To: K-list
Recieved: 2004/05/15 09:29
Subject: Re: [K-list] definition of ego
From: David Bozzi
On 2004/05/15 09:29, David Bozzi posted thus to the K-list:
ego can define anything.
djamelbensmaiaATfree.fr wrote:
>
>
>
>Selon David Bozzi <david.bozziATsofthome.net>:
>
>
> Hi David, List,
>
>
>
>>Ego is undefinable.
>>
>>
>
> Why couldn't we define ego? For instance, I would think the common definition
>of ego says it's a certain
>mechanism that evolved conscious beings like us humans came up with to
>intentionnally ignore reality in order to fulfill illusory desires; a very
>intelligent and complex auto-deceptive mechanism, that creates and perpetuates
>illusion.
> Because ego doesn't exist doesn't mean it cannot be defined. You can define
>"lie", "illusion";
> On the other hand, I think it's also safe to say that ego, as it is linked to
>desire, and
>associated with basic survival issues, pain, pleasure, life and death, and so
>on, is more largly a
>characteristic of all limited life forms: men, insects, even bacteria, display
>ego;
>consequently, it is evident that besides being the major pain in the --- of
>yogis and such, it is and has been primarily a most precious survival
>mechanism, scientists can therefore study it, and give their own definition, in
>scientific terms, of what spirituality has called "ego", and vice versa.
> It seems it's only when man began _searching_ for reality, _choosing_ freely
>between wrong and right, illusion and reality, the world and God, that ego
>finally appeared as a possibly problematic, and a rather regressive, simian,
>state of
>being and functionning,which makes it perhaps more precious to us still, since
>the observation of ego's limitation and shortcomings gave birth to the notion
>of non-ego, the path, liberation, you name it..
>
> All that to say, IMO, it _can_ be defined; what _can not_ be defined are
>terms like "unity", "existence", because nothing we add to these terms could
>help us get a clearer idea of their meaning; from a strictly philosophical -
>logical - standpoint, those are the only circumstances where definitions are
>useless.
>
> Djamel
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
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.