To: K-list
Recieved: 2002/09/24 07:56
Subject: [K-list] Re: Re: Ego???
From: Joseph Miller
On 2002/09/24 07:56, Joseph Miller posted thus to the K-list:
> > > >...there is no personality without your ego.
> > >
> > >If that were true, then all enlightened beings would be very
> > >dull, they would all be exactly the same, interchangeable.
>
>You sure like to pick fights, eh, Joe? :)
>
>First, I said nothing about killing the ego. I did not mention ego
>death in any way. Yet, here you are arguing against what I did not say....
>hello! What I said and what you heard are different things...
>
OK I was following things like this:
..."no personality without ego."
...."enlightened beings would be very dull, they would all be exactly the
same" (which I, I think very logically, took to imply that you were stating
they have no ego).
So what were you saying if you were not saying they have no egos? Hello!! I
think, given your words, what I took it to mean is the most logical way to
read it. Perhaps you should be more clear next time.
>Of course, how "Ego" and "personality" are defined in the individual
>lexicon, can be the source of much confusion and disagreement. For
>convenience of this list, we define it as the aspect of consciousness
>that has fears, experiences limitations and judgments, that eventually
>goes into the light... dies. That is not the psychiatric definition or the
>dictionary definition.
It appears in thousands of dictionaries with a different meaning and with
this meaning it appears in NO dictionary, all according to you, and using it
in a way used no where else on the planet is "convenient" (?????) If you
want to make up a word it would be less confusing to make up one that isn't
in the dictionary already.
I guess if you define 400lbs as skinny for someone who's 5'2" we could put a
lot of diet folks out of business, but what have we accomplished? Besides
making people "feel good" about bringing on an early death maybe. Words are
important, from what is supposed to be a common language, they are supposed
to improve the ability to communicate ideas, not stop people outside a
"tribe" from knowing that is being discussed.
'Fraid I read "Through the Looking Glass" too long ago to take it seriously.
I'll probably do what appears to be yet another list no-no like using words
from Webster's again and again. Pardon me if I feel no guilt.
> >Since enlightenment is traditional and killing the ego was made >up in
>the 20th century by God knows who the two don't mix well. >Logically they
>don't mix at all.
>
>The idea is ancient, only the terminology is new. Yogananda makes reference
>to his family attending his mock-funeral service as part of the rituals of
>his attaining realization and becoming a Swami. His old self was dead, and
>he sings a song about it in his joy.
That was not about the death of his ego at all and even new terminology
doesn't alter that. That ritual is a traditional ritual for anyone becoming
a Swami, and at the time they enter an order most of those people are not
enlightened. They are just monks.
The ritual signifies the death of the old life (of a householder) and the
rebirth to a new one (as a monk). They do require a different mindset,
different way of thinking, etc. but it is not about a loss of ego but of
allowing yourself and your ego to wear the appropriate dress, that of a
spiritual being rather than a person of the world. My teacher talked about
his ritual, it was pretty much the same as Yogananda's except I believe they
may have been in different orders so some details may have been different.
The same practice is done in the Catholic church in the West. If you go to
the Abbey of Gethsemani, the abbey where the great mystic Thomas Merton
spent the last 2/3 of his life you will not find his grave. He wrote under
his birth name, he is buried there under his name in the order, Brother
Louis.
>Even Christianity is based on the idea of death and
>rebirth. From the death and rebirth of Christ as ascended master, to a
>zillion "born again" Christians...
I trust we aren't going to say they have no egos. Or is that what you are
saying?
>Why is your ego so invested in its superiority game? Just
>curious...
My ego is invested in trying, and I have come to realize the effort is most
likely futile, to limit the application of Gresham's Law to discussions of
spiritual matters, particularly those involving Kundalini. I feel I owe that
much for all I've been given.
Why are you so defensive and given to throwing charges at those who have
differing opiinions, and address you as Agelique rather than the
self-depricating "Mystress"? Been curious for some time.
Namaste,
Joe
-------y.lEAA/ySSFAA/AtTslB/TM
http://www.kundalini-gateway.org
http://www.domin8rex.com/serpent/spirit/kindex.htm
DISCLAIMER!
Home | Archive Index | Search the archives | Subscribe
K. List FAQ | Kundalini FAQs | Signs and Symptoms | Awakening Experiences | K. list Polls | Member Essays | Meditations | List Topics | Art Gallery | Cybrary | Sitemap | Email the moderators.
symbol.