Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

9/3/01 Monday

Expand Messages
  • Gloria Lee
    ************************ GARY MERRILL Ego definition: Ego is the belief in division and has no substance apart from the mind. ... MICHAEL READ ego is made out
    Message 1 of 1 , Sep 4, 2001

      Ego definition:

      Ego is the belief in division and has no substance apart from the


      ego is made out of the same stuff as the entire universe


      Loveya - Michael

      YOGINI SAKTI on Advaita Vedanta
      A persistant aspect of philosophy & religion is the causality of the
      universe.  Does the world have a cause?  Is it a blind force or an
      intelligent principle?  Is there one cause, or many?  Each school of
      thought (Eastern) has a different responce.

      Carvaka / materialism; contends that the merging of the four elements
      are the cause of the world.

      Nyaya-Vaisesika; contends that the natural world is composed of
      atoms, & that the Prime Mover of these atoms is God.

      Sankhya; contends that prakrti (Primal Matter) is in perpetual
      motion, & the presence of a sentient soul (purusa) is the cause for
      evolution to start.

      Svabhavavada / naturalism; contends that the world is self-caused,
      via the law of causation.

      Yadrcchavada / accidentalism; contends that the world exists as mere

      Advaita Vedanta falls under known of the above.  The universe cannot
      be the result of chance - for that would be the result of causation. 
      The world is not self-cause, because it is inert; therefore, it
      cannot be its agent & patient in the same process.  Nor can prakrti
      account for the universe, for they are non-inteligent.  The Absolute
      cannot be the efficient cause .. for this would make the Absolute
      conditioned by the same.  Nor can the universe be a transformation of
      the Absolute, for an Absolute that changes cannot be immutable. 

      So .. Advaita concludes that the universe is an illusory appearance /
      vivarta of the Absolute Spirit.  The world is a play of maya / maya-

      It is the Self which is pure existence / sat that is the substrate of
      the world-appearance.  The world has no reality of its own; it is non-
      real, or like unto that which is unreal.  Meaning, the world is not
      unreal like .. say, a jackalope; or is it real like the Self.  The
      world is anirvacaniya / indeterminable.  It is what is illusorily
      superimposed on the substrate Self.  The world has no reality apart
      from the Self; nor can it become manifest but for the consciousness
      which is the Self. 
      Hymn to Daksinamurti
      written by Sankara
      verses 1 -3

      I praise Daksinamurti, the handsome youth who has expounded the truth
      of non-duality by eloquent silence, who is surrounded by a group of
      disciples consisting of aged sages who are absorbed in the
      contemlation of the supreme Self, who is the prince among Preceptors,
      who by his hand (by the union of his thumb & fore-finger) shows the
      sign indicating the identity of the individual soul & the supreme
      Self, who is the embodiment of bliss, who delights in the Self, & who
      has a charming face.

      To Him who by maya as by dream, sees within Himself the universe
      which is inside Him, like unto a city that is seen in a mirror, but
      which is manifested as if without: to Him who apprehends, at the time
      of awakening, His own non-dual Self: to Him, of the form of the
      Preceptor, the blessed Daksinamurti may this obeisance be!

      To Him who, like a magician or even like a great Yogin, displays, by
      His own will, this universe which at the beginning is
      undifferentiated like the sprout in the seed, but which is made again
      differentiated under the varied conditions of space & time posited by
      maya: to Him, of the form of the Preceptor, the blessed Daksinamurti
      may this obeisance be!
      Om Santi ...
      Yogini Sakti

      A viewpoint from a different perspective.

      I have not seen the subconscious mind mentioned in any spiritual group or
      Yet we are our subconscious minds! Our conscious mind is only an
      afterthought. [Animals function very well without a conscious mind]. The
      conscious mind has no direct access to the vast resources of our
      subconscious minds. Most decisions are already made by our subconscious
      minds thus the mistaken concept of non-doer ship. In fact scientists have
      recently discovered that the decisions already made by our subconscious
      minds appear 1/2 a second later in our conscious minds and are rightly
      regarded by our conscious minds as our own decisions.

      What we do, how we react in different circumstances depends on what is
      stored in our subconscious minds. Our subconscious minds not only store raw
      data but also sequences of script that could be played out in different
      circumstances. That is the learned survival mechanisms passed down in our
      genes from the time when life first appeared on earth.

      In a set of circumstances we can guess how an Italian, a German and an
      Englishman will react. [This is true all over the world with different
      tribes, sub-tribes and even families.] In India different tribes do
      different jobs. For example "Goldsmith" is a name of a tribe! Why are
      groups predictable? It is because of their similar genetic make-up and
      similar upbringing. Remember the subconscious mind is built on the
      foundations of genes + environment.

      I think perhaps the main reason for having a conscious mind is not to
      rubber stamp the decisions made by the subconscious mind but to stay quiet
      and experience the Ultimate Reality !? Thus in a person like Ramana the
      subconscious mind was the sole 'doer' for the body/mind to survive. Whereas
      the conscious mind had merged with the Greater Consciousness !? [To put it
      in the non-dual way, our conscious mind is part of the Greater
      Consciousness already. It just 'mistakenly' identifies with the
      subconscious mind it is inhabiting !?]

      With Love,
      Cyber Dervish

      This is true, unless the person is aware of this (that the subconscious mind
      is making most decisions) and the person has decided to make more conscious
      choices.  Unfortunately, the unconcious mind stores everything (not just
      possitive data) and makes choices based on that.  This can cause the person
      to react inappropiately to a current circumstance.  The desire to respond
      rather than react is a valid reason to make more conscious choices.  I think
      there is a difference between making a conscious choice (based on the data
      the subconsious has stored) and making an unconscious reaction.  In my
      opinion, the conscious choice is healthier.

      You may be your subconscious mind, but I am not.  I am my conscious mind
      which makes conscious choices.  If I let my subconscious mind run my life
      (which I have done in the past) I would be incapable of having relationships
      and functioning in the world.  I think the Conscious mind can merge with the
      "Greater Consciousness" and still make choices without having to delegate
      that to the confused and scrambled, yet well-meaning unconscious mind.  You
      may be comfortable with that, but  I'll remain conscious thank you.

      Subject: [RamanaMaharshi] world - real and unreal

         "As I recalled Bhagavan saying sometimes that unreal
          [mithya , imaginary ] and real [ satyam] mean the same ,
          but did not quite understand , I asked him about it.
          He said , "Yes , I do sometimes say that .What do you mean
          by real ? What is it that you call real ? "

          I answered : "According to Vedanta , only that which is
          permanent and unchanging can be called real . That is the
          meaning of Reality."

          "Then Bhagavan said :'The names and forms which constitute
           the world continually change and perish and are therefore
           called unreal. It is unreal [ imaginary ] to limit the Self
           to these names and forms and real to regard all as the
           Self.  The nondualist says that the world is unreal ,
           but he also says , "All this is Brahman."
          So it is clear that what he condemns is regarding the world
          as objectively real in itself , not regarding it as
          Brahman. He who sees the Self sees the Self alone in the world
          also.  It is immaterial to the Enlightened whether the world
          appears or not. In either case , his attention is turned to
          the Self. It is like the letters and the paper on which they
          are printed . You are so engrossed in the letters that you
          forget about the paper , but the Enlightened sees the paper
          as the substratum whether the letter appear on it
          or not.

          The Teachings of Ramana Maharshi
          Arthur Osborne

      Namaste All,

      This is just the act of seeing by a body without an individual mind.
      As is indicated by Ramana, Ramakrishna and others there is no world in
      Nirvikalpa Samadhi. Indicating that it not just an appearance, but
      doesn't exist and in fact never happened at all....ONS....Tony.


      Therefore, Tony's tiresome and wholly uninformed pontifications
      don't exist!

      Oh, if it were only true!

      JAN B
      What a great philosophy isn't it :)
      Because, if nothing ever happened at all, crusades
      against some gurus are utterly futile!
      The gurus didn't even exist! lol

      And who cares for samadhis?
      What has a beginning has an end so is unreal - whether
      deep dreamless sleep or nirvikalpa samadhi.
      ºOh, if it were only true!

      That will be "the" discovery :)


      Namaste All,

      Sankara said, 'It's real enough whilst one is in it'. Therefore I have
      to deal with it. Helping to save people from molesting fraud gurus, is
      part of my karma. Unlike yours which is mainly seeing your own obtuse
      posts in print........ONS...Tony.

      Who is the 'I' that deals with it?  If this 'I' doesn't
      exist, how can there be something to 'deal' with?

      Once again, you're speaking from both sides of your mouth.

      > Helping to save people
      > from
      molesting fraud gurus, is part of my karma.

      I'd say it's simply your grandiose vision of yourself.
      We don't need your help.  If it's our karma to get molested
      by kinky gurus, then it's gonna happen regardless of your

      > Unlike
      > yours which is mainly seeing your
      own obtuse posts in
      > print........ONS...Tony.

      Now there's an example of the pot calling the kettle black!

      Concerning your interpretation of Ramakrishna, I find it of
      little worth as it is bent by your conceptual occlusion.

      The point I was making with my little jibe was this: if we
      don't exist at all, what are we doing here arguing about it?

      Think about it Tony.  It's as plain as the sun in the sky,
      if you could just see beyond your mind's clouds.


      Hullo Gene, (and All).

      In your post (below) you wrote:

      > Use 'ego' if the basic life-preserving aspect of the psyche
      > referred to.

      I cannot see the boundary between the 'basic life-preserving aspect'
      and the 'identity'.

      At one extreme I can see 'my identity' (and I can see that it is
      expendable) and at the other I can see 'this body-mind's basic life-
      preserving aspect (instinct?)'- and at times it is 'basic' - but
      the 'cross-over'is not seen: hence I do not seem to be able to
      clearly distinguish ego and identity.

      My first post.

      Best wishes, Gray.

      got a letter from someone writing an article on Suzanne Segal. Does
      anyone have any obscure references to her or her work? Anyone who knew
      her? Or do you know someone who knew her? Anyone ever date her? Just
      kidding. Actually I think I may have! I don't think she liked me. I kept
      trying out my comedy act on her. Anyway, she's dead and I'm still trying
      out my act. So let me know. Thank you.


    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.