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

Re: Loving to intellectualize too

Expand Messages
  • Onniko
    ... Self ... of ... and ... what ... we ... nothing ... only ... call I ... is. I ... this, ... way ... by ... and ... Yes, as so many people have pointed
    Message 1 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
      > 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
      > 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
      > a clarity of view with its corelated understanding. Then i ask:
      > about not judging ego-Self? What about not putting a name to what
      > call EGO? To SELF we have put so many names, and at the end,
      > 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
      > 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
      > 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
      > it is, isn't it?) In any case, these words may not be understood
      > 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
      > 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.