, is constrasted with Ma rigpa. Because of not knowing [ma rig pa] our real state we enter samsara. Through knowing [rig pa] our real state, we attain liberation. Thought is not a problem for one who has rigpa. It is only a problem for those who do not."

Buddha mentions the "conceit of I AM." Here's one example of senior monks talking about it from the Khemaka Sutta [http://www.accesstoi...2.089.than.html:] "In the same way, friends, even though a noble disciple has abandoned the five lower fetters, he still has with regard to the five clinging-aggregates a lingering residual 'I am' conceit, an 'I am' desire, an 'I am' obsession. But at a later time he keeps focusing on the phenomena of arising & passing away with regard to the five clinging-aggregates: 'Such is form, such its origin, such its disappearance. Such is feeling... Such is perception... Such are fabrications... Such is consciousness, such its origin, such its disappearance.' As he keeps focusing on the arising & passing away of these five clinging-aggregates, the lingering residual 'I am' conceit, 'I am' desire, 'I am' obsession is fully obliterated." You can also look in all three of Edward Conze's translations of the Prajnaparamita Sutras to find the Buddha speaking of the "I AM conceit."

Uhhh, Buddha debated against individuals of both Vedic and non-Vedic schools of thought all across India. One example is the "Brahmajala Sutta: The All-embracing Net of Views" [http://www.accesstoi....01.0.bodh.html.] He critisizes both eternalist and nihilist doctrines in that one: 2. Conditioned by Contact (Phassapaccayavāra) "Therein, bhikkhus, when those recluses who are eternalists proclaim on four grounds the self and the world to be eternal — that is conditioned by contact. That they can experience that feeling without contact — such a case is impossible." "When those recluses and brahmins who are eternalists in regard to some things and non-eternalists in regard to other things proclaim on four grounds the self and the world to be partly eternal and partly non-eternal — that too is conditioned by contact. That they can experience that feeling without contact — such a case is impossible. "When those recluses and brahmins who are extensionists proclaim their views; when those who are fortuitous originationists proclaim their views; when those who are speculators about the past and hold settled views about the past assert on eighteen grounds various conceptual theorems referring to the past; when those who maintain a doctrine of percipient immortality, non-percipient immortality, or neither percipient nor non-percipient immortality proclaim their views; when those who are annihilationists proclaim their views; when those who maintain a doctrine of Nibbāna here and now proclaim their views; when those who are speculators about the future and hold settled views about the future assert on forty-four grounds various conceptual theorems referring to the future — that too is conditioned by contact. That they can experience that feeling without contact — such a case is impossible." "When those recluses and brahmins who are speculators about the past, speculators about the future, speculators about the past and the future together, who hold settled views about the past and the future, assert on sixty-two grounds various conceptual theorems referring to the past and the future — that too is conditioned by contact. That they can experience that feeling without contact — such a case is impossible."

Nope, Buddha clearly describes consciousness as impermanent, arsing and passing due to conditions: http://www.accesstoi...5.003.than.html Vinnana Sutta: Consciousness At Savatthi. "Monks, eye-consciousness is inconstant, changeable, alterable. Ear-consciousness... Nose-consciousness... Tongue-consciousness... Body-consciousness... Intellect-consciousness is inconstant, changeable, alterable....... .....One who knows and sees that these phenomena are this way is called a stream-enterer, steadfast, never again destined for states of woe, headed for self-awakening."

Dvaya Sutta: A Pair "It's in dependence on a pair that consciousness comes into play. And how does consciousness come into play in dependence on a pair? In dependence on the eye & forms there arises eye-consciousness. The eye is inconstant, changeable, of a nature to become otherwise. Forms are inconstant, changeable, of a nature to become otherwise. Thus this pair is both wavering & fluctuating — inconstant, changeable, of a nature to become otherwise. "Eye-consciousness is inconstant, changeable, of a nature to become otherwise. Whatever is the cause, the requisite condition, for the arising of eye-consciousness, that is inconstant, changeable, of a nature to become otherwise. Having arisen in dependence on an inconstant factor, how could eye-consciousness be constant? "The coming together, the meeting, the convergence of these three phenomena is eye-contact. Whatever is the cause, the requisite condition, for the arising of eye-contact, that is inconstant, changeable, of a nature to become otherwise. Having arisen in dependence on an inconstant factor, how could eye-contact be constant? "Contacted, one feels. Contacted, one intends. Contacted, one perceives. These phenomena are both wavering & fluctuating — inconstant, changeable, of a nature to become otherwise. This is how it's in dependence on a pair that eye-consciousness comes into play. "In dependence on the ear & sounds there arises ear-consciousness... "In dependence on the nose & aromas there arises nose-consciousness... "In dependence on the tongue & flavors there arises tongue-consciousness... "In dependence on the body & tactile sensations there arises body-consciousness... "In dependence on the intellect & ideas there arises intellect-consciousness. The intellect is inconstant, changeable, of a nature to become otherwise. Ideas are inconstant, changeable, of a nature to become otherwise. Thus this pair is both wavering & fluctuating — inconstant, changeable, of a nature to become otherwise. "Intellect-consciousness is inconstant, changeable, of a nature to become otherwise. Whatever is the cause, the requisite condition, for the arising of intellect-consciousness, that is inconstant, changeable, of a nature to become otherwise. Having arisen in dependence on an inconstant factor, how could intellect-consciousness be constant? "The coming together, the meeting, the convergence of these three phenomena is intellect-contact. Whatever is the cause, the requisite condition, for the arising of intellect-contact, that is inconstant, changeable, of a nature to become otherwise. Having arisen in dependence on an inconstant factor, how could intellect-contact be constant? "Contacted, one feels. Contacted, one intends. Contacted, one perceives. These phenomena are both wavering & fluctuating — inconstant, changeable, of a nature to become otherwise. This is how it's in dependence on a pair that intellect-consciousness comes into play." http://www.accesstoi...2.044.than.html: Loka Sutta: The World "Dwelling at Savatthi. There the Blessed One addressed the monks: "I will teach you the origination of the world & the ending of the world. Listen & pay close attention. I will speak." "As you say, lord," the monks responded to the Blessed One. The Blessed One said: "And what is the origination of the world? Dependent on the eye & forms there arises eye-consciousness. The meeting of the three is contact. From contact as a requisite condition comes feeling. From feeling as a requisite condition comes craving. From craving as a requisite condition comes clinging/sustenance. From clinging/sustenance as a requisite condition comes becoming. From becoming as a requisite condition comes birth. From birth as a requisite condition, then aging & death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair come into play. This is the origination of the world. "Dependent on the ear & sounds there arises ear-consciousness. The meeting of the three is contact... Dependent on the nose & aromas there arises nose-consciousness. The meeting of the three is contact... Dependent on the tongue & flavors there arises tongue-consciousness. The meeting of the three is contact... Dependent on the body & tactile sensations there arises body-consciousness. The meeting of the three is contact... Dependent on the intellect & mental qualities there arises intellect-consciousness. The meeting of the three is contact. From contact as a requisite condition comes feeling. From feeling as a requisite condition comes craving. From craving as a requisite condition comes clinging/sustenance. From clinging/sustenance as a requisite condition comes becoming. From becoming as a requisite condition comes birth. From birth as a requisite condition, then aging & death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair come into play. This is the origination of the world. "And what is the ending of the world? Dependent on the eye & forms there arises eye-consciousness. The meeting of the three is contact. From contact as a requisite condition comes feeling. From feeling as a requisite condition comes craving. Now, from the remainderless cessation & fading away of that very craving comes the cessation of clinging/sustenance. From the cessation of clinging/sustenance comes the cessation of becoming. From the cessation of becoming comes the cessation of birth. From the cessation of birth, then aging & death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair all cease. Such is the cessation of this entire mass of stress & suffering. This is the ending of the world. "Dependent on the ear & sounds there arises ear-consciousness. The meeting of the three is contact... Dependent on the nose & aromas there arises nose-consciousness. The meeting of the three is contact... Dependent on the tongue & flavors there arises tongue-consciousness. The meeting of the three is contact... Dependent on the body & tactile sensations there arises body-consciousness. The meeting of the three is contact... Dependent on the intellect & mental qualities there arises intellect-consciousness. The meeting of the three is contact. From contact as a requisite condition comes feeling. From feeling as a requisite condition comes craving. Now, from the remainderless cessation & fading away of that very craving comes the cessation of clinging/sustenance. From the cessation of clinging/sustenance comes the cessation of becoming. From the cessation of becoming comes the cessation of birth. From the cessation of birth, then aging & death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair all cease. Such is the cessation of this entire mass of stress & suffering. This is the ending of the world."

Except that dzogchen tantras go to great lengths to refute eternalist schools of thought. Here's one example... http://www.dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=66&t=9750&p=122573&hilit=Shankaracarya#p122573: "Malcolm: If you are going to assert that the intention of Dzogchen and Advaita are the same, then you need to provide side by side citations. There is no point of course, because, for example, the Rig pa rang shar specifically refutes Advaita, naming Shankaracarya by name in the 25th chapter. So what I am telling you is that even if you try to present citations from both Advaita and Dzogchen to try and illustrate their commonality, it will be easy to show how you are mistaken. Sadly, many people make the same mistake you are making and come up with a system that is called "ra ma lug" in Tibetan i.e. a system that is neither a goat nor a sheep. How do they do this? By relying on their own intellectual contrivances." P.S. Malcolm is a Loppon

.

.

The power of now, POW! Knock you down! Mrs.Grandmaster P: Will be waiting on your way down. Lying on the ground, open your eyes; She's got the pie, to remedy the lies!

GrandmasterP, why won't help me? Lost in the thicket of beliefs! Sometimes, I cry out for Mrs. GrandmasterP! Remember me? Where's the recipe to set my mind free!?

.

Oh, shit! Mrs. GrandmasterP! Where are thee? This hypocrisy is mocking me! My escape, contained in a cake; breaking free, for the life of me! EDIT: from msr to mrs. Damn typo

.

.

.

No source, no creator. LOL Yes, yes...I concur. Otherwise, the power of christ will compel me and the demons of eternalism will overpower me, exposing the fallacy of such an ideology and putting cracks into this support of my mistaken reality; thereby swaying me to accepting a higher power. I then start to break out in a cold sweat as my heart starts to beat at a tremendously high rate, as I scream: Ahh.. AHHH! AHHHHHH! I have to keep this delusional facade of "Buddhist truth," intact long enough so that I can take my SOMA (i.e. fluoridated water, mixed with a brand of protein powder that contains mercury and carcinogens,) which causes me to fall in an apathetic stupor, dulling my senses, as I'm comforted by a voice in the back of my head that drones: "It's alright, it's all empty, dependently originated; anatta, anatta, anatta, anatta, anatta....Ahh...ahhhhh..ahhmmmmmmmm..." Hey, are you by any chance "osho" on Dharmawheel? Wondering, cause both of you have the same avatar. Just curious, is all. P.S. I have nothing personal against Christianity. Jesus is my homeboy