Aham brahma asmi

[Guest guest]

Namaste, all

 

Sri Sitaraji said:

<<<You basically strive for survival, knowing that the best will be those who

survive best. It is biology that’s why it is a universal phenomenon. >>>>

For human beings, more than fulfilling biological instincts, there is a need,

as we all know, for fulfilling psychological needs. It appears these

psychological needs are absent or much much less in other beings as compared to

human beings. This is because, human beings are much more self conscious as

compared to other beings, and they always want to “improve” upon or “to be

complete or Poornam” with respect to their self. No animal appears to have this

urge, and that is why a cow is not bothered how her horns look, whether ugly,

nice etc. The urge in human beings for perfection, superiority, or excellence is

actually with respect to the self. However, due to self-ignorance, which has

lead to mutual superimposition, i.e. atmani anatma budhi, and anatmani

atmabudhi, i.e. taking self as non-self and non-self as self, he/she manipulates

with non-self, i.e. body, mind and itellenct, in order to fulfill his/her urge

for perfection, excellence etc. All the efforts for anatma

i.e. other than self to be perfect, complete, excellent, significant, will

never be successful, as anatma can never be Poornam, as it depends on self for

its very existence.

All the Upanishads want or teach us is, in our “efforts” to attain or reach

perfection or poornatwam, to shift our attention from non-self i.e. anatma to

self and to see that self is in reality Poornam.

<<<<in which you know about the insignificance of your ego.>>>

I do not know how one can say Ego is insignificant, as it is the very Self,

that is Brahman or Consciousness itself. That is the reason for the urge in Ego

to attain poornatwam or perfection. All what is required is for the Ego to drop

its budhi or notion that it is body, mind and intellect. Once the Ego gets

educated, through the Teaching of the Upanishads as unfolded by the Guru that it

is Self itself, all its pre-conceived notions, (which are only the results of

its ignorance) about its own Swaroopa, about its body, mind and intellect, etc.

vanish, and the Ego is liberated from its effort to be poornam/perfect/superior

etc. On the wake of this Knowledge, as Sri Sadanandaji has kindly mentioned,

“The so called -all- (including the body, mind and intellect) becomes my

vibhuuti. mayaadhyakshena prakRitiH suuyate sa caraa caram-.”

I do not know whether my “understanding” of the whole Teaching is correct at

all, but I do look forward to further enlightenment through our Group.

With warm regards and hari Om

Mani

 

 

R. S. Mani

 

 

 

You rock. That's why Blockbuster's offering you one month of Blockbuster Total

Access, No Cost.

 

 

[Guest guest]

I do not know how one can say Ego is insignificant

 

Nor do I...So much talk about " ego " and often an

assumption or implication that there is something

" wrong " with ego. I don't believe there is anything

wrong with ego. Ego seems to come and go. I can never

point out " my ego " as separate from the Self with any

certainty. I can never say " Aha! There is the ego and

it needs to be gotten rid of, needs to be destroyed " .

It seems that the scriptures talk about the matter of

destroying the ego in very colorful, down to earth

terms, using extremes of language. But if that

language is taken literally it is not applicable, not

practical. Hyperbole, metaphor and simile are often

used--my opinion--to get points across.

 

My experience tells me that ego is not constant, not a

verifiable, separate entity. It seems that way at

times and then and then that solidity fades, and then

it comes back again, back and forth. So I don't need

to get rid of it since it seems to alternate, seeming

more real at times than others. It is surely a

mistake--my opinion--to try, to put effort into

getting rid of it or destroying it! That seems to

simply give it an importance it that it just doesn't

have. Maybe it's the extreme of egocentrism to try to

get rid of ego? Just a question.

 

 

______________________________\

____

You rock. That's why Blockbuster's offering you one month of Blockbuster Total

Access, No Cost.

http://tc.deals./tc/blockbuster/text5.com

[Guest guest]

advaitin , Steve Stoker <otnac6 wrote:

 

I can never

> point out " my ego " as separate from the Self with any

> certainty. I can never say " Aha! There is the ego and

> it needs to be gotten rid of, needs to be destroyed " .

 

> My experience tells me that ego is not constant, not a

> verifiable, separate entity.

 

Namaste Steve,

 

First of all, I apologize because I have not

read all of the posts on this thread, but

to address what you have written, a good question

to start with might be 'What is the ego?'

 

It's my understanding that there are many

definitions of the word 'ego,' depending upon which

school of philosophy or psychology one

comes from.

 

It is also my understanding that there isn't

really a word in Sanskrit that directly corresponds

to any one of the many different western definitions

of ego.

 

In the teachings of Vedanta the mind is held to

have four types of thoughts: manas, buddhi, chitta,

ahankara.

 

manas--fluctuating or indecisive thoughts which

include emotions.

 

buddhi--decisive thoughts, such as 'I am sure

I know how to get to the store from my house.'

 

chitta--memory

 

ahankara--the 'I' thought

 

It is the ahankara which can most closely be translated

as 'ego.' However, this needs to be looked into carefully.

 

Everyone, even a person with self-knowledge, has an 'I'

thought. The question here to examine would be, what is

the 'I' thought taken to refer to, or where does the 'I'

thought land?

 

Everyone's 'I' thought actually arises from the self,

from atma, from brahman, but for a person who does

not have self-knowledge, the 'I' thought is

taken by the self-ignorant mind to be one with and a

product of that individual's body, mind, and sense organs.

 

Thus, 'I' am taken to be fat (body reference).

'I' am taken to be smart (mental reference).

'I' am taken to be happy or sad. (also mental reference).

 

The fact that 'I' never change is not noticed,

as 'I' am taken to be one with things having

to do with the body/mind which do change.

 

This phenomena is called 'the dehatma buddhi,'

the buddhi (the strong conviction), that the

atma (the self), is the deha (the body).

 

So the task here is to mentally separate out,

as it were, or differentiate, the atma from the deha,

(the qualities of the body/mind/sense organs). One

very simple way to do this is to notice that while

'I' do not change, everything having to do

with the body/mind does.

 

This process takes some time and a lot of

good teaching, but in the end if successfully

done, the ahankara, the 'I' thought, will

then be seen to arise from and land on,

or refer to, the never changing atma (which is brahman),

rather than taken to be one with and dependent upon

a quality of the body/mind.

 

And in this way the 'ego,' in the form of the

dehatma buddhi is destroyed. However, the `I'

thought remains, but is now properly known to

label who I really am, (and always have been) i.e. brahman.

In fact, 'I am' has always referred to brahman,

only the mind which had self-ignorance did not

recognize that fact prior to making the

differentiation.

 

When this has been accomplished, then there is

a second half to the teaching as it were,

or another understanding to be gained, which

is the recognition that 'I am the whole.'

I/brahman am the substance of every changing thing.

There is nothing here other than my self.

 

So Vedanta addresses both of these understandings.

But as I've been taught, the first one needs to

be clearly known before the second one can be

accomplished. I have not seen this precisely

delineated anywhere in the scriptures as a two

step process, but as far as I have been able to

ascertain and by asking my teacher, it is what happens.

 

Pranams,

Durga