To: K-list
Recieved: 2003/02/12 01:32
Subject: Re: [k-list] Re:Mirror
From: hbrost
On 2003/02/12 01:32, hbrost posted thus to the K-list:
Dear Felix,
I do not agree with your explanation. Your explanation seems to be purely a semantic one. That's OK with me, but they're not my semantics nor in the context/semantics of how most spirituality is discussed in that regard. If you wanna be Me, be Me...errr...You! Maybe we need to go back to the Aum discussion? ;-)
Hety
You seem to associate what you are calling the "me" with the
ego which exists psychologically as a facet of the
personality. I don't think that is how the me is used in a
spiritual sense, and not how I intended it to be used. Here
is a hashed up little metaphor to show my intent.
Me is a expression I use to refer to myself in the first
person. Like in the Genesis story where God in the first
person was called Adam. Pure, unadulterated energy, and
without knowledge of duality. After Adam disobeyed god, and
saw that he was nay-kid (like the lamb Mary had?), he began
to separate himself from God by sha-me (Sha-man) and by
using the Word (Which had formerly been with Sha.) to
pronounce, "This thing and that thing is not me." His
nay-me-ing is what destroyed the Kingdom of the god Sha, who
sulked and went off to live in the Sun. No blame. But Sha
left a little piece of itself in each hue-man some call the
"pearl of great price". "Moi?" you might oink.
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.