The greatest masters in the history of the human world such as Gautama Buddha never taught or used the term "ego". That ought to tell humans something.
Not the one who downvoted you btw. I did read somewhere that Buddhism doesn't have the concept of ego, which genuinely confuses me as there seems to be a very real process occurring in our brains that labels and categorizes information, which introduces distortion and the "ignorance" that leads to delusion and suffering (in the Buddhist view).
What exists itself is the truth. Who can see it as it is? No one can speak of something they haven't seen as it is.
Every living thing suffers.
I understand, thanks for taking the time to reply in the first place. I apologize if I was curt, but I found your posts here hard to understand. Reading your past comments helped elucidate what you mean.
I'm going to sleep now and I'm finding HN frustrating (I couldn't reply to you when I first saw your post) -- how can I contact you? I'm curious how you came to know what you know and if you had a teacher (your past comments hint that you did). I would like to find a good teacher, but I've been dismayed by my contacts with spiritual people and truth seekers. They are nice people, but they all seemed delusional and I had a bad gut reaction to them. You also seem delusional to some extent: you engage in pedantry and over-rationalization (I also do the latter so I recognize it easily). I do find certain delusions to be useful and engage in them consciously for my and others' benefit. Anyway, I want a teacher because my search has been haphazard and I basically stumbled onto my current elevated awareness (in comparison to my previous self) by sheer luck.
Thanks for posting on HN, even if people don't always want to hear you!
As for delusion when you say that to someone please provide something they can confirm.
What exist itself is the truth.
The call for a try to define ego as a precise as possible ("as a mathematician") and in the sibling post from user blueprint probably shall make you attemt just this, but fail at it. I think the "ego" dies when you see what you are looking for in what it is. Not in words not in labels not in labels. Just become aware that your model-maker is trying to model the world that really is there. You are what you are beyond the modeling process.
What exist itself is the truth
No one can speak of something they haven't seen as it is.
One fun thing to consider: When there are no models no labels no boundaries no judgements, where does something start and where does it end? Does that even make sense? Objectively the real world is just what it is, one. No things at all. These are just models. The underlying world is still what it is. One.
> Objectively the real world is just what it is, one. No things at all. These are just models. The underlying world is still what it is. One.
What is the answer of 1+1?
Math.
Is it access to a real realm of reality or just a bunch of tools to help us make it in the world?
Yea thats a good question. Looks like a question where my answer is probably "both".
By the way, everyone is in reality. So how can you say "access" to a real "realm" of reality?
When you decide you have something to you want to know, ask me again.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anachronism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presentism_(literary_and_histo...
Your fallacy is.....
The reason that fallacies exist is because there is underlying structure to arguments. For some arguments, its possible for every statement within the argument to be true, but for the conclusion to be false. The argument which you gave for skepticism toward the concept of ego is one such argument that exhibits structure level weakness. The fallacy label is argument from authority. Often this argument form is used despite it being fallacious, because authorities tend to be authorities for a reason. So using conclusions they derived, despite not sharing the logical backing which led them to their conclusion, can end up providing correct answers. In this case though, in addition to the flaws in argument form, some of the premises the argument is built upon are also untrue. Experts in the past aren't necessarily authorities on their subject matter thousands of years in the future and what someone teaches about doesn't reflect the full sum of their knowledge on a topic.
Seeing this lack of integrity in structure, I set out to provide counterexample which demonstrated the lack of integrity in the argument structure. In that sense, as inputs to the fallacious argument structure, both ego and the terms I gave are alike.
Both the terms I gave and the term ego were inputs to the argument structure, they can be categorized as inputs used in such a way, and they share that category with each other.
> Why do you think deteriorated forms of Buddhism nowadays have attached themselves to the term ego?
Is it deterioration or just accepting new ideas? I don't think that 2000-year-old Buddhism had all the answers, or would even be useful to a Westerner (I do feel that we are mostly exposed to "deteriorated" forms of Buddhism, but maybe it's for the better).
Buddha while alive only gave answers to the level of the questions people at that time were able to bring to him.
No one from modern times asked Buddha about gravity, or electromagnetism, or calculus, or about Bernoulli's principle, nor is he alive in modern times to inform us of what we ourselves can't recognize right in front of ourselves.
However, if, hypothetically, someone were to bring questions about black holes or dark matter to Gautama Buddha, then I feel very confident based on my understanding of philosophy that his reply would be to the effect or meaning of "if you can tell me or point out exactly what X from your question is, concretely, then I will be able to tell you whether it exists or not in reality, by placing that matter upon the formula that operates the world, and checking the result".
> would even be useful to a Westerner (I do feel that we are mostly exposed to "deteriorated" forms of Buddhism, but maybe it's for the better)
What is left is not helpful to us ordinary people for discerning or learning Buddha's teaching. We lost his truth through the process of it being handed down. His teaching is not meditation, four noble truths, eightfold path, nor precepts. It's not that you go to sleep, abandon yourself, stop suffering, and die forever. He taught people what exists, and how it exists, because he knew that was the way to enlighten people. Nevertheless he didn't explain about the steps to achieving enlightenment. First, falsehood must disappear (you must be free of lies). That means you have to open your eyes to the truth. Secondly, you have to be able to see 'what is'. You have to know where right and wrong exist: facts. Third, you need conscience and courage. You wouldn't go to people and teach them through terrible treatment without conscience and courage. Fourth, there must be endless love in yourself to go teach people 'what is' repeatedly. Through the process, you burn up the karma in your consciousness. Anyone who teaches enlightenment can be achieved without agony and love is telling a lie.