What is Ego? please clarify!

[Connie]

Here is an interesting read, google: ego - the false center.

[sant]

 

How about: We are essential or necessary, integral components of God..?

 

<!-- / message -->

yes

but bits and pieces doesnt seem to be the right word for that

[primate]

 

Here is an interesting read, google: ego - the false center.

http://deoxy.org/egofalse.htm (Nice.. )

[sant]

 

Here is an interesting read, google: ego - the false center.

 

<!-- / message -->

nice it is

MR MELVIN HAD GIVEN THIS LINK EARLIER ALSO.

IT HAS TAUGHT ME SOMETHINGS

 

http://www.indiadivine.org/audarya/spiritual-discussions/452845-i-emptiness.html#post1138281

[primate]

 

yes

but bits and pieces doesnt seem to be the right word for that

Agreed..

[Connie]

I am not sure we are integral components.

 

I have heard about "emanations" from Tibetan buddhists.

 

I am also concerned dualism is all false ego.

 

What do people here think about "Patanjali's Vision of Oneness"

an interpretative translation by Swami Venkatesananda

 

ref:http://dailyreadings.com/sutras_1.htm

 

in particular,

IV. 34.

 

The qualities and the characteristics of a person have no goal nor motivation any more. They return to their cause, ignorance! There emerges creative independence. The undivided cosmic intelligence which is omnipotent regains as it were its own identity.

 

OM TAT SAT

(in) finis

 

 

ref: http://dailyreadings.com/ys4-3.htm

[sant]

 

 

HAVE A READ AT THIS ALSO-Caitanya's philosophy of acintya-bhedābheda-tattva completed the progression to devotional

theism

.

Rāmānuja

had agreed with

Śaṅkara

that the Absolute is one only, but he had disagreed by affirming individual variety within that oneness.

Madhva

had underscored the eternal duality of the Supreme and the

Jīva

: he had maintained that this duality endures even after liberation. Caitanya, in turn, specified that the Supreme and the jīvas are "inconceivably, simultaneously one and different" (acintya-bheda-abheda). He strongly opposed Śaṅkara's philosophy for its defiance of

Vyāsadeva's

siddhānta

.

 

 

– <CITE>Satsvarupa dasa Goswami,

Readings in Vedit Literature: The Tradition Speaks for Itself

, Chapter 5<SUP class=reference id=cite_ref-SDG_5-0>

[6]

</SUP></CITE>

 

 

 

 

[Connie]

My tendencies would be to know more about what the vedas have to say about this.

 

I believe The Golden Age was at the time of the vedas.

 

My inclination is, to believe we may exist in the eternal but the false-ego does not.

[melvin]

 

My tendencies would be to know more about what the vedas have to say about this.

 

I believe The Golden Age was at the time of the vedas.

 

My inclination is, to believe we may exist in the eternal but the false-ego does not.

 

If we were wearing a surgical mask, the air we breath which passes through is the soul and the dust that gets stuck in the fabric is the false ego.

[Sonic Yogi]

 

If we were wearing a surgical mask, the air we breath which passes through is the soul and the dust that gets stuck in the fabric is the false ego.

No.

Stop fabricating sayings.

Repeat what the guru says, otherwise it is all just mental hogwash.

[abmind]

I think somebody explained before.

 

What is unreal is ego. What is false is ego. There is no ego in real or truth or absolute but it manifests in maya. The ego ceases when liberated from maya, the material world or visible universe. One cannot destroy ego but can hide by controlling senses. Though ego disappears in sound sleep but only temporarily.

[bhaktajan]

Well suprise-suprise! No one has yet to mentioned the word: 'Oblivion'.

 

'Oblivion' is the opposite of "Enlightenment".

 

Brahman is not 'Oblivion'.

Living in samsara is 'Oblivion'.

Living in the material world is a life of 'Oblivion'.

 

'Oblivion' vs 'Ego' is the defacto status quo of our sojourn in the material world(s).

 

Ego is as ego does. --"What a nice Ego you are! Such a good ego. You must make your mum proud! I hope you marry a good, rich ego and have a few qute little egos . . . may God bless your egos, one and all!"

 

MY OLD THEATRE ANALOGY:

We the people [ie, cinema audience members] are all watching the same Movie Screen --but, we are all seeing the same field of stimuli --from different POVs [point-of-views].

 

Each POV [ie, one's own seating location in an audience] attests to the 'relationship' of a jiva-atma [thus, an ego possessor] with the 'field of activities'

 

{The argument that says 'a theist is applying Anthromorphic qualities to a notion of God with a Human-like Form'

--does not account for the omniscient quality of Real Conscious Exisitence possessed by the Knower, See'r, and steward of transcendental knowledge during times of History divorced of modernity's kali-yuga blood-lusts}.

 

All 'Things' occur while we watch the star on the stage --or we watch out for our petty constructs that we egos drape ourselves with.

 

All 'Things' are real, real, REAL! At all times!

 

There is real "space" [brahman]. In this space TIME passes!

The knots of matter intertwines with energy in a place that supplements both: "space" [brahman].

 

Regarding the Soul: Consciousness, by definition is indeed the very nature & concept of the topic of "Bliss" --this sensation of Blissfullness is part and parcel to 'chitta' [cognisance] & 'sattva' [eternality].

 

The Vedas state: The living soul [the 'jiva-atma' ~an individual soul] is composed of three inseperable 'qualities':

Sattva = all eternality

Chitta = all cognisance

Ananda = all blissfull

 

. . . but, due to the Soul's infitestimal 'personal' size . . . it is limited in . . . material overlordship.

 

The souls of all those who have ever lived thoughout time since antiquities immemorial ---all have irrevocable rights to possess theirown soul.

 

YOU CAN"T TAKE A PERSONS SOUL AWAY FROM THEM!

[Not to be confused with a soul that self-degrades themselves to the level of gross wollowing-in-the-mire [samsara] due to aversion to the Vedic Conlusion that the "Absolute Truth" is A Supreme Personality of Personalism (known as the Godhead)].

 

The Vedas state: that the Soul is 'sat-cit-ananda'.

The Vedas state: God, by defintion, is the fountainhead origin of 'sat-cit-ananda'.

The Vedas state: All souls are indivisable, insoluable, individual.

 

So, we each one and all of us souls have an ADDRESS of our own: OUR OWN INDIVIDUAL PERSONAL SOUL.

 

Maha-mantra blesses all of the cosmos as we resound it.

 

Before elightenment [purify the false ego by daily sadhana practice] chop wood and carry water

. . . After enlightenment [see onesown soul as a servant of the whole] chop wood and carry water.

 

:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

Everything is "Brahman into Brahman"

--[does anyone know where this is from? I've read it somewhere many years ago].

[Sonic Yogi]

 

I think somebody explained before.

 

What is unreal is ego. What is false is ego. There is no ego in real or truth or absolute but it manifests in maya. The ego ceases when liberated from maya, the material world or visible universe. One cannot destroy ego but can hide by controlling senses. Though ego disappears in sound sleep but only temporarily.

Let me explain it again.

Ego is a Latin word for "self".

We should not confuse that with "false ego".

False ego is an illusion that that the self of the living being is the body or mind.

If there were no such thing as real ego, then we would not have the term false-ego which infers that there must on the other hand be a real ego.

 

When the living entity is in illusion he has a false-ego or a false conception of the self.

When the living entity is self-realized then he does not have false ego but rather the real ego of being a spirit soul.

 

To know oneself as a spirit soul is real ego.

To think of oneself as being the body or mind is false-ego.

 

If there were no such thing as real ego we would not have the term "false ego".

If there were no such thing as real ago, then we would not have the term false-ego but simply the term ego.

 

Ego is the sense of individual existence.

It is the Latin word for the soul or the self.

 

The term ego is not a derogatory term in it's original form.

It only becomes derogatory when it is said as "false ego".

 

Ego has wrongly become a derogatory term in modern vernacular, but strictly speaking in the original Latin it simply means "self".

[melvin]

In Srimad Bhagavatam(10.87.30), one of the four Kumaras, known as Sanandana, gave the following speech upon performing a great sacrifice: " O Supreme Truth! If the living entities were not infinitesimal sparks of the supreme spirit, each spark would be all-pervading and would not be controlled by superior power. But if the living entity is accepted as a minute part and parcel of the Supreme Lord, he automatically becomes controlled by a supreme energy or power. The latter is his actual constitutional position and if he remains in this position he can attain full freedom." Thus if one mistakenly considers his position to be equal to that of the Supreme Personality of Godhead(Krsnah), he becomes contaminated by the doctrine of non-duality and his efforts in transcendental life are rendered ineffective

[sant]

 

the living entities were not infinitesimal sparks of the supreme spirit, each spark would be all-pervading and would not be controlled by superior power

but i see mayavadis self realised

this means that this does give self realisation.

Are people in tapa lok jyana lok are the of patanjili yog sutra, advait etc. philossophy

[melvin]

 

but i see mayavadis self realised

this means that this does give self realisation.

Are people in tapa lok jyana lok are the of patanjili yog sutra, advait etc. philossophy

 

Advaita philosophy is absolute monism whereas dvaita philosophy is dualist monism. So, might as well embrace the philosophy of Lord Caitanya Mahaprabhu known as acintya(inconceivable,simultaneous)-bheda( oneness)-abheda(difference) or integral monism because it`s positioned between two polar opposites, absolute and dualist monism.

[sant]

yes but as in the padma puraan as lord shiv talks about these philosophy as deluding etc.

but buddhism was started by the lord himself and even in his delusion there will be benefit only

[melvin]

 

yes but as in the padma puraan as lord shiv talks about these philosophy as deluding etc.

but buddhism was started by the lord himself and even in his delusion there will be benefit only

 

In the Vaisnava tantra(Hari-bhakti-vilasa 1.73) it says:" A person who compares the Supreme Lord even with the greatest of demigods like Brahma and Siva must be considered a number one atheist."

[sant]

yes ive read that but im talking about buddhist philosophy

buddha was vishnu's incarnation

[melvin]

 

yes ive read that but im talking about buddhist philosophy

buddha was vishnu's incarnation

 

In Padma Purana Lord Siva states: The Mayavada philosophy is veiled Buddhism(absolute monism). Actually the Supreme Personality of Godhead has His transcendental body. But I describe the Supreme as impersonal. I also explain the Vedanta sutra according to the principles of Mayavada philosophy."

[sant]

 

According to Vedic literatures, one who does not accept the spiritual form of the Lord is an atheist. Because Lord Buddha did not accept these Vedic principles, the Vedic teachers consider him to be an atheist

 

then even shaivs and shakts are to be considered atheists

or are they not as they still believe in sagun brahm but say sagun brahm is smaller

[melvin]

 

then even shaivs and shakts are to be considered atheists

or are they not as they still believe in sagun brahm but say sagun brahm is smaller

 

According to shaivs and shakts saguna brahman is paramartika, eternal and undecaying and non-different from nirguna brahman. But to a vaishnav, saguna brahman is Brahman, with infinite attributes including form. And thus is the basis of the impersonal nirguna brahman, as stated in the Bhagavad-gita.

[sant]

 

According to shaivs and shakts saguna brahman is paramatika, eternal and undecaying and non-different from nirguna brahman. But to a vaishnav, saguna brahman is Brahman, with infinite attributes including form.

 

<!-- / message -->

uh no

remember shaiv puraan

rudra is one thousand part of shiv

[melvin]

 

uh no

remember shaiv puraan

rudra is one thousand part of shiv

 

Goddess Shakti ( Durga, Kali, etc) is seen as Saguna Brahman in Shaktism. Shiva is the Saguna Brahman in Shivaism.

[sant]

yes but one thousand part makes him smaller .

dont you agree?