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

Loving to intellectualize too

Expand Messages
  • mlcanow
    I like this, as i see it: ego doesn t belong to anybody. I used to say: We tend to say My Self, but Self doesn t belong to anybody . So these we that speak
    Message 1 of 2 , Jul 16, 2003
    • 0 Attachment
      I like this, as i see it: ego doesn't belong to anybody.

      I used to say: "We tend to say My Self, but Self doesn't belong to
      anybody".

      So these "we" that speak is nobody at all, with no ego, with no
      Self. There is only speaking.

      It seems that there's something in appearance constructed here. Is
      it the ego or the I that refers to the ego as his? Or is it the Self
      or the I that refers to it as his?

      Ego is mine in the same way the TV in the room is mine. An object of
      perception interrelated to "me". And the eternal question: who
      perceives? and how can there be any interrelation without objects?

      A sage says: the seer, the seen and the act of seeing are One. How
      would this statement fit here?

      As soon as we say: E G O, the counterpart: S E L F must appear.
      (Consciousness and manifestation would be the same).
      There has been much speculation about not judging good-bad, right-
      wrong, beautiful-ugly, etc,etc. Not to judge supposes acceptance and
      a clarity of view with its corelated understanding. Then i ask: what
      about not judging ego-Self? What about not putting a name to what we
      call EGO? To SELF we have put so many names, and at the end, nothing
      fits appropriately, so it will become easier not to clasify Self.

      There is an unavoidable sense of individuality, of entity. This
      entity is not an object, it is not perceivable. This entity can only
      be intuited. And this entity is in itself, the totality of ego,
      Self, and the interrelation between them. So this entity we call "I"
      is the One that so many non-dualists speak of. I is all there is. 'I
      am That' should be, in the way of Ramana, 'I - I'. Now "i" see this,
      wonderful. This is the first time "i" can put this in words!
      (Yes, "i" always needing to make sense of it all, but that's the way
      it is, isn't it?) In any case, these words may not be understood by
      many, as always has been, and rejections of this understanding may
      appear. It really doesn't matter at all. If it's ok for me, it's
      alright. This me is just sharing, because in this sharing, more and
      more understanding comes to the way. I have said many times that i
      am the scientific, the lab, the experiment, the question and the
      answer.

      Much love,
      maria luisa
    • Onniko
      ... Self ... of ... and ... what ... we ... nothing ... only ... call I ... is. I ... this, ... way ... by ... and ... Yes, as so many people have pointed
      Message 2 of 2 , Jul 16, 2003
      • 0 Attachment
        --- In meditationsocietyofamerica@yahoogroups.com, "mlcanow"
        <mlcanow@y...> wrote:
        > I like this, as i see it: ego doesn't belong to anybody.
        >
        > I used to say: "We tend to say My Self, but Self doesn't belong to
        > anybody".
        >
        > So these "we" that speak is nobody at all, with no ego, with no
        > Self. There is only speaking.
        >
        > It seems that there's something in appearance constructed here. Is
        > it the ego or the I that refers to the ego as his? Or is it the
        Self
        > or the I that refers to it as his?
        >
        > Ego is mine in the same way the TV in the room is mine. An object
        of
        > perception interrelated to "me". And the eternal question: who
        > perceives? and how can there be any interrelation without objects?
        >
        > A sage says: the seer, the seen and the act of seeing are One. How
        > would this statement fit here?
        >
        > As soon as we say: E G O, the counterpart: S E L F must appear.
        > (Consciousness and manifestation would be the same).
        > There has been much speculation about not judging good-bad, right-
        > wrong, beautiful-ugly, etc,etc. Not to judge supposes acceptance
        and
        > a clarity of view with its corelated understanding. Then i ask:
        what
        > about not judging ego-Self? What about not putting a name to what
        we
        > call EGO? To SELF we have put so many names, and at the end,
        nothing
        > fits appropriately, so it will become easier not to clasify Self.
        >
        > There is an unavoidable sense of individuality, of entity. This
        > entity is not an object, it is not perceivable. This entity can
        only
        > be intuited. And this entity is in itself, the totality of ego,
        > Self, and the interrelation between them. So this entity we
        call "I"
        > is the One that so many non-dualists speak of. I is all there
        is. 'I
        > am That' should be, in the way of Ramana, 'I - I'. Now "i" see
        this,
        > wonderful. This is the first time "i" can put this in words!
        > (Yes, "i" always needing to make sense of it all, but that's the
        way
        > it is, isn't it?) In any case, these words may not be understood
        by
        > many, as always has been, and rejections of this understanding may
        > appear. It really doesn't matter at all. If it's ok for me, it's
        > alright. This me is just sharing, because in this sharing, more
        and
        > more understanding comes to the way. I have said many times that i
        > am the scientific, the lab, the experiment, the question and the
        > answer.
        >
        > Much love,
        > maria luisa

        Yes, as so many people have pointed out, the concept of ego was
        thought out by an old psychologist. This simple facet of existence
        originated as nothing more than an understanding of what we are in
        this particular world related to the body. It's become wrongly
        villianized by our own intellect as we try to reason out why it is
        we're stuck in that 15% of brainpower and all the while it's using
        reason for everything that keeps us stuck. That combination of
        physical survival and reasoning power is used instead of other
        facets of thought and being that are better suited to certain
        purposes. So it isn't that we need to get rid of either ego or
        intellect, it is that we need to learn to put them in their place so
        they don't get in the way of everything else.
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.