Guest guest Posted January 25, 2001 Report Share Posted January 25, 2001 Dear Patrick, Perhaps, then, *this* is the issue and not desire at all. The ego is not a 'thing', it is a 'process'. It is the process by which Consciousness is identified with a part of creation, thinking that there is separation. (It is obviously only meaningful to talk about this at all in the context of vyaavahaara.) 'I am a person' (or whatever) or 'I desire that' amount to the same thing and can only happen while this process is taking place. One enlightenment has taken place in a body-mind, the process ceases. This why the ego (which has never 'actually' existed at all) disappears on enlightnement. After enlightenment there is still the body-mind and there is almost certainly still desire in it from time to time but there is no identification of consciousness with any part of it. Regards, Dennis P.S. What fires? <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< Dear Dennis, OK, we are whipping a dead horse here. Some other time I will have to take issue with you over your usage of the word 'ego' --- if you look carefully you will see that all of your constructions suggest that the 'ego' actually exists up until 'enlightenment' --- but meanwhile you seem to have other fires to put out:) Regards, Patrick >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 26, 2001 Report Share Posted January 26, 2001 Dear Dennis and Gummuluru, After reading your messages I'm definitely inclined to think that Dennis is right in saying that the real issue here concerns our understanding of the word 'ego'. So I would like to suggest that we explore this one a bit before returning to Gummuluru's remarks about desire. As I understand it 'ahamkara' is indeed a process whether it is understood as 'the making of the utterance I' (i.e. first person speech) or as the 'the making of the I' in the sense of the identification of onself (why 'Consciousness'?) with a particular thing. However the grammatical subject of first person speech --- the doer, the thinker, the desirer --- that with which the I is identified in ahamkara --- is a *fictitous* entity, a 'ghost in the machine' which I refer to as the ego (preferring not to use the word jiva since this word usually refers to something whose existence is not in question). On this view enlightenment is nothing more than 'not taking one's I literally' as the Gita puts it somewhere since realizing that the ego is a *non-existent thing* makes possible the identfication of the I with the parama-atman. (And to the extent that we achieve this we do not desire things to be other than they are.) Regards, Patrick > Dear Patrick, > > Perhaps, then, *this* is the issue and not desire at all. The ego is not a > 'thing', it is a 'process'. It is the process by which Consciousness is > identified with a part of creation, thinking that there is separation. (It > is obviously only meaningful to talk about this at all in the context of > vyaavahaara.) 'I am a person' (or whatever) or 'I desire that' amount to the > same thing and can only happen while this process is taking place. One > enlightenment has taken place in a body-mind, the process ceases. This why > the ego (which has never 'actually' existed at all) disappears on > enlightnement. After enlightenment there is still the body-mind and there is > almost certainly still desire in it from time to time but there is no > identification of consciousness with any part of it. > > Regards, > > Dennis > > P.S. What fires? > > <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< > Dear Dennis, > > OK, we are whipping a dead horse here. Some other time I will have to take > issue with you over your usage of the word > 'ego' --- if you look carefully you will see that all of your constructions > suggest that the 'ego' actually exists up > until 'enlightenment' --- but meanwhile you seem to have other fires to put > out:) > > Regards, > > Patrick > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 26, 2001 Report Share Posted January 26, 2001 On Fri, 26 Jan 2001 pkenny wrote: > > Dear Dennis and Gummuluru, > > After reading your messages I'm definitely inclined to think that > Dennis is right in saying that the real issue here concerns our > understanding of the word 'ego'. So I would like to suggest that we > explore this one a bit before returning to Gummuluru's remarks about > desire. > > As I understand it 'ahamkara' is indeed a process whether it is > understood as 'the making of the utterance I' (i.e. first person > speech) or as the 'the making of the I' in the sense of the > identification of onself (why 'Consciousness'?) with a particular > thing. However the grammatical subject of first person speech --- the > doer, the thinker, the desirer --- that with which the I is identified > in ahamkara --- is a *fictitous* entity, a 'ghost in the machine' > which I refer to as the ego (preferring not to use the word jiva since > this word usually refers to something whose existence is not in > question). On this view enlightenment is nothing more than 'not taking > one's I literally' as the Gita puts it somewhere since realizing that > the ego is a *non-existent thing* makes possible the identfication of > the I with the parama-atman. (And to the extent that we achieve this > we do not desire things to be other than they are.) > > Regards, > > Patrick > namaste. The following is my understanding of 'ego'. We take 'ego' as ahamkAra of vedAnta. In the english language, ego also has the meaning of conceit, pride and vanity. In vedAnta, the meaning is taken to be explicitly and exclusively as the feeling I am the doer and I am the enjoyer of the fruits of actions. And this is the meaning we will be discussing. All of us have an internal sense organ antahkaraNa which is the one behind the external sense organs and makes the external sense organs function. For the eye to see, for the ear to hear, etc, the antahkaraNa has to be behind these sense organs for them to function. The antahkaranA undergoes vr^itti-s (modifications) and the vr^itti-s are four - citta (consciousness, lower case c), ahamkAra (ego), buddhi (intellect), manas (mind). If we take that our physical entity is the food we eat, the subtlest form of it goes into antahkaraNa. And within antahkaraNa going from the most subtle to the least subtle are consecutively citta, ahamkAra, buddhi and manas. The Atman gets reflected in the citta and with its Consciousness (upper case C), gives the consciousness to jIvA. If the citta is perfectly pure, the reflection is 100% clear and Atman shines brightly through the jIvA. If the citta is not perfectly pure, other vr^itti-s of antahkaraNa take place and ahamkAra (the feeling that jIvA is the doer and enjoyer or sufferer of actions) and buddhi and manas get into being. So the origin of ahamkAra is the impurity of the citta of the jIvA. When does ahamkAra fall? That is when the citta is pure. Here shri shankara's VivekacUDAmaNi statement (which I value as much as the shruti) stands tall. ahambhAvodayAbhAvo bodhasya paramAvadhiH. The culmination of Knowledge is the absence of the raise of the sense of I of the ahamkAra. If the Knowledge is not complete (and if the Knowledge and the knower are still separate), ahamkAra keeps raising at every stage. Also, ahamkAra is a more subtle stage than the manas and the buddhi. That is, the rise of the manas and the buddhi have to precede before ahamkAra ceases. I would be grateful for comments/corrections. Regards Gummuluru Murthy ------ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 26, 2001 Report Share Posted January 26, 2001 Dear Gummuluru, Thank you for the clarification. I will be quite happy to use the word 'ego' only in the sense of 'ahamkara' if you can suggest another designation for the entity variously known as the doer, the enjoyer or the sufferer which Advaita recognizes to be fictitious but doesn't seem to have a convenient name for. Regards, Patrick > > As I understand it 'ahamkara' is indeed a process whether it is > > understood as 'the making of the utterance I' (i.e. first person > > speech) or as the 'the making of the I' in the sense of the > > identification of onself (why 'Consciousness'?) with a particular > > thing. However the grammatical subject of first person speech --- the > > doer, the thinker, the desirer --- that with which the I is identified > > in ahamkara --- is a *fictitous* entity, a 'ghost in the machine' > > which I refer to as the ego > namaste. > > The following is my understanding of 'ego'. > > We take 'ego' as ahamkAra of vedAnta. In the english language, ego > also has the meaning of conceit, pride and vanity. In vedAnta, the > meaning is taken to be explicitly and exclusively as the feeling > I am the doer and I am the enjoyer of the fruits of actions. And > this is the meaning we will be discussing. > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 26, 2001 Report Share Posted January 26, 2001 On Fri, 26 Jan 2001 pkenny wrote: > Dear Gummuluru, > > Thank you for the clarification. I will be quite happy to use the > word > 'ego' only in the sense of 'ahamkara' if you can suggest another > designation for the entity variously known as the doer, the enjoyer or > the sufferer which Advaita recognizes to be fictitious but doesn't > seem to have a convenient name for. > > Regards, > > Patrick > namaste. My understanding: But, is ego any more fictitious than the manas or buddhi? We recognize ego as fictitious on the dawning of Knowledge, just as we recognize mind and buddhi and jIvA are all fictitious. What we mean by fictitious, is they do not have independent existence apart from brahman. If we keep on analyzing, they become slippery and elude. Mind is exactly the same, just as the ego. But until we firmly have that Knowledge, ego is as real as the mind. Patrick, do you give different levels of reality or different levels of fictitiousness to mind and ego? Regards Gummuluru Murthy ----- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 26, 2001 Report Share Posted January 26, 2001 On Fri, 26 Jan 2001, Gummuluru Murthy wrote: > [...] > Also, ahamkAra is a more subtle stage > than the manas and the buddhi. That is, the rise of the manas and ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > the buddhi have to precede before ahamkAra ceases. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > > I would be grateful for comments/corrections. > > Regards > Gummuluru Murthy > ------ namaste. Correction of a small typo. The underlined sentence above should read "That is, the fall of the manas and the buddhi have to precede before ahamkAra ceases." Regards Gummuluru Murthy ------ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 26, 2001 Report Share Posted January 26, 2001 Harih Om: Murthygaru has more than adequately explained the distincitions between Brahman, Atman, Jiva and ego from Shankara's Advaita Philosophical point of view. The terminologies and the associated frameworks applied by Dennis, Partick and Gummuluru are quite different and consequently their understanding of 'ego' appears different. Sadaji sometime back has pointed out the same point but Dennis and Patrick seem to be determined not to accept Shankara's basic frame work. I honestly believe that it is impossible for any of us to resolve these differences through intellectual discussions. But I find that all such discussions are quite useful for us to narrow down those differences. Let me try a simple mathematical framework to resolve some of the basic questions. I fully understand that this is not complete and this will never be complete! 1a Brahman (paramAtmA) = Atman (antharAthmA) or inner soul 1b Brahman = Absolute or Ultimate Reality 2 Jiva = Atman plus Maya (spell of ignorance) 3 Atman = Jiva plus Vidya (wisdom or True Knowledge) 2a Jiva = Atman intoxicated by Maya 2b Jiva = Atman covered with ignorance 2c Jiva = Polluted vision of Brahman (vision at vyavahara level) 2d Jiva = Relative Reality of Brahman 3a Advaita philosophy accepts the existence of Brahman 3b Advaita philosophy accepts that Atman is identical to Brahman 3c Consequently Advaita philosophy accepts the existence of Atman 4a The existence of Jiva implies that Maya doesn't exist! 4b Advaita philosophy infers that source of Maya is Brahman. Definition Vidya = True Knowledge of Brahman Avidya = Ignorance - Incomplete knowledge of Brahman Avidya = Opposite of Vidya (Wisdom) Ahamkara = experience of Jiva with the spell of Maya (ego) SELF Realization = experience of Jiva with Vidya Shankara's resolution: With SELF realization, Maya disappears! Puzzle: Intellectually we can't explain the appearance and disappearance of Jiva! Answer to this puzzle: Brahman and only Brahman Knows the answer. However due to the spell of Maya (or whatever we can theorize) we can enjoy resolving the puzzle using speculative discussions. regards, Ram Chandran Note: Please contact Brahaman if you want to resolve all the errors and omissions in the above presentation. My ego doesn't permit me admit my errors because I am intoxicated by the spell of Maya! advaitin, Gummuluru Murthy <gmurthy@m...> wrote: > > We take 'ego' as ahamkAra of vedAnta. In the english language, ego Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 26, 2001 Report Share Posted January 26, 2001 Dear Gummuluru, My understanding is that the world is real --- 'Verily, all this is Brahman' --- hence that the mind is real and hence that ahamkara, buddhi and manas, as faculties of the mind, are real. But I believe that the grammatical subject of first person speech --- the doer, the thinker, the enjoyer --- is simply a linguistic construct which is no more real than, say, the ether of nineteenth century physics. Regards, Patrick > namaste. > > My understanding: > > But, is ego any more fictitious than the manas or buddhi? We recognize > ego as fictitious on the dawning of Knowledge, just as we recognize > mind and buddhi and jIvA are all fictitious. What we mean by fictitious, > is they do not have independent existence apart from brahman. If we > keep on analyzing, they become slippery and elude. Mind is exactly > the same, just as the ego. > > But until we firmly have that Knowledge, ego is as real as the mind. > Patrick, do you give different levels of reality or different levels > of fictitiousness to mind and ego? > > Regards > Gummuluru Murthy > ----------------- --------------------- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 26, 2001 Report Share Posted January 26, 2001 hariH OM! here's my viewpoint on the matter re ego, its definition as the product of how i've seen it used, plus my own preferential spin on the nuances of its meaning. although most of what follows i'm sure we agree on and already understand, this may help to shed light from another angle. clarity is paramount in such endeavors, that will enable us to better focalize the problem and be more effective therefore in defusing it. the way i understand it, is the ahamkar or ego is the i-sense relating *exclusively* to the dehatma-buddhi (the i am-the-body idea). it follows from this that the ego also draws unto itself --as part of its *separative* identity--thoughts and emotions. it also sees the world outside of itself as utterly separate, and potentially competetive and even antaginistic to itself, in terms of thoughts, emotions and sensations. this can be termed the viewpoint of the 'naive realist,' who doesn't give a thought about the circumstance he's [technically unconsciously] subjected to, and therefore is a victim of avidya or ignorance. this represents concisely a state of suspended contraction, which is primarily the product of tamas, causing mental inertia as the result of a lethargic contentment. things like beauty, wonder and even love's inspiration to soar and share are lackluster. the tamasic ego is a dreadful prospect. it's God's mercy that when the human is passign through such stage in its development, the Heart has nothing to compare it to...is quite oblivious of its lifeless void. such ego is obviously what has to be overcome. and of course the journey one takes to accomplish it [in the career of the soul] is comprised of many and varied paths, suitable to the current state of the evoluion of one's awareness and wisdom potential. insofar as what specifically takes place in the course of the transformation process, i wouldn't classify in terms of the ego or ahamkar utterly destroying itself [through the various yoga margas], but rather transfiguring or metamorphosing into the *expanded identity* of the magnanimous soul or jivatman. thus the ego isn't utterly an illusion...it has a real component which is *representative* of none other than the paramatman (synonymos with brahman), yet it is pragmatically a facade, and therefore a veritable 'mistake' in experience (or it could be termed a 'misdirected awareness'). so that, the 'i'-feeling itself is true!, but the range of its realization-quotient is what's stifled: viz. a limited contraction, as opposed to its true nature: the totality of Being Itself (the sathyanishtha of brahman). and what is this Totality of Being? it is virtually every energy event past, present, future, ever thought, spoken or done through and/or by virually every sentient being: animal, human, and superhuman in the unknown universe of byriad stars, galaxies, quasars and other unknown juxtapositions in spacetime material in the Universal Mind's Eternal Infinite Imagination on one hand and, on the other, its Unmanifest Cause in the One without-a-second, That eternal, ineffable, omnipresent brahman. namaste Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 27, 2001 Report Share Posted January 27, 2001 advaitin, Gummuluru Murthy <gmurthy@m...> wrote: > > The following is my understanding of 'ego'. > > We take 'ego' as ahamkAra of vedAnta. In the english language, ego > also has the meaning of conceit, pride and vanity. In vedAnta, the > meaning is taken to be explicitly and exclusively as the feeling > I am the doer and I am the enjoyer of the fruits of actions. And > this is the meaning we will be discussing. Hi everyone :-) I guess to me this refers to the false personality of conditioned images roles & masks 'thinking' 'it' is the doer. Attachment to such conditioned thought patterns (of who you are,) can occur painfully for a long time until you transcend through meditation & with the love of Guru, & see you exist independent of them pure & clean. All the same, I found it helpful to help heal ego attachment when a friend told me they referred to it as the 'vulnerable child'. For sure I found it much more helpful to let go attachment to it, by embracement & acceptance then through resistance & warring with it. Love actually unifies. Resistance & denial is actually dualistic. I am enjoying all the discussions, Peace, Colette Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 27, 2001 Report Share Posted January 27, 2001 advaitin, pkenny@c... wrote: > Dear Gummuluru, > > Thank you for the clarification. I will be quite happy to use the > word > 'ego' only in the sense of 'ahamkara' if you can suggest another > designation for the entity variously known as the doer, the enjoyer or > the sufferer which Advaita recognizes to be fictitious but doesn't > seem to have a convenient name for. > > Regards, > > Patrick Hi Patrick, in my opinion it is the limited persona or mask which covers the unlimited Self. People are attached thinking the conditioned mask they wear to survive in society is the 'doer' & 'self'. They are much bigger :-) in Reality. Peace, Col Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 27, 2001 Report Share Posted January 27, 2001 Namaste, Sad Darshanam of Sri Ramana Maharshi gives a comprehensive analysis of the ego and the means for its "extinction". 27. Roopodhbhavo Roopa Tathi Pratishto Roopaasano Dhoota Griheetha roopaha Svayam Viroopa Svavichara Kale Dhavathyahamkara Pishaacha Esha . " The ego is born amidst forms, based on a group of forms, the eater of forms, gives up and holds forms, but is by itself formless. This ghost of an ego runs away at the time of enquiry into itself." 30. Koope Yatha Gaada Jale Tathaanthaha Nimajjya Bhudhyaa Shithaya Nithaantham Praanam Cha Vaacham Cha Niyamya Chinvan Vindhen Nijaahamkriti Moola Roopam . " As one dives in a well of deep waters, in the same way, having controlled the breath and speech, with an extremely sharp intellect, having dived inside, inquiring, one gets at the root of one's ego." Anand Auctions - Buy the things you want at great prices. http://auctions./ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.