9622Re: Relevance (George's definitions)
- Jun 9, 2004You are so patient, Cari, but my post was so explicetly about
the "afterlife" in Gnosticism and the lack of continuation of the
self identity with the rejoining into the Source, that I don't think
Fred really missed my point so badly as to think I was talking about
some form of Buddhist monastic ego death. I think instead he is
purposfully taking my words out of context to be trite (something he
has already been reprimanded for). *sigh* He will be able to post
again when he is ready for serious conversation.
--- In email@example.com, lady_caritas <no_reply@y...>
> --- In firstname.lastname@example.org, fred60471 <no_reply@y...> wrote:wrote:
> > --- In email@example.com, pmcvflag <no_reply@y...>
> > ... I know that this concept is very scary to a lot of
> > people who can't deal with the notion of loss of the self ...
> > --- In firstname.lastname@example.org, pmcvflag also wrote:
> > ... I do know ...
> > ... I think if ...
> > ... I have known ...
> > ... I know that ...
> > PMCV
> Fred, I don't understand your point. I don't see PMCV as saying
> we "presently" lose our sense of self. The sentence before yourthe
> first quote reads, "You see, the "spirit", according to Gnostic
> thought, is not part of what we call "us". It is not part of one's
> personal identity, but instead it is a little reflective shard of
> source of all spirit. That is to say, it is a little piece thatwill
> rejoin with a larger whole EVENTUALLY." [emphasis added]in
> Personally, I view ego "death" as an oxymoron in this present
> existence. We all have egos. We need a sense of self to function
> this world. That is not the same as saying that we all are
> egotistical though.
- << Previous post in topic