To: K-list
Recieved: 2002/09/24 11:15
Subject: Re: [K-list] Re: Re: Ego???
From: Druout
On 2002/09/24 11:15, Druout posted thus to the K-list:
In a message dated 9/24/2002 8:16:55 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
percyvalATnospamrcn.com writes:
>
> well, i don't care about the rest of the post... but i have to say as
> someone who has known Angelique very well for 5 years... she does not mind
> folks calling her Angelique instead of Mystress...
>
> her arguement with Joe has nothing to do with this... i am completely sure
> about that...
>
> setting the record straight,
>
>
Dear Joe,
Yeah! This is just plain silly!
joemillerATnospamhotmail.com writes:
>
> [Ego] 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.Well the word ego only first appeared in English in 1824 according to my
dictionary. It refers to a complex concept and I suspect there is room for
both interpretation and for seeing the definition evolve.
You seem to be terribly concerned with protecting the status quo,
Joe,--whether word definitions or spiritual tradition. :)) What are you
afraid of?
Surely when Thomas Merton took the name Brother Louis he symbolically lost
his old ego in the sense he was no longer the "I" of Thomas Merton.
Angelique writes:
>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.
And Joe writes:
> 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.
>
>
Your interpretation of the meaning of these rituals I personally find rather
superficial. I suspect they have much more metaphysical meaning than you
seem to allow for.
Joe writes:
>Enlightend beings have egos, all of them, every last
>one. They TRANSCEND the ego, they don't kill it. The idea of killing an ego
>is some kind of "New Age" ....stuff... that has no basis in any ancient
>system I'm aware of.
Do they really? When in Nirvikalpa Samadhi surely the ego is, at least
temporarily, quite dead. I suspect enlightened beings reach a continuous
state where the "I" is non existent.
You seem to want it both ways. You say "killing" the ego has no basis in any
ancient system, but you accept "transcending" the ego as correct, even though
the term ego is a relatively modern one.
Love, Hillary
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.