To: K-list
Recieved: 2002/09/24 14:21
Subject: Re: [K-list] Re: Re: Ego???
From: Joseph Miller
On 2002/09/24 14:21, Joseph Miller 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,
> >
Just observing a pattern. Perhaps there is another way to explain it.
> > [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.
>
>You seem to be terribly concerned with protecting the status quo,
>Joe,--whether word definitions or spiritual tradition. :)) What are you
>afraid of?
I'm afraid that if we all make up our own meanings for words we won't be
able to communicate any thing with any degree of precision. We won't be able
to exchange ideas because we won't have a freaking clue what each other is
talking about. That is the essense of the story of the Tower of Babble in
the Bible. There was a time it was considered the main purpose of an
education was to provide us with a common language so that we could expand
human knowledge through conversing and debate as well as simply passing
along knowledge to others using that common language. Perhaps it is not
fashionable with you but I think that would still be a good idea.
Why does the idea of using words as they are defined seem so frightening to
you?
>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.
No where does, in this or any system's initiation ritual, East or West, the
initiate give up his/her ego. It is the identity, or an element of what they
were in their life before that is changed, not the fact they have a concept
of themselves. In many initiations it is said to bring the initiate "from
darkness to light" meaning it is the first step on a path of learning, not
denying who you are.
As to thinking of himself as an "I" or "Thomas Merton," he had a number of
books copywritten under that name so I guess he thought that was who he was.
He did not loose his ego, he gave up the use of his name in the religious
community where he lived. He had an ego decades after he joined the order.
There is a story about an interview with him shortly before he left on the
trip where he died. He as going to visit the Dali Lama later on that same
trip. He told one interviewer, "I'm going to see the Dali Lama, he reads my
books, you know." Not a sickening ego, but an ego none the less.
> > 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.
>
>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.
I gave the meaning of the ritual in terms of what it is to do vs erasing
ones ego (defined to be insanity in the rest of the known universe).
Why do you want me to define all of the metiphysical meanings that were not
present in Angelique's interpretation (appearently not superficial in your
eyes for some unknown reason)?
Other than the idea that it erases the ego, I don't know that we differ on
it in any way since she gave an equally "superficial" interpretation. Why
would I address anything else in my response?
> >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.
>
>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.
Hillary I think you are grabbing at things to argue about. I've known you
too long and found you too bright to believe you'd have written that under
normal conditions.
The word "transcend" is an English word, out of Latin via Old French, yada
yada. The concept is not new at all. The concept was around in ancient Vedic
writings... as a concept (they didn't know Latin so they didn't use that
word).
To go beyond ego is NOT to kill it. That was the point of the discussion.
Both "kill" and "transcend" are valid words for actions, concepts, whatever
you want to call it, that have been around for thousands and thousands of
years. They are not equal, nor are they the same. Never have been the same
thing.
Ego is a modern term. But that concept didn't get born in Switzerland or
Germany or Austria or any of the other places that the early psychologists
worked. There was a concept of self way before them. There were ways to
discuss it. To talk to someone about those things that make up the ego it
would seem to make more sense to use it than to use a bunch of Sanskrit
words (or Chinese or whatever). Kundalini is an energy form that the West
never discussed so there was no word for it when the texts were translated,
hence our use of it. But ego was there, so it was used. I don't see the
problem.
"Having it both ways" makes no sense in your statement whatsoever.
Namaste,
Joe
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.