Guest Melvin1 Posted April 28, 2009 Report Share Posted April 28, 2009 Obviously, you seem to have some idea that ego in itself is a derogatory term.It is not. It is Latin for "I" and also means "self". Don't get ego confused with false ego. False ego is the illusory conception that the body is the self or that the mind or intelligence is the self. Real ego is to know oneself as spirit soul - part and parcel of Krishna. If Krishna didn't have an ego he would not exist as the ego is the self. Look at the dictionary definition and try to understand, then you won't be asking for some shastric proof that Krishna has an ego. If you can just understand the meaning of the word it will all be clear to you. It is so elementary that the idea of requiring shastric proof that Krishna has an ego is ridiculous. Can you describe to me what`s Id and Super ego? If Krsna also possesses a super ego, the latter must be greater than the former. ----- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sonic Yogi Posted April 28, 2009 Report Share Posted April 28, 2009 Can you describe to me what`s Id and Super ego? If Krsna also possesses a super ego, the latter must be greater than the former. ----- No. I have never heard of those terms in the books of Srila Prabhupada. Ego is one's conception of oneself. False ego is the conception that the living entity is the material body and mind. When the living entity becomes situated in proper spiritual life of devotional service then he becomes freed from false ego and he is established in his real ego of being a part and parcel of the Supreme Absolute as an integrated component. I have never heard Srila Prabhupada refer to any thing as you say the "super-ego". There is false ago of material identification and there is real ego of realizing oneself as an eternal part and parcel of Krishna, the supreme absolute. There is no "superego". There is false ego and real ego. Krishna's ego is that he is a cowherd boy the lover of Srimati Radharani. Real ego is all a part of the spiritual character of the liberated souls and devotees. Some are parents of Krishna, some are friends, lovers etc. Ego is the spiritual identity of the soul as an eternal devotee of Krishna in one rasa or another. False ego is some illusory self-conception of being something other than a servant of Krishna. That is an illusion. That is false ego. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ranjeetmore Posted April 28, 2009 Report Share Posted April 28, 2009 Sri KRsna's ego.mind,intelligence,senses and His karma indriya(hands,feet,etc.) are He Himself. Svecha pad prithah vapuh. - Srimad Bhagavatam. Due to limitation imposed by language,the above verse has to explained as,"Bhagavan Himself BECOMES His body." It's not so much as ego as it is SVARUPA. Svarupa means the personality Sri Krsna.He has His ego,Mind,Intelligence and senses.This is His Svarupa,inconcievable and unattainable except through His mercy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Connie Posted April 28, 2009 Report Share Posted April 28, 2009 Wrong topic. Wrong-headed discussion. Sigmund Freud wrote a little paper about, what, 39 "neurotic" housewives of failed WWI German Army officers. His "fame" was that the invention of the pseudo-science "social sciences" were to benefit Hitler's Germany, and did. He did not "invent" that: he was "used". Read the Preface to the 2nd Edition, Totems and Taboos by Sigmund Freud. He was astonished he got so much attention. If you like to go on and on talking about Ego, ID and Super-ego, go ahead. However, it will not be a "spiritual discussion" except if you let it drop. If "someone" were knowledgeable in the nuances of language, it would never have been "translated" to the word ego. The fact is, a "translator" also needs to "translate" according to the connotations and denotations of a language. If a singular word will not "fit" then it is more correct to write a paragraph, or have a footnote explanation. Ego is not the self, not the Self and certainly not the higher Self. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Melvin1 Posted April 28, 2009 Report Share Posted April 28, 2009 No. I have never heard of those terms in the books of Srila Prabhupada.Ego is one's conception of oneself. False ego is the conception that the living entity is the material body and mind. When the living entity becomes situated in proper spiritual life of devotional service then he becomes freed from false ego and he is established in his real ego of being a part and parcel of the Supreme Absolute as an integrated component. I have never heard Srila Prabhupada refer to any thing as you say the "super-ego". There is false ago of material identification and there is real ego of realizing oneself as an eternal part and parcel of Krishna, the supreme absolute. There is no "superego". There is false ego and real ego. Krishna's ego is that he is a cowherd boy the lover of Srimati Radharani. Real ego is all a part of the spiritual character of the liberated souls and devotees. Some are parents of Krishna, some are friends, lovers etc. Ego is the spiritual identity of the soul as an eternal devotee of Krishna in one rasa or another. False ego is some illusory self-conception of being something other than a servant of Krishna. That is an illusion. That is false ego. Super-ego is the faculty that seeks to police what it deems unacceptable desires. It represents all moral restrictions and is the advocate of striving towards perfection. What is ego? (http://deoxy.org/egofalse.htm) " Only a person who has no ego is for the first time a master; he is no longer a slave. That the real center(not ego) is the soul, the self, the god, the truth, or whatsoever you want to call it. It is nameless, so all names are good. You can give it any name of your liking." FROM Beyond the Frontier of the Mind by Osho Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sailu Posted April 29, 2009 Author Report Share Posted April 29, 2009 Thanks to all! now I know....it is not this body, not this mind, not me...... it is only thee! - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Melvin1 Posted April 29, 2009 Report Share Posted April 29, 2009 Thanks to all!now I know....it is not this body, not this mind, not me...... it is only thee! - You are always welcome, Sailu. Note: In our visayan dialect, saylo or sailu is a word which means going beyond of what is the limit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sonic Yogi Posted April 29, 2009 Report Share Posted April 29, 2009 Super-ego is the faculty that seeks to police what it deems unacceptable desires. It represents all moral restrictions and is the advocate of striving towards perfection. What is ego? (http://deoxy.org/egofalse.htm) " Only a person who has no ego is for the first time a master; he is no longer a slave. That the real center(not ego) is the soul, the self, the god, the truth, or whatsoever you want to call it. It is nameless, so all names are good. You can give it any name of your liking." FROM Beyond the Frontier of the Mind by Osho That is not from the teachings of Srila Prabhupada or the Gaudiya tradition. If you want to go outside the Gaudiya teachings and pull up something to support your point, you should not expect that the Krishna devotees will accept it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Melvin1 Posted April 30, 2009 Report Share Posted April 30, 2009 That is not from the teachings of Srila Prabhupada or the Gaudiya tradition.If you want to go outside the Gaudiya teachings and pull up something to support your point, you should not expect that the Krishna devotees will accept it. How Gaudiya teachings evolved was because the scribes who authored these teachings were open to other ideas. If an idea connects or is directly or indirectly related to Krsnah then it`s absorbed say, into the system. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sonic Yogi Posted April 30, 2009 Report Share Posted April 30, 2009 How Gaudiya teachings evolved was because the scribes who authored these teachings were open to other ideas. If an idea connects or is directly or indirectly related to Krsnah then it`s absorbed say, into the system. Well........... no......... you are quite wrong. In fact the Gaudiya sampradaya is very strict about not taking theories and ideas from outside. What you have said cannot be supported by any evidence such as the written teachings of any Gaudiya acharya. In fact it is mental speculation, a fabrication. Sorry, but your statement is incorrect. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Melvin1 Posted April 30, 2009 Report Share Posted April 30, 2009 Well........... no......... you are quite wrong.In fact the Gaudiya sampradaya is very strict about not taking theories and ideas from outside. What you have said cannot be supported by any evidence such as the written teachings of any Gaudiya acharya. In fact it is mental speculation, a fabrication. Sorry, but your statement is incorrect. This knowledge( science of Krsnah consciousness) was instructed to Ishvaku then to Manu, so and so forth. Along the way, however, this transfer of knowledge was broken. Now, we are picking up the bits and pieces. Try to analyze the Dhruva story and what was he really looking for, a piece of land, a piece of broken glass, or was it a piece of broken information or data? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sonic Yogi Posted May 1, 2009 Report Share Posted May 1, 2009 This knowledge( science of Krsnah consciousness) was instructed to Ishvaku then to Manu, so and so forth. Along the way, however, this transfer of knowledge was broken. Now, we are picking up the bits and pieces. Try to analyze the Dhruva story and what was he really looking for, a piece of land, a piece of broken glass, or was it a piece of broken information or data? There are no bits and pieces Melvin. Lord Krishna taught the same thing again to Arjuna and it is all in the Bhagavad-gita. What he taught to the Sun god millions of years ago and lost was again revived on the battlefield of Kurukshetra and Arjuna was the recipient. You can get the same benefit that Arjuna received if you just study the Bhagavad-gita as it comes down in the disciplic succession from Lord Krishna. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Melvin1 Posted May 1, 2009 Report Share Posted May 1, 2009 There are no bits and pieces Melvin.Lord Krishna taught the same thing again to Arjuna and it is all in the Bhagavad-gita. What he taught to the Sun god millions of years ago and lost was again revived on the battlefield of Kurukshetra and Arjuna was the recipient. You can get the same benefit that Arjuna received if you just study the Bhagavad-gita as it comes down in the disciplic succession from Lord Krishna. Yes I know, Sonic Yogi. That Srila Vyasadeva was the scribe who wrote the story. But still we have yet to hear in full what these great souls(mahajanas) have to say about the science of Krsnah consciousness They are Lord Siva, Narada Muni, Dhruva, Kapila, the Kumaras, Bhisma, Yamaraja, Sukadeva Goswami, etc. In fact, Touchstone Narada has summarized it ( the bits and pieces) in his Narada-pancaratra:That Vedic knowledge, rituals and mantras can all be summed up into just 8 words, " Hare Krsnah Hare Krsnah Krsnah Krsnah Hare Hare." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sonic Yogi Posted May 1, 2009 Report Share Posted May 1, 2009 Yes I know, Sonic Yogi. That Srila Vyasadeva was the scribe who wrote the story. But still we have yet to hear in full what these great souls(mahajanas) have to say about the science of Krsnah consciousness They are Lord Siva, Narada Muni, Dhruva, Kapila, the Kumaras, Bhisma, Yamaraja, Sukadeva Goswami, etc. In fact, Touchstone Narada has summarized it ( the bits and pieces) in his Narada-pancaratra:That Vedic knowledge, rituals and mantras can all be summed up into just 8 words, " Hare Krsnah Hare Krsnah Krsnah Krsnah Hare Hare." There are no bits and pieces Melvin. Krishna is the Supreme Absolute Truth. That is not a bit or a piece, it is the complete truth. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Melvin1 Posted May 1, 2009 Report Share Posted May 1, 2009 There are no bits and pieces Melvin.Krishna is the Supreme Absolute Truth. That is not a bit or a piece, it is the complete truth. Are individual souls not bits and pieces of the Supreme Soul, Krsnah? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ranjeetmore Posted May 2, 2009 Report Share Posted May 2, 2009 What do you mean ? We are cut into pieces from the Whole,Sri Krsna ?? That is wrong. *** And yes,there are no bits and pieces.This is your speculation(sorry but its true.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ranjeetmore Posted May 2, 2009 Report Share Posted May 2, 2009 It's very important to note that svayam Bhagavan Sri Krsna appears once every day of Brahmadeva. In every Dwapara(usuallu treta),The Sri Krsna who appears is an avatara like Parasurama,Varaha etc. But this time,Bhagavan Himself,with all His expansions descended.So the knowledge that was imparted to Arjuna was certainly nothing less if not anything more than the knowledge that was imparted to Ikshvaku. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sant Posted May 2, 2009 Report Share Posted May 2, 2009 Are individual souls not bits and pieces of the Supreme Soul, Krsnah? YES IF YOU ARE ADVAIT Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sant Posted May 2, 2009 Report Share Posted May 2, 2009 Are individual souls not bits and pieces of the Supreme Soul, Krsnah? PART AND PARCEL SHOULD BE USED IF YOU FOLLOW GAUDIYA. BY THE WAY CAN ANYONE EXPLAIN THE TERM PART AND PARCEL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sonic Yogi Posted May 2, 2009 Report Share Posted May 2, 2009 PART AND PARCEL SHOULD BE USED IF YOU FOLLOW GAUDIYA.BY THE WAY CAN ANYONE EXPLAIN THE TERM PART AND PARCEL part and parcel <form name="entry" method="post" action="/dictionary"> One entry found. <input name="book" value="Dictionary" type="hidden"> <input name="quer" value="part and parcel" type="hidden"> <input name="jump" type="hidden"> <input name="list" value="va:1,0,0,0|part and parcel=115274785" type="hidden"> </form> http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/part%20and%20parcel <dl><dt class="hwrd">Main Entry:</dt><dd class="hwrd"> part and parcel </dd><dt class="func">Function:</dt><dd class="func">noun </dd><dt class="date">Date:</dt><dd class="date">15th century</dd></dl> : an essential or integral component ........> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
melvin Posted May 2, 2009 Report Share Posted May 2, 2009 A bit is a binary unit and piece is an item. A little bit of soap or I`m a piece of God`s work. That`s what I meant about bits and pieces. Why stick to part and parcel when there are bits and pieces to speak of? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sant Posted May 3, 2009 Report Share Posted May 3, 2009 A bit is a binary unit and piece is an item. A little bit of soap or I`m a piece of God`s work. That`s what I meant about bits and pieces. Why stick to part and parcel when there are bits and pieces to speak of? <!-- / message --> if you say pieces it means god will be incomplete without us the souls. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
melvin Posted May 3, 2009 Report Share Posted May 3, 2009 if you say pieces it means god will be incomplete without us the souls. If we get a parcel from God does it mean He is now incomplete? Similarly, if we get a piece from God does it mean He, too, becomes incomplete? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sant Posted May 3, 2009 Report Share Posted May 3, 2009 an essential or integral component ........> <!-- / message --><!-- sig --> yes even i thought that part and parcel meantt something the same but look at the definition above <!-- / message --><!-- sig --> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
primate Posted May 3, 2009 Report Share Posted May 3, 2009 How about: We are essential or necessary, integral components of God..? 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.