The conceit of "i am equal"

[Bundokji]

In the suttas, there are three types of conceit:

1- I am superior
2- I am inferior
3- I am equal

The first two types of conceit are straightforward: if conceit is a type of pride that causes one to be in less harmony with oneself and another, then it is problematic, and many believe that the antidote is to embrace "i am equal" considering that humans are social beings. If we are equal or if we become equal, jealousy, envy and discrimination would come to an end, and we finally achieve the long awaited harmony. If our senses can deceive us, and if we value the truth to the extent that it leads to our well-being, then the deception has to lie with the first two types of conceit, but not the third.

The above logic seems to be inline with our legal structure which is meant to maintain justice. It is no coincidence that courts have the scale as its symbol. The starting point of an accurately adjusted scale is zero where the two sides are on equal footing. Discrimination appears to come about later on when we begin to measure things up using the empty scale. Only then we start to talk about different values which leads to discrimination and misery. After all, desire is based on discrimination.

According to the above, why "i am equal" is considered conceit ? Why people have faith it it if it does not work? Many political systems embraced the notion of equality, and their failure might be due to the wrong application, not the concept itself.

[Mr. Seek]

Because by making such a comparison you cling and crave to concepts such as me, I, other, equal, unequal, superior, inferior. And thus there is conceit, you've fashioned a self, others, etc.

It-s all about cutting through objectification, classifications, and perceptions. By letting go of all these, one wakes up.

This is largely in the domain of advanced practicioners though.

[Sam Vara]

According to the above, why "i am equal" is considered conceit ?

I think there are two related concepts here, both addressed by the English word "conceit". The first is the idea that someone is conceited, that they consider themselves superior. This is covered by the Pali term māna, although it doesn't normally refer to the idea (also in māna) that one is worse than another.

The other idea is the older use of "conceit" as a fanciful or vain idea; in this case, the idea that oneself is anything at all which can be compared to something. "I am equal" is clearly not being "conceited" in the common English sense of considering oneself superior; it is, in egalitarian cultures and contexts, considered a laudable idea. But it is still māna, in the sense of measuring oneself (mināti) against another person; thinking oneself to be a substantive thing. It is asmimāna, the conceit "I am".

[Ceisiwr]

According to the above, why "i am equal" is considered conceit ?

I think there are two related concepts here, both addressed by the English word "conceit". The first is the idea that someone is conceited, that they consider themselves superior. This is covered by the Pali term māna, although it doesn't normally refer to the idea (also in māna) that one is worse than another.

The other idea is the older use of "conceit" as a fanciful or vain idea; in this case, the idea that oneself is anything at all which can be compared to something. "I am equal" is clearly not being "conceited" in the common English sense of considering oneself superior; it is, in egalitarian cultures and contexts, considered a laudable idea. But it is still māna, in the sense of measuring oneself (mināti) against another person; thinking oneself to be a substantive thing. It is asmimāna, the conceit "I am".

[Bundokji]

Because by making such a comparison you cling and crave to concepts such as me, I, other, equal, unequal, superior, inferior. It's all about cutting through objectification, classifications, and perceptions. By letting go of all these, one wakes up.

This is largely in the domain of advanced practicioners though.

Why equality does not end comparisons by eliminating the differences that making "comparisons" matter? If we come to believe that we are equal, then measuring would be a futile endeavor.

Such ideas are supported by theories about nature, that nature always seeks a state of balance. Living in disharmony with nature if what keeps us in the loop of endless rebirth/becoming.

If dhamma is the law of nature, then our mathematical equations that is meant to explain natural laws are always divided by the symbol "=". Usually, having a balanced equation implies reaching the correct answer.

In the Buddha's teachings, the end of conceit, which is the goal of the spiritual life resembles not-a-thing as if the scale was empty. The original state in this context is when the pool is said to be still. Greed, aversion and delusion are a result of being taken away by measurements of superiority and inferiority. This is why, many left leaning Buddhists cannot help but emphasize that the Buddha came to abolish the cast system, a kind of reformation of Hinduism and Brahmanism, akin to how Christianity is seen to be a reformation of Judaism.

[Bundokji]

I think there are two related concepts here, both addressed by the English word "conceit". The first is the idea that someone is conceited, that they consider themselves superior. This is covered by the Pali term māna, although it doesn't normally refer to the idea (also in māna) that one is worse than another.

The other idea is the older use of "conceit" as a fanciful or vain idea; in this case, the idea that oneself is anything at all which can be compared to something. "I am equal" is clearly not being "conceited" in the common English sense of considering oneself superior; it is, in egalitarian cultures and contexts, considered a laudable idea. But it is still māna, in the sense of measuring oneself (mināti) against another person; thinking oneself to be a substantive thing. It is asmimāna, the conceit "I am".

Through conditionality, one can indeed still compare himself to another, but that would lead to suffering. If the basis for comparison is eliminated, then suffering would not arise. If people become convinced that they are equal, and that sensuality is what makes appearances matter, then this would bring comparisons to cessation.

[Mr. Seek]

Because by making such a comparison you cling and crave to concepts such as me, I, other, equal, unequal, superior, inferior. It's all about cutting through objectification, classifications, and perceptions. By letting go of all these, one wakes up.

This is largely in the domain of advanced practicioners though.

Why equality does not end comparisons by eliminating the differences that making "comparisons" matter? If we come to believe that we are equal, then measuring would be a futile endeavor.

How would one be able to know what's equality in the first place by there being no such thing as inequality present? One side of the coin necessitates the other.

If you stop making comparisons and coming to conclusions, that is salvation. Of course, before you get to that point, you have to make some comparisons, and some conclusions; but in the end, all clothes go off.

[sphairos]

There is a great paper about that , through the Abhidhamma lens,

The Conceit of Self-Loathing
Maria Heim

https://www.jstor.org/stable/23497369

http://enlight.lib.ntu.edu.tw/FULLTEXT/ ... 203288.pdf

The main theme is self-loathing, but the "equality" is also addressed.

As far as I remember the explanation is that there is no real equality in the world and whenever you think "equal" you are conceiting.

[sunnat]

Whether one is superior, inferior or neither superior nor inferior in relation to external phenomena is irrelevant. All this is continually changing.

Don't confuse this with the worldly idea of equal opportunity.

[Bundokji]

How would one be able to know what's equality in the first place by there being no such thing as inequality present? One side of the coin necessitates the other.

If you stop making comparisons and coming to conclusions, that is salvation.

It is by abandoning wrong view we attain right view. Ending comparisons would be a gradual process (akin to the path) due to the deeply rooted habits of sensuality.

Most if not all religions emphasize some kind of justice. Abrahamic religions use the idea of judgment day, while eastern religions use kamma and rebirth. Skeptics usually dismiss all of that by claiming that religious people are incapable of accepting the law of nature as harsh and unjust hence religion in their POV is a human fantasy. From the religious POV, it is an act of faith. You work on realizing the deeper truth that is not so obvious to the naked eye to create a kind of nibbana or utopia. If you do not achieve the goal you would be rewarded by a better rebirth. If you achieve the goal, you become a "zero" and you end the cycle of death and rebirth.

[Sam Vara]

I think there are two related concepts here, both addressed by the English word "conceit". The first is the idea that someone is conceited, that they consider themselves superior. This is covered by the Pali term māna, although it doesn't normally refer to the idea (also in māna) that one is worse than another.

The other idea is the older use of "conceit" as a fanciful or vain idea; in this case, the idea that oneself is anything at all which can be compared to something. "I am equal" is clearly not being "conceited" in the common English sense of considering oneself superior; it is, in egalitarian cultures and contexts, considered a laudable idea. But it is still māna, in the sense of measuring oneself (mināti) against another person; thinking oneself to be a substantive thing. It is asmimāna, the conceit "I am".

Through conditionality, one can indeed still compare himself to another, but that would lead to suffering. If the basis for comparison is eliminated, then suffering would not arise. If people become convinced that they are equal, and that sensuality is what makes appearances matter, then this would bring comparisons to cessation.

This is pure political speculation on my part, but I think that in trying to become equal, we would encounter Orwell's phenomenon of "some animals are more equal than others". (I, of course, consider myself to be the perfect equal of all others, and am therefore without conceit. But those other people, they are completely conceited and have not reached my level of equality... )

Overall, the Buddha's advice is not to think of oneself in a particular way in order that conceit is eventually given up. The advice is not to think in those terms at all:

This is how they attend improperly: ‘Did I exist in the past? Did I not exist in the past? What was I in the past? How was I in the past? After being what, what did I become in the past? Will I exist in the future? Will I not exist in the future? What will I be in the future? How will I be in the future? After being what, what will I become in the future?’ Or they are undecided about the present thus: ‘Am I? Am I not? What am I? How am I? This sentient being—where did it come from? And where will it go?’

(MN 2 and elsewhere)

[Bundokji]

There is a great paper about that , through the Abhidhamma lens,

The Conceit of Self-Loathing
Maria Heim

https://www.jstor.org/stable/23497369

http://enlight.lib.ntu.edu.tw/FULLTEXT/ ... 203288.pdf

The main theme is self-loathing, but the "equality" is also addressed.

As far as I remember the explanation is that there is no real equality in the world and whenever you think "equal" you are conceiting.

One could argue that there is no real nibbana in the world, but through practice and effort to understand conditionality, we can find it as an element of nature known by a few.

[Mr. Seek]

How would one be able to know what's equality in the first place by there being no such thing as inequality present? One side of the coin necessitates the other.

If you stop making comparisons and coming to conclusions, that is salvation.

Ending comparisons would be a gradual process (akin to the path) due to the deeply rooted habits of sensuality.

Yeah, added something like that to my post before a minute or so. Just don't delay too much is my advice...

"If you stop making comparisons and coming to conclusions, that is salvation. Of course, before you get to that point, you have to make some comparisons, and some conclusions; but in the end, all clothes go off."

[Bundokji]

Whether one is superior, inferior or neither superior nor inferior in relation to external phenomena is irrelevant. All this is continually changing.

Don't confuse this with the worldly idea of equal opportunity.

Equal opportunity is a legal assumption that assumes a starting point to the process of measurement. Equality on the other hand can be the underlying universal law governing everything, but not obvious to everyone due to greed, fear and delusion.

[Bundokji]

This is pure political speculation on my part, but I think that in trying to become equal, we would encounter Orwell's phenomenon of "some animals are more equal than others". (I, of course, consider myself to be the perfect equal of all others, and am therefore without conceit. But those other people, they are completely conceited and have not reached my level of equality... )

Overall, the Buddha's advice is not to think of oneself in a particular way in order that conceit is eventually given up. The advice is not to think in those terms at all:

This is how they attend improperly: ‘Did I exist in the past? Did I not exist in the past? What was I in the past? How was I in the past? After being what, what did I become in the past? Will I exist in the future? Will I not exist in the future? What will I be in the future? How will I be in the future? After being what, what will I become in the future?’ Or they are undecided about the present thus: ‘Am I? Am I not? What am I? How am I? This sentient being—where did it come from? And where will it go?’

(MN 2 and elsewhere)

I think what Orwell referred to can be applied to "mixed intentions" rather than seeing clearly things as they really are. From that perspective, nature is more aristocratic than any man-made hierarchy by giving insight to only a few.