Neither adding nor subtracting

[Guest guest]

Rob,

 

> I didn't mean to suggest that absence of

> ego is required for realization, only that

> it does happen and that psychosis is not

> the result.

>

We need to distinguish two different meanings of " ego " . When Wilber says ego

does not go away, he's referring to the general meaning of " ego " that comes

from Freud = our ability to think, act, carry on everyday activity. The

" ego " to which you refer is the phenomenological ego, the one of

self-reference and particularly self-valuation. And even that, pace both you

and San, need not and cannot go away completely for the sake of

enlightenment. I do not read Bernadette Roberts as saying it does.

 

> My own experience is limited but as far

> as it goes, it confirms what you and Sandeep

> say. My ego receded like a curtain drawing

> back and there was reality behind it, as it

> always is. The ego sat happily in the corner

> like a machine. There was no need for it

> to go away, it has nothing to do with what's

> behind it.

 

This is very nicely observed, Rob.

>

> But I wonder if there might not be some

> deeper experience, because I can't say

> who witnessed this, or from whom the

> reality had previously been hidden.

>

Well, yes and no. You did say it was YOUR experience. But in the moment of

the experience itself, your self-referencing functions weren't operating, so

you weren't dwelling on yourself as being the agent. It's just like being

" in the zone " when doing something, where you're so intent on what you're

doing that you aren't focused on YOUR doing it. Still, there's no question

that YOU'RE doing it. I recommend not making no-self such a big f***ing

deal. It just means that you're not inappropriately self-preoccupied.

 

Gary

 

Gary Schouborg

Performance Consulting

Walnut Creek, CA

garyscho

 

Publications and professional services:

http://home.att.net/~garyscho